Be Renewed: A Theology of Personal Renewal 9783666550614, 9783525550618, 9783647550619

Citation preview

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Reformed Historical Theology

Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Elsie McKee, Richard Muller, Risto Saarinen, and Carl Trueman

Volume 26

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Willem van Vlastuin

Be Renewed A Theology of Personal Renewal

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-55061-8 ISBN 978-3-647-55061-9 (E-Book) Ó 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printing and binding: a Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed in Germany

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1. Theme . . . . . . . . 2. Elaboration . . . . . 3. Method and structure

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

13 13 14 18

1. Duplex Gratia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Luther’s doctrine of justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1. Luther’s (1483 – 1546) discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2. Justification at the centre of theology . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3. Imputed and effective righteousness . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1. Sanctification as a separate locus . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2. Mortificatio and vivificatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3. The distinction between justification and sanctification 1.2.4. Unio mystica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.5. The pneumatological character of the unio mystica . . 1.3. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

21 21 21 23 26 29 30 32 36 39 43 47

2. Unio Mystica cum Christo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. The eschatological Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Where is salvation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. Oscar Cullmann (1902 – 1999) . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. Arnold A. van Ruler (1908 – 1970) . . . . . . 2.2.3. Jan Veenhof (1934- ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4. Abraham van de Beek (1946- ) . . . . . . . . 2.2.5. Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Unio mystica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1. The mystical dimension of the unio mystica

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

51 51 55 57 59 60 61 64 64 65

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

6

Contents

2.3.2. Cross and resurrection in relation to the unio mystica 2.3.3. The complexity of the unio mystica . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4. Human involvement in the unio mystica . . . . . . . 2.3.5. The relationship between faith and hope in the unio mystica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.6. Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

67 69 71

. . . . . . . . .

73 75 76

3. The efficacy of the unio mystica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. The unio mystica as a source of renewal . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. Christologically determined metaphors . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. The pneumatological dimension of the unio mystica 3.1.3. The Trinitarian character of the Christian life . . . . 3.2. Relationship to God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Resignatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. An affective unio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Relationship to our neighbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. A Good Samaritan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. A christ in marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3. To hate your father and mother . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Relationship to ourselves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. Humility as a catholic notion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2. Self-love as a Christian notion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3. Self-giving love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4. Tolerantia crucis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Relationship to the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1. Enjoying life on earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2. Citizens of a better world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3. Citizens of this earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79 79 79 82 84 86 86 89 92 92 96 98 99 99 103 107 109 113 113 116 119 122

4. There is more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. The modesty of the Heidelberg Catechism . . . . 4.1.1. ‘A small beginning’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2. Criticism of this ‘small beginning’ . . . . . . 4.2. Puritan optimism in the Westminster Confession . 4.3. Christian perfection in John Wesley (1703 – 1791) 4.3.1. Perfect love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2. The road to perfection . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3. Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

125 125 125 128 130 134 134 136 139

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

7

Contents

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

140 142 143 143 145 146 148 149 150 152

5. ‘O wretched man that I am!’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. The struggling believer : the holiness movements . . . . . . . 5.2. The healthy believer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1. Augustine (354 – 430) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2. The Reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3. The Reformed tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4. Kohlbrugge (1803 – 1875) on Romans 7:14 . . . . . . . 5.2.5. Karl Barth (1886 – 1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. The unbeliever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1. Voices from history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2. A dissenting voice within the Reformed tradition: D.M. Lloyd-Jones (1899 – 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3. The salvation-historical line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. The contours of a Christian anthropology . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1. Citizens of two worlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2. The identity of the ‘divided man’ . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3. To become a greater sinner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4. Sold under sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.5. Joy in the law of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.6. Bound, yet free . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

155 155 157 157 158 160 162 165 166 166

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

168 169 172 172 175 177 179 181 183 185

6. Process or Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. The conflict between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa (1798 – 1860) 6.1.1. Da Costa’s criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2. Kohlbrugge’s view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3. Criticism of the Reformed tradition . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Where Kohlbrugge was right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1. The testimony of Romans 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

189 190 190 191 194 196 196

4.3.4. Perfection in a biblical-theological perspective 4.3.5. Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Keswick’s claim to holiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1. The call for a normal Christian life . . . . . . 4.4.2. Christ our sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3. Consecration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4. The Spirit-filled life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.5. Christian service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.6. Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

8

Contents

6.2.2. Holiness in the Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3. Holiness in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Practical implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1. Normal Christians are holy . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2. Unholy saints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4. Reformation of the Reformed doctrine of sanctification 6.5. Where Da Costa was right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1. Holiness as a moral category . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2. Renewal as a gradual process . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.3. Sanctification as renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6. Kohlbrugge’s concern for sanctification . . . . . . . . . 6.7. Balance Da Costa-Kohlbrugge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

197 199 201 202 203 204 207 207 208 210 212 216 218

7. God’s Spirit and the human spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1. The monopoly of the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1. Luther and the bondage of the will . . . . . . . 7.1.2. The hyper-Calvinism of John Gill (1697 – 1771) 7.1.3. Keswick’s anti-anthropologism . . . . . . . . . 7.1.4. Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2. The liberation of the human spirit . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1. Irenaeus ( – 202) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2. Augustine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3. The Canons of Dort (1618-’19) . . . . . . . . . 7.2.4. John Owen (1616 – 1683) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.5. Jonathan Edwards (1703-’58) . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.6. A. A. van Ruler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.7. Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3. Contours for the doctrine of the spiritual man . . . . 7.3.1. Be filled in the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2. The healthy soul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3. The spiritual war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4. The freedom of the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

223 223 223 225 226 229 230 231 232 233 235 237 239 242 242 242 246 249 252 255

8. ‘You are not under law’ . . . . . . . 8.1. The law as rule of thanksgiving 8.1.1. The Heidelberg Catechism 8.1.2. The Puritan tradition . . . 8.1.3. Kohlbrugge . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

257 258 258 260 261

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

9

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

264 265 266 266 269 270 274 275 276 277 281 282 283 286 288 290

9. ‘Their works follow them’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1. The now and the eschaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2. Reward according to works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1. The perspective of reward . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.2. The fulfilment of joy in works . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3. The fulfilment of ‘a small beginning’ of obedience 9.2.4. Levels of perfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3. Investing for the eschaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

293 293 294 294 298 300 303 305 308

10. Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

311

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

315

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

317

8.1.4. Van Ruler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.5. Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2. The fulfilment of the law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1. Seventeenth-century antinomian controversies 8.2.2. Spirit over law in Edwards . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.3. The gospel as rule of life . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.4. K.H. Miskotte (1894 – 1976) . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.5. A. van de Beek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.6. Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3. The eternal Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4. Contours for a theology of the law . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1. The New Testament admonitions . . . . . . . 8.4.2. Eschaton and proton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.3. Externality and internality . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.4. The joy of the law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Preface

If we were to summarise the content of the Christian faith in twelve words, one of them would be ‘catholicity.’ The catholicity of the church implies that we listen to Scripture today in dialogue with the saints of all times and all places. Together with them, we can grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and know that it surpasses knowledge (Eph 3:18 – 19). Such dialogue has indeed been undertaken in the present search for a contemporary theology of personal renewal. Many names from history will therefore be mentioned over the course of this work. Yet my reflection was sustained in conversation not only with the saints of the past, but also with Christians in the present. Since the latter contribution to the development of my thought will not be explicit in the notes, it is important to mention the relevant people in question here. I thank prof. dr. C. van der Kooi for his willingness to reflect with me on the structure of my book, and dr. P. de Vries for the precious suggestions he made out of his vast bibliographical knowledge. In 2009 I had the pleasure of speaking to prof. dr. G.G. de Kruijf at the IRTI conference in Aix en Provence, where he showed great interest for the topic. I am grateful for the fruit of the resulting exchange and for the valuable advice he provided. Dr. P.M. Wisse at the Free University of Amsterdam was so gracious as to read through the entire manuscript. His sharp analyses forced me to account for my position with care, and the final product owes much of its quality to his input. In the final phase, dr. Henk van den Belt looked through the manuscript as well. I thank him too for the constructive criticism, church historical details, theological insights, and practical applications he supplied, which I was grateful to incorporate into the text. In addition to the aforementioned scholars, I wish to express my thanks also to the students of the Hersteld Hervormd Seminarie (VU University) for their willingness to explore the theme of this book with me during the master phase of their theological studies. Their interaction with me in the classroom significantly impacted my reflection on the issue, and on the way in which I framed that reflection. The provocative questions I received, as well as the friendship

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

12

Preface

shown to me by my students, were most stimulating for me in my hope and prayer that the study of theology might serve the training of future ministers of the Word and the building up of God’s kingdom. Time and again I stand amazed at the patience, love, and interest which my wife Wilma, and our children Tonny, Hennie, Jan, Meindert, Marianne, and Willem have shown to me over the course of this research. In this respect, it is indeed a ‘family project.’ More than that, the family is also incomparable as a place to exercise the personal renewal of the Christian life. Family life provides the fruitful surroundings needed for reflection on the reality of spiritual renewal. This reference to the Christian family implies at once a reference to Christ, to our dependence on the heavenly Father, and to the mystery of the Holy Spirit. To the triune God be all glory!

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Introduction

1.

Theme

Like many others, this study too has grown out of a series of lectures. When one of my students read that I was going to devote an entire semester to the issue of sanctification, he could not hide his disappointment. In his mind, this was a theme on the fringes of theology. Are there not much bigger questions than personal renewal? On the face of it, there appear indeed to be many other, weightier questions in theology than that of the Christian life. After all, sanctification is concerned with us human beings, and any time we are compared to God the scales must necessarily tip over to his side. Yet to conceive of things in such a way is an oversimplification of the issue of sanctification. In the eyes of God, at any rate, the human race has an important place. The Son of God became man, and he reconciled humanity before God and renewed it. Our encounter with God touches every corner of our human existence, and is determinative for our acts. In other words, the theme of the Christian life or sanctification brings us to the very heart of Christian theology. In the end, critics like the one I mentioned above wake up to find themselves facing their own criticism. Every theology that fails to draw a line to the heart and life of the Christian is and remains theoretical.1 Experience has proved to me that people today are looking for spiritual leadership in respect to the Christian life. Each and every believer reflects in one way or another on what the life of faith should look like on a practical level. It is the exercise of the Christian life that demonstrates the power of the gospel in a most powerful – and, at times, most painful – manner. Fathers and mothers have a spiritual battle to fight at work and in the family. Their sons and daughters have their own struggles in their surroundings. Christians live in this tension day in, 1 G.G. de Kruijf 2008:5, citing Singer : ‘God in de hemel, wat een boel boeken, en toch niet ¦¦n die je kon vertellen hoe je moest leven!’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

14

Introduction

day out. For believers, the questions treated in this study are existential life questions. Because they are relevant in our spiritual existence and in preaching, they also demand further theological reflection. In this theological reflection, our aim is to understand the structures of renewal. How does the salvation won in Christ relate to the expression of this salvation in our daily life? What can we expect from the Christian life both qualitatively and quantitatively? What is the norm for Christian living? What is the relationship between the Christian life today and the future eschaton? The list could go on and on. It is worth noting that the Reformed tradition was and still lives in tensions relating to the different perspectives on personal renewal. On one side, there is the conflict with Roman Catholic theology which confuses justification and sanctification. On the other side, we find (certain currents within) Lutheran theology which was rather suspicious of every attempt to treat sanctification as an independent theme. On top of that, the Reformed tradition itself witnesses a variety of ways in which the relationship between justification and sanctification has been expressed, and which at times involve significant existential differences in terms of the resulting spirituality. In the later tradition, these differences became the focus of reflection and were developed even further. Wesley, and in his wake the holiness movements, were convinced that the Reformed tradition had restricted the reality of holiness or sanctification too much. Antinomian currents, in contrast, were afraid that the Christian life would place itself under law again. In the nineteenth century, there was the famous conflict between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa. The twentieth century saw Bonhoeffer and his fear of ‘cheap’ grace. These central questions have been revived most recently in the encounter between Reformed and evangelical-charismatic theology. For that reason, they call for a contemporary, systematic reflection. The main question for this study can thus be formulated as follows: What does the great work of salvation fulfilled by Christ mean for the life of believers? The way in which this central question has been formulated is composed of various parts. In the first place, this study stands within the context of the work of salvation fulfilled by Christ. A second context is constituted by an examination of the effects which Christ’s work has for the life of believers. Thirdly, the main question presupposes that there is a relationship between Christ and the believer.

2.

Elaboration

The title to this monograph points to the subject of this research project. The use of the passive voice (a ‘divine passive’) in the main title expresses that the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

15

Elaboration

salvation brought about by the kingdom of God is already hidden in Christ, while its imperative form indicates that salvation is also effected along the road of admonition. Several theologians have reflected during the past decades on the significance and consequences of the hidden ‘already’ of God’s eschatological kingdom. In the 1960s it was the Theologie der Hoffnung (‘theology of hope’) of Jürgen Moltmann (1926- ) that raised great interest.2 His eschatological theology allowed him to view the historical reality as a closed system no longer, but as a situation open to a new future by virtue of the kingdom of God. Moreover, Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928- ) has emphasised that we receive salvation in this history as a pledge or advance.3 Hendrikus Berkhof (1914 – 1995) discussed the ‘completed renewal’ of the world as a separate locus in his Christian Faith.4 This theological trajectory was also followed to some extent by Arnold A. van Ruler (1908 – 1970). Gijsbertus H. ter Schegget (1927 – 2001) radically developed the effect of the eschaton for the present in his doctoral dissertation Het beroep op de stad der toekomst (1970; ‘The appeal to the city of the future’). Significantly, the subtitle of his dissertation reads: Ethiek van de revolutie (‘Ethics of revolution’). According to ter Schegget, the new world order could not be realised along the road of gradual development; in the first century, the message of God’s eschatological kingdom had been radically critical of the existing situation. He further argued that a just society could only be achieved by way of revolution, and saw in political revolutions a sign of God’s hidden work.5 What sets this study apart from the others is the choice to approach the topic of renewal from the perspective of our spiritual union with Christ (unio mystica cum Christo). In this way both the believers’ union with Christ, as well as the effects of this union on them, can be addressed. We do not mean to suggest that these two are separate realities, as if the cosmic effect of the work of salvation accomplished by Christ has no effect on believers. Rather, our decision for this perspective was motivated by the consideration that the believers’ union with Christ by faith must be distinguished from the cosmic effects of the eschatological salvation accomplished in Christ – a distinction which at once justifies and recommends the separate treatment of these two themes. I have chosen to approach the topic of renewal from the perspective of our union with Christ, while recognizing that other choices would have been possible as well. In the context of renewal in the New Testament, we encounter both a

2 3 4 5

For the English version, see J. Moltmann 1967. W. Pannenberg 1998:III,527 – 646. H. Berkhof 1979:499 – 507. G.H. ter Schegget 1970:32.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

16

Introduction

Christological as well as a pneumatological perspective.6 Both of these perspectives appear in the history of Christian doctrine, although it is characteristic of the Reformed tradition to reflect on renewal from the perspective of the Spirit.7 Yet a study that approaches the question from the unio mystica allows both the Christological and the pneumatological perspectives to function. It also gives room to do justice to the Trinitarian character of theology, given that Christ was sent by the Father and anointed with the Spirit. Yet the most important motive for taking the unio mystica as our point of departure is the fact that it represents a central notion in the New Testament. By reflecting on renewal from the perspective of our union with Christ, we create room at once for the eschatological character of the New Testament as well as for the Trinitarian character of renewal. The subtitle is reflective of another choice in defining the parameters for this investigation. For, the decision to address the topic of personal renewal implies that the corporate dimension of the unio mystica, which finds just as much support in the New Testament, has been excluded. Of course, one cannot think of believers apart from the whole of the mystical body of Christ (corpus Christi mysticum), which represents more than just the sum total of all believers, and there is even reason to believe that the corporative element precedes the individual.8 And yet, the corporative aspect does not undo the fact that the body of Christ includes a personal relationship to Christ as well. A number of theological arguments and motives can be given in support of my decision to concentrate on personal renewal in particular. In the first place, the New Testament never describes the salvation won by Christ as a general datum, which is instead always marked by a personal dimension.9 Karl Barth (1886 – 1968) has noted correctly that the (personal) conversions reported in Scripture make up an integral part of God’s revelation.10 In the second place, the personal dimension is also intended to connect to the catholic tradition of the church. As Van Ruler has pointed out, the confession of forgiveness of sins in the 6 For the Christological perspective, cf. John 15:1 – 8; Rom 6:4 – 6; Eph 4:22 – 24; 2 Cor 5:17. And for the pneumatological perspecitve, cf. Gal 5:22; 1 Pet 1:2. 7 In the book on the Spirit, Calvin addresses how we ‘receive’ Christ and his benefits, Institutes III,i,1. HC QA 64 addresses the fruits of thankfulness from the perspective of our having been grafted into Christ. Similarly, the expression from the classic form for baptism that the Spirit imparts to us what we have in Christ is well-known, Book of Praise:584. 8 2 Cor 3:16, 6:16. Cf. Versteeg 1980:363 – 364; J.M. Howard 2007. 9 Luke 14:26, 22:32; Rom 8:2, 9, 23; 2 Cor 5:10, 17; Gal 2:20, 4:1, 7; Rev 14:13. Den Hertog 2007:123 – 127 has shown that the renewal of the structures does not guarantee personal renewal, and for that reason does not deserve priority. 10 Barth CD IV/2,558 – 559. Barth qualifies the attention for personal repentance by applying a theocentric rather than an egocentric approach, and distances himself from the privatisation of repentance, pp. 565 – 566. Cf. also 546 – 547, 550 – 551.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

17

Elaboration

Apostles’ Creed favours the personal over the cosmic.11 In the third place, it is possible from a biblical-theological perspective to distinguish in Christ’s work of salvation between the way in which the cosmos participates in it, and the share that comes to believers individually. Of believers it can be said that they are ‘in Christ’, and have been crucified and raised ‘with Christ.’ Such expressions cannot, however, be applied in the same way to all of creation. The same is true for the firstfruits of the Spirit, which Paul connects to believers.12 The renewal experienced by those who believe in Christ functions as a pledge for the recreation of the entire cosmos. This implies that there is at once a distinction as well as a relationship between cosmology and soteriology. In the fourth place, the complexity involved in the issue of cosmological renewal is such that it alone already demands that it be distinguished from personal renewal. The theological reflection of the Protestant tradition has variously described personal renewal as sanctificatio (sanctification), regeneratio (regeneration), renovatio (renewal), conversio (conversion), and poenitentia (repentance, penitence). Also the concept of imitatio (imitation) appears at times. The most common term, however, is sanctificatio. While Berkhof considered it unfortunate due to its negative connotations in our present day culture and its consistently personal application in the tradition,13 Barth actually preferred it because he saw in it the expression of a divine act.14 This study will consistently use the term ‘renewal’, yet without discarding the others. The inclusion of the concept of renewal in the title of this monograph was done so as to indicate that personal renewal arises from the new state of affairs which has come about in Christ, and the resulting eschatological dimension.15 The subtitle of the present work begins with the words ‘a theology.’ The use of the indefinite article points at once to the provisional character of every exercise in theology, and also recognizes the legitimacy of other approaches. As such, it invites its readers to enter into dialogue with the present author. The word ‘theology’ is not meant to imply that every facet of personal renewal will be treated, or even that the aspects treated will be examined exhaustively. Instead, it expresses that this monograph will attempt to study the broader contours of personal renewal by reflecting deeply on its core notions and by making theological pronouncements on them.

11 12 13 14 15

Van Ruler 1947:102. Rom 8:23. Berkhof 1979:450. CD IV/2,500. Cf. 2 Cor 5:17.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

18

3.

Introduction

Method and structure

As has been noted, this monograph will examine a number of themes which will be reflected upon within the context of personal renewal. These subthemes will be examined and analysed as much as possible within a dogma-historical context, tested with the tools of biblical theology, and finally shaped into a contemporary piece of constructive systematic theology. For the purpose of dialogue with theologians from the past and present, I have chosen figures who can be expected to make a contribution to our intellectual exchange. The choice of these theologians will vary depending on the theme in question. The reader may be struck by the consistent use of the pronoun ‘we’ in the present work. This ‘we’-discourse does not imply that faith may be taken as a general presupposition in our life, but indicates that this study is set within the framework of faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum). Therefore, since I am writing and arguing on the level of faith, I also write – in line with Scripture and tradition – in the first person plural. My hope is that the ‘we’-form will also serve to express the existential relevance of the questions examined here. Following these remarks on form, we can address the structure of this monograph. Chapter one examines the views of Luther and Calvin on the relationship between justification and sanctification. This choice was motivated by several considerations. In the first place, it places the study within a historical context, as proper theological method also requires. Our questions do not come out of a theological vacuum, but stand within a long tradition of theological reflection. In the second place, the first chapter can serve to highlight the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. Of course, Luther and Calvin may not be collapsed respectively with the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, but they remain important instigators for them. Although in this study I intend to examine the topic of renewal from a Reformed perspective, I am aware that this perspective may not be isolated from the Lutheran tradition either historically, or theologically, or spiritually. A third reason that makes the distinction between the Lutheran and Reformed tradition relevant is the fact that Calvin, in contrast to Luther, did choose to address the Christian life as a topic of its own. The choice to begin our examination of justification and sanctification with Luther and Calvin will demonstrate at once what is particular to the Reformed tradition, and highlight the inseparable connection existing between justification and sanctification. Chapter two focuses on the primary biblical-theological trajectories pertaining to the notion of union with Christ. We will begin by examining the last part of the term ‘unio mystica cum Christo.’ In other words, who is that Christ with whom we are united in faith? What does it mean that we are a new creation

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Method and structure

19

in Christ? These questions will be related to the eschatological dimension of the New Testament. Once the contours of the eschatological significance of Christ’s death and resurrection have been sketched out, we will address the mystica unio or first part of the term. The main goal of this second chapter will be to address the problem of the relationship between the fulfilment of the work of salvation and its revelation. What does our union with the bodily resurrected Christ mean for believers in the here and now? In the third chapter, we will consider the effects of the unio mystica. There are many passages in the New Testament that demonstrate that the believers’ union with Christ leaves traces of itself in their lives. They thus appear to be qualitatively distinguished from unbelievers. Some contours of the effects of our union with Christ will be drawn in this chapter. It thus intends to show how the Christian life is shaped in practice. The themes addressed are not meant to be exhaustive but illustrative, addressing a number of key components of the Christian life. Once the contours of the Christian life have been drawn, a fourth chapter will examine the unio mystica cum Christo quantitatively. This aspect is relevant in light of both Puritanism and the holiness movements. The latter proceed from the conviction that the effect of our union with Christ is much greater than the Reformed tradition has assumed. Key in this chapter will be the statement by the Heidelberg Catechism that in this life even the holiest have ‘only a small beginning’ of the new obedience. The message of John Wesley, as well as the structure of his theology, will be addressed in this chapter as well. In order to gain a more complete picture of the holiness movements, the thought of Keswick and Andrew Murray will also be included. Historically, the pursuit of the holiness movements became subject to criticism from Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge. Key to his criticism was the exegesis of Romans 7:14. Chapter five will therefore examine his interpretation from a historical perspective, and test it biblical-theologically. This examination will yield important results regarding the functioning of the unio mystica. The conflict between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa makes it clear that the relationship between holiness as a state and as a process requires further exploration. In this regard, there have recently been important developments in biblical theology and exegesis. These will form the subject matter of chapter six. Another question in reflection on personal renewal concerns the relationship between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit. From the perspective of the unio mystica, this relationship exists between Christ and believers. But is the position of Christ and believers reciprocal? And what are the consequences of either a negative or a positive response to this question? The seventh chapter will examine the key moments in the history of the Christian tradition with a view to outlining a doctrine of the ‘spiritual man.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

20

Introduction

Chapter eight will relate the mystery of the unio mystica to the history of salvation, and the place of the law in particular. Does the law continue to be valid in light of the fulfilment of the history of salvation? What is the relationship between Christ and the law? This question will be addressed in dialogue with antinomian theologians and Messianic Jews so as to produce a concept of our own, whose consequences will be worked out in greater detail with a view to the exercise of the Christian life. The final chapter will examine the relationship between the Christian life now and in the coming eschaton. The basic point will be to consider whether there is a relationship between the Christian life as it is still hidden in the present, and its full revelation in the future. What in our current life will be of effect for our eternal life? Here the classical notion of reward for good works will be introduced into the discussion. This study will close with a brief look back at the route travelled, and a summary-overview of the contours for a theology of personal renewal.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

1.

Duplex Gratia

In this first chapter, we will sketch the contours of Calvin’s doctrine of sanctification. Although his theology saw influences from many different sides, for the present purposes we will contrast his concept of sanctification with Luther’s view on justification and sanctification in its main trajectories alone with a view to demonstrating that Calvin’s view did not just fall from the sky, although he did develop his own conception of personal renewal. This chapter is interested above all in exploring this conception of Calvin, as it comes to expression in his view on the place and function of the unio mystica cum Christo, the relationship between justification and sanctification, the place of sanctification, its concrete expression in the dying of the old man and the coming to life of the new, and its pneumatological dimension. The core concepts to emerge from the present historical chapter will be analysed, actualised, and worked out concretely in the chapters that follow.

1.1. Luther’s doctrine of justification 1.1.1. Luther’s (1483 – 1546) discovery What is the salvation that we receive in Christ? The Protestant tradition’s answer to this question has been influenced deeply by Martin Luther. He learned from the Word of God that we are justified for the sake of Christ, a secret which he detected above all in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. In the preface to the Latin edition of his works, the Wittenberg Reformer described his existential journey to the discovery of the truth. While he had been powerfully drawn to this letter, Romans 1:17 still represented a hindrance to him. What he could not get over was its statement that the righteousness of God was revealed in the gospel. On 5 March 1545, he wrote the following words: ‘For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

22

Duplex Gratia

righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner.’1 And yet, the words of the apostle Paul refused to let him go. He continued meditating on the text, as if he unconsciously suspected that it still hid deeper matters within it. In the course of his meditation, he underwent an experience in which the true meaning of this passage was finally revealed to him: ‘At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scriptures showed itself to me.’ This biographical description of Luther’s discovery could seem to imply that his insight came out of nowhere. Yet such an impression must be forestalled. Luther cannot be isolated from the time in which he lived, which was a time of great tensions.2 By the beginning of the sixteenth century, the people had already been raising protests against the theological and spiritual developments in the church for hundreds of years.3 The political and cultural developments as well made the time ripe for the dawning of a new era. Although Luther may not be isolated from his time, he may also not simply be seen as a product of his time. Others who had been raised in the same church and with the same message could not identify themselves with the questions that Luther had been asking.4 Luther experienced his conviction as an effect of the surpassing power of the Word. It was against his will that he experienced God’s judgment.5 It was the Holy Spirit who has introduced doubts into his mind, and led him to ask questions that he otherwise would not have asked. In this way, he gained insights from the Word of God that would otherwise have continued to remain hidden. In short, the Reformation was fuelled by the tensions of the

1 WA 54:185, translation LW 34:336 – 337. 2 H.A. Oberman 1993 spoke about Luther as man between God and the devil. Cf. also R. Marius 1999. 3 H.A. Oberman 1974:82 emphasizes that Luther is not a Melchizedek without a genealogy ; see also p. 52. B. Lohse 1995:13 – 54 addressed the situation especially in theology and philosophy. R. Marius 1999 devotes his first chapter to the wider cultural situation. 4 Aalders has pointed out that Luther became occupied with the theme of God’s wrath, in contrast to humanism with its attention for the here and now and the Anabaptists who sought to establish a kingdom on earth, De grote ontsporing, 40. 5 W. Aalders, De grote ontsporing, 57.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Luther’s doctrine of justification

23

times, but a spark had been necessary to set this fuel ablaze and to fan the flames of the Protestant faith.

1.1.2. Justification at the centre of theology In light of the preceding, it is not surprising that Luther was the first in the history of Christian theology to place the doctrine of justification in the very foreground of theology : ‘If the article of justification is lost, the entire Christian teaching is lost at the same time.’6 This doctrine was the message of the New Testament. Accordingly, Luther referred to justification as the central doctrine, the sun, the day, the light of the church, or the lord and king governing the church’s entire teaching.7 In the conflict of his time, this was the article by which the church would rise or fall.8 For Luther, the doctrine of justification even became a criterion within Scripture itself.9 In the preface to the German translation of the New Testament, he ranked the books of the Bible according to their attention to justification. ‘The true essence’ of the gospel could be found in John, the letters of Paul to the Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and in the first letter of Peter. Thus, without abandoning the canon as such, Luther still did maintain a ‘canon within the canon.’ The doctrine of justification represented for him the hermeneutical key that would open the entire Scriptures. This raises many questions. One may wonder, for example, whether the centrality of the doctrine of justification did not come at the expense of Christology and reduce it to a soteriological matter.10 And is the existence of God not much more fundamental as a question today than the grace of this God? Is justification not indicative of a typically Western approach to the Christian faith, impressed as it is with the stamp of Roman law, thereby putting enormous

6 Luther, WA 48,10. Cf. SA II.1; CA. Although it is remarkable that Luther in his debate with Erasmus identified the incarnation and suffering of Christ, together with the Trinity, as the centre of theology, the consensus among Luther scholars is that justification occupies the central place in his theology, Althaus 1962:196; Lohse 1995:274; Trueman 2006:73. Pesch 1967:154 emphasises what is new in view of the history of theology. 7 Luther, WA 48,10; 40.I,354; 40.I,607 – 608; 40.I,441. Cf. WA 33,211; 39.I:205; B. Lohse 1995: 274 – 275. 8 WA 40.III: 351, 34 – 35: ‘Stante enim hac doctrina stat Ecclesia, ruente autem ruit ipsa quoque’; WA 40.III:352,1 – 3: ‘Quia isto articulo stante stat Ecclessia, ruente ruit Ecclesia’, later geworden tot: ‘ articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae.’ 9 Cf. W.J. Kooiman 1977:85 – 90. 10 K. Barth CD IV-2,515 – 516, 519 – 520 relativised this way of centralising the doctrine of justification. According to W.J. Ouweneel 2007:229, other themes are similarly relevant.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

24

Duplex Gratia

pressure on the catholicity of the church? After all, the imputative dimension of justification is what caused the greatest schism in the church after 1054. In the Protestant tradition, the above questions have on the whole not occasioned a downplaying or relativisation of the locus of justification. Instead they are often understood as an attack on the true faith, built as it is around the personal forgiveness of sins as it comes to expression in the structure of the Apostles’ Creed. If the creed is considered to be no more than the sum total of twelve loose articles, the forgiveness of sins is indeed reduced to nothing more than just one of twelve articles. But if you proceed from the assumption that the twelve articles represent a whole and are organically related to each other, it becomes significant that our confession concerning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is related immediately to the forgiveness of sins. On the basis of this assumption, we can conclude that the doctrine of justification really does belong to the very heart of the Christian faith. It relates not only to soteriology and Christology, but also to the doctrine of God. It is from within the reality of justification that we come to know the one true God. The doctrine of God is determinative for the doctrine of justification. This is also the reason why the Reformers fought so hard: the Reformation concerned God himself, and our relationship to him. And the relationship between God and humanity is all about Christ. Although the solus Christus (‘Christ alone’) appeared to be a general point of departure in Reformation times, Luther also focussed on Christology. Solus Christus was not to be replaced by solus Deus (‘God alone’). He demonstrated this forcefully at the Marburg Colloquy.11 When Ulrich Zwingli (1484 – 1531) defended his spiritualising view on the Lord’s Supper by charging that Luther ought not to insist so much on the humanity and flesh of Christ and should lift up the eyes of his heart to Christ’s divinity instead, Luther responded that he knew no God except the one who became man.12 This occasioned him to make the following paradoxical statements: ‘But he could not sit on the scale unless he had become a man like us, so that it could be called God’s dying, God’s martyrdom, God’s blood, and God’s death.’13

11 Cf. W.J. Kooiman 1954:165 – 166. 12 Luther writes that we cannot find God anywhere except in the lap of the young woman, and on the cross, WA 28,136. This was related to the element of substitution: Christ is my sin, WA 40.I,435. 13 WA 50,590, translation LW 41:104. Cf. WA 23,157; 28,136 (God is crucified). In Reformed theology, divine and human attributes are applied to the person of Christ; divine attributes are not attributed to his human nature, so that there is a qualified communicatio idiomatum (‘communication of properties’), cf. Acts 20:28 with the marginal note in the Authorized Dutch Version; 1 Cor 2:8; Institutes II.xii.2 and II.xiv.1,3. Calvin called Mary the ‘mother of God’, Institutes II,xiv.4. For Calvin the communicatio idiomatum is the point of departure for his exegesis of 1 Cor 15:28; the same is true of Augustine, De Trinitate I,10 – 13.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Luther’s doctrine of justification

25

In Luther’s eyes, it was not some theological game but a question of comfort. His only comfort was that God had fully identified himself with our human existence. In order to depict Christ’s identification with lost human beings, Luther used the image of a prince who marries a pauper girl.14 We would be proud to say that an important prince has become our own brother-in-law. But in Luther’s mind, the comfort of the gospel was of an entirely different order. Christ Jesus did not become our brother-in-law, or even our brother, but he has become me myself: ‘It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.’15 As we look back on the solas of the Reformation today, we realise that they cannot be isolated from each other but function as an explanation of the solus Christus. The sola gratia (‘by grace alone’) was a criticism of every imagined merit or contribution on the part of free will. Luther’s Bondage of the Will satirised all imagined human ability before the face of the living God. There is nothing here in which God and humanity work together. Grace will never become a human possession because we do not possess God. The solo Verbo (‘through the Word alone’) emphasised that grace comes to us through the Word. God’s speech is creative speech. The God who calls things into being out of nothing and raises the dead to life declares the godless to be righteous. God’s justifying judgment does not deceive because his words and acts are one. Faith is the human response to God’s word. The principle of sola fide (‘by faith alone’) allowed Luther to maintain a delicate balance in all of this. This sola excludes man in his response. In faith we voluntarily surrender all freedom and allow God to be God. The ‘yes’ of faith is not a free choice between ‘yes’ and ‘no’, but it is the power of the Word which commands us in our heart. Faith is thus diametrically opposed to self-realisation. Nothing is more proper to faith than the denial of one’s self. Faith is the most radical way to confirm that salvation is extra nos (‘outside of us’). Paradoxically, this at once makes salvation to be in nobis (‘inside of us’).16

14 Christmas day sermon in 1529, WA 29,643. Luther can also say that Christ became Martin, Peter, and Paul, and thus also committed our sins, WA 32,4. We rejoice at the birth of Christ as if we ourselves were born of Mary’s womb and thereby lose our own birth, WA 10.1.1,72 – 73. 15 Gal 2:20. In his explanation of this verse, Luther observes: ‘Indeed, the life through which I live is thus Christ himself.’ 16 W. van ’t Spijker 1991 addresses the relationship between the extra nos and in nobis.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

26

Duplex Gratia

1.1.3. Imputed and effective righteousness According to Carl R. Trueman, what allowed the early Luther to understand righteousness proleptically was its eschatological perfection.17 Early on in his career he conceived of our righteousness in terms of transformation rather than imputation. However, Thomistic ontology became increasingly problematic for him because it did not sufficiently express the distinction between God and man. Therefore, following Gabriel Biel, he began to emphasise the qualitative difference between God and humanity increasingly.18 Beginning in 1519, he gave priority to the imputative aspect of righteousness. God’s judgment on our life, or our position before God, became of primary and constitutive importance for Luther with a view to the moral transformation that occurs within us.19 Of course, this development does not mean that Luther’s doctrine of justification is to be understood strictly in imputative terms.20 For him, the righteousness of God was not an abstract doctrine, but the living Christ.21 We further find attention in Luther for the believer’s communion with Christ (unio cum Christo).22 For him, this unio has both an imputative as well as an effective side to it. In this way, Luther could emphasise Christ’s role as an example.23 Luther was not so much opposed to good works, as that he fiercely attacked the position that held works to contribute to the forgiveness of sins. Good works are necessary, even if they are not the cause of salvation.24 In light of this, we are not surprising to find Luther speaking about good works in a very positive manner. In his commentary on Galatians 3:10 he wrote: ‘Therefore “to do” is first to believe and so, through faith, to keep the Law. For we must first receive the Holy Spirit; illumined and renewed by Him, we begin to keep the Law, to love God and our neighbor. […] Therefore, clearly and properly defined, “to do” is 17 18 19 20 21

Cf. C.R. Trueman 2006:77. In the face of God we are nothing, WA 39.I,86. Justification precedes the works of love, WA 17.II,166. Contra W. Cunningham 1960 II,13. Cf. W.J. Kooiman 1977:49 – 50. In Finnish Luther-scholarship the spiritual union with Christ is heavily emphasised at the cost of imputatio, cf. T. Mannermaa 2005. For a discussion on this development, see M. Klaassen 2013, chapter 2. Klaassen argues that a balance must be maintained between the unio and the imputatio, with the latter retaining its priority. 22 A well known image used by Luther is that of the community of property of bride and groom, WA 2,145 – 146; 40.I, 285. Christ is present in faith, WA 40.I,229. Elsewhere Luther can say that Christ brings us into himself, WA 8,111. He can even say that believers are changed into ‘a god’, WA 40.I, 390. The justification and in-dwelling of Christ are moreover closely tied to each other, Flogaus 1997:311 and Lehmkühler 2004:256. 23 WA 7,4,22, 10/1.1,11,2, 10/1.2,18,13, 17/2,102,5 and 303,5, 18,115,1 and 196,36 and 312,27, etc. B. Lohse 1995 and A. Beutel 2005 did not devote a separate treatment to sanctification in their overviews of Luther’s theology. 24 In ‘De Iustificatione’ (1536), WA 39.I,96,1 – 9. Cf. G.C. Berkouwer 1952a:29 – 38.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Luther’s doctrine of justification

27

simply to believe in Jesus Christ, and when the Holy Spirit has been received through faith in Christ, to do the things that are in the Law. […] First there must be a tree, then the fruit. For apples do not make a tree, but a tree makes apples. So faith first makes the person, who afterwards performs works. To keep the Law without faith, therefore, is to make apples without a tree, out of wood or mud, which is not to make apples but to make mere phantasies. But once the tree has been planted, that is, once there is the person or doer who comes into being through faith in Christ, then works follow.’25 Provided that good works were put in their proper context, Luther could speak unconcernedly about both ‘justifying’ (active) and ‘being justified’ (passive).26 Christians are already beginning to be justified now, and will be fully justified on the last day.27 And, conversely, Luther was ready to connect our sanctification to the forgiveness of sins: ‘Just as the Son obtains dominion by purchasing us through his birth, death, and resurrection, etc., so the Holy Spirit effects our being made holy through the following: the community of saints or Christian church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.’28 In Luther, the concepts of justification and sanctification are thus not strictly distinguished from each other. In one place he even explicitly says that the Spirit’s work in the human heart is an aspect of justification.29 Elsewhere he calls the imputed righteousness of Christ our Hauptheiligung (‘foremost sanctification’).

25 WA 40.1,400 – 402. Love confirms faith, WA 39 I,114,28 – 30. Love is the greatest, but faith is the most powerful grace because the source comes first. Faith is the source, and the works that flow out of it are the water, WA 10.2, 433 – 434. See A. de Reuver 1992, 253 – 266 for an overview of Luther’s position. Berkouwer 1952a:72 also identifies a process of healing in Luther’s theology. Cf. W. Joest 1967. 26 Cf. P.A. Lillback 2007, esp. 72 – 78. Luther resisted the perfectionism of the fanatics: ‘Where do the fanatics want to go now? May the merciful God keep me from a Christian church in which all are holy! I want to belong to a church in which we find the weak people, as well as those who persecute them. Satan is a cunning rogue in that he wants to impress upon us through the preaching of the fanatics that the preaching of the gospel is of no use unless we are holy. In this way, human holiness stands opposed to all of Scripture. Our righteousness is Christ! Although I myself am not yet as these troublesome spirits would have me be … what is there that is lacking in Christ? They demand a righteousness and holiness that is deemed to be a holiness by the world, and do not want any false brethren’, WA 27,537 – 538. 27 WA 39 I 83,16 f. Cf. WA 2,494,1 f, WA 39 I,98,10 f, WA 56,272,2 – 273,2 (on Rom 4:7). Luther attacked the antinomianism of Agricola. 28 In his explanation in the Great Catechism of the article on the Holy Spirit in the Apostles’ Creed; Kolb 2000:434. 29 Cf. P.A. Lillback 2007:76: ‘These are the two parts of justification (…) the latter is the bestowal of the Spirit with his gifts, who illuminates against the pollution of the spirit and the flesh.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

28

Duplex Gratia

The same ambivalence is found in the writings of Philipp Melanchthon (1497 – 1560). While he does speak about justification within a forensic context,30 he insists that forgiveness never occurs without renewal, even though this does not turn renewal into the ground for forgiveness. We receive forgiveness out of God’s mercy for the sake of Christ alone. This duality would seem to imply that a strict distinction ought to be maintained between the forensic and effective character of justification, yet such a strict distinction is absent in Melanchthon’s thought. Just like Luther he can say that justification has been begun, but is not yet complete.31 In the same way, he connects justification to regeneration in the Apology (1531).32 This illustrates that in the Lutheran tradition the concept of ‘justification’ was not strictly used in a legal or forensic sense. There was no difference over against the medieval church in regard to effective righteousness, as both medieval theologians and the Protestants could say that effective righteousness forms a part of our justification. Accordingly, numerous attempts were made to reach a compromise in the religious colloquies of the sixteenth century,33 including Hagenau and Worms in 1540. The next year these discussions were continued in Regensburg. In the end, an agreement on justification was reached by the parallel location of inherent righteousness alongside imputed righteousness.34 The Italian theologian Girolamo Seripando (1493 – 1563) attempted on several occasions to have the results achieved at Regensburg included in the decisions of the Council of Trent.35 He pleaded explicitly for a twofold righteousness. An important motive for him was his awareness that inherent righteousness was insufficient for putting the conscience at rest before the righteousness and holiness of God. In his mind, believers have to place their trust in the perfect righteousness of Christ instead. In the end, this aspect was not included in the canons of the Council of Trent when it made a clear decision not to distinguish between the believer’s imputed and inherent righteousness.36 Seripando’s attempts thus ended in failure, and the 30 Cf. LC 6.2; a letter from Melanchthon to Brenz, WA Br. 6,98 – 101. One difference between Luther and Melanchthon is that the concept of unio mystica recedes into the background with the latter, cf. M. Klaassen 2013, chapter 3.3.2. Melanchthon conceives of renewal from the perspective of the in-dwelling of the Spirit rather than our union with Christ. 31 So P.A. Lillback 2007:67: ‘For here our justification is only begun; we have not yet completed it.’ B. Lohse 1995:278 argues that Melanchthon’s doctrine of justification is exclusively forensic. 32 Cf. Lillback 2007:68 – 71 for more arguments. Lillback’s appeal to CA 4 is somewhat puzzling in light of the original text. 33 For more on the colloquies, see A.N.S. Lane 2006, esp. 119 – 130. 34 For the definitive text, see A.N.S. Lane 2002:233 – 237. 35 See A.N.S. Lane 2006:130 – 145 for an insightful account of Trent. 36 CDDCT, 6th session, par. 7.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564)

29

council condemned anyone who spoke of an imputed righteousness in addition to inherent righteousness.37 According to Trent, there is only one righteousness, namely, the righteousness that we receive through the grace of God and in Christ as a love in our heart to serve God.38 Faith was understood as the beginning of justification, rather than the only way in which we receive this justification.39 In the eyes of the council, the church would be playing with fire if it were to teach that we are saved by faith alone. These decisions had significant ramifications for the history of doctrine. By speaking out against the imputative aspect of justification, Trent declared one development of this doctrine to be normative. While the early church had indeed never spoken of justification exclusively in terms of imputation, it still cannot be denied that this aspect can be traced back to it.40 In that sense, the Reformation was indeed not a break with the early church, but rather harkened back to it.41 While Trent rejected the imputative dimension as unacceptable, in the eyes of the Reformation one ought never to surrender it.

1.2. Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564) In the above, we saw how a development took place with Luther in the increasing importance he attributed to our imputed righteousness, yet without our effective righteousness disappearing from the scene altogether. In this section we will 37 CDDCT, 6th session, par. 9, 11; Canon 9 pronounces an anathema on the Sola Fide. Canon 11 condemns the teaching that works are excluded from justification; grace is not just the favour of God. 38 CDDCT, 6th session, canon 10. 39 CDDCT, 6th session, par. 8. 40 The view of G. de Ru 1966:119 by which he holds there to be greater similarities than differences between Luther and Augustine on justification seems to be more the expression of a wish than a reality. This is not meant to deny, however, that many elements of the doctrine of justification can be found in the early church. The epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 9 speaks about the justification of the ‘lawless and godless’, a ‘wonderful exchange’, and the hiding of the sins of many in the one who is righteous while the righteousness of that One has justified many sinners. Irenaeus emphasised by way of Ps 32 that sins are not imputed but justification is, AH IV.XVI.2. Justin Martyr used the phrase ‘to be considered righteous’, Dialogue with Trypho, 47. In Gregory of Nazianz we find the notions of representation and expiation, Oratio 4.5 and 20. Chrysostom speaks about a ‘royal pardon’, NPNF1 XI:378 – 379, about a justification from one moment to the next, XI:386 – 387, and contrasts salvation by to salvation by works, XIII:286. Needham 2006 has extensively documented the forensic and imputative aspect of justification in the early church. The key concepts of the doctrine of justification were known in the early church, 42 – 53. The same conclusion is reached by D.H. Williams 2005:131 – 144. 41 In the years 1527 – 1565, no less than 23 anthologies were collected with quotations from patristic writers who support the doctrine of justification, A.N.S. Lane 1993.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

30

Duplex Gratia

examine the structures of justification and sanctification in the thought of Calvin as the proper subject of this chapter.

1.2.1. Sanctification as a separate locus At Regensburg, John Calvin was prepared to speak of a justification by works42 – this in order to be able to justice to works and to speak about a reward for our works. Remarkably, Calvin could even say in this context that our renewal is a cause of our justification.43 But it was not Calvin’s ecclesiastical savvy alone that led him to make such radical statements, for he was also motivated by a theological concern. For, in his mind it was impossible that the promises which God had given with the law should serve no purpose.44 As Calvin noted, we receive the blessing of God when we live according to his commandments, and a life of piety is pleasing to him.45 Theologically this means that the law has not been destroyed by the gospel, but reaches its fulfilment in it. Yet there was also another theological aspect to which Calvin wanted to do justice, namely, the reciprocity of the covenant. While there is no doubt that it is God who takes the initiative in the covenant, within the context of a functioning covenant we find a real relationship which is determined by a life according to that covenant.46 In this sense the covenant can be said to function on the condition of obedience alone. Or, to put it another way, the condition of obedience forms part and parcel of every promise.47 It is within this context that Calvin speaks of a ‘twofold justification.’48 There is the justification of our person, and the justification of our works. The order between them cannot be reversed. It is within the context of the justification of our person alone that we can speak of the justification of our works.49 In this sense works can indeed be called a cause of justification. Yet Calvin does not 42 In a letter to Farel from 11 May 1541, CO XI,215 – 216, Calvin expressed his agreemet with Regensburg. In a letter to Viret he showed greater reservation, CO XI,261 – 263. In his later theological reflection, Calvin continues to speak about a justification by works, C.P. Venema 2007:163 – 177. Calvin’s ecumenical sensibilities were directed above all to the Protestant camp, but he evidently did not exclude Rome, cf. W. Nijenhuis 1959; J.M. Stolk 2004. 43 Institutes III.xiv.21. 44 Institutes III.xvii.3. 45 Institutes III.xvii.5. 46 CO XXIII,235 (comm. Gen 17:20). The image of marriage makes the element of mutual love very concrete, Institutes II.viii.18; CO XLVII,71 (comm. John 3:29). Cf. C.P. Venema 2007:185 – 187. 47 CO L,83 (comm. 2 Cor 7:1). 48 Cf. A.N.S. Lane 2002:46 – 60; 2004a; 2004b; 2006. 49 Institutes III.xiv.8, 13, 16; III.xv.3v ; III.xvii.3 – 10; III.xviii.5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564)

31

intend the word causa to be understood here in a meritorious sense, but as an inferior causa, a cause taken in an inferior or even improper sense. Renewal is thus absolutely necessary in order to share in forgiveness, and it is impossible for us to receive the grace of justification without exercising the grace of sanctification. Against this background, works can be called a condition for justification. Calvin chose his words very carefully. He does full justice to human participation in grace, but his careful choice of words clearly indicates that the grace of God has priority. Obedience to God is never a ground for the grace of God, because even our best works require atonement. For that reason, the reward for our works does not depend on their intrinsic value but is a gift of grace.50 The subtle structures of Calvin’s theology help us to understand his thought. In the first edition of the Institutes, Calvin treated justification and sanctification at the end of the first chapter on the law, with faith forming the subject of chapter two. This structure serves to emphasise that we come to know the mystery of justification when we are convicted by the law. As such, the renewal of our lives as well is placed in the light of the law. After passing through several intermediate editions, the definitive edition of the Institutes witnesses an entirely different structure. It now becomes clear that renewal does not spring from the law, but comes from Christ. The third book of the Institutes on the Holy Spirit fully stands within the context of our salvation in Christ. Its second chapter addresses the faith through which we have union with Christ. In contrast to Luther, Calvin thus does address faith separately in this final edition of the Institutes. It is in this context that the life of the Christian on earth is addressed. With this, Calvin witnesses that what we call ‘sanctification’ in systematic theology is not an achievement on the part of believers, but comes from grace. Even our sanctification is Christologically determined. The real subject of renewal is Christ, who renews us by his Spirit. Calvin was able to achieve two things by virtue of the above. First, he could emphasise the grace-character of sanctification. Yet he at the same time could create room for sanctification in its own right. This is why Calvin, in contrast to Luther, spoke of a duplex gratia or ‘twofold grace’, namely, justification and sanctification.

50 There is reward for works, III.xv.3; III.xviii.1 – 4. This reward is not out of merit, III.xv.1 – 4; III.xi.20; III.xiv.12; III.xv.3; III.xvii.3, 8, 15; III.xviii.6. There is not a single work of the believer that is not worthy of condemnation, III.xiv.10.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

32

Duplex Gratia

1.2.2. Mortificatio and vivificatio Another observation on the structures in Calvin’s theology concerns the bipartite division we find within the context of our life of faith in Christ. The discussion of the Christian life properly speaking is preceded by a discussion of repentance.51 While Luther, Martin Bucer (1491 – 1551), and Melanchthon had located repentance before faith, Calvin made a rigorous decision to place repentance within the context of soteriology.52 In this way repentance would not end up taking on a life of its own, and was not located prior to the Christian life properly speaking as a condition, but extends throughout that life from beginning to end. Just as there was change in the place where Calvin discussed faith, so too there was change in the way he described repentance. In 1536 Calvin still defined poenitentia as mortificatio (‘mortification’ or ‘dying off ’), yet later on he gave it an entirely positive description when he began to use the term regeneratio (‘regeneration’) instead.53 Calvin describes repentance as a true conversion of our life to God which arises from an upright and solemn fear of God, and which consists in the killing of our flesh and the old man on the one hand, and in a being made alive by the Spirit on the other.54 Several aspects of this description are remarkable. Its core is determined by the notion of conversio. This is a total transformation of the inner man, which reveals itself in the exercise of our daily life. This transformation begins in the affection of the heart, and reveals itself in good works. Good works are for that reason not conversion in the proper sense, but the fruit of that conversion. Repentance comes from a sincero serioque Dei timore (‘upright and solemn fear of God’), and without this fear we do not become aware of God’s abhorrence of sin. These are elements that we recognise from the Lutheran tradition. There is not only a movement away from sin, but also a movement toward remorse, pain, and fear because of sin. In his treatment of repentance, Calvin emphasises that we ought to be incited to look inside of us by the thought of God’s judgment, and that the way to Christ is opened only to miserable and broken sinners.55 His chapter on repentance also addresses such imposing themes as the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and the false repentance of Ahab and others.56

51 Institutes III.iii—v. 52 M. den Dulk 1987:23 – 36 has highlighted this development. 53 Calvin uses numerous synonyms, cf. C.P. Venema 2007:111. Venema 2007:111 – 131 gives a fitting summary of Calvin’s doctrine of sanctification. 54 Institutes III.iii.5. 55 Institutes III.iii.7 and 20. 56 Institutes III.iii.23, 25.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564)

33

For Calvin it is of fundamental importance that the law serves as a source of knowledge for sin in the life of faith we live in communion with Christ.57 Yet this does not mean that the law is the principium poenitentiae (‘principle of repentance’); that would conflict with Romans 8:2, where the law is given a place within the life of freedom that comes through the gospel.58 It is Christ who is the true principium poenitentiae. This becomes clear from the structure of book three of the Institutes. The first chapter starts with our union with Christ by faith, and thereby sets this union as the context in which faith and repentance will be discussed. Calvin further declares that the law as such has no power to break the power of sin, but the law rather ‘causes sin to be enflamed so that it may swell with greater fury.’59 The law derives its power from the gospel, and it is as such that it can function as instrumentum poenitentiae (‘instrument of repentance’). Within the life of faith there is a constant movement from law to gospel. Repentance (poenitentia) is therefore not only an ethical matter relating to the renewal of the believer’s life, but it is one of the basic undertones extending throughout the Christian life from beginning to end.60 In Calvin’s theology the above is related to a twofold relationship in which we stand before God. God is not only our Father, but also our Lord.61 In the prayers which follow his sermons, Calvin refers time and time again to the need to humble ourselves before God’s ‘infinite majesty.’ The timor Dei is marked by this duality. On the one hand, the believer’s heart shudders before the great majesty and holiness of God, while on the other hand the timor Dei arises from the assurance which he has of God’s love through which he is more afraid to stand without grace than to have to suffer punishment. The fear of God is marked by a hatred of sin, and a love for justice. A third element of Calvin’s description of sanctification is formed by the mortificatio-vivificatio couplet. This duality refers to the single movement by which we turn away from ourselves and toward God.62 In mortificatio the love of self, greed, and ambition are put to death63 ; this battle with the old man lasts 57 Calvin refers to the function of the law in repentance in Institutes III.iii.16. 58 This was Barth’s criticism of Calvin, CD IV/2, 580 – 581. M. den Dulk 1987:33 speaks in this context of an ‘incomplete integration’ (‘onvoltooide integratie’). 59 ‘peccatum a lege inflammari, ut furiosius insolescat’, CO XLIX,564 (comm. 1 Cor 15:56). 60 In Karl Barth, the concept of poenitentia receives an ethical explanation, so that the notion of repentance disappears or is at the very least no longer central, Den Dulk 1987:37, 44, 79 – 81. 61 Institutes III.ii.26. For Calvin the doctrine of God is determinative for the doctrine of justification, rather than vice versa. In the New Testament, the expression ‘God and Father’ occurs repeatedly, as is also the case for the Son, Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3, 11:31; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:3, 4:6; Col 1:3; 1 Thess 1:3, 3:11, 13; 2 Thess 2:16; 1 Pet 1:3. These texts are expressive of the fact that God’s will to save stands over the entire history of salvation. Barth would have sanctification determined by participatio instead of timor Dei, Cf. Den Dulk 1987:77. 62 Institutes III.iii.5. 63 Institutes III.iii.10.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

34

Duplex Gratia

throughout our entire life. The other movement is life-giving. At this point, we would expect the Institutes to provide a description of this positive side of the Christian life; however, Calvin’s treatment of vivification amounts to nothing more than the modest observation that the Spirit of God gives us new thoughts and desires.64 Since Calvin then goes on to emphasise self denial once more, he in the end does not explicitly describe what he actually understands by the concept of vivificatio. In light of this, one wonders whether mortification and vivification can really be seen as fully parallel concepts, and whether for Calvin vivificatio only functions as the other side of the coin from mortificatio such that the latter is the opus proprium (‘proper work’) and the former the opus alienum (‘alien work’).65 With respect to this question, we offer five observations on the basis of a reading of Calvin. In the first place, mortificatio and vivificatio can indeed each be seen as the reverse of the other.66 Because we are aware that we have sinned against God, we are incited to serve him. Conversion thus begins when we are confronted with our disobedience according to the law of God. It is remarkable that, in the second place, mortification stands in the service of vivification. In that sense vivificatio is for Calvin indeed the ‘proper work’, while mortificatio is better understood to have an instrumental function. Furthermore, these two elements are not just the other side of the other (albeit inseparable), but can be distinguished according to their respective meaning. This is related to the fact that they have been given to us through our union with Christ.67 Our old man is crucified by our union in the death of Christ, while we are also raised to a new life through our union with the risen Christ. In the fourth place, Calvin remarks somewhere that it is only out of our love for justice that we can really hate sin.68 Thus, here too vivificatio has a position prior to mortificatio. At the same time, mortificatio is the expression of vivificatio. Those who are most advanced in the Christian life have learned to be most displeased with themselves – although Calvin hastens to add that we should make sure we do not stay here, but reach out for his death and resurrection. Finally, chapters 7 – 10 in the third book of the Institutes need not be explained exclusively from the perspective of mortificatio. For it is significant that Calvin sets this section within the perspective of our devotion to God by means of his opening reference to Romans 12:1.69 In a way 64 65 66 67 68 69

Institutes III.iii.8. This was a reproach made by Barth, CD IV/2, 579. See also 575. Cf. Den Dulk 1987:73, 87. Institutes III.iii.15, 20. Institutes III.iii.9. Institutes III.iii.20. Institutes III.vii.1. According to Den Dulk 1987:79,92 this is the very principle of Barth’s doctrine of sanctification, while poenitentia and timor Dei are identified by him as the principle of Calvin’s doctrine of sanctification. Given the fact that Calvin’s doctrine func-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564)

35

characteristic of him, Calvin repeats as many as three times that we are not our own, but belong to the Lord. Such a perspective is, of course, more in line with the dimension of vivificatio than mortificatio. We therefore cannot conclude that the element of vivificatio is no more than implicit in Calvin’s theology ; on the other hand, we must admit that mortificatio does have a fundamental place in it. It is further significant in this regard that Calvin describes poenitentia as a restoration of the image of God.70 With this description it becomes evident that creation and redemption are closely tied to each other. In regeneration, the destructive powers of the fall are broken down. In view of the deep roots which corruption has within our heart, the lifelong process of mortificatio is a difficult one, as Calvin expresses when he remarks that it would be easier for us to create men than to put on a more excellent nature.71 The negative colour of regeneratio is determined by the powers of evil, on account of which our renewal is largely characterised by mortificatio and described as renovatio, reparatio, reformatio, or restitutio – all words that apply a restoration of an original state. Yet given the point of departure which Calvin had chosen for his treatment in chapters 7 – 10, it is evident that he sought to deal with the Christian life from the perspective of vivificatio. But faced with the old man, the grace of renewal is primarily encapsulated by the element of mortificatio. In light of this perspective, vivification can indeed be considered the reverse of mortification, although we should not forget that these two sides of repentance function out of the vivificatio Christi. Given the relentless struggle of evil, it is not surprising to find a dark shadow continually hovering over renewal.72 Calvin qualifies spiritual growth as ‘wavering and limping and even creeping along the ground.’73 The victory won by Christ is evident in that Calvin adds immediately thereafter that everyone will make at least a small step forward every day. We ought not to become frustrated by the small size of the steps we take. Our efforts are not in vain as long as ‘today outstrips yesterday.’ In an endless pursuit we must strive ‘toward this end: that we may surpass ourselves.’ Although our renewal is a tiring struggle, it cannot be denied that we do make progress.74

70 71 72 73 74

tions from the basis of the unio mystica, one wonders whether Den Dulk’s description is adequate for identifying the structural difference between Barth and Calvin. The first chapter of book III speaks of the ‘heavenly life’ in which we participate. Institutes I.xv.4, III.iii.9. Institutes III.iii.21. H.J. Selderhuis 2007:201 – 202 points to the Anabaptist front. Institutes III.vi.5. According to Den Dulk 1987:88, Barth sees no concrete renewal in Calvin. One wonders, however, whether this is really an accurate way to describe Barth’s negative judgment on Calvin, CD IV/2,575 – 576.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

36

Duplex Gratia

While in Luther we see a concentration on salvation in Christ, Calvin also has an eye for the way in which our union with Christ is effective in our life as believers. Accordingly, he gives the spiritual process in believers a place of its own and maintains that its effects are visible.75

1.2.3. The distinction between justification and sanctification Calvin insisted that Luther’s great discovery should never be surrendered. In his Reply to Cardinal Sadoleto, he wrote: ‘You, in the first place, touch upon justification by faith, the first and keenest subject of controversy between us. Is this a knotty and useless question? Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown. That doctrine, then, though of the highest moment, we maintain that you have nefariously effaced from the memory of men.’76 To Simon Grynaeüs, Calvin wrote that Paul’s letter to the Romans opens the way for us to understand the entire Scriptures.77 In the introduction to his commentary on Romans, he similarly wrote that the doctrine of justification is the most important chapter of the entire letter. In short, for Calvin justification is the key by which the Scriptures are opened to us.78 It was his study of the epistle to the Romans that helped Calvin to develop his view on justification more clearly. He distanced himself from the understanding that holds regeneration or renewal to be a part of justification.79 As he saw it, the grace of regeneration is inseparably connected to the grace of justification, and yet they are two different matters.80 This issue is treated explicitly in Calvin’s commentary on Romans 3:21. There he writes that Augustine considered justification to consist in regeneration.81 Augustine had emphasised the gracious character of regeneration by excluding 75 According Horton 2011:658 transformation in Calvin is ‘measurably advanced and manifest.’ 76 CO V,396 – 397 (translation from Olin 1966:60). In Institutes III.xi.1 Calvin calls justification the most important pillar on which religion rests. His claim in this paragraph that justification is the foundation for piety is thus also significant. 77 CO X,403. 78 CO XLIX,1. 79 CO XLIX,21 (comm. Rom 1:17). Cf. CO XLIX,62 – 63 (comm. Rom 3:25) in which Calvin directly opposes inherent and imputative righteousness. 80 In his commentary on Titus 3:7 Calvin acknowledges that justification and regeneration sometimes mean the same thing, CO LII,432. 81 In CO XLIX,92 (comm. Rom 5:5) Calvin also distances himself from the position of Augustine.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564)

37

good works from it. But Calvin wants to go one step further when he excludes not only the works accomplished prior to regeneration, but also those performed after regeneration. Yet he emphasises at the same time that it is in the mercy of God alone that our heart can find true peace. Something similar can be seen in Calvin’s exegesis of Romans 3:28. The opponents of the Reformation located the power of justification in love. Calvin defends Luther’s translation of this text because he considered it to be categorical: we are justified by faith alone, and love has no place at this point.82 In this way, Calvin was able to safeguard the character of salvation as grace. These insights taken from the letter to the Romans showed themselves to have an effect in the Institutes as well. Beginning with the second edition (1539) in particular, the forensic aspect of justification clearly came into view.83 Calvin distinguished inherent righteousness from imputed righteousness.84 There are two sides to imputation: the non-imputation of sin, and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. In this way, Calvin introduced a development into the doctrine of justification. In the early Lutheran tradition there had been no strict distinction between justification and regeneration (in a wider sense).85 This was related to the fact that there was no exclusive emphasis on the forensic character of justification. Calvin did emphasise this forensic character, however. He spoke explicitly about forensic justification, apart from regeneration. This in turn presented him with the possibility to distinguish clearly between justification and renewal. It also enabled him to give renewal its own theological dynamic as determined by his view on the atonement and on faith. For Calvin, the conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification did not imply that they were separated.86 He considered it important to remain aware of the relationship binding these two gifts of grace together. Accordingly, Calvin did not describe justification and sanctification as two graces, but spoke in the singular of a gratia so as to maintain the unity between them.87

82 Institutes III.ii.41 and III.xi.20. It is interesting that the Westminster Confession emphasises in its article on justification that faith works through love, WC XI.2. The same notion is evident in BC article 24 on sanctification. 83 There is no separate treatment of justification in the first edition, F. Wendel 1997:257; P.A. Lillback 2007:60 – 66. 84 Cf. Institutes III.xi,2 – 3, 11, 13, 16; III.xvii.8. 85 K. Barth CD IV/2, 506 emphasises that Calvin’s development does not mean the abandonment of Luther’s doctrine of justification. 86 Institutes III.ii.6, iii.19, xiv.9, xvi.1. K. Barth CD IV/2, 501 – 503, 505 – 507 sees in this bi-unity a defence against cheap grace, quietism, and activism. 87 Institutes III.xi.6. See also III.xi.1, 11, III.xvi.1. For a focus on duplex gratia, cf. C.P. Venema 2007.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

38

Duplex Gratia

Through this distinction between justification and sanctification, Calvin was able to criticise the theology of Trent and, to an even greater extent, the thought of the Neurenberg Lutheran Reformer Andreas Osiander, in which there was no room for imputation anymore at all.88 At the same time, his distinction between two kinds of righteousness allowed Calvin to defend himself against the criticism offered from the Catholic side, namely, that the doctrine of imputation invited believers to sin. For him, justification was not annexed from reality. Those who have been justified are justified in the sense that they are renewed by God so that they may act justly. From a historical perspective, it is remarkable that the later Lutheran tradition took over the forensic language which Calvin applied to the doctrine of justification. In the Formula Concordiae, justification is explained in fully forensic terms. In order to solve the discrepancy vis-—-vis Melanchthon in whom this forensic language was absent, the Form of Concord goes on to remark that the words regeneratio or vivificatio in the Apology must sometimes be related to justification.89 While Calvin spoke explicitly about a duplex gratia, the Lutheran tradition has tended to concentrate primarily on the forensic doctrine of justification – at times out of its conviction that Calvinism was in danger of losing Luther’s insights by its emphasis on the act of faith and on works. This is illustrated, for example, by the work of Gerhard O. Forde,90 who opposes and discards the separate treatment of sanctification as a locus in its own right. For, so Forde argues, sanctification adds something to Christ and justification, thereby undermining Christian freedom; Forde is thus afraid that the focus on sanctification will become a matter of a ‘must.’ In his eyes, sanctification is nothing other than living out of one’s justification. Growth in sanctification therefore means growth in the life of justification. This emphasis is understandable; in order to maintain the gracious character of salvation, the Lutheran tradition places the full weight of salvation outside of ourselves. We are saved by God himself. God became man in order to save the human race. Our salvation cannot be more certain than if we qualify it as a divine salvation. It is thus entirely understandable that some are afraid that the redeeming gospel message will be obscured if sanctification is turned into a theme in its own right. Although people may insist that sanctification has been obtained by Christ and applied by his Spirit, the separate treatment of sanctification as a theme on its own represents a significant decision to involve humanity in this process. 88 Institutes III.xi.6. 89 FC III,v. 90 G.O. Forde 1988:13.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564)

39

From a Lutheran perspective such a treatment of sanctification represents a threat to Christian theology. As soon as human sanctification is isolated with the result that man becomes the subject of a theological locus, there is a danger that humanity will receive excessive attention within the relationship between God and man. From a later Reformed perspective, we can posit that such concerns represented an important impulse to reflect on sanctification from the perspective of the ordo salutis (‘salvation order’) and to pay attention in this context to the personal applicatio (‘application’) of the Holy Spirit.

1.2.4. Unio mystica The preceding section left us with the impression that the priority of justification over sanctification was a principial point for Calvin. And indeed, throughout much of his writing on these themes Calvin maintains the order justificationsanctification. This order has a ready explanation. God’s redemptive judgment can be considered a re-creative word. God creates a righteous person out of an unrighteous one.91 There is a ‘once-for-all’ justification in which sinners are definitively freed from their former position.92 In this approach we see that God’s speech is not just a chimera. When he speaks, something really happens. Viewed from this perspective, we are somewhat surprised to find Calvin in the third book of his most mature systematic work begin with the themes that are connected to the Christian life, namely, self-denial, bearing one’s cross, meditation on the life to come, and the use of this life and its aids.93 The problems resulting from this realisation have been recognised by Calvin scholars, who have proposed a variety of solutions and explanations. Some have suggested that this in the end makes Calvin a theologian of sanctification.94 Paul van Buren has argued that this order had a pedagogical goal and was meant to attack those who diminish sanctification.95 In the same vein, other scholars saw an apologetic purpose in this order. Some thus argued that it provided Calvin with the means to defend himself against Rome by demonstrating that the Reformation did not do away with works.96 Simon van der Linde, on the other hand, has emphasised Cf. E. Jüngel 2006:180 – 183; S. Catherhole 2006:226 – 227. We are accepted once for all as the children of God, Institutes III.xvii.5 and 10. Cf. III.xiv.11. The order renewal-forgiveness is also found in Institutes III.iii.1 and III.xi.10. Similarly A. Göhler 1934:104. This would be entirely in line with the statements in which sanctification is called consequentia, effectus, finis, or telos, cf. C.P. Venema 2007:172 – 173. Tj. Stadtland 1972:13, 115, 148 suggests that justification takes a central place. He would be able to appeal to the passages in the first section on justification, in which Calvin remarks that justification is ‘the main hinge upon which religion turns.’ 95 P. van Buren 1957:107 – 108. 96 W. Niesel 1938:124. Cf. Institutes III.xi.1; F. Wendel 1997:233. 91 92 93 94

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

40

Duplex Gratia

what he saw as a pastoral value in this order97; in the brokenness of the Christian life, Calvin highlights the comfort of an unbroken justification. Joseph McLelland understood this remarkable order to reflect the inseparability of the human and the divine.98 Others have suggested that the order maintained by Calvin was connected to his view on infant baptism.99 Yet others see in it an attempt to place himself explicitly within the trajectory of the early church. Randall C. Zachman has recently argued that this order signals a new phase in Calvin’s theology ; rather than beginning his reflecting from the themes of justification and sanctification, Calvin now started with the concept of adoption. The basis of adoption is the grace of forgiveness, while a childlike obedience is the goal of adoption.100 Finally, Karl Barth was of the opinion that Calvin was consciously ambiguous on the relationship between justification and sanctification.101 While for strategic reasons the majority of the weight had to be placed on sanctification, from a tactical perspective justification had priority. Richard A. Muller has pointed out that Calvin’s ordo docendi (‘order of teaching’) ought not to be overlooked,102 as he took it over from Melanchthon. Melanchthon had demonstrated that the structure of Romans could function as an ideal starting point for the order of theology. This structure is reflected and must be recognised in the definitive structure of the 1559 Institutes. From this perspective, one must not seek the discussion on justification in book three of the Institutes but in book two. According to Muller, the decisive treatment of justification is found in the sixteenth and seventeenth chapters of book two. While Muller’s insight does help us to understand the structure of the Institutes, it does not give us an adequate explanation to the original problem. The first sentences of book three indicate a new beginning, namely, the topic of how we can receive the grace of Christ.103 In the third book of the Institutes, Calvin thus appears to want to treat the application of salvation. It is in this context that he addresses respectively the Christian life and forgiveness. The solution for the problem must instead be sought elsewhere, as Calvin himself already indicated at the opening of book three. There he wrote that we must share in Christ himself in order to share in his gifts; Christ must not remain outside of us, but he must dwell within us and we must be grafted into him.104 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

S. van der Linde 1976:27 – 42, 35 – 36. J. McLelland 1987:168. B.L. McCormack, as cited by K. Wübbenhorst 2006:117n. R.C. Zachman 1993:11. CD IV/2, 509 – 511. R.A. Muller 1999; 2000:118 – 130. This is emphasised by the remarks in Institutes III.iii.1 which reveal that Calvin is going to treat the themes of renewal and forgiveness in what follows. 104 We find a similar sentence in III.xi.1. Also powerful is the phrase in III.xvi.1: ‘Vis ergo

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564)

41

This makes it clear that the unio mystica (‘mystical union’) logically precedes the duplex gratia.105 Here Calvin uses the concept of participatio.106 We not only believe in Jesus and are saved by him, but we are also saved in Christ. By virtue of the unio mystica we share in Christ himself, and therefore in his redemption. Salvation is thus not quantified, as if half of it has taken place in the atonement, while the other half must still occur in application, sanctification, and in the resurrection of the body. Because we participate in the fullness of salvation through our union with Christ, the order between justification and sanctification can be relativised and they can be valued equally.107 Recent scholarship has raised the question whether, according to Calvin’s view, justification is logically prior to sanctification within the believer’s union with Christ. Here we must note that Calvin speaks consciously of gratia in the singular in order to emphasise the inseparable unity between them.108 While for Melanchthon justification was more or less the cause of good works, Calvin emphasised that there is no causal relationship between justification and sanctification.109 For Calvin sanctification is not a fruit of justification, but of Christ. Given the Christocentric character of the ordo salutis, it is possible to speak within the unity of the unio of a certain priority on the part of justification over renewal.110 In this way, the assurance of faith is safeguarded.

105

106 107 108

109 110

iustitiam in Christo adipisci? Christum ante [italics WvV] possideas oportet.’ Cf. III.ii.2, 6, 8, 24, 30, 35. On Calvin and the unio mystica, see J. Todd Billings 2008; R.B. Gaffin 2008; M. Garcia 2008; O. Gründler 1976; M. Horton 2007 and 2012; M. Klaassen 2013, chapter 4; C. Partee 1987; W. van ’t Spijker 2001:212 – 213; D.E. Tamburello 1994; D. Willis-Watkins 1991.T.L. Wenger 2007 has suggested that the emphasis on unio mystica in Calvin has led to a ‘New Perspective on Calvin’ through which unio mystica has come to function as a central principle in Calvin; Calvin is contrasted with the later Reformed tradition; and the distinction over against the Roman Catholic Church recedes into the background. For a response, see Johnson 2008. For the place of unio mystica in the Reformed tradition, see S.B. Ferguson 1987:32 – 36; 1988; R.B. Gaffin 2006:271 – 288; H. Heppe 1958:404. The WLC (Q. 65 – 67) and WSC (Q. 30 – 31) place ‘effectual calling’ prior to ‘union with Christ’, cf. the sermon of Thomas Boston 2002:I,544 – 556 on ‘union with Christ’ located between his sermon on ‘the application of redemption’ and a sermon on ‘effectual calling.’ M. Horton 2011:589, 594, 597, 598, 676 further argues that justification is the foundation for the unio mystica. It is not clear how the Lutheran position would relate to his claims on p. 601. See e. g. Institutes III.iii.1, 9. F. Wendel 1997:257. Cf. CO XLIX,331 (comm. 1 Cor 1:30); Institutes III.xvi.1; W. Kolfhaus 1939:66 – 67. S. van der Linde 1943:147 – 148 indicates a number of passages in Calvin which suggest that we cannot have any part in Christ without sanctification. See also CO XLIX,147 (comm. Rom 8:13). Calvin applies 1 John 3:5 to sanctification, CO LV, 333. Cf. K. Wübbenhorst 2006:112 – 113. Institutes III.xiv.21 and xvii.5. Cf. C.P. Venema 2007:97; R.B. Gaffin 2008:253; J.V. Fesko 2012:38, 82, 101, 381; M. Klaassen 2013, chapter 4.8. It is worth noting that this does not imply that justification precedes union with Christ.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

42

Duplex Gratia

The Christocentric framework of justification means that it cannot be reduced to a simple imputation.111 If there were nothing more than imputation, it would mean that a balance could be transferred impersonally from the account of one person to that of another. Now that imputatio functions within the context of participatio, the doctrine of justification gains a personal character which is accompanied by all the complexities of any living relationship. The Christological content which Calvin attributed to justification and sanctification explains what it was that he sought over against Osiander. In the latter’s conception, we do not receive justification according to that which Christ has earned as man, but we receive it from the being of God. Accordingly, in the debate between Calvin and Osiander it was the very person of Christ that was at stake! The doctrine of imputation, in contrast, is all about the incarnation. The Christological foundation which Calvin gave to justification and sanctification also makes it clear that he was no less Christocentric than Luther was. In Calvin’s theology, sanctification was turned into a locus of its own, yet without being isolated from Christ. In other words, sanctification shows how Christ is effective in believers; it is the pneumatologically structured effectuation of our union with Christ. The fear expressed in the Lutheran tradition that the thematisation of sanctification could lead to moralism or a refined form of selfishness was tempered by the Christological foundation this locus obtained in the Calvinist tradition.112 A life lived out of justification means that every semblance of merit is taken away from sanctification. Sanctification is the place where justification passes over into our life.113 As a result, sanctification does not mean something is added to our faith in Christ, but it belongs to the very life of faith itself. The structural difference between justification and sanctification remains remarkable. While Calvin emphasised with respect to justification that we participate in the perfect righteousness of Christ, in regard to sanctification he did not speak about our participation in the sanctity of Christ but rather about our pursuit of sanctification. Position is thus determinative for justification, but not for sanctification. In the meantime, the significance of the unio mystica cum Christo extends much further than the issue of justification and sanctification alone. Because the Son was sent by the Father and anointed with the Holy Spirit, the believer’s union with Christ implies that the life of faith has a Trinitarian character. This opens our eyes to the perspective of the seal of the Spirit and to the Spirit-filled life. The 111 If this were true, A. van de Beek 2008:212, 224 would argue that a forensic doctrine of justification fails to do justice to participation. 112 Cf. J. Koopmans 1949:119. 113 H.W. de Knijff 1999:148 erroneously refers here to Noordmans 1978:III,314.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564)

43

mystery of our union with Christ also helps us to understand our eternal election.

1.2.5. The pneumatological character of the unio mystica The concept of mystical union does justice to the way the Scriptures inseparably connect the historical Christ and the believer : we have died with Christ, and have been raised and ascended into heaven with him.114 Scripture applies this contemporaneity with Christ to justification as well.115 Believers participate in Christ’s person and in his work. This gives them the comfort of knowing that they are not being justified in a lengthy process, but already share in the perfect righteousness of Christ. This observation could plead for the doctrine of justification to be treated from the perspective of Christology.116 Luther’s emphasis on justification was, after all, marked by a Christ-personalism.117 Yet Calvin chose to embark on another route. As a theologian of the Holy Spirit he opts to treat justification in book three of his Institutes, thus situating it in a pneumatological perspective.118 The theological justification for this choice must be sought in the Trinitarian character of the unio mystica.119 The believer’s union with Christ comes to expression through the Holy Spirit, who acts as the Spirit of Christ. He does not add anything to Christ, but causes believers to appropriate the salvation they have in Christ. This is the point of departure for book three of the Institutes. The work of Christ is of no use as long as Christ remains outside of us.120 Christ himself must become our possession and dwell in us. This at the same time means that he must be in us. Justification and sanctification function in believers on the basis of this spiritual union with Christ. In this way, the two are at once Christologically determined and pneumatologically coloured. The relationship between Christology and pneumatology thus involves a very delicate balance. A purely pneumatological approach to justification would mean that there is no longer any participation in the completed work of salva114 Rom 6:5 – 6, 8; Eph 2:6. Cf. Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 3:1, 15:22; 2 Cor 5:17. In order to indicate that we are placed in this union, Paul uses the Greek word eis (‘into) in Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 10:2, 12:3. 115 Cf. Rom 4:25 and 5:9. 116 P. de Vries 1999 treats John Owen’s doctrine of justification between Christology and pneumatology. 117 Cf. K. Wübbenhorst 2006:111. 118 This would appear to be legitimate in light of the text and context of Rom 8:30. 119 Cf. Institutes III.xi.6; CO LV,334 (comm. 1 John 3:6); W. Krusche 1957:275 f. 120 Institutes III.i.1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

44

Duplex Gratia

tion. While for Trent something still had to be added to the work of Christ, for Calvin participation in Christ’s once-for-all work of redemption is foundational. The pneumatological approach to justification creates a distinction between atonement and justification, such that the principle of opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa (‘the outwardly directed works of the Trinity are indivisible’) finds itself under tension.121 Calvin brings the unity of God’s work together in the person of the Son. Through faith we share in the redemption that Christ has obtained for us in the history of salvation and that is found in him. Through our union with Christ by faith and with his atonement we are personally justified before God. For Calvin, this application is not something that is added to salvation, but it is the work that the exalted Christ himself performs through his Spirit.122 This means that Christians are not directed primarily to themselves for the appropriation of their salvation, but to Christ as he comes to us in his Word. There is a delicate balance here. If the appropriation of salvation is isolated from salvation itself, the Holy Spirit may end up becoming isolated from Christ and his work of salvation. This is only a small step away from saying that it is the Holy Spirit who brings salvation, so that the Spirit becomes our Saviour in place of the Christ. In that Calvin placed the pneumatological dimension of salvation within a Christological perspective, the rule opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa could still function. In fact, we can go one step further by observing that the pneumatological perspective is actually necessary in order to be able to do justice to the unity of God’s Trinitarian work. Only within a fully Trinitarian framework can we do full justice to the indivisa of God’s acts. Within this Trinitarian perspective, participation obtains a pneumatological character in which pneumatology is not simply reduced to a function of Christology, and in which a distinction is maintained between atonement and justification. Something happened at Golgotha, and in just the same way something happens within the heart of the believer as soon as the arcana operatio (‘hidden operation’) of the Spirit takes place.123 As a result, justification becomes highly dynamic. While the Reformer speaks emphatically about the once for all character of Christ’s work of salvation, he also speaks consciously about a repeating acquittal through continual forgiveness of sins (assidua peccatorum remissione nos subinde absolveret).124 This is a highly

121 According to B.L. McCormack 2006:179 – 180, this was why Karl Barth refused to distinguish between atonement and justification. 122 Cf. W. van ’t Spijker 2001:212. 123 Den Dulk 1987:227 – 228 points out that this is indicative of a difference between Calvin and Barth. 124 Institutes III.xiv.10. Cf. III.iv.12; CO LV,305 (comm. 1 John 1:7). Calvin further even speaks

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Duplex gratia in Calvin (1509 – 1564)

45

significant choice. With it Calvin wanted to indicate that justification never becomes something of the past, but continues to characterise the believer’s entire life. While Calvin on the one hand says that we are justified, he on the other hand indicates that Christians remain sinners or unrighteous. What makes this approach problematic is the nature of justification or the nature of sanctification. Calvin’s discussion of a continual justification does not give us any reason to think that he is speaking about a different kind of justification than the justification of sinners. In our union with Christ we are considered as justified through imputation. For Calvin (in a different way than for Luther), it would seem, one is simul iustus, simul peccator (‘at once righteous, at once sinner’).125 This raises the question for us whether renewal implies a qualitative improvement for sinners. After all, it is impossible to speak of a continual acquittal if believers can no longer be fully qualified as sinners.126 This is a paradox that Calvin himself does not attempt to solve. He only denies that we remain godless in the same way as unbelievers,127 and describes the sin in believers as reliquia (‘remnants’). This leaves us with the impression that the traces of sin remind us of the past, yet without making sin determinative for the identity of believers. Yet this too is not a conclusion that Calvin himself draws. The remnants of sin are not quantified, but Calvin’s reference to ‘remnants’ of sin witnesses of the totality of what it means to be human. For that reason our entire person must live out of the righteousness that is extra nos. This approach is legitimate on the basis of the pneumatological dimension of justification. Christologically salvation remains extra nos and we come to possess it by virtue of the Spirit. The tension between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ is fully present in Calvin’s theology. Through the Spirit we participate in the salvation which Christ has realised for us, without being at our disposal. Calvin’s remark that we lean more to the pursuit of righteousness than to the actual fulfilment of it must be understood in the same line.128 From a strictly forensic understanding, this is incorrect. Yet given the pneumatological character of our union with Christ, there is also room for the historical dimension of renewal. The fulfilment of the history of salvation in Christ does not imply an

125

126 127 128

of God’s daily wrath, III.xx.37. He applies 2 Cor 5:20 specifically to believers, cf. F. Wendel 1997:260. Cf. CG question 124. Cf. for Luther WA 2:497,13; 20:635,40; 37:34,36 f; 56:70,9 f, 270,9 – 11, 272,17, 343,16 – 23. This serves as an indication that the Reformed doctrine of sanctification cannot be described as an alternative doctrine of transubstantiation, as Van de Beek 2008:375 charges against pietism and evangelicalism. Cf. K. Barth CD IV/2,571 – 572. Institutes III.xi.11. Institutes III.xvii.10. Justification extends over the entire course of life, CO XLIX,161 (comm. Rom 8:30).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

46

Duplex Gratia

end to history. While we participate through faith in the super-temporal Christ, our spiritual participation functions in a fully historical manner. This receptivity for history is narrowly connected to a receptiveness to the human factor in salvation. Salvation comes from God, but it functions in a process of reciprocity between God and man. The sola fide of Reformed Protestantism gave faith a place of its own, and thereby also attributed a place to man in theology.129 The Spirit’s application of salvation in man thus became a separate locus in Reformed theology. This is what led Herman Bavinck to claim that the Reformation sought its point of departure in the religious subject.130 Bavinck’s statement – perhaps his most famous one at that – is perhaps questionable, for both historical as well as systematic reason.131 Leaving these questions aside for the moment, we can still say that Bavinck had a point. In the Reformation personal faith was protected against the massive institute of the church, and in its Reformed (as opposed to Lutheran) branch human faith was turned into a theme in its own right. From the perspective of this receptiveness for the faith of individuals, it should not surprise us to find Calvin devote explicit attention to Jesus’ humanity.132 As a man, Jesus walked upon the earth through the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ not only obtained righteousness on the cross, but throughout his entire life he obtained righteousness through his obedience.133 Christ’s obedience was both active and passive. Closely related to this is the double imputatio. On the one hand our sins are not imputed to us, while on the other hand Christ’s passive and active obedience are imputed to us.134 This touches on the doctrine of sanctification.135 In light of it, we can say of sanctification that it has been given to us in Christ, while the Spirit applies to us what we have in him.

129 Justification does not pass outside of personal faith, Rom 3:28, 3:30, 4:5, 5:1; Gal 2:16, 3:8, 3:11, 3:24. 130 RD I:583. 131 Cf. C. v. d. Kooi 2008:104, as a correction to an earlier view as formulated in 2002:96. It is further worth noting that Bavinck’s statement can be traced back to Von Harnack and Schleiermacher. 132 Cf. Institutes II.xiv.3; K. Wübbenhorst 2006:110. 133 Institutes II.xvi.5. In the Westminster Confession and Savoy Declaration, this point is explicitly addressed, cf. A.T.B. McGowan 2006:153 – 154. 134 CO XLIX,87 – 88 (comm. Rom 4:25). 135 Cf. K. Wübbenhorst 2006:114.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

47

Evaluation

1.3. Evaluation The somewhat subtle differences between Luther and Calvin with respect to justification and sanctification are symptomatic of differences in their respective underlying theological structures. The most important difference with respect to justification and sanctification is Luther’s Christ-personalism. Its enduring significance is that it directs us to the person of Christ for our salvation. What is particular to Luther can be summarised in two points. His soteriologically determined Christology136 is accompanied by a concentration on the cross and on justification. Luther would listen to a text until he discovered in it the contrast between law and gospel. From a systematic perspective, one wonders whether the connection to Christ and to justification was not drawn too easily here, and whether Luther’s view really does justice to the redemptivehistorical character of God’s revelation. While in Luther there was a concentration on the person of Christ, the personal dynamic was advanced all the more through Calvin’s pneumatological concept of the unio mystica. While in Luther’s theology Christology and soteriology were determined by the cross, Calvin begins with the living Christ. Furthermore, in his thought the concept of unio mystica cum Christo has a Trinitarian colour.137 As such his theology and piety are not only Christologically oriented, but also characterised by a Trinitarian dimension through which God’s plan of salvation, the history of redemption as the salvation order, is allowed to reach a balanced development so that the concentration on the person of Christ does not end up reducing all reality to Christ. This move gave Calvin’s theology room to treat the doctrine of sanctification as a theme in itself. In a sense this placed him somewhere between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions. While he could identify with the way Rome spoke about sanctification, he could not describe that as ‘justification.’ Over against Rome Calvin thus emphasised that justification is not absorbed into sanctification. Together with the Lutherans he denied that sinners are justified because of the holy life they live (through grace). But over against the Lutherans he emphasised that sinners are justified in order that they may live a holy life.138 Calvin considered it important for justification and sanctification to be 136 W.J. Kooiman 1977:157. 137 John Owen developed his concept of communio with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit out of our unio with Christ, WJO II,8. 138 Subtle forms of unrighteousness are unmasked by explicit attention to the Christian life, as Spurgeon wrote: ‘Justification without sanctification would not be salvation at all. It would call the leper clean, and leave him to die of his disease; if would forgive the rebellion and allow the rebel to remain an enemy to his king. It would remove the consequences but overlook the cause.’ C.H. Spurgeon 1997:25.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

48

Duplex Gratia

chronologically simultaneous and qualitatively equivalent.139 This duality offered an opening to resist a legalistic overestimation of sanctification over justification, resulting on the one hand in an exclusive Christianity where people think they have arrived and consider themselves to be holier than others, and on the other in a situation where ‘we would then always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be constantly tormented, if they did not rely on the merit of the death and passion of our Saviour.’140 Luther’s Christ-personalism in the second place meant a heavy emphasis on the qualitative distinction between God and humanity. The Creator alone is able to save his creatures, with God’s work in creation functioning for Luther as the model for re-creation. This implied a powerful emphasis on the passivity of man on account of which the place of humanity as well as the function of faith came to find themselves under greater increasing pressure. In numerous remarks Luther makes it clear that the Word and the sacraments are useless without human faith; at the same time, he somewhat paradoxically fails to devote a separate section to the treatment of faith in the Small Catechism as well as the Large Catechism, for example. It is possible that this is related to a development in Lutheran theology by which salvation in Christ came to be understood in a general sense. While in Luther’s own thought the gospel functions against the background of the law, soteriology can be depicted as a personal soteriology, and the structures deriving from creation continue to have a set place, after Luther a development took place – both generally, as well as particularly in the Barthian interpretation of his theology – that witnessed a tendency to absolutise what is new in Christ and therefore to generalise it. The pneumatological dimension of Calvin’s concept of the unio mystica, in contrast, provided for explicit attention to be devoted to the renewal of humankind, the inner process in which it occurs, and the concrete form in which it

139 Van Ruler considers sanctification greater – or more important – than justification, VW 3:118. He often characterises the relationship between them with a play on the Dutch words ‘draait’ and ‘gaat’: it revolves around (draait om) atonement, but the point is (gaat om) renewal, VW 1:275; 2:294, 444, 458; 3:352, 384. See also TW 1:183; 3:72. 140 BC art. 24. W. — Brakel 1979:I.43.4 was critical of the Imitatio Christi of Thomas — Kempis for its failure to give a place to the doctrine of justification. G.A. Wumkes 1994:184 gave a fitting example of the conceptual difference between justification and sanctification from the time of the French R¦veil. After a Sunday service, Dirk Noordmans asked whether God’s people are always pleasing in his sight. When no one answered, Thomas Solles Sinia responded: ‘A distinction must be made between justification and sanctification. In the former there will be nothing wrong in them, but in the latter God will often burn in anger against them because of all the evil that is still found among the people of God.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

49

Evaluation

comes to expression in our daily life. As a result, the generalisation of salvation could be avoided, while its spiritual dimension could receive greater emphasis. Someone might object that this could eventually anthropologise pneumatology and lead one to doubt one’s personal participation in salvation. In spite of the particular character of election, atonement, and the appropriation of salvation, Calvin was not prevented from writing and speaking about the essence of faith in the first person plural. This illustrates that the personal dimension of his theology and preaching does not stand on its own, but arises from the salvation which has been won in Christ. The pneumatological dimension of Calvin’s theology does not undermine personal assurance; instead, the testimony of the Holy Spirit assures us personally of the salvation we have in Christ.141 The mystery of the unio mystica in Calvin’s theology is an instrument which prevents the pneumatological glow of personal renewal from becoming isolated from the salvation which is in Christ. When the mystical union is allowed to recede into the background, one soon falls into the trap of speaking of about justification or sanctification in total isolation from each other. In a culture where rational doctrines are considered suspect from the very get-go, it is important that the personal dynamic behind the duplex gratia be highlighted.142 By virtue of our union with the person of the Christ, the doctrines of justification and sanctification represent a living spiritual reality.143

141 It is significant that John Owen WJO:I,367, III,414, XI,340 – 341 favours the image of the Vine and the branches in order to express the unio mystica. This image is even more radical than that of two people united in marriage. 142 D.H. Williams 2005:141 – 144 is incorrect to relativise the doctrine of justification as he does. 143 Van Ruler VW 1,507 applied the pneumatological factor to the historical dimension of the work of the Word in the development of Europe. In Calvin this pneumatological dimension cannot be simply transferred to the development of culture and history.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

2.

Unio Mystica cum Christo

The dogma-historical exploration in the previous chapter emphasised just how important the unio mystical cum Christo really is. This concept makes it clear that salvation may never be isolated from the person of Christ, but is in Christ. This realisation calls for reflection on the person of Christ and on the salvation that is in him. We must consider what it is that Christ achieved through the cross and his resurrection. In other words, what does the eschatological character of the Christ mean? Does the eschatological character of his person and work mean that the eschatological salvation is already present? A variety of constructions has been proposed in the history of theology in order to address these questions. This chapter will begin with an exploration of the eschatological character of Christ and his work. Following this exploration, we will zoom in on some of the theological constructions that have been proposed to explain the relationship between the eschaton and our position before it. Here I will consider the thought of Oscar Cullmann, Arnold A. van Ruler, Jan Veenhof, and Abraham van de Beek. My evaluation of their theology will go to show that the mystical union must be maintained in order to achieve a proper balance between the soteriological and cosmological aspects of the eschatological salvation. Our union with the eschatological Christ implies that believers participate in the eschatological salvation in one way or another. In light of this awareness, we also wonder how we can or cannot speak about this participation. This will lead to a further exploration of the nature of the unio mystica.

2.1. The eschatological Christ In our days we do well to mention a product’s innovative character as its sellingpoint, but the opposite was in fact true in classical antiquity. At that time, novelty was seen as a sham, while age meant familiarity. This makes it remarkable that the apostles were dauntless in their announcement of the new state of affairs that had come in Jesus Christ.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

52

Unio Mystica cum Christo

The apostles’ boldness was all the more remarkable give the fact that cross and resurrection did not really fit in their theological framework. For, it was not until the eschaton that the general resurrection would take place.1 And more importantly, could God be expected to leave his prophets to die under a curse? Since someone who died under a curse could hardly be righteous, it was incomprehensible that God would raise from the dead someone who died on the cross. Nevertheless, Jesus’ disciples witnessed powerfully of the resurrection of the Christ and the new situation it had brought about, namely, the coming of God’s kingdom and the great day of the Lord.2 This life view was not something for which they themselves had chosen. It was not because of, but in spite of, their understanding of reality that they became convinced that there was no greater reality than the resurrected Christ and the salvation which is found in him. In their writings they testified of these things and worked out the consequences of this new reality. In the testimony of the apostles we read that John the Baptist spoke out of a consciousness that the decisive moment in the judgment had fallen in his days.3 Jesus’ appearance on earth was marked by an eschatological dimension and by the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies in him.4 In the parables he told, Jesus described his kingdom.5 The parable of the wicked tenants showed that the coming of God’s own Son to this earth meant that the Father had now decided to go ahead with his last and final act.6 All of this signified that the kingdom of God had come in Christ. In the fields of Ephratha the angels announced the kabod (‘splendour’) of the King.7 His appearance implied the downfall of the powers that opposed God’s kingdom.8 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

Cf. Dan 12:2. Joel 1:15, 2:1, 11, 13, 4:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad 1:15; Zeph 1:7, 14 f; Mal 4:1, 5. Matt 3:10, 12; Luke 3:9, 17. Luke 4:18 – 21 refers to Isa 61:1 – 2, Matt 11:2 – 6 to Isa 35:5 – 6. See also John 5:39. It is remarkable that the people identify Jesus with Elijah, Jeremiah, and other prophets, Matt 16:13 – 14. Apparently they heard no difference between Jeremiah’s preaching of repentance and that of Jesus. Because Jesus Christ is the centre and sense of the entire Scripture, G.C. van Niftrik 1953:52 appeals for exegetes to move ahead from a grammatical exegesis to a theological exegesis in order to search for the kerygma of the text. Cf. B.J.G. Reitsma 2006: 245: ‘Die kennis en ervaring [van Christus WvV] kunnen we nooit meer uitschakelen, zoals ik nooit meer naar een foto van mijn vrouw als kind kan kijken zonder haar te zien als mijn echtgenote.’ Cf. Matt 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 18:23, 20:1, 22:2, 25:1; Mark 4:26. Matt 21:33 – 46. Cf. Heb 1:1. Luke 2:9 – 14. Simeon praised the salvation of God, Luke 2:29 – 30. Cf. in Luke also 24:25 – 27, 32, 44 – 45. Heb 2:8 emphasises the heavenly character of the kingdom, cf. Horton 2011:525, 529, 536, 542 Satan is afraid, Mark 1:24. His activities were reaching a climax, Matt 12:28; Rev 12:17. It was Satan who was at work behind the physical symptoms, Matt 9:32, 12:22, 17:15, 18; Mark

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The eschatological Christ

53

Although there would be resistance against Jesus’ mission9 and the ranks of his own disciples would be infiltrated10, the kingdom of Christ could still be typified by the casting out of the devil.11 And this King reigns from a heavenly kingdom.12 The apostolic testimony witnesses of an eschatological tension.13 In the apostle Paul we can detect this tension as well, as in his letter to the Galatians where he writes about ‘the fullness of the time.’14 In Christ God’s definitive, eschatological act has dawned.15 For Paul, this conviction must undoubtedly be traced back to his personal encounter with the living Christ.16 For him this encounter had an eschatological dimension which placed him with fullness of conviction within the new reality that had come.17 He could therefore testify from his very inner being that, as a ministry of death and the letter, the Old

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17

5:1 – 20, Luke 13:16, TDNT II,19. Not every sickness was a form of demon-possession, Matt 4:24, 10:8; Mark 1:32. Matt 4:1 – 11, 16:22 – 23; Mark 4:15. Luke 22:3, 31. Matt 12:28. Cf. Heb 2:8, Heb 8 – 10; Horton 2011:525, 529, 536, 542 Scripture speaks about a new covenant in Luke 22:20 and a new covenant in John 13:34. Peter refers to the ‘last days’, in Acts 2:17, as a fulfilment of Joel 2:28. In 2 Tim 3:1 this expression recurs again. In 1 Cor 10:11 Paul says that the ends of the ages have come. Gal 4:4. For A. van de Beek 2002: 20, 311 – 313; 2008:109 – 110, 188, 190 this functions as an important notion. H. Ridderbos 1975:44 – 48 had earlier already pointed to this central notion. Acts 2:17; 2 Cor 5:17, 6:2; Gal 4:4; Eph 1:10; Heb 1:1. In New Testament theology, the eschatological character of the New Testament is widely recognised, cf. Burger 2008:167 – 168; Dunn 1998:180; Hengel 2002:307 – 355; Ladd 1994:595 – 597; Ridderbos 1975:44 – 68; Reitsma 1997:69 – 120, esp. 79; Versteeg 1980:2 – 3, 381 – 395; Wright 2003:272 – 276, 726: ‘The eschaton had arrived.’ 1 Cor 15:8. T.R. Schreiner 2008:41 – 116 approaches his New Testament theology from the perspective of the ‘already’ and ‘not yet.’ Although he incorporates elements from Wright’s study of the resurrection in his work, he does not reach the same conclusion. As much as Calvin speaks about the return, from his Christological perspective he can also emphasise that the power of sin and death has already been broken down now, cf. CO LV,10 (comm. Heb 1:1) and CO XLVII,317 (comm. John 13:31). In the latter commentary Calvin says that the whole world has been renewed and everything restored to order. Cf. W. van ’t Spijker 1977a:92 – 93; Hesselink 1967. M.A. van den Berg 2008:312 concludes that Calvin considers all prophecies to have been fulfilled. For the heavenly kingdom, see 187 – 193. There is nothing new to expect, 345. In his commentary on Dan 7:27, Calvin announced an important principle, namely, that there is a continuum of fulfilment of prophetic texts, CO XLI,81 – 86, cf. D.E. Holwerda 1984:327 – 330. Calvin relates the new heaven and the new earth to the salvation which is in Christ: ‘Quum loquitur de coelis novis et terra nova, respicit ad regnum Christi, a quo omnia renovata sunt’, CO XXXVII,453 (comm. Isa 66:22). The same is true of Isa 11:9, CO XXXVI,244. M.A. van den Berg 1996: 277 remarks that there is no ‘futuristic exegesis’ in Calvin. He had an aversion to apocalyptic speculations, cf. CO LV,147 (comm. Heb 11:5). E.A. de Boer 1997 has demonstrated that Calvin was able to deal with apocalyptic literature. Not only did he write commentaries on the apocalyptic parts of Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezechiel, he also entertained plans to write a commentary on the last book of the Bible.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

54

Unio Mystica cum Christo

Testament ministry stood opposed to the New Testament fulfilment as a ministry of the Spirit.18 Such an interpretation of the New Testament as the above may seem to reduce the entirety of God’s salvific acts too much to a single point. For, without meaning to push the return of Christ into the background, we must still note that Jesus’ departure and coming (or return) ought not to be spoken of in an overly simplistic fashion.19 It is the coming of the Son of God that stands central. This is why Jesus could say to his disciples that he was staying with them, while the angels spoke at his ascension of his coming or return.20 Jesus’ incarnation, cross, resurrection, ascension, and return on the clouds of heaven cannot be separated and isolated as individual divine acts of salvation. Theologically there is only one kairos, one definitive intervention on the part of God, and one parousia (‘coming’). The King has been appointed and acted, and then he will come in accompanied by all festal throngs. These things include the judgment on those who resisted the King in rebellion.21 In the New Testament, the concept of kairos is distinguished from chronos and aeon. Kairos refers to a specific point in time, and is used theologically for identifying a decisive moment.22 Chronos is not indicative of a moment, but of temporal duration.23 Aeon points primarily to a dispensation. The concepts of aeon and chronos thus have to do with time in its quantitative and measureable dimension; kairos, in contrast, is about the quality of a moment. The difference between these notions serves to underline that God’s time (kairos) surpasses every human category. Moreover, the use of the term kairos is expressive of the hundreds of years that have passed since cross and resurrection: from the human perspective, God’s one decisive moment stretches out over a long period of time. In short, the New Testament concepts emphasise the eschatological dimension of the Christ-event.

18 2 Cor 3:6 – 8. The time of exile has passed and there is freedom, 2 Cor 3:17. Paul also speaks about a new covenant, 1 Cor 11:25 and a new creation, 2 Cor 5:17. For these notions in the letter to the Romans, see 3:29, 6:22, 8:4,16:25 – 26. Cf. Reitsma 1997:87; 2006:57. The same notion of freedom from the law can be heard in the epistle to the Galatians, cf. Gal 3:23 – 25. See also Eph 3:1 – 10; Col 1:25 – 28, 2:2 – 3; 1 Pet 1:3 – 5, 18 – 21, 2:6 – 10, 3:18; 2 Pet 1:16 – 17; Heb 1:1, 4 – 13, 2:5 – 9, 3, 5 – 10; 1 John 1:1 – 3; Rev 1:5 – 6, 5:5 – 14. The fulfilled history of salvation comes through negatively but powerfully in 1 John 2:18 – 23; 2 John :7. Also the letters to Timothy and to Titus treat the new state of affairs, 1 Tim 2:5 – 7; 2 Tim 1:9 – 10, 2:9 – 11. Tit. 1:2 – 3, 3:4 – 7. 19 Matt 24:30; Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; John 14:18, 16:5,7, 16, 19, 28, 17:11, 13, 20:17; Acts 1:9, 11. 20 Matt 28:20; Acts 1:11. Cf. HC question 46 – 47. 21 The critical moment of the post-Christ history also resounds in John 3:18 and 2 Cor 6:2. 22 Cf. BDR par. 255n3, 393n4, 400n3, 459n3, 292n4. 23 Cf. LSJ s.v. ‘chronos.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

55

Where is salvation?

2.2. Where is salvation? An important question in all of this concerns the significance of the situation that has newly arrived in Christ for our salvation. There are certain data in the New Testament that leave no doubt that salvation is definitive.24 And yet, the Jews deny that the Messiah has already come because they do not yet see his kingdom. There is no peace on earth, swords are not being forged into ploughs, and the righteous are still in their graves. In responding to this objection, we have to acknowledge that the lines cannot be drawn from the Old Testament to their fulfilment in Christ in a purely earthly manner. After all, in his first public sermon Jesus announced that he was proclaiming liberty to the captives – and yet, he never went to prisons to throw their doors wide open.25 Furthermore, before Pilate Jesus acknowledged that his kingdom was not of this world.26 Does this imply that ‘salvation’ must be spiritualised, so that every visible manifestation of God’s kingdom must shrink from our view and the salvation of the soul alone remains? When Ephesians 2:1 – 5 emphasises that we have been made alive in Christ, we are prompted to think right away about a spiritualised life. The same applies to Galatians 2:20, where Paul writes that it is not we who live, but Christ lives in us. Both passages can be explained in such a way that our union with the living Christ is confined to the salvation of the soul and the believers’ moral renewal. Such a restriction, however, is not a conclusion that the New Testament itself draws. The apostle Paul, for example, fiercely resisted such a spiritualisation of the resurrection.27 Without the bodily resurrection, the Christian faith has no foundation.28 Furthermore, the indwelling of the Spirit in the body undermines any attempt to disqualify the body, and emphasises instead that the body too is included in the redemptive work of Christ.29 In her study on the concept of eikon in the writings of Paul, Stefanie Lorenzen similarly concluded that the image of God must be understood to include the element of the body.30 Finally, our 24 25 26 27 28

Mark 2:5; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; Rom 5:1; Heb 10:18. Luke 4:19. John 18:36. 2 Tim 2:18. 1 Cor 15:12 – 23. This conviction was firmly rooted in the early church, A. van de Beek 2008:74 – 79. It is interesting to note the way in which Calvin in Institutes III.xxv.9 asks how the resurrection can be of effect also for the godless if the bodily resurrection is a part of the salvation that is in Christ. 29 Cf. J.P. Versteeg 1980:377 – 379. In the prayer of the classic Reformed form for the Lord’s Supper this expectation is explicitly expressed in the phrase ‘…to change our mortal body to be like His glorious body’ (cf. Dienstboek :88). 30 S. Lorenzen 2008:157 – 159. Cf. 195 – 198, 205, 262. Van Kooten 2008:387 – 388 emphasises in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

56

Unio Mystica cum Christo

conformity to the image of the Son in Romans 8:29 is inseparably tied to the redemption of the body of which Paul speaks in Romans 8:23. The context for Romans 8:23 is the verses 18 – 27, where creation is personified.31 The ‘person’ of creation groans over the freedom it has lost. It has been subjected to the vanity and futility characteristic of the old aeon.32 The breakthrough of the new aeon, in contrast, is connected directly to the believers’ adoption as God’s children, which is made manifest in the redemption of the body. When it is redeemed, the corruptible body will put on incorruption. Van de Beek writes in this context that ‘the flesh is the very hinge on which salvation turns.’33 Another characteristic of Scripture is the way it depicts the redemption of the body in connection with a cosmological drama.34 What Jesus says about regeneration indicates an event that touches the entire cosmos.35 Furthermore, in his words we hear the transformative character of re-creation resound. The same applies for what we read in Scripture about the resurrection of the dead: those who have fallen asleep in Christ will be raised with a glorified body. We are confronted here with a ‘transphysical’ reality which surpasses our human categories of understanding.36 These latter notions thus serve to point out that salvation is not yet definitive, a point confirmed by the fact that Christ is still active as the advocate for his church on earth.37 Moreover, we see the influence of the old aeon everywhere around us. In spite of the resurrection of Christ, the power of death has not been undone and believers too are confronted with it.38 When we look at the reality of death, Christ’s appearance on earth seems not to have changed anything.

31 32 33 34

35 36 37 38

contrast the pneumatological character of the image of God in Paul. The image of God is above all of internal value, 379, 391 – 392, in part through the influence of Greek thought upon Paul, 218 – 219. Cf. for this exegesis, B.J.G. Reitsma 1997:80 – 111; S. Lorenzen 2008:206 – 210. Cf. the groans mentioned in 2 Cor 5:2 and 4. In Mark 7:34, Acts 7:34, Heb 13:17, and Jas 5:9 we find the same groaning referred to. The complaints and distress that resound in this groaning belong to the old aeon. Van de Beek 2008 in the title to chapter 2. One can point to Gen 2:17 en Rom 8:11 in order to highlight that the bodily resurrection is not only determinative Christologically, but also with respect to the doctrines of creation and pneumatology. Acts 2:16 – 20; 2 Pet 3:1 – 10, as well as the witness of the book of Revelation. For A. Schweitzer this cosmological aspect was a reason for locating the eschaton in the future, so A. van de Beek 2008:160. Van de Beek 2008:92 – 95, 160, 187, 201 does not want the future cosmological drama to be understood figuratively, but he does not further explain what he means by this. On p. 201 he includes 2 Pet 3:10 in the discussion of the destruction of social structures. Burger 2008:525 also addresses this absence of cosmology in Van de Beek. Van Houwelingen 1993:76 – 97 emphasises the literal approach to 2 Pet 3:1 – 13. Matt 19:28. I adopt the term ‘transphysical’ from N.T. Wright 2003b:477. Matt 28:18 – 20; John 14:2 – 3; Acts 1:6; Eph 2:6 – 7; Phil 3:21; Heb 7:25; 1 John 2:1 – 2. Rom 8:11. Death is the last enemy, 1 Cor 15:26. Cf. 1 Cor 15:42 – 44.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

57

Where is salvation?

These indicators for the non-definitive character of salvation are in line with what Scripture demonstrates to us about the kingdom, namely, that it is ‘not yet.’ The devil, for example, is still clearly at work. Furthermore, we feel in the New Testament the expectation of the return of Christ, who is called the ‘One who is to come.’39 And in the Lord’s Prayer we pray for the coming of the kingdom.40 In this prayer we hear the sounds of the eschatological fulfilment of God’s kingdom. The kingdom, or so it seems, belongs to ‘the age to come.’ As a result, we find ourselves before the problem of the kingdom of God. In the first paragraph we saw that the coming of God’s kingdom was spoken of in definitive, eschatological terms, and yet we have also noted the presence of indications suggesting the kingdom was ‘not yet’ present. What this tension means for soteriology is an exciting and worthwhile question. Does our salvation too belong to the ‘not yet’? The relationship between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ demands further qualification, since one cannot speak about the members of this couplet without investigating their mutual relationship. The history of theology demonstrates that many have struggled with the question of the relationship between salvation and eschaton, between Christ’s first and last coming.41 For that reason, we will use section 2.2.1 – 4 to examine a number of different explanations that have been proposed to explain the relationship between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet.’

2.2.1. Oscar Cullmann (1902 – 1999) The first concept to be examined for explaining the relationship between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ in the kingdom of God is the well-known view of the Lutheran New Testament scholar Oscar Cullmann. He pronounced the coming of Christ to be ‘Die Mitte der Zeit’ (‘the centre of time’) in order to indicate that the centre of the history of salvation is located in Christ.42 With this, Cullmann revealed that he disagreed with Albert Schweitzer, who had argued that Jesus had expected an apocalyptic end to the world in the imminent future but was mistaken in his expectation. Cullmann spoke instead 39 John 14:18; Acts 1:11; 1 Cor 1:4 – 9; Phil 3:20; 1 Thess 1:10, 4:13 – 18; 2 Thess 2:2 – 3; Rev 1:1, 4, 7, 4:8, 22:20. In Matt 24:14 it explicitly says that the end will come after the gospel has been announced to all nations. In Heb 9:28 the Greek ordinal word ‘deuteros’ (‘second’) is used in the context of Christ’s coming! 40 Matt 6:10. This eschatological aspect can also be detected in Matt 13:36 – 43, 25:41; Mark 10:17 – 31; Luke 13:28 – 29, 19:11. 41 Cf. for differing interpretations, A. van de Beek 2008:148 – 167; W. van Bruggen 1983; G.E. Ladd 1994:54 – 67. 42 Cullmann 1975:81 – 84, 90 – 93.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

58

Unio Mystica cum Christo

about a linear development from creation to consummation. In addition to Schweitzer, he also distanced himself from the ‘realised eschatology’ of C.H. Dodd, which claimed that one cannot speak of future aspects of the kingdom of God since it was already transcendentally present.43 For Dodd, the only future event was the day of the Son of man. Over against him, Cullmann placed concrete human history in the foreground; in this, he also expressed his disagreement with Rudolf Bultmann and his existential approach. Cullmann’s eschatology is perhaps illustrated best using his well known WWII-image.44 The allied forces’ battle against Germany passed through a number of phases. On D-Day the decisive blow was struck against Hitler, since it was then that his power was essentially broken. The Germans, however, continued to fight tenaciously against the advancing allied forces so that they were not fully subdued until V – Day. Transferred to the kingdom of God, this image means that the decisive blow to the forces opposing God has been struck in the death and resurrection of Christ, but that this potential will not be realised until the eschaton. What recommends Cullmann’s model is its ability no longer to perceive of Christ’s first and second coming as two separate events, but as the one history of God. What makes his model so powerful is that is does full justice to the decisive character of Christ’s redemptive work, while also taking serious account of history and the eschaton. Yet the strength of this image is at once also its weakness. The New Testament depicts a battle that Christians must wage, and yet it makes it clear that the victory does not depend on their efforts in fighting. In the WWII model, however, things were different. D-Day could only be considered decisive after the events; as long as there was no V – Day, things could still go either way. As a result, in Cullmann’s perspective the final victory still awaits the eschaton. In it the distinction between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ appears to be quantitative in nature alone, without the completed work of Christ functioning as the point of departure and without there being room to speak about the coming of God’s kingdom in definitive terms. In the end, in Cullmann the real redemption awaits the future eschaton. As a result, the New Testament data that portray redemption as a definitive category necessarily recede into the background. Furthermore, it remains unclear how the future eschaton will be new if the decisive blow is executed in historical terms. Cullmann’s model is thus inadequate because it fails to do justice to the whole New Testament witness of the New Testament, and in particular to the element of the salvation which has been definitively fulfilled in Christ in which believers participate. 43 Cf. for critical questions, H. Ridderbos 1962:38 – 45. 44 Cullmann 1975:84 – 85, 141.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

59

Where is salvation?

2.2.2. Arnold A. van Ruler (1908 – 1970) In the first part of his dissertation on the fulfilment of the law, Van Ruler sketched the theological context for conceiving of such theological notions as eschatology, the kingdom of God, and salvation. He furthermore pleaded for theology to be envisaged in an entirely new way, that is, through the lens of God’s kingdom. According to Van Ruler, we ought to approach the theological loci not from the beginning but rather from the end. Having established this, Van Ruler goes on to identify several characteristics of the kingdom of God. For the purposes of this study it is important to note the way in which Van Ruler emphasised the transcendental character of God’s kingdom.45 An important aspect of this transcendentalism is the kingdom’s future character – albeit not at the expense of its immanent presence. Another aspect of the transcendental character of the kingdom is its hiddenness.46 In Christ the fullness of salvation is present, but we still await the revelation of that which remains hidden. In the third place, Van Ruler points to the salvific character of God’s kingdom; the kingdom of God is about his redemptive acts.47 This is related in the fourth place to the cosmic aspect of the kingdom; God saves his world.48 In this context Van Ruler places a heavy emphasis on the earthly and bodily orientation of salvation. In his eyes, Christianity has strayed for over seventeen centuries due to its neglect of the materiality of creation.49 According to Van Ruler, we cannot separate God from the material world; in fact, even the eschaton is characterised by this materiality. This physical side of salvation calls for it to be understood in future terms. Van Ruler does acknowledge that salvation is already immanently present on the basis of the future, and further identifies numerous moments in creation and history as signs of God’s kingdom. But when it comes to salvation and our participation in that salvation, it is the eschatological dimension that dominates in Van Ruler’s theology. Eschatologically there will be a ‘return’ to the normal life.50 As a result, we are left to wonder what the eschatological innovation really is in his approach.51 This question becomes even more important in light of his view that Christ will step back as Messiah and hand the kingdom over to the Father so as to put an end to the Christological intermezzo. Van Ruler’s use of the notion of ‘return’ (recapitulatio) to the normal life emphasises that we are to 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Van Ruler 1947:35 – 37. Van Ruler 1947:39 – 40, 55 – 58, 73. Van Ruler 1947:40 – 43. Van Ruler 1947:37, 76. A. A. van Ruler TW V:17. Van Ruler 1947:59. Cf. G.G. de Kruijf 1997:89.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

60

Unio Mystica cum Christo

expect a restoration of creation. This leaves it all the more unclear whether and how, in his theology, we already participate in salvation today. What is more, Van Ruler places such a heavy emphasis on God’s saving of the world that the special place of the church is lost. The same is true for the notion of a personal participation in salvation. In Van Ruler’s view, it is not so much about the church as about the kingdom, not salvation but culture, not Christ but humanity.52 As a result, he wonders how creatures could be lost if we are to expect a recapitulatio of creation in the future.53 This question becomes even more pertinent within the context of God’s eternal plan. Van Ruler is correct to emphasise that there can be no symmetry between election and reprobation since God is a God of salvation and reveals himself as such. Yet when he in his attack on those who insist on a symmetry between election and reprobation qualifies particular grace as Gnostic and suggests that it makes individuality constitutive, he not only leaves the questions that we are trying to address unresolved, but also passes too quickly over the personal character of our participation in salvation.54 While Van Ruler admittedly does not forget the soteriological dimension of salvation, the cosmological character is still so dominant in his thought that the personal soteriological dimension actually recedes from view.

2.2.3. Jan Veenhof (1934- ) In contrast to Van Ruler, Veenhof numbers among the theologians who have been much more attentive to the personal character of our participation in salvation. His point of departure in this context is the definitive eschatological character of salvation.55 Given the fact that Christ has been raised physically or bodily from the dead, the bodily dimension ought not to be overlooked when we speak about salvation. According to Veenhof, we would be insisting on an improper reduction of salvation if we were to limit it to nothing more than the forgiveness of sins. Veenhof fears that a body-soul dualism continues to linger in theology, and therefore pleads for a holistic view on salvation. Since salvation includes such a bodily or physical element, believers today may live out of the Christus Medicus. For that reason, we have to learn to recognise the salvation 52 Van Ruler 1947:130. 53 Van Ruler 1947:60 – 64. 54 Burger 2008:544 – 546 points to the contrast between personal election and a participation in the history of salvation. The Canons of Dort have predominantly highlighted the personal character of election, atonement, and renewal. Questions like the extent of the atonement and the relationship to the cosmological side of the atonement obviously fall beyond the scope of the present investigation. 55 Cf. for a selection, J. Veenhof 2005:241 – 277.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

61

Where is salvation?

accomplished by Christ in our earthly and bodily gifts; similarly, health should be turned into a theological theme and treated as such. Furthermore, the earthly facet of salvation should be applied to a person’s entire humanity, including her emotions. In short, for Veenhof the salvation wrought by Christ includes the healing of one’s humanity in one’s concrete earthly existence. Veenhof ’s holistic approach is based on the past tense character (perfectum) of salvation. He accuses Calvinism of not having taken this past tense character seriously enough, and therefore aims to introduce a major correction to its theology. This correction does not seek to deny the future eschatological aspect of salvation. After all, Veenhof admits that not all believers will be healed from their physical ailments and that they will all die. And yet, he insists, there must be greater attention for the fact that salvation is essentially already present and available in all its fullness. It is important to observe that Veenhof does not absolutise this perfectum. He does not plead for believers to become one with Christ to the extent that they too will have powers to heal or to calm a storm, nor does he ever suggest that they have a resurrection body. Veenhof ’s shift in theology rather consists in the subsuming of physical health under soteriology, while mortality in the here and now is not yet broken down. In the end, this leaves one to wonder what the advantage of Veenhof ’s approach really is. On the one hand, he demands attention for the bodily side of the salvation which has been fulfilled. On the other hand, he emphasises that it is no more than a ‘small beginning’ of this salvation. The result is a sense of ambiguity as to the way in which Veenhof connects the definitive character of the eschatological salvation in Christ with the reality of the here and now, given the fact that we apparently do not yet fully participate in the fullness of salvation. This tension with respect to the relationship of body and soul will in fact remain as long as Veenhof fails to state that our participation in the fullness of salvation is partial also when it comes to forgiveness. For as long he fails to do so, he is left with a full participation in the forgiveness of sins, over against no more than a partial participation in the perfectum of Christ’s resurrection. The correction he had envisaged for Calvinism thus appears not to be as essential as he had suggested it to be.

2.2.4. Abraham van de Beek (1946- ) Just like Veenhof, Van de Beek seeks to do justice to the bodily dimension of salvation: ‘It is everything or nothing: either salvation is corporeal, or else it is

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

62

Unio Mystica cum Christo

not intended for the human race. If it is not corporeal, we are left to ourselves with our sins. For sins are as concrete and corporeal as they can possibly be.’56 For Van de Beek the close relationship between corporality and salvation is no reason to expect a bodily salvation in this dispensation, but rather a reason to locate this salvation in the future. The following words are indicative of his position: ‘The point is the new creation that is to come, in which the dead will rise in a bodily resurrection and in which sins will be forgiven.’57 Van de Beek thus transfers even the forgiveness of sins to the future. Thus, while Veenhof emphasised the past tense (perfectum), we find Van de Beek stressing the future (futurum). Van de Beek reminds us that the bodily or corporeal dimension cannot be divorced from salvation. We have to allow the disquieting reality of the here and now to stand in all its fullness, and acknowledge that salvation does not yet manifest itself. The two theologians are thus each other’s polar opposite, notwithstanding the fact that they share a common motive of doing justice to the salvation of the body. But how does Van de Beek view the eschatological character of Christology? He emphatically posits that, because of God’s definitive action in Christ, we must speak about a single kairos.58 This description of God’s acts in Christ as definitive may lead us to expect from Van de Beek that he will speak of salvation in similarly definitive terms as well. This appears not to be the case, however; he seems rather to maintain a distinction between Christology and salvation. While his Christology departs from a fulfilled eschaton, his soteriology does not.59 Van de Beek resolves this tension by using the metaphor of birth.60 A birth can last hours and even days. Even then, we do not say that ‘John’ was born from 12 to 14 March, or on 12 March, 13 March, and 14 March. There is one birth. In just the same way, the entire history that follows Christ’s coming must be described as a single birth.61 It is not about the years or centuries that pass, but about the one coming of Christ which brings salvation. The birth-metaphor is most fitting for describing the critical character of the present dispensation. It is also in tune with the language of Romans 8:22. However, one does wonder whether Van de Beek really does justice to the notion 56 57 58 59

A. van de Beek 2008:348. A. van de Beek 2008:168. A. van de Beek 2008 chapter 5. Cf. A. van de Beek 2008:188, 190. On p. 201 he says that the glory of the new creation will come after the current dispensation has passed. Van de Beek 2008:188, 197, 199 does not begin with the notion of having died with Christ, but of dying with Christ. On p. 201 – 203 he writes that the glory of God breaks through at certain times, but that this does not mean that the Christian life functions out of participation in the victory. 60 A. van de Beek 2008:166 – 167. 61 In Rom 8:18 it is not the word aeon that is used, but rather ho nun kairos as an indication of the critical aspect of history. Cf. 1 Pet 4:17 and Rev 12:4 – 5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

63

Where is salvation?

of salvation. For applied to salvation, the birth-metaphor turns out to be ambiguous. During the process of birth there already is life. If we were to transfer this element to the notion of salvation, it would mean that salvation is already there but still in the process of being revealed. Yet during the birth-process we cannot live as if it has already been completed. As such, the birth-metaphor would signify primarily that salvation is not yet there, and that the true realisation of salvation is constituted by the revelation of salvation in the eschaton. Van de Beek appears indeed to understand the metaphor of birth in this latter sense. This is remarkable because in his theology we encounter all the necessary ingredients for an understanding of salvation as a definitive category. The force with which he posits that God intervened definitively at the cross of Christ would seem to supply the appropriate theological framework for it. But in view of the birth metaphor, this emphasis on the definitive character of God’s act in the cross of Christ makes the matter all the more problematic. Van de Beek understands the resurrection to be not something added to the cross, but the very vindication of the cross. This would imply that that there can be no vivificatio, since renewal can only come after the bodily resurrection. In the present dispensation, Christian theology is by definition a theologia crucis (‘theology of the cross’). A first question that could be raised in light of this concept is whether theology ends up being determined more by one’s daily life than by Christ. If Christ is central in our theology, then we must also take our point of departure in him. His bodily resurrection leaves plenty of room for vivificatio. A second question raised by Van de Beek’s concept concerns the possibility of the believers’ bodily resurrection. If the cross is God’s final word, how we can arrive at a transformed reality? Can there even be a physical resurrection if, as in Van de Beek’s theology, the theology of the cross must look beyond the cross? How can we expect there to be anything new if God has acted definitively in Christ? This poignancy of this problem is increased in two ways. In the first place, the one kairos implies for Van de Beek that we can also not speak of the first and second coming of Christ. As a result, we are confined within the structures of Christ’s first coming as it is characterised by the cross. In the second place, Van de Beek in different ways rejects an ‘inner-worldly’ or immanent salvation as he recognises it in the theologies of Moltmann, Pannenberg, Bultmann, van Ruler, Berkhof, and N.T. Wright.62 God not only corrects 62 A. van de Beek 2008: 22 – 23, 46 – 47, 123, 146. Van de Beek 2008:126 – 129, 146 is critical of Wright because he fails to recognise the dramatic element of the Apocalypse. In the nineteenth century Gunning 2008:73 – 76 wrestled with the relationship between the ‘now’ and the ‘then.’ On the one hand, he argued that the perfection was not simply in one line with ‘our age’, but on the other hand he was also unwilling to speak of a break.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

64

Unio Mystica cum Christo

the course of history, but also brings history to its end in order to call another order into existence.63 With this, we are left with a dilemma. On the one hand, the transformation of (bodily and cosmic) reality is seen as the ultimate salvation; on the other hand, Van de Beek speaks about God’s ultimate act in the cross. The former accent means that God’s salvation is a futurum, while the second trajectory serves to emphasise that we are not to expect anything that has another form than the cross. Thus, in Van de Beek do we do not find explicit attention for the soteriological dimension of salvation or for the way believers participate in it.

2.2.5. Balance The above analysis of the concepts of Cullmann, Van Ruler, Veenhof, and Van de Beek has failed to produce a satisfying solution to the relationship between Christ, definitive salvation, and the future. In Cullmann, Van Ruler, and Van de Beek we saw that there was insufficient attention for participation by faith in the salvation accomplished by Christ because the cosmic aspects of salvation pushed its soteriological facets deep into the background. As a result, it would seem that we have to insist on distinguishing between the cosmological and soteriological dimensions of salvation. In the New Testament we encounter a life lived out of the salvation which has been fulfilled once and for all, while there is also the expectation of the redemption of the body. The negative conclusion reached in this survey means that we must seek another kind of solution in which justice is done to the soteriologically determined participation in the fulfilled salvation, yet without short-changing the future revelation of this salvation in its cosmological dimension. In light of Scripture’s emphasis on the bodily resurrection, we must reject the spiritualising tendency of Christian theology. On the other hand, the purely future treatment of salvation as a reaction to this spiritualising tendency is similarly defective given Scripture’s application of definitive terms to salvation.

2.3. Unio mystica Having reached this partial conclusion, we will look back into the history of theology in order to consider whether the theologoumenon of the unio mystica 63 A. van de Beek 2008:277, 296, 339. Van de Beek cites De Jonge who connects Jesus’ coming primarily with judgment, 271 – 272. Cf. W. van Vlastuin 2011b for a more detailed discussion of the issue at hand.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

65

Unio mystica

cum Christo may be of help to us. In the present section we will defend the thesis that it is necessary to apply this theological tool today in order to do justice to the relationship between cross and resurrection, eschaton and salvation, future and return. If we leave no room for the unio mystica to function, we cannot do justice to the soteriological character of the salvation fulfilled in Christ.

2.3.1. The mystical dimension of the unio mystica We began our reflection on the nature of salvation with the observation that the resurrection of the body constitutes a fundamental part of it. When we speak about the resurrection, we must think first of all of the resurrection of Christ. He arose physically from the grave with the body which was at once the same and yet different. Christ’s glorified body is of a different order than our mortal body. Christ was buried a mortal human being, but raised with a spiritual body.64 The notion of a spiritual body does not conflict with corporality or bodily existence as such, but it does also point to its transcendental character. This is evident from the accounts of the Lord Jesus’ appearances following his resurrection. He was not immediately recognisable. He was able to enter when the doors were closed, and then disappear again from the sight of his disciples at a moment’s notice. He belongs to a reality that surpasses our human order of time and space, that is, to the transcendental reality of heaven.65 Our mystical union is about participation in this transcendent eschatological reality.66 The mystical character of our union with Christ serves to reject every tendency to spiritualise Christ’s bodily resurrection, and every ontological divination of humanity, or annihilation of human personality, or elitist isolation of particular believers.67 The unio mystica takes place within the framework of Word and faith. This framework at the same time offers an appropriate context from which we can oppose the mystification of our mystical relationship with Christ, even though we have chosen to use ‘unio mystica’ as the term for describing our mystery-filled relationship with Christ. Our bond with Christ cannot be described in simple earthly terms. It is participating in a transcendent reality, that is, the Spirit’s dwelling in our heart and our dwelling in Christ. We are spiritually united with the bodily, transphysically resurrected Saviour. This 64 1 Cor 15:42 – 44. We shall be like the angels, Luke 20:35 – 36. 65 In Van de Beek 2008:89 – 90 this appears to coincide with the eschaton. The circumstance that heaven belongs to created reality and will also be renewed is problematic, cf. Gen 1:1 and 2 Pet 3:12 – 13. 66 Cf. Horton 2011:591, 611. 67 Tamburello 1994:4 – 12 discusses the different definitions of mysticism.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

66

Unio Mystica cum Christo

means that we are not dealing with some general religiosity ; believers alone participate in the salvation won by Christ. The mystery of this participation can be further specified. In the first place, we note that it leaves room for the eschatological character of Christ’s salvific work. Christ arose outside of our human reality. The eschatological dimension of the work of Christ thus functions in the believer’s union with him as a confirmation of the extra nos-character of salvation. What blows us away about the eschatological character of the New Testament is the fact that we have a share in the future.68 Moreover, the unio mystica means that our union with Christ is totalitarian in nature. We are united with the whole Christ, the Saviour who died, arose, and ascended into heaven. It was not just a beginning that was made, but we have died with Christ and our old man was crucified with him.69 In fact, we could even say that we have been raised with him in heaven.70 These words clarify that we are not dealing something that is inherent to and the extension of our human abilities, but at the same time these words emphasise that the reality of our union with Christ by faith is not just some idealistic illusion. For believers the reality in Christ is a greater reality than the visible reality. In the third place, the eschatological character of salvation is directly connected to salvation. The fulfilment of the history of salvation is at the same time the fulfilment of history of salvation. The great work of reconciliation has taken place in Christ. With respect to salvation, faith pertains first of all to the salvation accomplished once and for all in Christ. From this perspective, the work fulfilled by Christ is decisive and not something that still awaits completion. This also explains why we can speak about God’s salvation in definitive terms. Through faith we share in the fullness of salvation, although we still do not share fully in that salvific fullness. For our share in the fullness of salvation the New Testament uses the definitive categories of forgiveness of sins and justification.71 We not only look ahead to the peace of God, but we now already share by faith in the shalom of the new creation, have been freed from the law of sin and death, and participate spiritually in the victory of Christ.72 In Christ we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heaven.73 This gives us unspeakable and awesome joy.74 68 A futuristic eschatology is rejected, cf. J.P. Versteeg 1980:370. 69 Rom 6:6. 70 Rom 6:2, 6, 8; Gal 2:19 – 20; Eph 2:5 – 6; Col 1:13 – 14, 2:13, 3:3. The gospel is the ideal which has already been achieved according to Gunning 2008:109, 112. This is why it is folly to imagine that our philanthropy will save the world, p. 118. 71 Rom 3:25, 28, 5:1, 9 – 10. 72 Rom 8:2, 37. 73 Eph 1:3. 74 1 Pet 1:8. Cf. HC question 58.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

67

Unio mystica

This definitive terminology is also used with respect to our adoption. In and of itself, the witness of the Spirit of which Romans 8:15 speaks could pertain to a future adoption. Yet the next verse makes it clear that this is not the case. For, the Spirit does not witness that we shall become children of God, but that we are children of God.75 The apostle John may move in another semantic field, yet he too expresses his amazement at the fact that we share in God’s infinite love because we have been adopted as his children.76 He shows very clearly that by faith we have left death behind us and share in eternal life.77 The same clarity and decidedness is evident in the letter to the Hebrews.78 Yet the New Testament text that expresses our participation in Christ’s eschatological reality in the most powerful terms is 2 Corinthians 5:17. There we are called a ‘new creation.’ Paul then adds that the old has passed away, and that all things have become new.

2.3.2. Cross and resurrection in relation to the unio mystica Believers participate spiritually in the new creation of the resurrected Christ. As a result, we may expect our union with Christ to be determined more by the resurrection than by the cross. For, in his resurrection Christ conquered death and the cross. It is by our participation in this reality of the resurrection that we participate in the victory won by Christ. People often mention cross and resurrection in a single breath as two aspects of the one eschatological reality of Christ. Yet such language is accompanied by the danger of forgetting that the resurrection has a decisive character. The apostolic preaching can be characterised as a powerful witness of the resurrection of Christ through which the entire situation has been changed.79 In this light, the prominent presence of the cross in the New Testament kerygma is no less than remarkable. Significant, for example, is Paul’s declaration to the church at Corinth that he determined not to know anything among them except the crucified Christ.80 And to think that these words come from the apostle who was confronted directly with the glorified Christ and emphasised in

75 Cf. Gal 4:6 – 7. It is significant that the Old Testament already speaks in definitive terms about the forgiveness of sins, cf. Ps. 32:1 – 2. The fulfilment of the Old Testament can never be less than the Old Testament itself. 76 1 John 3:1. Cf. Rom 8:15 – 17. 77 John 3:15 – 16, 36, 5:24, 6:40, 47, 54, 10:28, 11:26, 12:50, 17:3; 1 John 3:14 78 Heb 9:12, 24 – 26, 28, 10:12, 14. 79 Acts 4:33. 80 1 Cor 2:2. Cf. Gal 6:14.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

68

Unio Mystica cum Christo

the same letter to the Corinthians that the resurrection of Christ is central to Christian faith! This New Testament preoccupation with the cross can be understood as the announcement of the atonement brought about by Christ.81 In this context the fathers of the early church sometimes used the expression ‘the Lord reigns from the wood.’82 But remarkably, the cross-character of Christology is not limited to atonement alone.83 It also has a lasting effect. An excellent example can be found in Philippians 3:10, which mentions the knowledge of Jesus’ resurrection in one breath with our fellowship or union in his suffering. In the present dispensation, the power of Christ’s resurrection shows itself not in our external and bodily life, but in the power of the inner man and in our suffering.84 For Van de Beek this last element functions as a reason to emphasise that our salvation is marked by the cross. In light of his theologia crucis, he therefore criticises all kinds of optimistic theological endeavours.85 In his eyes the resurrection is not the undoing of the cross, but rather its confirmation. Although as such this approach is correct, one is still left to wonder whether he leaves room to do justice to Christ’s resurrection. Everything Jesus did after his resurrection showed that he would no longer interact with his disciples as he had done before. The cross brought the old aeon to an end. This points at once to the paradox of the Lamb. He stands as though he had been slain in the midst of the throne. In him the whole history of his suffering and death is present. That never becomes a matter of the past. Of course, this is no reason to conclude that nothing happened at Easter or that the cross must be correlated one-to-one with the eschaton. After all, the resurrection is greater than the cross.86 The new creation is present in Christ, and in him the whole history of salvation has achieved its fulfilment.87 In this context fulfilment does not mean an abrogation of the gospel of the cross as if a new page has been turned, with an entirely new beginning. The fulfilment of the history of salvation is characterised by the glorification of the crucified Christ. It is all about the crucified Christ. At the same time we must insist that it is about the glorified crucified Christ. In this sense the history of the cross never becomes past tense, but the mystery of the 81 Matt 20:28; Luke 24:26. 82 So A. van de Beek 2008:164n. This expression also appears in hymn 185:4 of the Liedboek voor de kerken: ‘Hij heeft de volkeren geleerd/dat God vanaf het hout regeert.’ 83 J.D.G. Dunn 1998:484 – 485 refers in this context to Rom 6:5, Gal 2:19 and 6:4. He emphasises the continuing work of the cross. 84 2 Cor 4:7 – 5:10, 6:3 – 10,11:16 – 12:10; Eph 3:16 – 17. Cf. Gräbe 2000:244, 250. 85 Cf. Van de Beek 1998:209 – 254. 86 Rom 8:34. 87 NT. Wright 2003:309 makes it clear that the resurrection of Christ is not just one of the themes of the New Testament, but determines its entire structure.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

69

Unio mystica

atonement of the cross remains eternally present in a fulfilled and glorified way. We can also frame it the other way around: it is according to his resurrection that the cross of Christ receives its significance and meaning. We would do the reality of the resurrection and ascension an injustice if we were to speak of a ‘theology of the cross’ without any nuance; it is a theologia crucis gloriae (‘theology of the glory of the cross’). The theologia gloriae (‘theology of glory’) of the cross sub contraria specie (‘under the contradictory form’) cannot simply be called the theologia crucis without any qualification, as happens in Van de Beek, as if prior to the new heaven and the new earth we have only a theologia crucis and thereafter just a theologia gloriae. The difference between now and then does not consist in the difference between cross and resurrection, but between the hiddenness of glory and its revelation. The glory of the cross, just like the glory of the ascension, is now hidden under the contradictory form and will become visible and tangible later on.88 This implies that also mortificatio and vivificatio ought not to be placed one after the other, but rather operate in parallel as an effect of the unio mystica cum Christo.

2.3.3. The complexity of the unio mystica The preceding section has shown that we cannot speak about the relationship with Christ in an unqualified manner. In his recent study on being in Christ, Hans Burger has unearthed New Testament data concerning the unio mystica.89 He discovered that the one biblical reality of our mystical union is referred to using several different concepts. Each of these concepts sheds light on one of its many dimensions. Burger has demonstrated that the notion of mystical union functions in the New Testament as substitution.90 It refers to the work that Christ has done in the place of sinners. Through his death we have received life. Christ bore our unrighteousness so that we might receive his righteousness. This aspect of substitution shows that a real encounter with sin and evil has taken place extra nos. There was something that happened at Golgotha. The substitution functions in the Christian life as a rock: the former is firmly anchored in the latter. Since humans have no role in the work performed by Christ, Burger speaks about exclusive moments in the work of the Son of God. 88 A. A. van Ruler 1947:104 remarks that Christ’s reign from heaven is a hidden reign just as his reign from the cross. 89 J.M. Burger 2008. 90 Burger 2008:183 – 201. Hidden behind the substitution are the profound questions of personal election, personal atonement, and personal application of salvation, cf. Horton 2011:596.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

70

Unio Mystica cum Christo

Aside from substitution, the New Testament also speaks about representation. God’s Son identified himself with the human race in such a way that he can be called the last Adam. Before God he represents humanity in particular and creation in general. At times the Scriptures speak in a universal sense about this representation of humanity, at other times in general about the representation of the church – even though on occasion representation is also used in a personal sense.91 According to Burger, Romans 4:25 can be considered the crown witness for Christ’s representation of believers in his resurrection.92 The public justification of Christ is also our justification because Christ represents us. A third element is participation: by faith we are included in Jesus’ history. The eschatological character of Christ’s work implies that we cannot think about his history in the past tense alone. Participation thus illustrates that our history does not only begin once Jesus’ history has reached its endpoint. This participation functions at numerous moments. For example, through faith we are treated as children of God for the sake of the Son. Without literally participating in the death of Christ, we too are said to have died with Christ. This is an inclusive moment in his death. The same holds true for his resurrection and ascension. In and of itself Christ’s resurrection has an exclusive character since Christ has been bodily raised in his own power, while Christians have not been bodily resurrected. And yet, Scripture speaks inclusively about our resurrection with Christ without this resurrection taking anything away from our future resurrection. The same mechanism applies to our suffering with Christ.93 This element appears to be in tension with substitution, since our suffering cannot be called substitutionary while Christ’s suffering is. In contrast to our suffering, his suffering was also once and for all. It is within these boundaries that we must speak about our suffering with Christ in the present.94 We suffer with Christ, yet there is no substitution. There are also reasons to assume that believers participate in Christ’s heavenly intercessory prayers. Given our union with Christ and the Spirit, such intercession does not pass outside of the believer.95 Christ’s intercession has a special character, since it adds nothing to the perfect character of the substitution. His prayer rather functions within the context of the effectuation of substitution. Here Christians do not plead on the basis of their own work, but on the basis of Christ’s work. The same dynamic applies to justification. In the 91 92 93 94 95

Burger 2008:544 – 546. Burger 2008:248. A powerful example is Col 1:24. Rom 8:17; 2 Cor 1:5; Phil 3:10. O’Donovan calls it a neglected theme, so Burger 2008:505. Rev 8:3 may refer to this. Reformed exegesis has always resisted such an exegesis out of fear that it could be suggested that the prayers of the saints are meritorious in nature.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

71

Unio mystica

context of the unio mystica we can speak about the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. In this sense there is also participation in the context of justification.96

2.3.4. Human involvement in the unio mystica In sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 we examined what Christ means for us in the light of the unio mystica. There it emerged that Christ cannot be conceived of in isolation from Christians. In the next two sections, we will conversely direct our attention to the human involvement in our union with Christ.97 It therefore seems clear that salvation cannot be conceived of apart from faith and believers. All the same, we must still consider whether it is at all possible to thematise the Christian’s relationship with Christ and treat it as a topic on its own. Van de Beek has argued that Augustine and Calvin devoted too much attention to faith, and expressed his fear that the thematisation of faith threatens to introduce too much anthropology into theology.98 This fear, we admit, is not at all unfounded. Faith can be so isolated from salvation that it becomes something added to that salvation.99 This in turn undermines the fulfilled character of salvation and places man in a position of independence before the face of God. In the final analysis, man may in practice end up being the one to hold the key to salvation in his own hands. In his dispute with Erasmus, Luther poignantly showed that humanity in this way usurps the place of God. Another altogether understandable danger is that the thematisation of faith will lead salvation to be understood in a way that corresponds more to human needs than to the justice of God. The list of classical and modern theological conceptions in which the spiritual man supplants the crucified Christ from the centre of the stage is endless. In post-Enlightenment theology it is wise to be on guard for these forms of anthropocentrism. 96 Cf. Burger 2008:152 – 154, 245 – 251, 537. Burger refers to 2 Cor 5:21 as an indication that participation and imputation go together, p. 247. It is worth noting that Burger is of the opinion that Paul applies the aspect of imputation to the believers of the Old Testament, p. 251, 540. He argues that imputation was separated from imputation at the time of the Reformation, p. 251. The structure of Calvin’s Institutes shows that the opposite is in fact true. For Calvin justification functions in the context of our union with Christ. 97 J.D.G. Dunn 1998:390 – 411 has powerfully emphasised the importance of spiritual union with Christ; it is a matter of one’s existential union with the living Christ. Dunn lists four characteristics of this union: 1. Unity in cross and resurrection; 2. corporatenes; 3. ethical consequences; and 4. an eschatological and cosmological character, p. 411. In his treatment of ‘being in Christ’, A.C. Thiselton 2007:347 – 354 addresses the function of faith. 98 Cf. A. van de Beek 2008:207 – 214, 374v. 99 W. van ’t Spijker 1993a:11 – 34 has given a clear description of this issue.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

72

Unio Mystica cum Christo

Nevertheless, it is questionable whether the danger of anthropocentrism can actually be avoided simply by refraining from thematising faith. We have already seen, for example, how Van de Beek’s silence regarding faith was no guarantee for a Christocentric eschatology. In the development of his theology of the cross and his positioning of vivificatio in the eschaton, anthropological experiences showed themselves to be more determinative for theology than the reality in Christ was. What is more, Van de Beek’s eschatological approach is so cosmologically totalitarian that personal faith disappears from the scene. In the end, an important reason to thematise faith is the fact that Scripture does so.100 Remonstrants and Pietists have each in their own manner demanded sufficient attention for the personal appropriation of salvation. In contrast to the Lutherans, the Reformed tradition decided to turn faith explicitly into an independent theme. Our Reformed fathers thought that if the topic of faith were not treated in its own right, it would remain unclear where we stand in relation to Christ and to the salvation we have in him, and what that relationship actually looks like. The great challenge for Reformed theology is to avoid turning faith into a theme independent of salvation, and conversely to avoid collapsing the two into each other. In speaking about the appropriation of the salvation we have in Christ through the Spirit, Reformed theology can do justice to the particular place of faith and the experience of faith, make room for it within the topic of salvation while forestalling Arminianism, avoid undermining the freedom in Christ by its attention for the Spirit, and fully honour the Trinitarian character of the spiritual life. It is not a silence on the relationship of faith but rather its explicit thematisation that will promote a healthy understanding of the relationship between God and humanity. To be silent regarding faith proves in the end to be more damaging than the negative effects such a silence is intended to avoid. An essential aspect of faith is the fact that it does not lend itself to the development of human individualism, but to the denial of such individualism.101 Christ does not heal us from sin X and problem Y, but he is the reality of our life such that our will comes to will alongside his will. This expresses more clearly than anything else the radical way in which faith functions as an antidote to the isolation of the human individual in an independence from God. In short, the thematisation of faith in theology as the concrete expression of Christ’s relationship with believers does not imply any sort of division of tasks between Christ and the believer. Rather, the believer exists in Christ.

100 Cf. John 3:16 – 18, 36; Rom 3:22; Heb 11:6. Cf. Immink 2003 for an original attempt at theological reflection on faith and believing. 101 Gal 2:20.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

73

Unio mystica

2.3.5. The relationship between faith and hope in the unio mystica In order to explore the human involvement in the unio mystica more deeply, this section will address the relationship between faith and hope. One characteristic shared by faith and hope is the fact that they are not determined by what is visible.102 This is where the mystery of the Holy Spirit comes in. Without the Spirit we live as sarkinoi or psychikoi by the visible.103 Conversely, through the Spirit we as pneumatikoi will come to understand the spiritual character of salvation.104 For faith, heaven is a concrete reality. We seek the things above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of the heavenly Father.105 When we look around us we see nothing of Christ’s victory, but the eyes of faith see Jesus as he is crowned with glory and honour.106 He is our advocate in heaven.107 Van Lodensteyn rendered the heavenly character of salvation with the expression: ‘It is not down here on earth’ (‘Hier beneden is het niet’).108 With this he meant to indicate that it is above that we must seek our imperishable salvation. In this sense, another light is shed on our mortality. In the context of the old aeon our mortality means that salvation is ‘not yet.’ For faith mortality is not just a sign of the unredeemed creation, but also a sign of salvation. It is by passing through death that we will share in the heavenly reality of salvation and enjoy full communion with the bodily resurrected Christ.109 This leads to a remarkable paradox in that believers who have passed away participate more fully in salvation than those who are still on earth do. Similarly, a new light is shed on the brokenness of the whole creation. The groans of creation are not those of a person who is about to meet her death. The groans of a dying person point to the end, but in the groaning of creation we hear the pangs of labour. As such, creation’s groans as a symptom of the old aeon become at once also a sign of hope.

102 Rom 8:24; 2 Cor 4:18, 5:7; Heb 2:9, 11:1. Cf. Burger 2008:554. Gräbe 2000:187 – 188 sees in Paul an appropriation of Plato. The great difference over against Platonic thought concerns the evaluation of the body and the resurrection. 103 Van Kooten 2008:302, 306, 308. 104 1 Cor 2:14 – 15. For the reception of the Spirit, cf. Rom 5:5, 8:15, 23; 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 14 – 17; 1 Thess 4:8. 105 Col 3:1. Cf. Phil 3:20. Ours is a heavenly treasure, Matt 6:19 – 20. 106 Heb 2:9. 107 Heb 7:25; 1 John 2:1. 108 Van de Beek’s booklet with the same main title (Van de Beek 2005:65 – 72) addresses an issue that is different from what its title would appear to suggest. It does not so much accentuate the heavenly character of salvation as the future bodily resurrection. 109 Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 5:1 – 9; Phil 1:21, 23.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

74

Unio Mystica cum Christo

The hope of the New Testament differs from the hope of the Old Testament. The Old Testament hope is in Christ a fulfilled hope. The New Testament hope is in itself also an eschatological category. Paul for that reason does not hope for the fulfilment of hope, but for the revelation of the hope that has already been fulfilled.110 Christian hope does not take anything away from the definitive salvation. In fact, the very opposite is true. Because salvation has reached its fulfilment in Christ, the hope for the revelation of that salvation is guaranteed.111 The future revelation of salvation is not something in addition to the fulfilled salvation, but its disclosure.112 Hiddenness and revelation do not pertain to the essence of salvation but to its modality.113 The certainty of the fulfilment anticipates its revelation. The more powerfully the certainty of salvation in Christ can function, the stronger the desire for its revelation will be. The desire for the revelation of salvation is a measure of our faith in the fulfilment of salvation. The fulfilment-revelation couplet is characteristic of the way in which the New Testament speaks about salvation. We have seen how it speaks in definitive categories about revelation and about our spiritual participation in it. At the same time, we encountered data in the New Testament that address salvation as something of the future.114 By faith we indeed participate in the fullness of salvation, but that participation itself is not yet full. It is necessary not only to mention the element of participation, but also to take into account the level of that participation. Paul writes that we now look in such a metal plate once used in the East as a kind of mirror, and that we therefore only know in part.115 There is more that we do not see than that we see. Because we participate through faith in the fullness of salvation, we look forward to our full participation in that fullness. Romans 5:9 – 10 is a typical example in which Paul uses both the aorist as well as the future tense in relation to our redemption. In the broader context of Scripture we encounter this duality also in connection with the judgment. John

110 Cf. Van Ruler 1947:58. 111 Calvin remarks that all things have been restored through the death of Christ in terms of its power and origin, but that the effect is not yet complete, CO XLVIII,72 – 73 (comm. Acts 3:21). For the relationship between faith and hope in Calvin, see CO II, 432 – 433 (Institutes III.ii.42). K. Exalto 1979:67 – 68 points to this as a defence against ‘the modern futuristic way of thinking, in which faith is indeed emptied of all meaning.’ 112 In Rom 8:18 – 19; Col 3:4, and 1 John 3:2 the word ‘revelation’ is used. A. Oepke 1982:583 – 584 remarks that it is not about the realisation of salvation, but its manifestation. 113 Cf. Van Ruler 1947:55. 114 Adoption is described in future terms in Rom 8:23. 115 1 Cor 13:12.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

75

Unio mystica

emphasises that the judgment is already taking place, while the synoptic gospels locate the judgment in the future.116 The distinction between fulfilment and revelation functions as a plea for us to speak about the first and second coming of Christ within the context of that one kairos. Here we can learn from the early church’s understanding of Scripture as it found expression in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.117 It uses the word palin to indicate that Christ will come ‘again.’ God’s act in the return of Christ is not a matter of the fulfilment of salvation but its revelation, while the notion of judgment serves to keep our estimation of the recapitulatio in a proper balance.118 The Christian life takes place under this tension of the salvation that is already present but not yet revealed. Faith cannot be understood in terms of hope, nor hope in terms of faith. The two relate to each other as the two foci of a single ellipse.119 If the focal point of the fulfilled salvation is not allowed to function, our history becomes a meaningless footnote to the Christ-history. It is from within a life lived out of the fulfilled salvation that the struggle of the ages takes place.120 This struggle is decided by Christ, and the victory is certain in Him. Yet this does not downplay the serious nature of this struggle in any way. These two realities of a certain victory and a serious ongoing struggle function paradoxically in a life of faith and hope. Faith and hope cannot be separated from each other. Either one of the two is on its own insufficient for describing the Christian life today, and yet they may also not be equated with each other.

2.3.6. Balance This investigation into the proper way to speak about salvation and our relationship to that salvation has yielded the conclusion that we can and must speak of a salvation that has already been fulfilled. In the bodily resurrection of the Christ a new state of affairs has announced itself. Because of its transcendent character this reality is not immediately accessible for us. We have access to this new state of affairs through the Holy Spirit in the mystery of our mystical union. This implies that without faith we have no access to the salvation fulfilled in Christ. 116 117 118 119

Cf. John 3:18 and 12:31 with Matt 12:41 – 42, 23:14. Schaff 1996:II,57. Heb 9:28 uses the word deuteros in reference to Christ’s second coming. Cf. Van Ruler 1947:56 – 57. In his commentary on John 12:31 and Acts 3:21 Calvin places these foci in parallel to each other. In regard to the power and cause, all things have been restored through the death of Christ, but its effect is not yet complete, CO XLVIII,72 – 73 (comm. Acts 3:21). 120 Calvin writes that the Evil One must be cast out daily, CO XLIX,288 (comm. Rom 16:19 – 20).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

76

Unio Mystica cum Christo

The mystical union is a complex spiritual reality in which the extra nos and in nobis of salvation come together. Faith and hope are concepts that we need in order to be able to do justice to the relationship of tension in which believers find themselves with respect to their salvation. These two foci allow us to do justice to the fulfilment of the eschatological salvation in Christ, while also the revelation of this fulfilled salvation is given a place within the Christian life. As such, we can account for the definitive soteriological notions of forgiveness and adoption in which we share by faith, while there is also room for the future revelation of salvation in its cosmic form. It would therefore seem that there is a discontemporaneity between our participation in salvation by faith and the cosmological dimension of this salvation.

2.4. Evaluation The path travelled in the present chapter allows us to formulate the following key or essential moments. There are numerous places in Scripture in which the eschatological notions of Christ and his salvation ought to be given a place in our theologising. It is further necessary to observe that we cannot speak simply and in an unqualified manner about our participation in the history of salvation fulfilled in Christ. An absolutisation of the eschatological dimension leaves no room for the return of Christ, the judgment it will announce, and a re-creation that surpasses every boundary of the here and now. Furthermore, an absolutisation of this eschatological dimension would imply that the wrath of God will fade into the background and that salvation will take on universalist features if it were treated more from a cosmological than a soteriological perspective. An absolutisation of the eschatological dimension of the work of Christ would further be problematic with a view to the believers of the Old Testament, as if to suggest that they had no part in the eschatological salvation. These elements show us that God’s reality is not taken captive by the history of salvation, but that God’s plan of salvation in fact surpasses that history of salvation.121 In the second place, the theologoumenon of the unio mystica cum Christo allows us to do justice to the multi-coloured and complex relationships that present themselves in this regard. That is to say, on the basis of our mystical union it is possible to speak of a participation through the Holy Spirit in the 121 Chantepie 2003 3:329 – 330 points to Christ’s acts prior to his incarnation and creation. The pre-existent Christ further implies a relativisation of the history of salvation; cf. also M.J. Kater 2011 on this issue. The glory of Christ before the world as described in John 17:5 was applied by Goodwin to the hypostatic union of God and man in the pactum salutis, M. Jones 2010:206 – 212. This is one indication that the incarnation is beyond time and therefore bears also salvation in the Old Testament.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

77

Evaluation

eschatological salvation which has been fulfilled in Christ. This participation means that believers share definitively in the forgiveness of sins and adoption as God’s children. This soteriological notion implies that one cannot speak properly of participation in salvation if the latter is applied to the cosmos alone. As a result, we do well to maintain a distinction between the soteriological and cosmological dimensions of the salvation which has been fulfilled in Christ. In the third place, it must be observed that the unio mystica is a reality of faith. The more the glory of Christ in the cross and the ascension are glorified, the more the theologia crucis functions in the tentatio (temptation) in theology and spirituality.122 In the fourth place, the current spiritual participation of believers in the fullness of salvation does not mean that we can say they participate fully in this fullness of salvation. There are still lacuna not only epistemologically, but also soteriologically (in terms of personal renewal). Believers look ahead to the full revelation of the eschatological salvation which comes to expression as it passes through the judgment and through which they share in the transformation of their bodies and the entire cosmos. Finally, we can conclude that the mystery of the unio mystica cum Christo at once opens our eyes to God’s all-encompassing plan of salvation in recreation, and also attributes a fitting place to the personal character of participation in this all-encompassing salvation.

122 According to Van ’t Spijker 1993:444 post-Enlightenment theology lost the ability to leave room for the element of ‘temptation.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

3.

The efficacy of the unio mystica

In the last chapter we saw that there is a spiritual union with Christ, and that this union causes believers to participate in the eschatological salvation fulfilled in Christ. This participation means on the one hand that we can speak in definitive terms about forgiveness and adoption, while it on the other hand produces an effect on those who participate in it. This effect of the unio cum Christo forms the topic of the present chapter. In the first part, we will list and briefly examine the biblical-theological notions illustrating that our union with Christ is the source of renewal. The rest of the chapter will be devoted to a study of the effect of our union with Christ for our relationship to God, for our relationship to our neighbour, for our relationship to our self, and for our relationship to the world. The aim of this chapter is primarily exploratory in nature.

3.1. The unio mystica as a source of renewal 3.1.1. Christologically determined metaphors Union with the crucified Christ places us in a qualitatively new relationship that is beyond our human order. For this reason we can speak about our death to sin, to the law, and to the principles of the world.1 Our union with the resurrection of Christ is no less radical in nature.2 In fact, Scripture speaks in this context of a ‘new creation.’3 In Scripture we find different metaphors for the effects of this new state of affairs. One such metaphor that expresses this, albeit indirectly, is the marriage

1 Cf. resp. Rom 6:11, 7:4; Col 2:2. 2 Col 3:1. 3 2 Cor 5:17. D. Guthrie 1981:649 mentions a mystical and sacramental interpretation.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

80

The efficacy of the unio mystica

metaphor.4 After all, it is hard to imagine that the unity of bride and Bridegroom will have no effect on her life and thinking in the here and now.5 The effect of the spiritual union comes out more clearly in the image of the Head and the body.6 This particular metaphor emphasises in an especially powerful manner that Christians are not just related to Christ, but that they as the body are inseparably tied to their head. With this, the metaphor indicates that spiritual union indeed has an effect. Clothing functions as a third metaphor, and expresses that salvation has been fulfilled in Christ.7 This comes out in that the new clothing does not have to be fabricated, and only needs to be pulled on. The metaphor thus expresses in a remarkably clear manner that personal renewal has an extra nos-character, while it also depicts the responsibility of the Christian since the old clothing must be put off and the new put on. What stands out in the gospel of John is the group of metaphors commonly referred to as the ‘I am’-statements.8 These go back to God’s self-revelation to Moses at the burning bush, by virtue of which Jesus appears to use them to emphasise that he is God.9 The best example from the ‘I am’-statements that relates to personal renewal is the metaphor of the vine and the branches.10 A vine is no mighty cedar or stately oak, but an ugly and unsightly plant which must be propped up to stay upright. In the context of the Jewish religion, the vine was used as a symbol for the nation of Israel.11 That Christ described himself just as his people did using the image of the vine is an illustrative example of corporative thinking.12 The Old Testament texts that refer to Israel as the vine address the infidelity and barrenness of the people of God.13 That Christ calls himself the true vine is indicative of a contrast. While 4 Eph 5:22 – 33. 5 The mystical union is no escape from the here and now, but it does bear fruit in the here and now, cf. Dunn 1998:411. 6 1 Cor 12:12 – 31. 7 Cf. Burger 2008:529 – 530. Here we can also think of Eph 2:10. For the metaphor of clothing, cf. Rom 13:12, 14; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:22, 24 – 25; Col 3:8 – 10; Heb 12:1; Jas 1:21; Rev 6:11, 19:8. 8 Cf. John 6:35, 41, 48, 51, 8:12, 9:9, 10:7, 9, 11, 14, 11:25, 14:6. 9 L. Morris 1995:323 speaks of ‘overtones of divinity’, C.S. Keener 2003:I, 680 of ‘overtones from God’s theophanic Presentation of Himself.’ 10 Resp. John 6:48. John 15:1 – 8. Cf. Burger 2008:363 – 369. This image is preferred by John Owen, WJO I,367, III,414, XI,340 – 341. 11 Ps 80:8 – 16, Is 5:1 – 7, 27:2; Jer 2:21; Ezek 15:2 – 6, 17:5 – 10, 19:10 – 14; Hos 10:1. Cf. Mark 12:1 – 9. The vine was a national symbol and appeared on the coins of the Maccabees, L. Morris 1995:593. 12 Cf. Josh 7; 2 Sam 24; 1 Kings 9:3 – 9; 1 Chron 21; Rom 5:12 – 21. In Hos 11:1 Israel is called ‘son’, and this comes to fulfilment in Christ, Matt 2:15. Cf. Exod 4:22; Ps 2:7; Prov 30:4; Is 9:6 – 7. In Is 49:1 – 6 Israel is called the light, while in John 8:12 Jesus applies this to himself. 13 C.S. Keener 2003:II,993. Cf. H. Berkhof 1979:244 – 249, although he speaks of Israel as a vineyard instead of a vine. One wonders whether one would actually be justified in this

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The unio mystica as a source of renewal

81

the road of Israel proved to be a dead end, Christ is the fulfilment of the Old Testament people of God. He is the guarantee of their fruitfulness.14 The metaphor thus implies first of all that there can be no fruit without union with Christ by faith.15 This implies a harsh judgment on the virtues of unbelievers, as if they are nothing more than ‘shining sins’ (Augustine).16 Fransiscus Ridderus (1620 – 1683), a well-known representative of the Nadere Reformatie or ‘Dutch Second Reformation’, admitted that non-Christians can be an embarrassing example to Christians.17 Nevertheless, the fact remains that faith is a decisive criterion for the spiritual quality of our virtuous acts.18 Two theologians who expressed this in a most poignant manner were Jonathan Edwards (1703 – 1758) and Sören Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855). Conversely, Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge (1803 – 1875) has demonstrated better than any other theologian that believers too can act in unbelief. This realisation shows us that the fruit which comes from Christ is not the result of our own efforts, religion, or society. We do not ourselves produce fruit, but bear the fruit of Christ. Related to this is a second implication. The eschatological character of renewal opposes any conception of sanctification that conceives of it as a superadditum from an independent principle in the believer, or as a supplement which the believer himself contributes to his salvation. Sanctification is not a human project that begins after God has done his work; the source of renewal lies in the person of Christ. A third implication concerns the quality of the fruit of Christ.19 The fruit of Christ is not of human order, but it is characterized by another quality. The life of the believer manifests something of the eschatological life, which departs radically from all our expectations. We can only stand in shock when we read that in the kingdom of God we must hate our father and mother, that following Jesus takes precedence over burying our own father, that we ought wholeheartedly to

14

15 16 17 18 19

context to speak of an ‘experimental garden’ (‘proeftuin’) and of ‘substitution’ (‘plaatsvervanging’). Cf. Gal 5:22 and Matt 3:8 for the singular and plural use of fruit. Certain Dutch language translations use the plural in John 15:2. The singular, however, emphasises that there are different aspects to the one Christian life, rather than being about a sum total of individual fruits. Keener 2003:I,997 – 998. Cf. 2 Cor 2:16, 3:5 – 6; HC question 91. For this argument, see Turretini, ITE II.xvii.iv.vi-ix. Fr. Ridderus 1671 wrote a book on this subject entitled De beschaemde christen (‘The embarrassed Christian’). Cf. Heb 11:6. Jesus said that the Pharisees and teachers of the law taught God ‘in vain’, Matt 15:9; Mark 7:7. According to Van Houwelingen 1997:310, 312 – 315 the fruit refers to the fruit of the preaching of the gospel. Broader New Testament trajectories include every manifestation of the vitality of faith, Matt 3:8, 10, 7:16 – 20, 12:33; John 4:36, 12:24; Rom 6:22; Gal 5:22; Eph 5:9; Phil 1:11; Col 1:10; Heb 12:11; Jas 3:18; Jude:12. Cf. Keener 2003:II,997 – 998; Burger 2008:365.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

82

The efficacy of the unio mystica

forgive the sins of a brother, and that we are to love our enemies.20 The example of the rich young man shows that, regardless of the respect we may have for Christ, this radicality of God’s kingdom is simply out of our reach.21

3.1.2. The pneumatological dimension of the unio mystica Union with Christ is a mystery of the Holy Spirit. The twentieth century has seen a growing consensus on the eschatological character of pneumatology, which Geerhardus Vos (1862 – 1949), the pioneer of biblical theology, already expressed in his 1912 ‘The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit.’22 Believers have received the firstfruit of the Spirit as a pledge of the full revelation of the eschatological kingdom.23 The Spirit is not only the guarantee of the eschaton, but the eschaton is at the same time also transcendentally present in the Holy Spirit.24 In this way believers participate in the variegated riches of the operation of the Spirit who makes us alive and pours out love in our hearts.25 The Spirit gives us joy, power, and certainty.26 He is also our advocate who takes up our case before the world.27 In several places the New Testament refers to this mystery of the indwelling of the Spirit.28 The indwelling Spirit is the answer to the corruption which dwells 20 Cf. Matt 5:44, 8:21 – 22, 10:37, 18:21 – 35; Luke 14:26. 21 Matt 19:16 – 29. 22 So J.P. Versteeg 1980:2; online at http://www.biblicaltheology.org/eapcs.pdf (last accessed 11 July 2011). For the Old Testament, references include Is 32:15, 44:3 – 5, 61:1 – 11; Ezek 36:27, 39:29, 47:1 – 12; Joel 2:28 – 29; Zech 12:10. John the Baptist pointed to the coming of the Spirit, Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33. In Jesus the Spirit is present, but at the same time he points ahead to the definitive outpouring of the Spirit, Matt 3:16, 12:28 and Acts 10:38 with Luke 24:49; John 7:38 – 39, 14:26, 15:26, 16:13 – 14; Acts 1:4 – 5, 8. The New Testament church is baptised in the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor 12:13. The New Testament can speak of the fullness of God or Christ, and of the Spirit, Eph 3:16, 19, 4:10, 13, 5:18. 23 Rom 8:23. Cf. Gräbe 2000:254. Cf. 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:14. The Spirit is also called the seal, Eph 1:13, 4:30. The NKJV translates aparchy in the plural, perhaps out of the consideration that the genitive is partitive. Van Ruler 1947:147 – 164 rather understands it as a genitive of apposition so as to distinguish between the form of the Spirit and the eschatological kingdom of God, and – in analogy to the end to Christ’s humanity – offer room theologically for ending of the indwelling of the Spirit in the eschaton. For the latter point, cf. also Van Ruler 1047:215. 24 Cf. P.J. Gräbe 2000:249 – 250, 253 – 254. Horton 2011:658, 660, 704 emphasises that the transforming power of the coming age already breaks through to some degree in our life. 25 John 6:63; Rom 5:5. 26 Rom 14:17; 1 Thess 1:6; 1 Cor 2:4; Eph 3:16; 1 Thess 1:5; Rom 8:15 – 16; 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13 – 14, 4:30. 27 John 16:5 – 15. In this context it is important that he prays for us, Rom 8:26. 28 Rom 8:10 – 11. Cf. Ezek 36:26.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The unio mystica as a source of renewal

83

within the human heart.29 The fruit of the Holy Spirit stands opposed to the works of the flesh, so that God’s law is fulfilled in our life beginning from within us.30 The singular ‘fruit’ must be understood in contrast to the plural ‘works.’ In the concept of the ‘fruit’ we hear something of the mystery of the Spirit. When the Spirit works, he does not seek attention as we do with our works. The use of the singular ‘fruit’ indicates that the various aspects of the Spirit’s fruit cannot be received in isolation from each other. These observations are accompanied by a number of consequences. In the first place, it follows that it is impossible to be a Christian without doing good works.31 The New Testament points this out very concretely. Christians are, for example, to be peaceful and hospitable.32 Good works manifest themselves in the practical relationships between brothers in legal cases, in the behaviour of widows, in the interaction between husband and wife and parents and children.33 The rich are incited to be liberal, and to treat their workers humanely.34 The New Testament even addresses our relationship to the government, going so far as to touch upon its fiscal implications.35 All these examples serve to demonstrate that believers participate in concrete human life, even though the quality of their life is of another order. For instance, the notion that it is more blessed to give than to receive in the kingdom of God indicates that the deeply rooted problem of greed has been broken through.36 Similarly, turning our left cheek after we have been struck on the right cheek shows that believers participate in a transcendent kingdom.37 The radical nature of God’s kingdom is also clear from everything that conflicts with it. The New Testament not only includes concrete admonitions to stay away from drunkenness, quarrels, and fornication, but Paul also stresses the serious nature of these matters when he writes that fornicators, idolaters, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, and revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God.38 The faith of those who do not control their tongues is useless.39 This goes

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Gen 6:5, 8:21: Matt 15:18 – 20; Gal 5:19 – 21. Cf. G.C. den Hertog 2008:85. Rom 8:4. Turretini argued extensively in favour of this, ITE II.xvii.iii.i-xiii. Rom 12:13, 18; Heb 13:2. Like-mindedness is specifically mentioned, Rom 12:16. J. Bridges 2006:38 identified 27 positive characteristics for Christians. 1 Cor 6:1 – 9, 7:1 – 9; Eph 5:22 – 6:9; Col 4:18 – 22; 1 Tim 5:1 – 16. 1 Tim 6:17 – 18; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 6:1 – 2; Eph 6:5 – 9; Jas 5.1 – 6. For an appeal to hold an offering, cf. 2 Cor 8 – 9. Rom 13:1 – 7. Cf. 1 Pet 2:11 – 18. Acts 20:35. Matt 5:39. Rom 13:13, 1 Cor 6:10. Cf. Matt 5:3 – 8, 7:15, 15:17 – 20, 18:21 – 35. Jas 1:26. Cf. Jas 3:1 – 12. James points to anger and bad temper, Jas 1:19 – 21.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

84

The efficacy of the unio mystica

to show that the kingdom is not just about the errors that can be observed in civil life, but also about the sins that we hardly notice in one another. In the third place, the concrete expression of the Christian life can be extended so far that the imitatio Christi comes to take the place of the unio mystica, as happened in certain radical medieval movements. Their followers thought that we are called to imitate Jesus literally in poverty, celibacy, miracles, and suffering.40 Yet their examples serve to remind us that the New Testament cannot be applied directly to our current situation, but requires a hermeneutical process of translation. These examples also demonstrate that a sound Christian life is not exhausted in concrete external acts, but pertains to the inner life as well. In other words, it also has to do with the disposition of the heart.41 It is not the maintenance of certain rituals that makes us true believers; rather, believers are marked by the circumcision of the heart, in the Spirit.42 Where this circumcision is absent, the exercise of our faith amounts to nothing more than hypocrisy.43 Conversely, this disposition does not express itself in sensational acts, but the root of life is found in the hands of those who shun such public acts and are faithful in the small things for God’s sake.

3.1.3. The Trinitarian character of the Christian life The preceding section revealed that there are numerous aspects and dimensions to the effects of the union with Christ. In the Reformed tradition a number of attempts have been made to create some order among these effects. For example, in the third part of the Institutes Calvin treats the Christian life from the fourfold perspective of self-denial, bearing the cross, meditation on the future life, and the use of this world and its helps. The fact that three of the four pertain to our life in this world marks the importance of the ‘this-worldly’ orientation. The ordering we find in the traditional liturgical form for baptism speaks about a new obedience. This obedience is determined by love for the Triune God with our whole heart, our renunciation of the world, the death of our old nature, and our walk in a new and pious life. Here the emphasis is on the believer’s relationship with God, while the relationship to the neighbour is not explicitly 40 G.C. Berkouwer 1952a:135 describes imitation as the essence of sanctification, where he distances himself from the notion of an ethical ideal and in contrast emphasises it as an inner disposition, 145 – 152. 41 Cf. Matt 7:15, 11:29, 15:17 – 20; O’Donovan 1986: 204 – 225 on the character and intentions of the moral subject; Lewis 1952:63 – 64. 42 Rom 2:28 – 29. This is why Jesus spoke about the inner room, Matt 6:6 43 Matt 6:5 – 8, 23:1 – 36; 7:1 – 5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The unio mystica as a source of renewal

85

mentioned, although the latter is implicitly included in the other facets of the believer’s life. The Heidelberg Catechism takes a particularly important place in the tradition. The significant decision was made in this document to relate the unio mystica to the three offices of Christ (i. e. prophet, priest, and king), so that Christians too are spoken of in terms of these three offices.44 The advantage of this approach is its Christological character. Once again the catechism does not make the relationship to the world explicit; rather, this dimension is included implicitly in the offices of the Christian. Another ordering has recently been proposed by J.I. Packer (1926- ).45 In order to describe the Christian life, he applied the image of the balance between the head, body, and limbs of a healthy person. There are people with what could be called a ‘spiritual hydrocephalus.’ They are those who devote all their energy and attention to right doctrine, but omit the use of their hands and feet. There are also Christians whose head is much too small and body too fat. This characterises those who place all emphasis on inner experience, but are not concerned about the truth. And, finally, there are Christians with a small head and a small body, whose limbs are proportionally way too large. This describes those who emphasise a practical Christianity at the expense of truth and experience, which they neglect. Packer’s image thus serves to emphasise powerfully that a healthy Christian life is characterised by a careful balance between doctrine, spirituality, and practice. The drawback of this image, however, is that it fails to explain the different dimensions in which the Christian life manifests itself. This brief exploration in the history of theology can serve as a plea to consider the Christian life from a fully Trinitarian perspective. This approach shows itself in the fulfilment of God’s law, in union with Christ, and in the power of his Spirit.46 The fulfilment of the law concerns love for God first of all, and then love for our neighbour. In the third place, it also relates to ourselves, since Scripture teaches us that we are to love our neighbour as ourselves. Finally, the classical texts from the Reformed tradition emphasise that Christians cannot be thought of in isolation from the world created by God. In the following sections we will sketch the contours of some of the problems that present themselves in each of these four dimensions of our theological reflection.

44 Chantepie de la Saussaye 2003:3,324 identifies these notions as being central to the Christian life. J.H. Scholten 1870:I,394 – 419 was of the opinion that the development of the three offices of the Christian would lead to a ‘triumph for Protestantism’. 45 J.I. Packer 1992:167 – 170. 46 For the fulfilment of the law, cf. Matt 22:36 – 40; Rom 13:8 – 10; Gal 5:14; 1 Tim 1:5. In 1 Cor 13:13 love is said to be greater than faith and hope.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

86

The efficacy of the unio mystica

3.2. Relationship to God 3.2.1. Resignatio Believers participate in Christ’s relationship to the Father and his disposition toward him. The most remarkable aspect of this disposition is the unconditional surrendering of his will to the Father.47 This surrender is an exclusive substitutionary moment in that it cannot be applied to Christians, even though they can as such demonstrate this surrender itself. This raises the question how believers participate in this disposition in view of their love for God above everything else.48 The Danish writer Sören Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855) addressed the topic of our unconditional surrender to God in a profound book on the sacrifice of Abraham.49 What according to human moral standards is seen as murder was reckoned to Abraham as obedience to God.50 Of course, if Abraham were to lose his son for a good cause, everyone would have understood him and he would have become a hero. Yet the act of complete surrender to God as related in the book of Genesis is nothing short of absurd. According to Kierkegaard there can be no faith that is not characterised by resignatio (i. e. surrender of the self to God), because faith is more than resignatio. By insisting on this, Kierkegaard demanded attention for the highly personal character of faith. Over against G.W.F. Hegel (1770 – 1831) he emphasised that God does not operate by means of general rules. The choice for this point of departure was closely related to the civilised Christianity Kierkegaard saw everywhere around him. His emphasis on resignatio must thus be viewed as a warning against cheap grace and as a plea for an authentic Christianity. Kierkegaard was not the first to harbour such concerns. Medieval theology had emphasised that the authenticity of spiritual life is marked by resignatio and even the resignatio ad infernum (i. e. surrender to God to the point of hell).51 We find the same in Luther, although it is important to note that he did not understand this resignatio as a gate to salvation but as a characteristic of faith.52 Something similar can also be seen in Calvin’s letter to Cardinal Sadoleto when he wrote that Christians have higher interests than their own salvation, namely,

47 Cf. Matt 26:39; John 5:30, 6:38 48 Cf. D. Guthrie 1981:664; Rom 12:2. O’Donovan 1986:65, 248 uses the ‘dangerous but exciting term “divinization”’ in order to indicate that believers begin to love as God loves. 49 S. Kierkegaard 2006. 50 S Kierkegaard 2006:24 – 25. 51 They had to make themselves as nothing, cf. F. van der Pol 1993:99 – 105, 120 – 129. 52 Cf. C. Graafland 1982:220 – 221, 233.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to God

87

the glory of God.53 In the seventeenth century, Jean de Labadie (1610 – 1674) appropriated aspects of the resignatio which he discovered in medieval theology. So also what a number of Puritans wrote had close affinities with this concept, although they also met with fierce resistance from Jacobus Koelman (1632 – 1695).54 Koelman’s protest reminds us that the concept of resignatio is not without its problems. Pastorally, for example, there is the problem in that believers often wonder whether they are really ready to give this total self-negation. Moreover, in our present day culture the unconditional obedience of Abraham elicits associations of terrorism and religious fundamentalism.55 And, finally, Abraham’s sacrifice raises questions of a hermeneutical order; it would, after all, be strange if fathers today were to think that they are called to sacrifice their children like Abraham was. Although we cannot address the many hermeneutical problems at this point, we can still insist that this story teaches us that a fine balance is needed when we speak about unconditional surrender to God. This leads us to posit several preconditions necessary for a balanced treatment of resignatio. In the first place, resignatio ought not to be spoken of cheaply. This is, however, a danger latent in the thought of someone like John Piper (1946- ). In his reaction to a religion that places human needs at the centre of the stage, he is correct to emphasise that God must be left to be God. Where he errs is that he goes so far as to insist that Christians can see beauty even in God’s threats.56 This shows that Piper operates within a world that is entirely different from that of Kierkegaard. While the latter experienced absurdity and suffered trials, there is no room for these and the like in Piper’s theology. With Piper, things simply appear too nice and too refined. In the second place, it is with good reason that the Reformed tradition has resisted the notion that one must be indifferent with respect to his salvation. Many within the Reformed tradition thought to hear in such an indifference the echoes of a denial of the goal of the incarnation, namely, the salvation of sinners. They countered this tendency by emphasising that God’s glory does not conflict with our salvation since the salvation of sinners is in fact to his glory.57 This point of connection between doxology and soteriology gives a perspective to the notion of Christian spirituality. Samuel Rutherford (16000 – 1661) thus uses the image of the bride and the Bridegroom in order to highlight that Christ is not 53 CO V,391 – 392. 54 Cf. J. Koelman 1988:30 – 50, 1770:254 – 255; W. — Brakel 1685:50, 82 – 83, 166 – 171; I. Mather 1972; J. Edwards WJE:4,170. See also W. van Gent 1978; C. Graafland 1982:233, 1983:15, 1989:304 – 322, 333 – 336; A. de Reuver 1992:201 – 202, 214, 231. 55 R. Dawkins 2008:41 – 50, 341 – 348 repeatedly draws connections between religion and terror. 56 J. Piper 1995:205. 57 Cf. WJO V,415 – 417.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

88

The efficacy of the unio mystica

loved with the love of a prostitute, where gifts are more important than the person.58 At the same time he does say that believers use Christ in order to be saved.59 This creates room within Rutherford’s theology and spirituality for the believers’ longing for heaven.60 This soteriological framework for resignatio is in the third place related to the distinction between Christ and believers within the unio cum Christo. There are several ways in which believers fully participate in Christ and his work, but there are other respects in which the position of Christ is exclusive. Substitution, for example, is something done by Christ alone and is therefore exclusive in character. And only Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath and trembled at it. Christians do not have to drink this cup again, but may live out of the salvation which has come about in Christ. In the fourth place, resignatio cannot be separated from faith. Kierkegaard wrote that unconditional surrender precedes faith. This statement seemed to imply an element of conditionality, as if we can offer ourselves to God without faith. Yet a closer examination of Kierkegaard’s intentions shows that resignatio is bound up within faith. Abraham sacrificed his son Isaac out of the unshakable conviction that he would receive him back from the dead.61 Deep in his heart there was the conviction that this strange course of affairs had to do with God’s salvific will. This introduces a very wide perspective to the concept of resignatio. In our resignatio we do not surrender ourselves to a whimsical, absolute Eastern despot as Esther did, but to the God of salvation. He does not seek his own interests, but he gives himself in creation and re-creation.62 God’s salvific disposition can be seen in the Son, who did not come to be served but to serve.63 The evangelical resignatio must therefore not be described ontologically, but is a relational category. We love God without reserve, because he has loved us and paid the highest price for that love.64 Within such a framework we can deny everything for the sake of Christ.65 Resignatio is therefore not a condition to faith, but a most beautiful fruit of it.66 And the most beautiful fruit of faith is a passion for God. This means that we not only love him when he gives us something, but also when he does not. Christian spirituality is not about our needs, but about God. With some adaptation we could therefore say that God’s 58 Rutherford 2006:72 – 73. On p. 589 he speaks about Jesus’ kiss from hell. 59 Rutherford 2006:558. 60 Rutherford 2006:590 uses the concentration on the person of Christ also to overcome the paralysis resulting from doubts about one’s salvation. 61 Heb 11:17; Kierkegaard 2006:17, 101 – 102. 62 Cf. Matt 5:45; John 3:16; Rom 8:32; R. Murray McCheyne 1982:445. 63 Matt 20:28. In Jesus we see the true face of God, John 1:18; 14:9. 64 1 John 4:19. Cf. Gal 2:20; 1 John 3:1. 65 Phil 3:7 – 8. Cf. WJO V,449 66 Gal 5:6.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to God

89

‘fortune’ is the fortune of the Christian. In contrast to hypocrites, believers do not rest in their spirituality but in God.67 This surrender will be to our good because in God we find rest for our hearts as well as the total fulfilment of all our needs.68 This order is in fact reversed in Piper. His central thesis is that God is most glorified when we find our deepest satisfaction in him.69 As such, he seems to follow the line of the Westminster Catechism: ‘What is the chief and highest end of man? Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully enjoy him for ever.’ And yet, Piper introduces a subtle difference, for he reduces the word ‘enjoy’ to pleasure. In addition, Piper views the second part of the sentence as the road to the realisation of the first part. Accordingly, the emphasis is no longer on God but on our happiness. Entirely in line with this, Piper refers to himself as a ‘Christian hedonist.’ But if our happiness comes to occupy the central place, we can no longer say that the natural desire for happiness forms a hindrance to us living out of grace. In other words, there would then no longer be any room for resignatio if a direct line were to be drawn from God to our happiness – and yet, there are times when believers are most unhappy with God. Thus Piper’s conception appears in the end to be Platonic in the sense that it leaves no room for brokenness. In spite of the influence Platonism had upon his thought, Augustine was much more nuanced in the way he spoke about our search for happiness. He emphasises that we love ourselves if we do not absolutise our self-love.70 With this he sought to emphasise that our happiness is not a goal in itself. If we deny our own happiness as goal, we will share in the true happiness which is found in God. In short, there is no happiness in God without resignatio.

3.2.2. An affective unio The preceding has shown that union with Christ encompasses total existence as governed by the notions of faith, hope, and love. Faith will turn into sight, hope into happiness, but love remains love.71 In love we see something of the eschaton shining through already in the present. The tradition richly testified to this, especially in its descriptions of the life of prayer : ‘Secret prayer […] is admission into the privy-chamber of heaven. When thou hast shut thine own closet, when God and thy soul are alone, with this key 67 68 69 70 71

WJE 2:376 – 383. Ps 73:25 – 26. Cf. Calvin’s comments on Ps 16:5, 73:25 – 26. Cf. J. Piper 1995:9. So O’Donovan 1980:40, 108. We must also forget ourselves, p. 38. So G.G. de Kruijf 2008:115.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

90

The efficacy of the unio mystica

thou openest the chambers of paradise, and enterest the closest of divine love […]. I may term secret prayer the invisible flight of the soul into the bosom of God; out of this heavenly closet rises Jacob’s ladder, whose rounds are all of light; its foot stands upon the basis of the covenant in thy heart, its top reaches the throne of grace.’72 The Puritan John Welch (156801622) wrote the following: ‘Remember, when thou prayest, the heavens are opened and thou gettest the chambers of his presence open to thee […]. What is prayer then? It is sweet conference betwixt God and thy soul, when the soul talks homely with God, by laying before him, as a merciful Father, its own wants and necessities as God revealed them to him. So there is no need of a master of requests there, for to receive thy bill and to present it to the king, and see if he will accept of it or not; but thou mayest step to the King thyself or to the King’s Son, who shall take thee by the hand and lead thee unto his Father, and by his blood he hath made a way into heaven that a sinner may step in boldly upon that blood, not to the holy of holies, but into the highest heavens.’73 We hear the same sounds reflected in Calvin’s spirituality. According to him, true piety consists in the experience of love for God as Father and reverence for him as Lord.74 Well-known is his observation that the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is more easily experienced than understood.75 Faith is often described using experiential words such as ‘taste’, ‘feel’, or ‘enjoy.’76 Similarly, sorrow as the converse side of love is marked by the continual mortificatio. This is a notion that Karl Barth resisted, especially in its form as developed by Kohlbrugge.77 He objected that such a conception not only hinders the progress of vivification, but that mortification also ends up being expressed in psychological terms. He thus charged that Kohlbrugge was more a child of romanticism than he himself would admit. What Barth missed in this psychological moment was an element of objectivity. Barth’s criticism indicates to us that experientia (‘experience’) can indeed become so isolated that one no longer recognises that agapÀ (selfless love) is oriented ad extra (‘toward the outside’) and not ad intra (‘toward the inside’). This consideration, however, is insufficient reason to deny every affective aspect from faith. When we realise that the Christian life is about union with the person 72 So D. Webber 1981:52. A Google-search revealed that A.M. Toplady used the same words in his diary entry from 14 January1768. 73 So P. Lewis 1981:115 – 116. 74 Cf. F.L. Battles 1984:192 – 193. 75 CO II,1032 – 1033 (Institutes III.xx.33). 76 CO II,100 – 101, 504 (Institutes I,xiii,13; III,vi,4). 77 CD IV/2,575 – 577. The Heidelberg Catechism is also characterised by the dimension of experience.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to God

91

of Christ, the affective character of this relationship seems to be entirely justified. In this way, a path of love comes to be traced throughout the Christian life. Ethics depend on mysticism, both in liturgy as well as in the hidden communion with God out of which our worship of him arises. There is nothing that our worship accomplishes, and yet it is essential to faith. Theologically we need to ask in this context whether the work of the Holy Spirit applies to the will alone, or whether it also touches the mind or intellect. Reformed theology considers it illegitimate to reduce the Spirit’s operation in such a way that the intellectual dimension is cut off from it. An even greater reduction is effected if spiritual knowledge is described as a psychological category. Jonathan Edwards treated the affective character of spiritual life as a theme of its own in his Religious Affections.78 Highly significant about this work is the fact that its motto is a text that refers to the believer’s inexpressible joy (1 Peter 1:8). There is no doubt that the description of the kingdom of God as joy is a fully biblical theme.79 This joy can be further narrowed down to a joy over God and his acts. Given the calamities we see in our world, this point of departure also confronts us with several difficult questions. These questions become even more poignant when the temptations relate to the quality of God’s acts in the history of salvation. Why did Israel’s salvation have to be accompanied by the calamities that came over the seven nations in the land of Canaan?80 Edwards’s theology has no room for such questions because it has no grasp on the paradox of spiritual life and fails to leave an essential place for the existence of trials. This is not unrelated to the fact that the Word- or faith-structure of the unio mystica has more or less disappeared from view in his theology.81 As a result, his theology has no way to account for the brokenness and contumacy of the Christian life. Yet as long as we keep these shortcomings in mind, we can for the rest make good use of Edwards’s insights concerning the affective character of religion. Edwards takes his starting point in the two faculties of the soul, namely, the mind and will. The affections are subsumed under the will. Edwards’s position on the unity of mind and will provides him with an instrument so that he can distinguish between affection on the one hand, and passion or emotion on the other. While emotion involves no illumination of the mind, the spiritual affections go hand in hand with spiritual knowledge. 78 79 80 81

WJE 2:95 – 99. Cf. W. van Vlastuin 2001:146 – 149. Cf. Ps 43:4, 119:14; Luke 15:7, 10, 19:6; Acts 8:39, 16:34; Rom 14:17; Gal 5:22; 1 Pet 1:8. R. Dawkins 2006:268 – 293 has raised these questions in a highly provocative manner. Cf. W. van Vlastuin 2001:216 – 217.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

92

The efficacy of the unio mystica

Spiritual affection goes together with love, which is the essence of true religion. With this, Edwards offers us a useful tool for doing justice to the affective side of our union with Christ. Our love explains our joy. This joy in God is like a drug for us when we face temptations. On the other hand, when these affections are absent, we begin to long for the joy of God’s salvation.82 Believers therefore fear losing the experience of God’s favour.83 It is necessary to add some nuance to Edwards’s position, however. We do not thirst for joy but for God. If we are fixated upon our joy, we will fail to share in it. It is by abandoning our joy for the sake of God that joy will be added to us as well. The road to joy is the road of resignatio. The use of the concept of resignatio thus serves to highlight that the affective dimension functions within the context of faith, in which there is also room for trials. These trials would not really be trials if our hearts were not directed to the experience of our mystical union with Christ.

3.3. Relationship to our neighbour 3.3.1. A Good Samaritan Remarkably, Jesus called love for one another a ‘new command.’84 In an absolute sense this was of course not a new command.85 This command to love God over everything else was, however, given in a new salvation-historical context.86 Moreover, Jesus’ radicalisation of this command provided it with a new focus. Also remarkable was the fact that Jesus said that this second command was like the first.87 With this he declared that all those compelling things which apply to our love of God above everything else find their concrete expression in our love for our neighbour.88 Our neighbour is a creature of God; he or she is a child of God or can become one.89 In light of Jesus’ words, neighbour love thus comes to function as a criterion for the love of God.90 This introduces a problem, however. For is there still room in our heart to love our neighbour, if we are to love God with all our heart? Early in his life, Augustine 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

Ps 51:14a. This notion can also be found in Calvin, CO XXXI,77 (comm. Ps 6:7 – 8). John 13:34. In John 15:12 Jesus says that we must love each other just as he has loved us. Neighbour love was not new; see Lev. 19:18, and cf. 1 John 2:7. Cf. Morris 1995:562. According to Edwards WJE 4:266 in the Old Testament we had to love our neighbour as ourselves, and in the New Testament just like Christ has loved us. Matt 22:39. Cf. K.H. Miskotte 1969:261. Cf. O’Donovan 1980:123; Edwards WJE 8:133 – 134. 1 John 3:16 – 19, 4:7 – 21.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to our neighbour

93

spoke about ‘using’ one’s neighbour for the sake of enjoying God’s love.91 Later on, it seems, he saw that such a way of speaking fails to do justice to the love of neighbour because it degrades him or her to an object of use. Later on in his life he therefore spoke about loving your neighbour propter Deum (‘on account of God’) or in God.92 Augustine’s struggles with his formulation teach us that we must continue to maintain the love of neighbour in all its fullness. In his later solution we see that neighbour love does not compete with the love for God or with the resignatio, but that love of God is in fact what guarantees the love of neighbour. Love of God becomes concrete in neighbour love, without the former being reduced to the latter. In our conscious relationship with God, neighbour love becomes concrete in the conscious love we have for our neighbour for God’s sake. This theological dimension to our love for God is what prevents us from being bound to our neighbour, and from ignoring, domineering over, or divinising him. Instead, coram Deo (‘before the face of God’) we value the ontological weight of our neighbour as much as we do ourselves.93 There are numerous places in the New Testament in which the love of neighbour is concretely illustrated. James, for example, points to the visitation of orphans and widows.94 Such acts will earn us no public recognition, and the widow will never be able to repay us.95 Believers operate on the same wavelength as God when they show their compassion to those who are oppressed.96 This compassion is altogether necessary, since we also read in the New Testament of Jesus’ indignation over the Pharisees who devour the widows’ houses under the pretence of piety.97 For simple Christians it is a comfort to know that a loving gesture to an elderly neighbour is more valuable in the kingdom of God than impressive acts of charity that are devoid of love.98 In union with Christ, neighbour love can take the form of meekness.99 Peter used the meekness of Christ as an example for the Christians in Asia Minor who were suffering humiliation as aliens.100 The meekness of a married woman can 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

100

O’Donovan 1980:19 – 26. O’Donovan 1980:28 – 29, 32. Cf. O’Donovan 1986:228 – 230. Jas 1:27a. Luke 14:12 – 14. Cf. 1 Cor 1:26 – 29. Here we hear echoes of the Old Testament, Deut 10:18; 24:17; Ps 68:6, 146:9. Matt 23:14. 1 Cor 13:3. Matt 11:29. 1 Pet 2:23. Old Testament leaders were also characterised by compassion, Num 12:3. This is all the more remarkable because Moses could also be violent, Exod 2:12, 32:19 – 20. According to Gispen 1959:194 Moses acted resolutely whenever the honour of God was at stake, while he was more restrained whenever it was a matter of his own interests. Another possible explanation is that Moses grew spiritually over the course of his life. P.H.R. van Houwelingen 1991:27 – 34.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

94

The efficacy of the unio mystica

further be a quiet but powerful tool to overcome her husband’s aggression and win him for the gospel.101 Jesus’ compassionate humility can bring us to confess our sins to each other. It must have been a disarming sight to see Zaccheus at the door to confess his sins.102 Where the eschatological Spirit breaks through, it can have far reaching ramifications. Jonathan Edwards described how the revival of Northampton brought an end to many conflicts.103 People with a social nature would seem to have an advantage here, as unbelievers with a social character would appear to be able to get further than believers with an asocial character. All the same, one is left to wonder what that unbeliever with a social disposition would be if his disposition had been led by the Spirit.104 Conversely, without the Spirit acting in them, asocial believers would no doubt have been even more asocial. From the whole of Scripture, it appears that the love that is based in God extends beyond a social character ; there are, after all, limits to a social character.105 The love that is from God, however, goes beyond the point where social love ends. Just like Christ prayed for those who violated him, so true Christians are to bless those who curse them.106 If we maliciously delight in our enemies’ suffering, the mystery of Christ’s Spirit will shine in all its brightness when we come to experience true grief at their grief and delight in their victory over their grief. Then the asocial character of the believer recedes into the background, and the fruit of the Spirit takes centre stage.107 Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate true compassion.108 The stance of the priest and Levite is one that we can identify with. There is, after all, a big difference between simply donating to the Red Cross and risking our own lives in service of our fellow man. But things change radically in our mystical union with Christ, since his compassion begins to function within our own disposition. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 – 1945) described it as follows: ‘As if their own need and lack were not enough, they share in other people’s need, debasement and guilt. They have an irresistible love for the lowly, the sick, for those who are in misery, for those who are demeaned and abused, for those who 101 102 103 104 105 106

1 Pet 3:1 – 4. Luke 19:8. WJE 4:99, 146 – 147, 557, 563 – 564. Cf. C.S. Lewis 1952:163 – 170. Rom 3:13 – 17; HC question 5. Matt 5:44 – 45. Cf. Luke 24:34; Acts 7:60; Prov 25:21; Rom 12:17, 20 – 21; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9. 107 The New Testament speaks about the love of the Spirit, Rom 15:30, love in the Spirit, Col 1:8, love poured out in our heart through the Spirit, Rom 5:5. Cf. also 1 John 3:23 – 24, 4:12 – 13 for the relationship between the indwelling of the Spirit and love. 108 Luke 10:25 – 37.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to our neighbour

95

suffer injustice and are rejected, for anyone in pain and anxiety. They seek out all those who have fallen into sin and guilt. No need is too great, no sin too dreadful to reach.’109 The parable of the unforgiving servant illustrates the opposite of this love.110 To forgive a loan of 100 workdays is no small thing. Although the mention of a specific sum in the biblical text may make us think in terms of actual loans, the text of the parable shows that it is not about money but offences committed against us. This introduces the unforgiving servant into the sphere of our own experience, and demonstrates the radical nature of God’s kingdom to be deeply rooted in us, since we are forced to conclude that we will have no share in the kingdom of God if we show no compassion toward those who have wronged us.111 In pastoral work this can cause tensions, even as it is important to realise that the remorse on the part of the transgressor is a necessary condition for forgiveness.112 These qualifications do not, however, undermine the basic attitude of compassion that we must show to our transgressors. An undeniable, basic pattern in God’s kingdom is that we, out of awareness of the heartfelt compassion God witnesses to us, must from the bottom of our heart witness compassion to our neighbour even when she acts culpably. In this sense the second command is like the first. The topic of compassion thus offers much food for thought in preaching. Although the radical nature of neighbour love, as it was proclaimed in the New Testament and practiced in the early church when Christians continued to care for others in times of pestilence and – against the practice of classical antiquity – adopted foundlings out of their recognition of the close connection between the first and second great commands, can all too easily lead Christians to claim that they have a monopoly on neighbour love or else produce a kind of Christcomplex that declares all care for self to be unlawful, we can still conclude that Christian neighbour love implies a radical deepening of the neighbour love that is generally exercised out a sense of humaneness, that the credibility of the Christian faith rises or falls with this neighbour love, and that the most profound love of neighbour cannot be achieved in isolation from the Christian faith – as Julian the Apostate (331 – 363) indeed attempted to do when, following the reign of Constantine the Great (œ 280 – 337), he attacked Christianity, while attempting at one and the same time (and in vain) to incorporate into the pagan religion the care of the poor and sick that had been initiated and promoted by the Christian faith. 109 D. Bonhoeffer 2001:106. According to Calvin the only limits to our compassion are our own shortcomings, Institutes III.vii.7. 110 Matt 18:21 – 35. 111 Matt 5:7, 6:12; Jas 2:13. 112 Cf. Luke 3 – 4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

96

The efficacy of the unio mystica

3.3.2. A christ in marriage It is interesting to consider how the first command to love God relates to the second command to love our neighbour when our neighbour is a part of our marriage or belongs to our family. This question can be addressed using the story of Jesus’ mother and siblings, when they came to visit him in Capernaum.113 When they discovered that they could not make their way through the crowds, the people informed Jesus of the presence of his family. Jesus replied: ‘Who is my mother, or my brothers?’ These words witness of a radical relativisation of family ties in favour of spiritual relationships. Such a relativisation would have been entirely unimaginable in an Eastern context, and this serves to highlight for us the radical nature of God’s kingdom all the more. On several occasions this radicality is applied in particular to familial relationships.114 Family bonds can be a heavy burden to our souls, and stand between God and us.115 Jesus’ relativisation of family also relates to the fact that there is no marriage in God’s kingdom.116 In this respect it is highly significant that Scripture depicts the apostles to us without their family ties. And when it describes Jesus’ life, the biblical narrative does not place the greatest emphasis on his biological relationships. Remarkably, Jesus’ words in Mark 3 are not to be understood as an absolute relativisation of the bonds of family. Jesus was not speaking there to his blood relations, but to the crowds around him. This adds an entirely new dimension to his words; they were not intended to degrade the family, but are indicative of the priority status of Jesus’ hearers. Those who listen to Jesus are members of his family as it were. Believers are each other’s brothers and sisters because they have a common heavenly Father. This serves to indicate that the natural relations of marriage and family are not rendered obsolete for the children of the kingdom, but that they undergo the sanctifying influence of our union with Christ.117 Natural love is purified, restored, and deepened. In the end, it also is what produces the communion of saints. Believers do good to all, but above all to those who are of the household of

113 Mark 3:31 – 35. I have adopted this exegesis from J. van Bruggen 1988:97 – 100. 114 Cf. Matt 8:21 – 22, 10:37. 115 The kingdom is for children not because they are by nature more suitable for it, but because they are less burdened by the baggage of this earthly life, cf. Matt 13:22, 19:14, 22 – 24. Cf. K. Barth CD IV/2,543, 549 – 550. 116 Luke 20:34 – 35. For a relativisation of marriage and family, cf. G.G. de Kruijf 2008:108 – 110, 116. 117 Eph 5:22 – 33.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to our neighbour

97

faith.118 Augustine draws the application that a pater familias (‘father of the household’) ought for that reason to be even more servile than a slave.119 This places us before the question as to how natural love and the mutual love of Christians relate to the selfless love that we are to have for those with whom we have no natural or spiritual ties. Jesus remarks that even tax collectors have a love for each other, based as it is upon reciprocity.120 God’s love goes much deeper. The purest love gives without expecting to receive. Does this mean that our love for unbelievers is actually a more profound form of love than our love for our fellow believers, given that the former involves no reciprocity?121 Should a husband feel guilty when his love for his wife is fed by her love for him? Do parents who feel drained when their handicapped child is unable to return their love for him then have no relationship with Christ? In short, what is the relationship between the selfless love that comes from our union with Christ, and a mutual or reciprocated love? Three observations can be made at this point. Given the continuity between creation and re-creation, no contrast can exist between natural love and the love that comes from union with Christ. Through the Spirit of Christ, the reciprocity of the love of marriage is not abolished but rather intensified. At the same time, husbands are called upon to love their wives just like Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. Such love is marked by selflessness; it therefore means that selflessness is exercised within the context of a relationship that involves reciprocity. While in a natural relationship of marriage even selfishness can enter the married life, through union with Christ love is purified so that marital relationship too comes to be marked by selflessness. By way of comparison, we see something similar in the body of Christ as well. For his sake members of Christ’s body worldwide are connected to each other in a special way. In this body we do not look out for own interests but rather surrender ourselves. This is something we will see in the eschaton as well.122 The fact that believers do not keep a detailed balance sheet of the care they extend to their brothers and sisters testifies of their selflessness. Does the love in the natural and spiritual family make us immune to the selfless love that we receive (in return)? No. We do not give our love in order to receive, and yet we are glad when our love is reciprocated. In faith we are particularly receptive to the purity of the love received. In it we see something of God, and this awakens love within us. 118 Gal 6:10. Cf. 1 Cor 12:26. 119 Augustine, CD XIX,16. 120 Matt 5:46 – 47. B. Smijtegelt 1978 held nine sermons on Matt 5:47 in which he continually emphasised that Christian love extends further than humane love. 121 This issue was already addressed by Augustine, O’Donovan 1980:122, 124 – 125, 129, 134. 122 Matt 25:34 – 40.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

98

The efficacy of the unio mystica

Recognition of the qualitative differences between various relationships can serve us as an instrument for describing how reciprocity and selflessness relate to each other. The love of Christ is actualised in different ways in different situations. The love in marriage functions in a different way from the love in family ; spouses love each other as husband and wife, not as parents and children. In the church we recognise each other in our common relationship to the heavenly Bridegroom, yet without blurring the boundaries of marriage. We give ourselves for the sake of the whole body of Christ, and our love is also reciprocated – although both in church and in society there are situations in which Christ’s love in us takes the form of a love for our enemy.

3.3.3. To hate your father and mother With the preceding section in mind, Jesus’ description of the imitatio Christi (‘imitation of Christ’) strikes us as shocking. For, anyone who follows him must hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even his own life.123 A passage such as this seems only to feed extremism and to promote the dismantling of society. As a result, it is necessary to examine Scripture more carefully in order to understand the word ‘hate.’ In the LXX the same root miseoo is used in Genesis 29:31, where the Lord saw that Jacob ‘hated’ Leah. In the preceding verse, however, we read that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah. This passage therefore shows that hate is not to be understood in a psychological sense.124 Rather, this hate is relative. This is not meant to downplay the radicality of the term; on the contrary, it is actually intensified. Luke 14:26 therefore does not call us to love our blood relatives or our own life with a tepid love; instead, Scripture calls us to a deep love for others.125 As such, to love God in Christ more than even our closest earthly relatives really does become a sacrifice.126 What does seem problematic is that love for God is now contrasted with our love for our neighbour. Two observations can be made in this regard, however. In the first place, one’s relationship with God is not on the same level as one’s relationship with one’s neighbour : the Creator is of another order than the creature. We love our relatives as creatures and we love God as our Creator, so that the love of God cannot be compared with the love for even our closest of 123 124 125 126

Luke 14:26. Cf. Phil 3:7 – 8. Cf. Michel 1967:690, 693. Cf. Is 49:15; Luke 11:11 – 13; Eph 5:25, 28 – 29. For this application, cf. S. Kierkegaard 2006:63 – 65.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to ourselves

99

relatives. This means that our love for our neighbour does not in any way diminish our love for God. On the contrary, love of God is what guarantees our love for our neighbour. In the second place, it is necessary to observe that situations can arise in which we must let go of our relatives in order to hold on to God. In that case the believer does not so much break with her relatives, as the members of her family reject God. The rejected believer hates the evil of unbelief in her family for the very reason that she loves them. As such, Luke 14:26 is not meant to diminish neighbour love in any way, but reminds us instead that our battle against evil can take place even within our own family.127 This too indicates that grace is not cheap.128 That Jesus called us to be aware of the cost of the imitatio Christi shows us that we ought not to spiritualise the sacrifices to be made.129 True Christianity is ready to offer sacrifices to Christ, and thereby shows itself to be salt.130 Yet Christianity threatens to become secularised when the vertical dimension to God is lost from view. And a secularised church is a much worse prospect than an unchurched world, because the world has no use for a Christianity that offers cheap grace.

3.4. Relationship to ourselves 3.4.1. Humility as a catholic notion In communion with the saints of all times we observe that humility always occupied a fundamental place in their understanding of the Christian life.131 Augustine correctly exclaimed: ‘God is already humble and man still proud!132 This father of the early church left no doubt that pride is the root of all sins: ‘The origin of all sickness is pride, because the origin of all sins is pride. […] Treat the 127 Especially in the context of family it becomes clear that grace is not cheap, D. Bonhoeffer 2001:43. There can – under strict conditions! – be holy wrath: Ps 139:21 – 22; Amos 4:1; Matt 16:14, 23; John 2:13 – 25; 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 3:1. Cf. C. van Leeuwen 1985:136-.139; H.G.L. Peels 2007:75 – 91. 128 D. Bonhoeffer 2001:43. 129 Luke 14:28 – 33. 130 Luke 14:34 – 35. 131 According to Bavinck RD IV,233, self-denial and suffering stand at the very front of our good works. 132 Sermo 142,6. F. van der Meer 1949 used this expression as the motto for his book. Elsewhere Augustine declared: ‘You have become so burdened by the pressure of your own superbia, that the humilitas of God alone can lift you up’, Sermo 188,3. Cf. De Trinitate VIII.4.7. and 5.7; P. van Geest 2007:170.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

100

The efficacy of the unio mystica

pride, and there will be no wickedness. So then, in order that the cause of all sicknesses, that is pride, might be treated, the Son of God came down and was made humble. Why are you proud, O man? For your sake, God was made humble. You might perhaps be ashamed to imitate a humble human being; imitate, at least, a humble God. […] Pride, of course, does its own will; humility does God’s will.’133 Augustine came to profound insights on superbia (‘pride’) during his soul’s journey of self-discovery. In his Confessions, the first autobiography from the history of Christianity, we meet a poignant example of the struggle with true humilitas (‘humility’).134 Augustine taught us to see the sharp contrast between the pride of human wisdom and the humble confession of the faith.135 From the perspective of this deep experiential struggle we can understand how Augustine could later write so insightfully about humility. Well known is his statement that humility is the first step to grace.136 And what about the second step? It too is humility. And the third step as well. In the life of the believer, humility never becomes a matter of the past but extends throughout his entire life from beginning to end. Thomas van Kempen (1380 – 1471) was a member of the devotio moderna movement which emphasised the inner life and the disposition of the heart in its protest against the secularisation of the church. In the personal spirituality of the devotio moderna, the themes of humility and self-denial came to explicit expression. All self-interest was to be denied, and every trust in earthly certainties abandoned. This purification of the heart was to foster communion with God. According to Thomas, a worldly person is satisfied with comfort, but a Christian seeks to be humble of heart.137 Christians do not want a comfort that makes them proud, since there is no greater good than humility.138 In Van Kempen we see a radicalisation of Augustine. While Augustine had spoken of humility, the medieval period ended up placing greater emphasis on 133 Aug. in Joann. Ev. tr. 25,16 (Augustine 2009:I,444). Cf. De Trinitate, XIII.17.22. 134 Pride represented an obstacle to his break with the idleness of worldly life, Conf. IV.15.26. The same disposition is what kept the Scripture hidden from him, Conf. III.5.9. The first step in understanding Scripture is ‘timor’, De Doctrina Christiana II.VII.9. When the truth of Scripture seized him, a subtle form of self-preservation kept him from confessing his sin, Conf. V.10.18. Initially he was irritated by Jesus’ humility, Conf. VII.18.24 and VII.19.25. 135 Conf. VII.20.26. The difference between the earthly and heavenly city is marked by a selflove which despises God and by a self-denial which loves him, CD XIV,28. Cf. XIII,21, XIV,13 – 14. In De Virginitate XXXI.31, XXXIII. 33 Augustine emphasises that we must deny ourselves more if we obtain a more important position. 136 Epistola 118 to Dioscorus. Calvin cited this approvingly, Institutes II.x.11; see also Thomas Brooks 1980:III,31. 137 Thomas van Kempen, De Imitatione Christi, 2.10.3. Cf. A. de Reuver 2007:63 – 104 for an introduction and more literature on — Kempen. 138 Thomas van Kempen, De Imitatione Christi, 2.10.4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to ourselves

101

the notion of self-denial. The former concept of humility pertains to the relationship between Creator and creature, while the latter notion of self-denial also involves the sinner’s self-humiliation over his sinful state. Luther and Calvin consciously adopted the notion of self-denial. Calvin did so when he began his treatment of the renewal of life with a chapter on self-denial.139 According to Calvin our greatest enemy is not the world or the devil, but our own self. There is no one who ‘does not cherish within himself some opinion of his own preeminence.’140 In his commentary on Isaiah 6:5 the Reformer further remarked that we think we are god, are puffed up with pride, and trust in our own wisdom and power in vain: ‘As far as the “flesh” is concerned, the whole man must become nothing.’ Accordingly, in Calvin’s mind the essence of the Christian life is best described as self-sacrifice.141 We are not our own, but belong to God. For that reason we abandon ourselves to him and allow ourselves to be led by him. In this way greed, ambitiousness, and lust for power come to be abolished. After the Reformation this approach to the Christian life did not reach an end but was continued. Blaise Pascal (1623 – 1662), for example, came to insights regarding very subtle forms of human superbia: ‘We are so presumptuous that we would wish to be known by all the world, even by people who shall come after, when we shall be no more.’ In the 430th thought in his Pens¦es we read: ‘What religion, then, will teach us to cure pride and lust? […] Your chief maladies are pride, which takes you away from God, and lust, which binds you to earth.’142 According to Pascal, surrender to God is determinative for Christians. He testified of and remarked on it autobiographically in his well-known Memorial from 1654. This testimony ends with the following words: ‘He is only kept securely by the ways taught in the gospel: Renunciation, total and sweet. Complete submission to Jesus Christ and to my director. Eternally in joy for a day of trail on earth. May I not forget your words. Amen.’ The Puritans could identify themselves with such notions as well. A substantial part of Richard Sibbes’s (1577 – 1635) treatment of Josiah’s Reformation

139 Various scholars have defended the position that the Devotio Moderna exercised a direct influence on Calvin; he is thus thought to have been introduced to its thought through the college of Montaigu in Paris and by his contact with LefÀvre d’Etaples, Sturm, and Bucer. Calvin was also familiar with Van Kempen’s De Imitatione Christi, cf. R.C. Gleason 1995:46 – 50, 153; De Reuver 1995. 140 Institutes III.vii.4. In paragraph 8 he declares: ‘To covet wealth and honors, to strive for authority, to heap up riches, to gather together all those follies which seem to make for magnificence and pomp, our lust is mad, our desire boundless.’ 141 Institutes III.vii.1. 142 See Pascal 1909:60 (#148) and 138 – 139 (#430).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

102

The efficacy of the unio mystica

is devoted to ‘The Art of Self-Humbling’ and ‘The Art of Mourning.’143 In 1625 John Preston (1587 – 1628) held six sermons in Cambridge on 2 Chronicles 7:14, a central text for the notion of humility, which were published under the title The Golden Sceptre held forth to the Humble.144 Thomas Brooks (1608 – 1680) began The Unsearchable Riches of Christ with a long discussion of humility.145 Although theologically the place of Richard Baxter (1615 – 1691) within Puritanism is somewhat complicated, there is no doubt that he showed himself to be a kindred spirit in his Treatise of Self-Denial.146 The well-known theologian Thomas Manton (1620 – 1677) addressed the theme of humility in five sermons on Psalm 131.147 Thomas Watson (œ 1620 – 1686) wrote a work on The Duty of Self-Denial.148 In the collected works of Hugh Binning (1627 – 1653) we find eighteen sermons on a variety of biblical passages collected under the one title of Heart Humiliation.149 The young Andrew Gray (1634 – 1656) emphasised that humility can be a very subtle form of self-promotion.150 In spite of this criticism, Gray was actually writing to advocate true humility. Humble Christians, he wrote, are zealous Christians.151 In response to those who claim that the assurance of salvation poses a threat to humility, he taught that there is nothing that makes us as humble as our assurance of our salvation.152 In the twentieth century Clive Staples Lewis (1898 – 1963) noted that humanity’s greatest sins are not greed and immorality, but pride and self-conceit.153 He writes that pride consists in comparing oneself with others and therefore enters even our practice of religion, further points out that believers themselves alone know the battle raging within their conceited hearts, and also argues that we cannot know God without humility. 143 R. Sibbes 2001:6,44 – 75. His The Church’s Complaint and Confidence similarly treats the theme of humility, 1983:6,181 – 203. 144 Especially J. Preston 1990:58 – 115. 145 T. Brooks 1980:III,7 – 48. In the title to the first chapter he alludes to a quotation from Gregory of Nazianz: ‘Qui parvus est in reputatione propria, magnus est in reputatione divina’ III,7. On p. 35 he identifies Gregory of Nyssa as the author of this saying. His historical consciousness is evident from his reference to Bonaventure who swept the floor, washed the dishes, and made the beds in order to give expression to humility, III,13. If someone wanted to receive kindness from Fox, the author of the book of martyrs, he first had to do evil to him, III,23 146 R. Baxter 1830:11,1 – 384. 147 T. Manton 1979:21,406 – 462. 148 T. Watson 1675. 149 H. Binning 1735:489 – 641. 150 A. Gray 1839:64, 466. 151 A. Gray 1839:404. 152 A. Gray 1839:210. 153 C.S. Lewis 1952:96 – 101.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to ourselves

103

The above examples serve to illustrate that the notion of humility has deep roots in the history of Christian theology. In spite of the considerable differences separating those who have discussed the theme, the notion of humility still is one thing that unites them. Without always having been made explicit in history, a basic element is the intuition that humility is a part of the unio mystica cum Christo in which we surrender our own being to Christ. To put it another way : to look after ourselves is to cut ourselves off from our union with Christ. This means that the denial of excessive self-love is not just one of the Christian virtues, but determinative for the very essence of spiritual relationship with Christ.

3.4.2. Self-love as a Christian notion The radical description of self-denial as we have seen evidence of it in the Christian tradition places us before a new question. Beginning in the early modern era, there has been greater attention for human personality.154 The Reformation represents a moment in this movement in which a place was made for human personality, over against the massive institution of the Roman Catholic Church. In Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) human personality even came to stand at the very centre of life. With him the order was no longer determined by God, but humanity now created its own order. In what we now know as ‘post modernism’, this development reached new and unseen heights. In our culture values like self-respect and assertiveness have come to rank higher than selfdenial, so that a one-sided emphasis on self-denial in a context of increasing autonomy, democratisation, and networking can result in a spiritual meltdown or even schizophrenia. Furthermore, the practical negation of self-respect in society today makes the Christian faith appear to be altogether irrelevant. In light of these developments in our culture, theology finds itself confronted with some pressing questions. According to the psychologist Aleid Schilder, faith would derive great profit from a positive self-image. And the fact that her controversial work Hulpeloos maar schuldig (1987; ‘Helpless but guilty’) is introduced by a foreword from the systematic theologian Veenhof is highly significant in this regard.155 In this foreword, Veenhof attacks ‘any and every form that seeks to belittle man.’ In his eyes, the consistent belittling of humanity can lead to a neurotic self-hatred, such that one wonders theologically whether the very humanity of humankind is not called into question. Also the connection to 154 Cf. Van Ruler VW I:200. 155 So A. van der Dussen 2008:69 – 70.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

104

The efficacy of the unio mystica

the image of God is at stake: does God really want to keep us so small and insignificant? The questions raised by Veenhof function as an impulse for us to investigate how the notion of self-love has been treated in Christian theology. A look back at the tradition demonstrates to us that a theologian like Calvin did not turn a positive self-love into a theme of its own within theology.156 That is clear from his explanation of the words in Leviticus 19 that we must love our neighbour as ourselves. Calvin emphasises that this command is not intended to promote the ‘self ’, but rather to restrict an excessive self-love.157 This does not mean that Calvin absolutises self-denial to the level of a mystical or psychological selfnegation. The room he gives in his theology for sorrow in adversity and joy in prosperity implies a positive valuation of the self.158 What is more, he appeals for moderation in our sorrow over sin, pointing out that man cannot be identified with his sin.159 At the same time, it remains significant that he does not treat the love of self as such as an independent theme. With this, Calvin finds himself in discontinuity with the church father Augustine. Like Calvin, Augustine had written very cuttingly about all forms of excessive self-love. At the same time, we do find a positive account of self-love in his writings.160 True love of self is good because we love ourselves as creatures of God. The proud therefore do not really love themselves, since they actually love something that does not exist and since pride does not promote our good.161 Accordingly, Augustine – in contrast to Calvin – does thematise self-love.162 This same trajectory can be found in the eighteenth century. Jonathan Edwards considered it necessary to devote a paragraph in a sermon on 1 Corinthians 13:5 to the defence of his position that the gospel does not conflict with every form of self-love.163 According to Edwards the gospel is critical of an unfettered self-love, and yet we love our own fortune or happiness. This is in fact essential to our creatureliness. These are thus indications that we may speak, in

156 A digital search in Calvin’s opera yielded no positive references to the love of self. 157 Institutes II.viii.54 and comm. Lev. 19:18. Eph 5:29 is similarly an occasion for Calvin to speak about self-love in a positive manner. 158 A typical example of Calvin’s sorrow is his distress over the death of Louis, son of Richebourg. For days on end he could do nothing but cry and was unable to perform his normal work, CO XI,188vv. Also the letter from 8 October 1539 to Farel witnesses of Calvin’s feelings, CO X,396vv. For humanity in Calvin, see J. van Eck 1992:154 – 178. Jonathan Edwards WJE 4,192 speaks of a ‘lawful self-defense.’ 159 Institutes III.iii.15. 160 Cf. O. O’Donovan 1980:1 – 2, 37 – 38, 41, 45, 51, 56, 63. 161 Those who understand the art of loving themselves, love God, De Trinitate XIV,14.18. 162 De Trinitate X and XIV. 163 Edwards WJE 4,254 – 259. See also the introduction to WJE 8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to ourselves

105

continuity with the Christian tradition, explicitly about a positive form of selflove. Furthermore, the Christian faith presumes a respect of self. This is profoundly evident for us in the parable of the prodigal son.164 The prodigal son first came to himself before he returned to his father. This is a poignant description, with farreaching implications. The parable itself places the emphasis on the father who had lost his son; and yet, the son’s turning in to himself also makes it possible for us to say that it was the son who had lost himself. He had become self-estranged.165 The most profound form of this self-discovery occurs when believers learn to look upon themselves as the prodigal son who has lost himself. Self-discovery implies recognition that we are lost as well as acknowledgement of this lost state as something that makes us guilty before the Father. This conflict with God is not obscured in the Christian life, nor is the justification of the godless person reduced to a psychological process of self-acceptance.166 Spiritual self-acceptance implies at once acceptance of our responsibility and guilt before God, as well as freedom of the imprisoned self.167 In view of this, we may say that awareness of sin does not diminish the notion of creatureliness but rather presupposes it. Once we learn to know ourselves as creatures, we also come to learn the character of sin. We therefore cannot say that knowledge of sin and self-denial as such (!) damage us psychologically ; instead, they number among the ingredients of the salvation of our psyche. At the same time, it is true that any self-denial that is not marked by an encounter with the Good Father will only contort our psyche, as is also true when the gap between God and us is narrowed all too much. Self-denial in the third place does not come at the cost of our self. On the contrary, in soteriology a recreatio (‘re-creation’) takes place, such that our creatureliness is restored to a higher level.168 On the basis of the restoration of our relationship with God, we find our true self returned to us. We come to know what true humanity really is, and we reach our destination. In an article on the inhumane in the gospel, Van Ruler questioned whether we can really say that we reach our true destination through grace.169 He wondered 164 Luke 15:11 – 32. Calvin gave a theological articulation to self-acceptance in the opening to his Institutes: knowledge of self and of God form an inseparable unity. 165 According to F.O. van Gennep 1989 the crisis in that culture consisted in the lost Father. G. Huntemann 1981 decried the crisis as Die Zerstörung der Person. 166 A. Huijgen 2008:118 identifies such a process in Rick Warren’s theology of sanctification. Cf. Lovelace 2002:67. 167 Cf. Ps 32:3 – 5. 168 Cf. J.H. Gunning 2008:17 – 21, 81. 169 Van Ruler VW III, 257 – 259.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

106

The efficacy of the unio mystica

whether we can actually speak of true humanitas (‘humanity’) given the crosscharacter (i. e. suffering) of the life of faith. For Van Ruler this is a most significant question since in his theology union with Christ is not part of humanity’s true destination, but forms an element in an ‘emergency measure’ added to the original structures of the world. From this perspective it would appear as if we falsely turn into a virtue something that necessity requires of us, by positing that it is through Christ that we reach our true destination. After all, so Van Ruler states, the real issue is his salvation rather than ours.170 Van Ruler thus emphasises the contingent character of sin: given the drama of sin, salvation is necessary for creation to be restored. In response to Van Ruler we can say that through our union with Christ by faith we come closer to our human destination than we would without faith. Faith is not the final re-creation, but a reconciliation. We thus essentially arrive at our destination, that is, at true humanitas. The notion of humanitas is intuitively present throughout classical Reformed theology, for example in the form for marriage. There wives are reminded of their position with respect to their husband. The insertion of the little phrase ‘in all good things’ in the form is highly significant.171 These words impose limits upon the self-denial of a wife before her husband. The example from the form for marriage was formulated negatively. In Scripture we also find examples of a positive approach. In Jesus’ summary of the law he declared that we must love our neighbour as ourselves. Following in the line of Augustine, we may explain these words in a more positive manner than Calvin did. For, loving our neighbour as ourselves implies the notion of a healthy self-respect.172 We encounter the same thing in the writings of the apostle Paul. There are different moments at which he speaks of the ‘I.’ In that context he not only addresses a restoration of our righteousness, but he is also free to write that he has done more in the kingdom of God than the rest of the apostles.173 Augustine considered self-love to be natural. Accordingly, self-love does not have to be abolished but is something to be transformed.174 In fact, he goes one step further when he declares that those who know how to love themselves love God.175 With the aid of modern psychology we could add that we can only receive

170 171 172 173

Cf. Van Ruler VW III, 28, 100, 243, 248, 312, 317. Book of Praise 637. Matt 22:39. Cf. Eph 5:29. Acts 16:37; 1 Cor 15:10. There are several occasions on which Paul presents himself as an example for others: 1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6 – 7; 1 Thess 2:10, 3:7, 9. 174 So O’Donovan 1980:56. 175 So O’Donovan 1980:37 – 38, 45.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to ourselves

107

love if we have love for self.176 Loving God with our entire soul does not conflict with the love of self; it is propter Deum that we love our self.

3.4.3. Self-giving love The final notions discussed in the preceding section entailed a reference to the relationship between self-denial and self-love. If we leave the relationship to God out of consideration, we can only use these terms without having any solution for the way in which they relate to each other. It is significant that the notion of self-denial is addressed explicitly in the gospel, while self-love is addressed more implicitly.177 This observation serves to confirm on the one hand that self-denial is not just an aspect of the Christian life but numbers among its essential components, while it emphasises on the other hand that self-love can never be a goal in its own right and that self-respect cannot become an excuse for unbridled self-development. Our relationship to God shines a new light on the way in which self-denial and self-love relate to each other. In Scripture denial of the self always functions within the framework of a relationship with God.178 In their encounter with God, the saints in Scripture voluntarily made themselves small before the face of God.179 Significantly, the Hebrew root shh includes the element of bowing down as a way to show reverence and to worship.180 Self-denial takes place within a relationship with God and leads to worship of him. Calvin drew an inseparable connection between knowledge of God and knowledge of the self in his Institutes, and one could add to this that the denial of the sinful self and the elevation of God each imply the other. We cannot praise God without our praise for him being paired with our self-humiliation, nor can we humiliate ourselves without this arising out of our relationship with God. Just as self-denial is characterised by one’s relationship to God, so it is for selflove. Augustine stresses that self-love cannot free itself from the love of God.181 If we love ourselves at the cost of the love for God, we do not truly love ourselves. 176 Cf. R.F. Lovelace 2002:36. 177 J Bridges 2006:39 found some 40 references to humility in the New Testament. 178 Cf. Ps 51:19, 113:6 – 7, 138:6; Is 57:15, 66:2b; Matt 5:3, 11:29; 1 Pet 5 – 6. In Matt 16:24 – 25 and John 12:25 self-denial functions as the road to salvation. 179 Gen 18:27; Exod 34:8; Josh 5:14; Is 6:1 – 5; Ezek 1:28; Dan. 10:7 – 9; Rev 1:17. Cf. Acts 9:3 – 6. Cf. Tersteegen: Gott ist gegenwärtig, lasset uns anbeten/ und in Ehrfurcht vor ihn treten/ Gott ist in der Mitten / Alles in uns schweige/ und sich innigst vor ihm beuge/ Wer ihn kennt/ wer ihn nennt/ schlag die Augen nieder/ kommt, ergebt euch wieder (Evangelisches Gesangbuch, no. 165). 180 Cf. Ps 99:5, 9. Cf. Ps 95:5, 96:9, 97:7. 181 So O’Donovan 1980:40, 42 – 43, 54, 64, 95, 97, 104, 107, 109 – 110.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

108

The efficacy of the unio mystica

We in fact mislead ourselves by thinking that we love ourselves, while in essence we actually hate ourselves. This is why the human subject may never be absolutised.182 An absolutisation of the human subject leads to an estrangement of self and world, comes at the cost of the other, and takes away from the human individual a bigger perspective on life as well as the comfort that perspective offers for when we ‘fail.’ This insight means that self-denial and self-acceptance are not only determined by our relationship to God, but are also implied by each other. We can only deny ourselves if we are also conscious of ourselves, and self-denial is impossible if we are estranged from ourselves. In our present day culture in which self-love has freed itself from the love of God, it is on the one hand impossible to find one’s self, while on the other hand self-denial will only elicit estrangement. Yet another light is shed on self-denial when we consider it in an eschatological-Christological perspective. Self-denial found its fulfilment in Christ; he could truly claim that he was lowly in heart.183 He was the greatest, because he sought to be the least. Jesus did not just act humbly, he was humble. This was clear when he washed the sweaty feet of his disciples.184 Jesus’ disposition stands in stark contrast to the disposition of his disciples as they quarrelled among themselves as to who of them was the greatest.185 In marriage, family, and society such quarrels are altogether recognisable, and many psychological problems can be explained in terms of a frustrated pride. We cannot persist in humility without self-denial. We have an inconsumable tendency to compare ourselves with others who are less than we.186 We find such a Pharisaic disposition not only among legalistic church-goers, but also among unrestrained libertines, law-abiding citizens, and broken prostitutes. The remedy can only be found in Christ. In union with him, we participate in the humility of Christ. The secret of self-denial is executed in love: love does not seek itself, but it gives itself.187 We can also say : love does not seek itself, but seeks the other. 182 183 184 185

K.H. Miskotte 1969:256 – 260. Matt 11:29. John 13:1 – 30. Matt 20:20 – 28. In Luke 22:24 – 30 the same question appears in the context of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Paul knew that revelations from the Lord would not keep him from pride, 2 Cor 12:1 – 10. The first characteristic that Paul mentions for perilous times is that people will be lovers of themselves, 2 Tim 3:2. Cf. Phil 2:21. Throughout Scripture we find the devil’s super-sensual influence related to pride, 1 Tim 3:6 – 7. Cf. 1 Chron 21:1 with 2 Sam 24:1, and Matt 26:31 – 35 with Luke 22:31 – 34. In the Great Awakening spiritual pride was the devil’s most important means of attack, J. Edwards WJE 4,414 – 432, 461 – 462. 186 Luke 18:11. 187 1 Cor 13:5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to ourselves

109

We experience great joy in giving ourselves to another in love. In our selfsurrender we share in the joy of self-denial. He who seeks his own happiness will not find it. If our own happiness is not an end in itself, we experience happiness in the search for the happiness of the other. This is the joy of love. In this way we share in Christ’s joy of service.188 In this Christian self-denial we experience that self-denial does not come at the cost of our own self.189 In self-denial we once again receive our self. When God calls us to deny ourselves, he apparently aims to restore our self to us. A life lived out of this discovery turns our life of faith into a testimony before the deeply rooted individualistic structures of our culture and the selfish structures of our own heart.

3.4.4. Tolerantia crucis We have already noted Paul’s paradoxical assertion that union with Christ’s resurrection life does not mean an end to suffering, but that we too will suffer like him.190 We cannot receive Christ without suffering scorn and oppression.191 This means that physical health or social success are no indication of the Spirit’s work in us, given that it is concentrated upon the inner man.192 We fill up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.193 This does not mean that we repeat or supplement his suffering; here Christ’s substitutio is exclusive. The cross of Christ is not repeated but is brought to expression. The text in Colossians 1 powerfully highlights the communio between Christ as the Head and the believers as the body. The suffering of believers is not only an imitation of the suffering of Christ, but by virtue of our mystical union with him it is the suffering of Christ himself.194

188 Matt 20:28; Luke 15:7, 10; Acts 20:35. Cf. also Phil 2:1 – 11 in which the appeal for humility stands within a highly Christological framework. 189 G.G. de Kruijf 2008:123 discerningly observes that a self-development that competes with our responsibility in marriage and family is related to the pursuit of power, honour, and wealth. This is the epitome of self-destruction. 190 Phil 3:10. See 2.3.2 above. This is how believers experienced it, Acts 5:41; Rom 5:3; Phil 1:29; 1 Pet 4:14. In his commentaries on these passages, Calvin followed suit. Karl Barth calls suffering (or the cross) the most concrete expression of our union with Christ, K. Barth CD IV/2,598 – 599. 191 Acts 14:22; Rom 8:17; 2 Thess 1:4 – 5; 2 Tim 2:3, 11 – 12; Heb 13:13. Numerous New Testament passages refer to the suffering of believers, 2 Cor 1:8, 2:4, 6:4 – 5, 7:4, 8:2; Eph 3:13; Phil 4:4; 1 Thess 1:6, 3:3, 7; 1 Thess 2:14; 2 Tim 1:12, 3:11. 192 2 Cor 4:7 – 5:10, 6:3 – 10, 11:16 – 12:10; Eph 3:16 – 16. Cf. Gräbe 2000:250 – 252, 256. 193 Col 1:24. Cf. Berkouwer 1952a:153 – 155 on this text and its relationship to the atonement. 194 Cf. Acts 9:4 – 5; Dunn 1998:486. T.G. Weinandy 2000:252 – 259 applies this text to the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

110

The efficacy of the unio mystica

Christ’s suffering does not mean a spiritual masochism or a negation of life. Suffering remains suffering, and we are fully entitled to protect ourselves from it, just as Paul prayed for the thorn in his flesh to be removed.195 The thorn was not taken away, but Paul made the paradoxical discovery that the power of God was completed in our weakness.196 Our union in the power of Christ does not mean that we leave our feeling of weakness behind us, but that God’s power functions in our weakness. Our new existence on the basis of the death of Christ takes on the form of dying with Christ so that we die to the powers of the old world, such that the eschatological power in Christ might be allowed to function.197 For Bonhoeffer this was a reason to distinguish between the suffering that is bound up with our natural existence and the suffering that we experience as Christians.198 He feared that the cross would become generalised, and for that reason distinguished between two kinds of suffering. Bonhoeffer had the right intentions; it is remarkable, after all, that Jesus spoke about the disciples having to take up their cross immediately after Peter had confessed him to be the Messiah.199 All the same, one wonders whether a strict dividing line can actually be drawn between Christian suffering and natural suffering. Christians suffer corporately in the sufferings experienced by the other members of the local or universal church.200 Given their bond to their fellow human beings, they cannot isolate themselves from the sufferings of any of their neighbours. Furthermore, Christians experience natural suffering as a spiritual matter.201 Given this perspective, also earthly suffering must be placed within the perspective of faith. The suffering is the same as that of a nonChristian, and yet the point is that Christians do not experience this suffering in the same way. Scripture does not distinguish anywhere between two kinds of suffering that we must take up as our cross, but between two ways in which we deal with that one form of suffering. The tolerantia crucis (i. e. taking up one’s cross, suffering) thus shows itself to be closely related to our daily life. Spiritual renewal occurs along the road of the cross, a point that also comes to expression in the parable of the vine. ‘To prune is to grow’, as the Dutch saying goes (‘snoeien is groeien’).202 In Scripture this is

195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202

sufferings of unbelievers as well. He refers to Pope John Paul II who stated that the sufferings of unbelievers contribute to the salvation of the world. 2 Cor 12:7 – 10. Cf. ook 2 Cor 4:7 – 12, 16 – 17. Gräbe 2000:262 calls 2 Cor 12:9 the ‘Magna Carta.’ Cf. Gräbe 2000:261 – 262. The doctrine of sanctification is applied Christology. Accordingly, we cannot oppose Christology to the doctrine of personal renewal as Van de Beek 2008:209 does. Weinandy 2000:241 calls the denial of real change a Gnostic argument. D. Bonhoeffer 2001:86. Matt 16:13 – 24. Cf. K. Barth CD IV/2,598 – 599. 1 Cor 12:26; Heb 13:3. Rom 8:18 – 23. Cf. K. Barth CD IV/2,611. Heb 12:10 – 11. Cf. P.H.R. van Houwelingen 1997:310 – 311.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to ourselves

111

made concrete in numerous ways. Because of our cares we are protected from superficiality and train ourselves in a life of dependence. In our hearts our awe for the holiness of God also grows much deeper.203 Just like in the Old Testament God’s transcendence was praised in times of adversity, so in the light of the New Testament God’s transcendental eschatological kingdom comes to shine for us in the brokenness of the here and now. It is often in times of suffering that we see the most of Christ’s love.204 In suffering we on the one hand experience the brokenness of life, are confronted with limitations, and learn the greatest lessons about the rebellion in our hearts; on the other hand, it is often an opportunity for the Spirit and for God’s heavenly kingdom to manifest themselves. In suffering the Spirit of patience testifies of his power, while it is in facing opposition that we can discern what we have in the Spirit of compassion. If we are never opposed or never have to suffer unjustly, we will never know that the Spirit inside of us is the Spirit of compassion. We ought to thank God for the opposition we face which causes us to experience the witness of the power of his Spirit. In times of luxury and welfare it is the Spirit of moderation who shines. In times of great unrest, the eschatological rest in Christ becomes a reality for us. The joy of God carries us in our grief. When our enemy suffers, the power of God’s love reveals itself in us. That Christians often experience periods of suffering as times of spiritual blessing relates to Jesus’ words that those who have left everything for his sake shall ‘shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.’205 Some commentators make no distinction between the hundredfold return and the inheriting of eternal life.206 Yet the parallel passages in Mark 10:29 – 30 and Luke 18:29 – 30 give us every reason to distinguish between them.207 Other exegetes are of the opinion that the text is primarily about the relationship that will be restored to us in the new communion with Christ’s body.208 A weakness in this position is that the communion of saints does not take away the pain of the loss of our closest relationships. This passage also mentions houses and fields. Randy Alcorn (1954- ) has presented a solution that similarly tends in our direction.209 He points out that oikos can be an extension of the familial relationships mentioned. 203 Heb 12:9. 204 Heb 4:14 – 16. Cf. 2 Cor 1:4 – 5 – 7; Acts 7:55 – 56, 16:25. The perspective of Christ’s resurrection gives us the ‘unspeakable sweetness of his delights’ and makes us ‘sharers in his happiness’, Institutes III.ix.6. Cf. Institutes III.viii.7: By God’s favour we change poverty and death, as well as scorn and contempt, into their opposites. Spiritual joy makes the bitterness sweet, Institutes III.viii.11. 205 Matt 19:29. 206 F.W. Grosheide 1954:300. 207 W. Hendriksen 1982:730 – 731. 208 Van Bruggen 1988:230 – 231. 209 Alcorn 2003b:82 – 84.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

112

The efficacy of the unio mystica

He sees the return of fields reflected in the believers’ readiness to sacrifice themselves so that the apostles might suffer no want. We encounter an entirely different approach to the text in Irenaeus (œ 140 – œ 202).210 He understands the passage as a plea for a millennial kingdom in which Christians will be handsomely rewarded for the sacrifices they have brought. The advantage of this exegesis is that it can account for the mention of houses and fields in the text. Yet this is at the same time also its weakness, for Irenaeus immediately adds that in the great Sabbath of history people will not be occupied in an earthly vocation, since God will richly provide them in everything. In light of such a comment, one can only wonder why the fields are then mentioned in the text at all. Furthermore, such an observation undermines Irenaeus’s own basic conviction that God will in this history make right all the injustices committed against Christians.211 If we will not have to work in the millennium, the structures of this great cosmic seventh day will have to undergo thorough change from the way they exist in the current dispensation. If Irenaeus presumes there to be such a different structure in the time of the kingdom, we cannot insist on an uninterrupted continuation or restoration of familial relationships. Calvin acknowledges that this passage is problematic because there are numerous indications to the effect that Christians will not receive a reward in this life for the sacrifices they bring in their service to God.212 He thus understands the ‘hundredfold’ reward to be metaphorical, and relates it to the comfort of God’s grace in our hearts. Calvin’s approach appears to be a most helpful solution. The promise of reward serves to emphasise our spiritual participation in the transcendent eschatological life. As a result, death comes to be placed in an entirely new light. Where our dying with Christ is completed at the end of our life, the way is opened to participation in the total victory of Christ.213 One could ask whether we have any use at all for a theology of suffering. After all, our Western culture is not really oriented toward difficulties and setbacks, and our current life expectancy is much higher than it was even one hundred years ago. The brokenness of life thus appears to have no place in our technologically advanced reality. All the same, Western Christians too are served well by a robust theology of suffering. After all, we too have our personal setbacks. Moreover, our psychological vulnerability can make it hard to deal with such setbacks. In the third place, the stress we experience in society may well be related to our inability to deal with disappointments. Fourthly, we must observe 210 211 212 213

Irenaeus AH V.33.2. AH V.32.1. CO XLV,546 (comm. Matt 19:29). Phil 1:21, 23. Cf. J.D.G. Dunn 1998:487.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to the world

113

that we are united with the body of Christ all over the world, which experiences much suffering for the sake of Christ. In the fifth place, sensitivity to such issues as the world economy, politics, and environment mean that a theology of suffering is highly relevant. Finally, the relevance of a theology of suffering is highlighted in that Christians suffer under the unbelief in and hostility of the world.

3.5. Relationship to the world 3.5.1. Enjoying life on earth At this point we need to consider what our union with Christ means for our existence in this earthly life. In his chapter De Meditatione futurae vitae (‘Meditation on the future life’), Calvin spoke about a contemptus mundi (‘contempt for the present life’).214 He is very direct in the way he addresses this contempt of the world. In the first section on the life on this earth we read that earthly life is in itself nothing but misery and that everything that is good on earth is uncertain, of a passing nature, idle, and corrupt.215 With this, Calvin was in one line with the general pessimistic life-view prevalent in his days. For that reason he recognises the truth value of the philosophical wisdom that it is best not to be born at all, and that the second best thing is to die as soon as possible after we are born.216 It is altogether understandable that Van Ruler distanced himself from this approach, and powerfully defended the recognition of the good that can be found in creation: ‘On this point I consciously want to break with a centuriesold, Christian-European tradition. Ever since Augustine, [Western Christianity] has been guided by the notion that the world, created reality, may only be used (uti) and that God alone can be enjoyed (frui) – as if God were another world, another object, than this world! As if God could be had without his world! Yet this world is his world. Moreover, the world is the theatrum gloriae Dei, the theatre of his glory! Earthly life is the realisation of the glory of God.’217 214 Institutes III.ix. 215 Institutes III.ix.1. In the chapter on providence we encounter these dark undertones as well, I.xvii.10; the same holds true for the chapter in which Calvin points out that the patriarchs did not hope for an earthly salvation, II.x.10 – 12. 216 Institutes III.ix.4. Cf. comm. Acts 14:22. In his commentary on Exod 20:12 Calvin distanced himself more emphatically from this notion. 217 A. A. van Ruler VW III,416. This quotation is part of Van Ruler’s article entitled ‘De waardering van het aardse leven.’ Cf. VW III,121, 341, 435. In VW I,200 he calls the uti-frui distinction the cardinal error of Christendom, and considers its correction the most im-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

114

The efficacy of the unio mystica

These words from Van Ruler are no incidental remark, but form an essential component in his thought. Van Ruler emphasised that the bodily, the historical, and the sexual fully belong to the reality willed by God. In the incarnation God powerfully confirmed his acceptance of earthly life. Furthermore, the ascension is actually a kind of intermezzo, since after the return of Christ, the kingdom will be fully revealed – once again, in an earthly form. We do well to pay close attention here, so Van Ruler adds. God redeems the life here on earth; this is not the same thing as redeeming out of the life here on earth. There is hope for this world, and for that reason we must not hope for another world. Van Ruler stresses that sin is accidental rather than substantial. Being is more basic than sin, and for that reason sin can never determine our deepest reality. Christians must distance themselves from the evil of sin, but not from being as such. If they do, they will deny the Creator who has given us a place on this earth. Believers may therefore fully enjoy earthly life: we enjoy the Creator when we enjoy his works. This is where the holy life takes place: ‘Holiness is to see oneself and the world as the luxury and glory of God. The pure in heart shall see God. They are blessed, meaning that they enjoy life to its fullest extent. This brings them to the most essential matter : earthly life as enjoyment.’218 With these words, Van Ruler did not plead for secularisation. Secularisation, in contrast to the undervaluing of life here on earth, means that the world is cut off from God. What Van Ruler wants is the very opposite. According to him we are in danger of neglecting the earthly creation as the Gnostics or the radical Reformers did. The difference between Calvin and Van Ruler is therefore not just one of accent. Van Ruler reaches the highpoint of his criticism of Calvin’s world contempt when he characterises this position as an attack on the essence of God, as blasphemy.219 But does Van Ruler really do justice to Calvin? If we could indeed find in Calvin an absolute contempt of the world, Van Ruler would be entirely justified in his criticism. The striking thing is, however, that Calvin expressed himself critically of the absolute contempt of earthly life. According to him, it would be pure thanklessness to hate and despise life itself.220 He also attacked the ataraxia (sangfroid, spiritual calm) of the Stoics and an ascetic lifestyle in which one determines to use nothing more than the absolute essentials available in this earthly life.221 In his criticism of this ‘inhuman philosophy’, we hear the words of

218 219 220 221

portant (positive) contribution made by the modern era and its theology. These notions already appear in his dissertation, 1947:27, 59, 63, 75 – 76. A. A. van Ruler VW III,416. Van Ruler VW III,122. Institutes III.ix.3. Institutes III.x.1. J. van Eck 1992 illustrated Calvin’s humanity.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to the world

115

a theologian who takes up the cause of humanitas. Man is not a block of wood, but receives in his creation the senses necessary for enjoyment.222 When we realise that these comments from Calvin come in the third book of the Institutes, another facet is lit up for us. The enjoyment of creation arises out of our union with Christ. In Christ we see not only God’s heart, but also his hands and feet: ‘With his heart I mean the hidden love with which he has loved us in Christ. With his hands and feet I mean the works that he has displayed before our eyes.’223 This does not mean that believers enjoy creation less, but more. Or, to phrase it more poignantly : it is through faith alone that are we really able to enjoy God’s creation. These observations suggest that Van Ruler was somewhat exaggerated in his response to Calvin. One gets the impression that he was so struck by the first paragraph in which Calvin expressed his negativity toward the earthly life that he no longer had ears for the nuances which Calvin introduced further on in the text. But is the difference between Van Ruler and Calvin really that great? The difference between these two theologians cannot be formulated such that Calvin envisioned a redemption out of this earth without any thought for the redemption of this earth, while Van Ruler was occupied with the redemption of this earth.224 After all, Calvin too positively valued created reality, and his theology did not abandon it to destruction. An important difference between them is instead that Calvin places the enjoyment of creation in a specific context: enjoyment of God is of a different order than our enjoyment of the good which the earth has to offer. In chapters nine and ten to book three of the Institutes, Calvin applies the notion of frui to God alone. For the enjoyment of the earthly gifts he uses the term oblectatio or its derivatives. This word is indicative of a somewhat more restrained and sedate form of enjoyment. Van Ruler remarkably does not wield a similar kind of distinction.225 As a result, his appeal for the enjoyment of the earth could be understood such that we enjoy creation in the same way as we do the Creator. One wonders whether this does not threaten to blur the distinction between Creator and creature. Theology and spirituality benefit greatly from the creature-Creator distinction 222 Institutes III.x.3. 223 CO XXIII, 11 – 12 (‘Argumentum’ on Genesis). Calvin can say that we must meditate on God’s work of creation until it moves us, Institutes I.xiv.21. Cf. Institutes II.vi.1; W. van ’t Spijker 1977a:85 – 9-; 1981:24 – 26. In HC question 26 knowledge of God as Creator and Father is said to arise from faith in Christ. 224 G.G. de Kruijf 1997:89. 225 In his pneumatology Van Ruler 1947:212 criticises the tradition that gave a much too individualistic, mystical, or anthropological interpretation of gratia interna (‘internal grace’). Van Ruler lists the work of the Spirit in the heart, good works, sacraments, culture, and politics without further differentiation among them. Cf. p. 291.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

116

The efficacy of the unio mystica

so that our enjoyment of God is of another order than our enjoyment of his creation and creatures.226 Both Calvin and Van Ruler emphasise the goodness of creation: we may enjoy God’s earthly gifts for his sake. This serves as a powerful antidote in our present culture which is all about achievement and in which people often snap under the weight of the pressure of such an achievement-culture. Christians ought not to live in a modern form of slavery. They may relax and take the time to enjoy the good things that God’s creation has to offer us. Spiritual renewal means also in this respect a new orientation toward life here on earth.

3.5.2. Citizens of a better world There is yet another dimension to the difference separating Van Ruler and Calvin. Van Ruler explicitly denies that the brokenness of sin must be taken into account in the way we value creation. Although Calvin draws a distinction between creation as such and the damage which has followed from sin, the latter is what carries most of the weight for him. In the present dispensation our life is governed by the degeneration of everything that is good; everything that exists experiences the corruption of sin. Everything seems to indicate that Van Ruler understands the eschaton to be of a similar order as the proton.227 Christ is the ‘emergency measure’ who restored the damage of creation such that creation and history can develop within their own possibilities and frameworks. Because in Calvin’s theology sin has caused greater damage to created reality than it does for Van Ruler, the restoring work of Christ is also more drastic in nature. Sin has in fact attacked creation so fundamentally that salvation means new life. The eschaton is not in one and the same line with our current earthly life, but is of a higher order.228 For that reason, we see in Calvin a much more emphatic consciousness of the restoration of creation as being of another order than the current earth.

226 Augustine argued that the old man uses God in order to enjoy the earthly, while the new man uses the earthly in order to enjoy God, CD XV.7. 227 Cf. De Kruijf 1997:89. Van Ruler 1947:59 uses the word ‘return’ (‘terugkeer’). 228 In his commentary on 1 Thess 4:16 Calvin even speaks of the destruction of our nature and the creation of a new nature. In his commentary on 1 Cor 15:50 he speaks in terms of a being made alive in the context of our entrance into the kingdom of God. K. Exalto 1979:67n charges that Van der Linde is proposing a ‘Van Rulerian’ interpretation of Calvin when he suggests that the eschaton is a continuation of creation.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to the world

117

G.G. de Kruijf (1952 – 2013) has correctly pointed to this absence of what is eschatologically new in the thought of Van Ruler.229 For that reason he pleads for recognition of the importance of the uti-frui distinction for Calvin. In the eyes of De Kruijf this distinction represents a tool to prevent the absolutisation of the current earthly life. He fears that without the Augustinian distinction between use and enjoyment there will be no way to counter hedonism in prosperity and cynicism in adversity. Also in its economic and political forms, life on earth is not an end in itself. The converse of this distinction is that the eschaton too will be a surprise for us, because it surpasses the order of the here and now. As such, so De Kruijf argues, we can do justice to the interim-character of the present life. But it is possible to take this one step further. For Calvin the distinction between uti et frui is not limited to the distinction between now and then, but also cuts right through the present life. Through faith there is enjoyment of God in the present.230 Calvin’s meditatio futurae vitae would have been more convincing if he had made it clear from the beginning that the greatest motivation for the contempt of earthly life did not arise out of the denial of this earthly life, but out of the recognition of the other life that is in Christ. This recognition of the new creation in Christ gives a remarkably positive motive to the contemptus mundi. In the light of God’s new world, the old world fades away. With this we find ourselves in one line with Scripture itself. Paul exhorts us to seek the things that are above where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.231 Similarly well-known is his expression that our citizenship is in heaven.232 This implies that we are no longer of this world. Paul’s words therefore constitute an explicit appeal to Christians not to walk in the patterns of this world.233 Through the inner renewal of our mind we gain another orientation to the world and are permeated by the awareness that this world will pass away.234 For that reason we do not do our utmost to become friends with the world, but rather to be pleasing to our heavenly Bridegroom.235 The life lived out of Christ is determinative for Christian identity. This brings a number of consequences along with it. In the first place, our identity in Christ 229 G.G. de Kruijf 1997:89 – 94. The future eschaton is totaliter aliter (‘totally other’), cf. Luke 20:34 – 36; 1 Cor 2:9. 230 Cf. CO VII,119 (Brieve instruction contres les anabaptistes); CO XLVII,116 (comm. John 5:24). For the close relationship between faith and hope, cf. Institutes III.ii.42. 231 Col 3:1. 232 Phil 3:20. Cf. 1 Pet 1:4. 233 Rom 12:2. A critical stance toward the world is a basic theme in the New Testament, cf. Luke 12:30; John 14:17, 27, 15:18 – 19, 16:33, 17:9, 14, 16, 18:36; 1 Cor 1:20 – 21, 2:6, 3:19, 4:9, 13, 7:33 – 34, 11:32; 2 Cor 7:10; Gal 1:4, 6:14; Eph 2:2, 12; 2 Tim 4:10; Heb 11:10, 16; Jas 4:4; 2 Pet 1:4, 2:20; 1 John 2:15 – 17, 3:1, 13, 5:19; Rev 12:9. 234 2 Pet 2:6 – 7, 3:11 235 Jas 1:27, 4:4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

118

The efficacy of the unio mystica

means that we are at bottom pilgrims on this earth. No one is helped by our silence, denial, or playing down of our identity, nor was the early church ashamed of it. The Letter to Diognetus gives a powerful description of this Christian disposition: ‘They reside in their respective countries, but only as aliens. They take part in everything as citizens and put up with everything as foreigners. Every foreign land is their home, and every home a foreign land. They marry like all others and beget children, but they do not expose their offspring. Their board they spread for all, but not their bed. The find themselves in the flesh, but do not live according to the flesh. They spend their days on earth, but hold citizenship in heaven. They obey the established law, but in their private lives they rise above the laws. The love all men, but are persecuted by all. They are unknown, yet are condemned; they are put to death, but it is life that they receive. They are poor, and enrich many ; destitute of everything, they abound in everything. They are dishonored, and in their dishonor find their glory. They are calumniated, and are vindicated.’236 Although Christians do not withdraw into subcultures that harbour an extreme sectarianism, their orientation in life can still elicit spiritual xenophobia.237 A second consequence of this life out of Christ is that we ought not to absolutise our earthly life. The joy of Christians does not depend on earthly circumstances. As long as our joy depends on earthly circumstances, there remains a great amount of unrest and uncertainty for us. Without the Spirit of God our desires remain unfulfilled, but through him we find the deepest fulfilment of all our desires in God.238 In our union with Christ, we can have plenty and also suffer want.239 We can therefore enjoy even the smallest gifts we receive without being troubled. Small things become great things for us because they witness of our heavenly Father’s great care. By faith we seek gratefully to discern God’s care for us. Christians do not need much to be able to enjoy God’s gifts. In this context, Calvin emphasised moderation.240 He reproached ‘the intemperance of gluttony in food and drink, and excessive indulgence at table, in building and clothing, ambition, pride, arrogance, and overfastidiousness.’241

236 Mathetes, Epistle to Diognetus, chapter 5 (translation Kleist 1948: 139). 237 John 15:18 – 20. 238 Instead of many desires, there is just one desire driving us, Ps 27:4. Cf. Ps 73:25 – 26. Augustine Conf. I.1 expressed this very well when he confessed that our heart is restless until it finds rest in God. In Puritan theology this became an important theme, and was thematised in the Marrow of Modern Diviniy, for example, cf. T. Boston 2002:VII, 372 – 387. 239 Phil 4:12. We buy as though we do not possess, 1 Cor 7:30. 240 Institutes III.vii.3. 241 Institutes III.x.4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to the world

119

In Calvin’s eyes, such behaviour represents a threat to our spiritual freedom.242 Spiritual freedom is not a freedom to live in unbridled enjoyment of our earthly life. He wittily observes that we ought to make ‘moderate’ use of moderate things.243 Calvin no doubt means that we must be spiritually free in our enjoyment of this earth. The alternative is addiction and slavery to our enjoyment. According to Scripture the earth’s good gifts become destructive powers when they come to rule us.244 In this light we can understand why Paul addressed the topic of self-control before the governor Felix when he outlined the main points of Christian teaching.245 In a culture in which enjoyment has become an end in itself, Christians are challenged to confess the gospel by showing moderation in their consumption of alcohol, in recreation, in sexuality, and in their career ambitions.

3.5.3. Citizens of this earth In treating the Christian’s responsibility for the earth, Calvin speaks about a ‘sentry post.’246 This is a very rich term. It expresses the point of our earthly existence, and that we are called to be faithful in our earthly calling. Furthermore, this concept makes it clear that Calvin in his theology avoided the Anabaptist shunning of this earthly life as well as all contemplative tendencies. The Christian life is not something that comes in addition to the earthly life, but life on earth forms the very infrastructure within which the Christian life is lived. We serve God not only in vocatione (i. e. in our earthly calling), but also per vocationem (i. e. by way of our earthly calling).247 In Calvin this awareness of our responsibility extends very far. His theology thus had a theocratic ¦lan. He further mobilised himself for medical care. Out of his conviction of the continuing importance of the Old Testament he also sought to translate it with a view to social life in his day and age. At times, he could downright fulminate against social injustices.

242 243 244 245 246

Institutes III.xvii.1 and III.xix.1. Institutes III.xix.9. Cf. 1 Tim 6:9 – 10; Jas 5:1 – 6; N.T. Wright 1992:27 – 39. Acts 24:25. Cf. Tit. 1:6. Institutes III.x.6. De Kruijf 2008:40 is correct to criticise the identification of work with identity. He similarly is critical of any kind of idealisation or sacralisation of work, 39, 45 – 47, especially in light of the current economic reality, 50 – 52. 247 Cf. G.G. de Kruijf 1997:85. This is in conflict with the thought of someone like Thomas — Kempis, cf. A. de Reuver 1995:40 – 46.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

120

The efficacy of the unio mystica

Aside from this sense of responsibility, we also find in Calvin a positive valuation for the possibilities of science.248 The Holy Spirit is the one who gives gifts in the (medical) sciences, philosophy, culture, government, and law.249 The Spirit gave great wisdom to the ancient world.250 Van Ruler claimed that Calvin in the end did not take earthly life seriously.251 But how valid is his criticism of Calvin? At the very least we can undermine the absolute nature of Van Ruler’s reproach. And yet, his analysis does have a kernel of truth to it. For Calvin, the heavenly kingdom has priority over the earthly life. There is no doubt, therefore, that the absence of a separate treatment of the renewal of the world was no oversight on his part252 ; Calvin just places too much emphasis on the passing away of the current dispensation prior to the renewal of the earth for that to be accidental. If Van Ruler’s fundamental criticism of Calvin is based on these features, his evaluation is correct. Here we also see the consequence of the essential difference between the insights of Calvin and Van Ruler : while Van Ruler emphasises the renewal of the world within the current framework, Calvin operates more on the level of Christ’s heavenly kingdom. For Calvin, it is the latter that is determinative for Christian identity. For him our status as aliens on this earth takes priority over our enjoyment of this earth. For Van Ruler, however, the converse is true. From Calvin we can learn to make a distinction between the current order and the new reality in which we share through our union with Christ by faith. Spiritual union with the eschatological Christ is altogether indispensable for the Christian life, and is inseparably tied to the notion of an alien existence.253 248 CO II,196 – 197 (Institutes II.ii.13); XXIII,18 – 19 and 22 – 23 (comm. Gen 1:6 and 16); XLIX,23 – 24 (comm. 1 Cor 1:20); cf. J. van Eck 1992:32, 64, 111. 249 CO II,101 – 102 (Institutes I.xiii.14), II,196 – 200, 211 – 212 (Institutes II,ii.13 – 17, III.iii.3). Cf. CO XXIV,429 (comm. Exod 28:2), XXV,58 (comm. Exod 31:2), XXV,175 (comm. Num. 11:24), XXXI,768 – 769 (comm. Ps 82:1), XL,580 (comm. Dan. 2:22). In CO XXIII,99 – 100 (comm. Gen 4:20) Calvin also refers to the gift of music. In Institutes I.xi.12 he speaks positively about sculpture and painting. For Calvin’s doctrine of common grace, cf. W. Krusche 1957:15 – 55, 96 – 125; S. van der Linde 1943:34 – 57; H.H. Meeter 1960:70 – 91. 250 CO II,198 – 199 (Institutes II.ii.15 – 16). 251 Cf. M. Schulze 1971:94 who argues that Calvin did break down the cloister walls but failed to conquer its ideal. 252 There are a number of places in Calvin’s works that refer to the element of cosmic renewal, CO II,736 – 740 (Institutes III.xxv.7 – 8); XXXVI,243 – 244 (comm. Is 11:9); XLV,62 – 63 (comm. Matt 5:5); XLVII,293 – 294, 316—317 (comm. John 12:31, 13:3); XLIX,152 – 154 (comm. Rom 8:20 – 22). The return of Christ is more than just heavenly bliss, CO XLIX,515 (comm. 1 Cor 13:12). Cf. M.A. van den Berg 1996:293 – 287; S. van der Linde 1976:65 – 68. This earth will pass away before it is renewed. CO LV,476 (comm. 2 Pet 3:10). 253 A. de Reuver 2009:7 – 8 is correct to note: ‘Uit vrees voor verraad aan de aarde verraadt men onbekommerd de hemel.’ Gunning 2008:92 supplies us with an important notion when he emphasises that we ought to be dead to the world in order to love it in all freedom. We love

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Relationship to the world

121

This is a principial theological structure. And yet, we must also use the insight from Van Ruler who reminds us that God himself is not contemptuous of the world. The Word of God does not just treat our earthly reality in passing, but works in upon it and leaves deep traces of itself in history. When we look back in the history of Protestantism, we see that there has been attention for this historical dimension of the Word. William of Orange experienced his political battle with Spain according to the covenant he had established with the ‘Potentate of potentates.’ The outlines for this framework were drawn by Calvin when he demanded attention for the pneumatological factor of salvation. It remains a perilous endeavour to try to identify the traces of God’s Spirit in history.254 It is even more perilous to deny the work of the Word in history, however. And it is most perilous to draw a connection between the work of Word and Spirit in our current history and the renewal of the earth in the future eschaton. These perilous undertakings are not demanded of us. The notion of the heavenly kingdom remains critical of an isolation of the cultural mandate and the doctrine of ‘common grace’, or of a blurring of the distinction between church and world. We are not to seek the kingdom of Christ in terms of the here and now.255 Although re-creation is totaliter aliter from creation, it is no nova creatio (totally new creation). It is this world that is being recreated. In light of this, one could hardly imagine that economy, art, science, politics, and philosophy would not reappear in some way in the new heaven and the new earth. This opens up a theological perspective to not only feel responsible for this world as an alien, but also to become aware of the intrinsic value of creation and to feel a sense of involvement propter Deum with the whole cosmos in accordance with the fulthe world because it is being prepared for what is to come, p. 96. The relationship between now and then passes through Christ as the ground of creation and the cosmic principle of the world, p. 95, 100. 254 A. van de Beek 2008:15 – 18 criticises these ‘large narratives’ (‘grote verhalen’). Cf. P. de Vries 2003:285 – 314 for an evaluation of the views of Kuyper, Van Dooyeweerd, Schilder, and Van Ruler on the relationship between culture and the kingdom of God. In his book De grote ontsporing W. Aalders writes: ‘Het thema van de moderne theologie: Christus en de wereld. Het thema van de Reformatie: Christus en de ziel.’ Rothuizen’s dissertation (1962) ends with an analysis of the distinction between Kuyper and Van Ruler with respect to Christian engagement with the world. 255 Article 1.6 of the church order of the Protestantse Kerk in Nederland reads: ‘De kerk belijdt telkens opnieuw in haar vieren, spreken en handelen Jezus Christus als Heer en Verlosser van de wereld en roept daarmee op tot vernieuwing van het leven in cultuur, maatschappij en staat. De kerk getuigt voor mensen, machten en overheden van Gods beloften en geboden en zoekt daarbij de samenspraak met andere kerken.’ The renewal of believers and of the world is thus placed on one and the same level, ignoring the difference between them, so that the notions of our sojourn here as aliens and of eschatological renewal are threatened.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

122

The efficacy of the unio mystica

filled and completed kingdom of God.256 We do well to improve on Calvin by thematising creation, taking into account that the Son too is Creator257, and processing the reality that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son so that the continuity of creation and re-creation may be deeply anchored in both Christology and pneumatology in line with the classical filioque-clause of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (i. e. the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son).

3.6. Evaluation This exploration of various biblical motifs has revealed that our deep, spiritual, invisible bond to Christ through the indwelling of the Spirit is of effect for our personality. This effect on our personality occurs in the first place in our soul and disposition; in this sense it is invisible. At the same time it must be said that the effect of the spiritual union comes to function also in a highly practical way in the concrete relationships that we encounter in our lives. We come to love God above everything else, and love our neighbour as ourselves. Although the love of God stands within a soteriological context, it is also accompanied by the selfless element of resignatio, which demands further examination and development. This love is moreover affective in nature. This affective nature legitimates our inner experience of faith and the (admittedly limited) attention we devote to that experience in theology. Our love for our neighbour also has a selfless element to it. That selflessness of this love comes because we love our neighbour for God’s sake. Our love for God makes our relationship with our neighbour to be of crucial importance. In this chapter we also explored the contours of self-denial and self-love. On the one hand it emerged that humility in the face of our Creator and self-denial with respect to our sinful self are fundamental to the Christian life, and on the other hand that these notions cannot function without a healthy amount of selfrespect and self-love. The framework of self-love accentuates the selflessness which is a part of our love for our neighbour. In the context of self-love we gave special attention to the suffering of the Christian. The other side of suffering is the transcendent character of God’s kingdom. The degree of our unity with Christ is not measured by outward norms. It became clear that it was precisely in the brokenness of this earthly life that the reality of the salvation fulfilled in Christ shines all the more brightly. The spiritual intuition of the extra mundum (‘outside of the world’) gives on 256 The word ‘cosmos’ is used in John 3:16; 2 Cor 5:19. 257 Col 1:16; Heb 1:2. For Col 1:16 cf. also M.J. Kater 2011:II,97 – 100.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

123

Evaluation

the one hand – according to our awareness that it is much less costly to change the world than oneself, because the latter demands the sacrifice of self-denial (Tolstoy)258 – a critical stance toward every attempt to realise the eschatological kingdom of God as a social, political, or ecological program in the context of the here and now, and on the other hand a critical intuition toward the inner-worldly structures of injustice and evil.259 Lewis has poignantly pointed out that Christians are of great use in this world precisely by virtue of their orientation to the other world.260 In spite of the critical distance they maintain with respect to the here and now, Christians are not without hope. Living from the eschatological salvation in Christ, they have the faith that Christ has already conquered the unjust powers. When they participate in this righteousness, the eyes of believers are opened to the poor widows and they pray for the peace of Babylon.261 This small beginning is already a guarantee of the complete fulfilment that will take place in the future transcendent eschaton.

258 Cf. for criticism of the secularisation of salvation, see W. Aalders 1985:22 – 44; A. Pierson 1888:117; Chantepie de la Saussaye 2003 3:335. According to Noordmans 1978 4:118 Kuyper put asceticism to death. 259 Is 1:17; Amos 5:11 – 12. Cf. Luke 18:1 – 7; Jas 5:1 – 6. Noordmans has pointed out that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19 – 31 is an indictment of those who oppress the poor. The letter to Philemon may well be an implicit criticism of slavery. 260 C.S. Lewis 1952:106 – 107. There are also exceptions. Friedrich Engels was born in the Pietistic climate of revival in Wuppertal where there was little consciousness of the socioeconomical disparities, W. Banning 1974:30 – 32; J. Verkuyl 1976:25. Positively we can mention the abolition of slavery and the social disposition of the R¦veil: ‘Geen heilig huisje van maatschappelijk kwaad: armoe, prostitutie, slavernij, kinderarbeid, drankzucht bleef onaangetast’, C. Gerretson 1974 IV:313 – 322. 261 Jer 29:7.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

4.

There is more

In the last chapter we examined the effects of our union with Christ. In the present chapter we will now turn to investigate the quantitative side of these effects. What is the measure of renewal that can we expect? In order to address this question and to gain greater insight into the issues it involves, we will compare the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession, John Wesley, and the Keswick Movement and their respective views on the Christian life.

4.1. The modesty of the Heidelberg Catechism 4.1.1. ‘A small beginning’ Like Calvin, also the Heidelberg Catechism maintains a clear conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. The catechism makes it abundantly clear that our justification is not partial, that it does not depend on the measure of our faith, and that it does not have a proleptic foundation in the good works we still have to accomplish. Justification does not depend on the Spirit’s work in nobis, but on the perfect work of Christ extra nos. It is in this work of Christ that our conscience finds total peace and assurance. At the same time, however, the catechism says that our conscience ‘accuses’ – present tense! – us. This is a subtle way by which it indicates that justification remains a relevant matter in the Christian life. While the Heidelberg Catechism addresses justification in part two, it treats conversion in part three. This is noteworthy since it serves to indicate that conversion and good works do not constitute a part of our salvation.1 At the very 1 In Scripture the order conversion-faith appears more often than the converse, as for example in Matt 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:4, 15; Luke 3:3, 24:47; Acts 2:38, 5:31, 20:21; Heb 6:1. The order faithconversion occurs in Acts 11:21. This serves to highlight the theological reason on account of which conversion has not been treated prior to faith.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

126

There is more

least, this order expresses that repentance and good works grow out of our communion with Christ by faith rather than the other way around.2 The significance of this order is further emphasised in that part three of the catechism falls under the rubric of ‘our thankfulness.’ Sanctification cannot be used to describe part three, since it already came up in part two in the context of our confession of the ‘Holy Spirit and our sanctification’ in the Apostles’ Creed.3 Our liberation from the power of sin thus appears to be included in atonement for the guilt of our sin. When good works and conversion are then treated under the heading of ‘our thankfulness’ in part three, we may surmise that conversion does not contribute anything to salvation, that ethics are not isolated from doctrine, and that morality is a religious category. This is a significant observation with equally significant ramifications. For, it means that we do not perform good works in order to achieve anything, to serve our neighbour, or to do something in the service of God. Rather, since God has accomplished everything in Christ, thankfulness is the mode of the life we live in our unio cum Christo and the reason why the life we live out of Christ can be described as a liberation from all compulsion and the unburdening of all pressure related to the good works we perform. This analysis is entirely in line with the way in which the catechism begins. The first question and answer had stated that Christ through his Holy Spirit makes us willing and ready to live for him. It made this remark in the context of comfort, which was in turn determined by our belonging to Someone else. In short, we perform our good works out of a disinterested love for God. Accordingly, the ‘most important part of [our] thankfulness’ is not the work we do for God, but our prayers in which we humble ourselves before his face and present all our needs to him for the sake of Christ.4 The place of our good works is theologically determined: we do good works after we have been redeemed by Christ, and because we have been renewed by his Spirit, so that with our whole walk of life we may show ourselves thankful to God and he may be praised by us.5 The topic of conversion is then treated in this context, described as the dying of the old man and the coming to life of the new. Give the context of thankfulness, we ought presumably to think in terms of the categories of sorrow and joy. For, while Calvin may have rejected the description

2 Ursinus 1852:471 made this explicit. Faith and repentance relate to each other as cause and effect. On p. 470 Ursinus rejects the notion that faith is a part of conversion. See also the Latin edition; Ursinus 1607:644, 646. 3 HC question 24 states that the third part of the Apostles’ Creed is about the Holy Spirit and our sanctification. References to renewal can be found in question and answer 32, 43, 45, 49, 55, 64. 4 HC question 116 – 118. 5 HC question 86. For a theological analysis of this QA, cf. Van Ruler VZ IV-B:376 – 466.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The modesty of the Heidelberg Catechism

127

of vivificatio in terms of joy, this joy did receive a significant place in the Heidelberg Catechism by way of its definition of the coming to life of the new man.6 In spite of this overarching structure and description of vivificatio in the catechism, in its actual exposition of the Ten Commandments we see little reflected of this joy or of the life lived in the good works which Christ has accomplished for us. When it evaluates our obedience at the end of its explanation of the Decalogue, the catechism states that even the ‘holiest’ have only ‘a small beginning of this new obedience.’7 How small this ‘small beginning’ is, is emphasised in the Latin text by the phrase exigua initia. This leaves us to wonder why the law is preached at all. The first reason given in answer 115 is that we may become more and more aware of our sinful nature.8 As such, this appears to be more in line with ‘sorrow’ than with ‘joy’, of course. This observation finds confirmation in that the catechism does not say that the offending power of that sinful nature will slowly decline, but rather that we become more and more aware of it. As such, mortificatio predominates over vivificatio, and the usus elenchticus (i. e. the pedagogical use) of the law over its usus didacticus (i. e. the normative use), so that in the end the remaining relevance of our justification prevails over our sanctification.9 In the background we hear the heavy echoes of an Augustinian concept of sin as it is typified by the non posse non peccare (unable not to sin). This observation highlights yet another facet of the title to part three of the catechism. The title ‘Our thankfulness’ not only functions as a balance to the isolation of renewal in order to prevent a legalism or formalism in the Christian life, but also emphasises that the lives of Christians continue to be characterised by both sin as well as forgiveness.10 This serves to confirm yet again that the Christian life does not add anything to the salvation we have in Christ, but that this salvation comes to expression more and more in a life of thankfulness. Although the emphasis remains on the life we live out of that gracious atonement which Christ has accomplished for us, there is also a process of renewal which is nevertheless devoid of easy victories. Our progress in the 6 HC question 90. For Calvin’s rejection, see Institutes III.iii.3; for the criticism of Barth, see Barth CD IV/2,581. 7 HC question 114. 8 The Latin version is somewhat more moderate than the original German text on this point since it uses the formulation naturae nostrae ad peccandum propensio, as if to suggest that it is just about an inclination, BB, 214. 9 According to L.D. Bierma 2005:86 – 91, 2006:338 – 339 the location of the law in the part on thankfulness is not typically Reformed, but derives from Melanchthon. Also the pedagogical use of the law in the life of the believer was taken over from him. Calvin emphasised the law’s function as a rule for life, Institutes II.vii.6 – 9, 12; CG, question 228 – 229. 10 Cf. T. Latzel 2004:150. Latzel similarly observes that the Heidelberg Catechism places the greatest emphasis on our inability to fulfil the commandments, 127.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

128

There is more

Christian life must thus be thought of as someone who rows against the current, which is so powerful that his boat threatens to be swept along. The rower needs all his strength to keep from being swept along by the powerful current. When the catechism then writes that there is indeed a ‘small beginning’ of a new life, it indicates that faith is beginning to overcome the world.11

4.1.2. Criticism of this ‘small beginning’ The Belgic Confession describes our vivification somewhat more extensively than the Heidelberg Catechism does.12 And yet, any kind of triumphalism is tempered when it states that the remembrance of one sin is enough to make God reject our good work. Even our best works are an occasion for sorrow and selfabasement. With this, it turns out to be the Canons of Dort that express the coming to life of the new nature most clearly. They state point-blank that the rebellion and resistance of the flesh dominate without the Spirit, but that through the Spirit a prompt and sincere obedience begins to gain the upper hand.13 The canons thus not only recognise the influence of the Spirit, but also acknowledge that he overcomes. The same trajectory emerges from the annotations to the Dutch Authorised Version. There is a note in the margin to Romans 7:14 (‘For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin’) which nuances this verse by stating that we are ‘partly’ carnal due to the ‘remnants of the flesh.’ Those who have been regenerated may be ‘called carnal’ in view of ‘the shortcomings which are still in them.’ The same relativisation can be discerned in the following annotation, where it says about the attacks of sin that the believer earnestly resists them ‘and largely overcomes them through the Spirit of God in him.’14 The approach of Dort and the annotations show themselves to be entirely in line with what we find in Scripture. There we read that we overcome the world, that we are more than conquerors in Christ, and that we must grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.15 Accordingly, the obedience of Abraham, David, and Daniel’s three friends in faith appears to be hardly reconcilable with what the Heidelberg Catechism had called ‘a small beginning’ of the new obedience.16 Moreover, Scripture does not describe Zechariah and 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 John 5:4. BC, art 24. For the text see BB, 112 – 113. CoD III/IV,16. Cf. especially notes 63, 64, and 66. 1 John 5:4; Rom 8:37; 2 Pet 3:18. Gen 12 and 22; 1 Sam 17; Dan 3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The modesty of the Heidelberg Catechism

129

Elizabeth as sinners, but as righteous people who walked diligently in the ordinances of God.17 In light of the above, one may ask whether the expression ‘a small beginning’ really is a fitting description of the Christian life after all. This question becomes all the more pressing given the fact that these words are not marginal to the Reformed confession, but have become characteristic of the Reformed tradition as a whole on account of the popularity and widespread use of the Heidelberg Catechism. J. Veenhof ranks among the theologians who have expressed their discontentment with the catechism on this point.18 According to Veenhof, the Heidelberg Catechism does not speak as positively of the Christian life as Paul does, and he charges that this betrays its reactionary character in response to the perfectionism of the Anabaptists.19 He thus reproaches Reformed theology and piety for emphasising the past tense character of the salvation which is in Christ, yet without accepting the consequences of that perfectum. As a result, he writes, proponents of a Reformed piety are often afraid that they might express themselves too positively, and suspicious of the ability of the self. In the Reformed tradition, the brokenness of the world and our human limitations can thus become an excuse for the absence of real change in believers. Veenhof accordingly challenges Reformed piety by pointing it to the charismatic movement, where the perfectum of salvation in Christ is deemed to be determinative for our present state. At this point we cannot yet respond to the criticism of Veenhof. We can, however, establish that he asks a legitimate question and that this question deserves an honest answer. Has Reformed theology not placed too much emphasis on the power of sin, and this at the cost of the power of Christ? If the Christian life embeds itself in us like a corkscrew, ought this embedding not to be described in more positive terms? If the roots of our abasement reach down ever deeper into the soil of God’s Word, may we not expect a tree to flourish in this life of suffering? The parable of the Vine and the branches radically illustrates that a branch is nothing without the Vine.20 The branch must remain in the Vine, but it also has the promise that it will bear much fruit. Has the Heidelberg Catechism really recognised this principle sufficiently? And are there other currents of thought within the Protestant tradition that have done greater justice to this biblical notion? 17 18 19 20

Luke 1:6. J. Veenhof 2005:214 – 219. Cf. Ouweneel 2010:308. J. Veenhof 2005:253 – 254. John 15:1 – 8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

130

There is more

4.2. Puritan optimism in the Westminster Confession Having examined the structures of the Heidelberg Catechism, we now turn our attention to the structures of sanctification in the Westminster Confession. This confession is a fitting choice because it represents a milestone in the theological development of Puritanism, provides a representative description of Puritan spirituality, and continues to leave traces of itself in the worldwide Reformed tradition to this very day. Basic to the structure of the Westminster Confession is the covenant between God and man.21 The Christian life is not said to grow out of our unio cum Christo, as with Calvin or the Heidelberg Catechism, but our life is described as a covenantal life in which Christ functions as the Mediator of the covenant. Faith for that reason occupies a different place in the Westminster Confession than it does in the Heidelberg Catechism. In the Westminster Confession it is treated after justification, adoption, and sanctification.22 Although a number of theological rationales could be give for this choice, they fall beyond the scope of the present investigation.23 In the context of the present study, it is rather important simply to observe that the confession and catechism witness a structural difference in the way they treat faith, the unio mystica, and justification.24 While in the Heidelberg Catechism – following Calvin’s ‘repeated’ justification – justification is treated in present terms, the Westminster Confession emphasises that justification is a one-time event.25 Accordingly, justification can function in

21 Cf. W. van ’t Spijker 2002:129 – 135; 2006:366 – 367; J.K. Jeon 1999:40. B.B. Warfield 2003:VI,56 calls the covenantal structure ‘the architectonic principle’ of the confession. J.H. Leith 1973:91 identifies this as the most remarkable theological innovation of the seventeenth century. He understands the introduction of a historical dimension and of human responsibility as a positive correction to scholasticism, 94. S.B. Ferguson 1982:36 – 37 argues that federal thought arose from a new approach to Scripture. M.W. Karlberg 2000 has posited that a covenantal structure was present in creation, so that grace could function within a federal structure. According to J.B. Torrance 1982:44 – 48 our union with Christ recedes from view in the Westminster Confession, and is replaced by the notion of contrast instead. T.F. Torrance 1996:136 – 144 similarly locates the covenant in a logical-causal framework for the execution of God’s decrees. H. Rolston 1972:11 – 22 sees in this a divergence from Calvin. For the covenant of grace, cf. WLC, Q. 31 – 36. 22 WLC Q. 70 – 79 deals with the application of salvation. In it faith follows justification, and precedes the loci of adoption and sanctification. The placement of faith is even more noteworthy in the WSC. Q.29 – 38 treat the application of salvation and the benefits of Christ, followed by an exposition of the moral law and its application stretching so far as to include Q. 84. Faith is then addressed explicitly in Q. 86. 23 An important theological consideration is the covenant preceding faith, the unio mystica, and the imputative righteousness contained in it. 24 WC Chapter XIV. 25 Cf. E.D. Morris 1900:452, 460.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Puritan optimism in the Westminster Confession

131

the latter as an entrance to the life of the covenant. Theologically this means that there is all kinds of room to focus the Christian life on sanctification.26 This is indeed what happens in the Westminster Confession. In it the practice of Christian living is at least as important as doctrine,27 with the ordo salutis and the Puritan notion of ‘praecisitas’ standing out in particular.28 The Christian life is treated explicitly in the chapters devoted to calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, faith, conversion, good works, perseverance, assurance, law, worship and Sabbath observance, and marriage. With this, the confession shows its interest in ethics. Connected to this attention for the manifestation of the Christian life, the Westminster Confession also devotes more explicit attention to the believer than the Heidelberg Catechism does. For example, it deals explicitly with the new heart.29 After all, the covenantal structure of the confession no doubt implies that the Christian, as a party to God’s covenant, should receive a place of his own in the context of sanctification, and that his responsibility in this covenant demands treatment as well.30 The letters of Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661), one of the Westminster divines, are illustrative and representative of the Puritan emphasis on the renewal of life. Rutherford resists the tendency he sees around him to cheapen grace: ‘We found Christ without a wet foot; and He and His Gospel came upon small charges to our doors: but now we must wet our feet to seek Him.’31 As rebellious as our nature may be, and as difficult the battle, we may never allow ourselves to accept a minimal Christianity : ‘But verily, I see Christianity is conceived to be more easy and lighter than it is […]. [F]or our nature contented itself with little in godliness […]. Little holiness in our balance is much, because 26 E.D. Morris 1900:459 has argued that the Calvinists have placed too much emphasis on the pro nobis. Someone like Rutherford 2006:170 (5 January 1637) emphatically writes to encourage his readers to sanctification. In Owen we find a systematic approach to renewal, WJO III:366 – 651. 27 Cf. E.D. Morris 1900:507 – 509. Characteristic in this regard is the WLC’s heading over Q. 91: ‘Having seen what the Scriptures principally teach us to believe concerning God, it follows to consider what they require as the duty of man.’ The Christian life is thus treated in its own right. Questions 91 – 148 deal with the commandments. 28 J. van Genderen 1986:205 – 206 points to Witsius’s discussion of praecisitas. A. A. van Ruler calls it ‘een ordening en inrichting van het leven tot in z’n kleinste onderdelen op een zodanige wijze, dat het Gode welbehaaglijk en Gode waardig is, en dat welbewust niet in het klooster, maar in de wereld’, TW III,60. 29 E.g. WC Chapter XIII.1. 30 WC Chapter XVI.3. WLC speaks of our ‘duty’ as of Q. 91. E.D. Morris 1900:456 refers to a gratia cooperans (‘cooperating grace’). In HC question 64 and 86 Christ is the subject of the new obedience. 31 Rutherford 2006:551 (4 February 1638). The Christian life is made much too easy, Rutherford 2006:159 (1 January 1637). Cf. 167 (letter LXXIX), 442 (13 July 1637 to his church), 564 (5 August 1639).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

132

There is more

it is our own holiness; and we love to lay small burdens upon our soft natures, and to make a fair court-way to heaven. And I know it were necessary to make more pains than we do, and not to make heaven a city more easily taken than God hath made it. I persuade myself that many runners shall come short, and get a disappointment. Oh! How easy is it to deceive ourselves, and to sleep, and wish that heaven may fall down in our laps!’32 In these words we hear a heavy emphasis on human responsibility. Such an emphasis on the battle which believers must fight may cause the victory which has already been won by Christ to fade into the background. The Westminster Confession does not give a triumphalist description of the outcome to this battle. It speaks rather about an ‘imperfect’ Christian life.33 In the hearts of believers there are ‘still some remnants of corruption in every part.’ In spite of this, the outlook of the Westminster Confession appears on the whole to be more positive than the continental confessions; while in the Belgic Confession even our good works are said to be worthy of punishment, the Westminster Catechism claims that they are not ‘wholly unblameable and unreproveable.’34 This is not meant to suggest that the Westminster Catechism undermines the serious nature of the situation. For, we read: ‘Whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.’35 This is powerful language. After all, the confession speaks about a ‘war’, which it describes as ‘irreconcilable.’ This war arises from the ‘remnants of corruption’ which attack believers unexpectedly, as in guerrilla warfare.36 And yet, believers do not have to face the enemy on their own. The Holy Spirit produces and strengthens the grace necessary for Christians to walk in obedience.37 Through the continual supply of power from the Spirit of Christ, the ‘regenerate part’ will overcome. In this way there is growth in grace and sanctification will reach its completion. Thus, in their broad lines we hardly see any differences between the Westminster Confession and the continental confessions. On both sides of the Reformed tradition we find an emphasis on the grace-character of sanctification, while perfectionism is discarded. On the level of the finer details, however, there are remarkable differences. While the Heidelberg Catechism is structured around the person of Christ, the Westminster Catechism places the covenant in the centre and thereby creates 32 Rutherford 2006:145 (20 September 1636). 33 WC Chapter XIII.2. With this the WC distances itself from both perfectionism and antinomianism, R. Shaw 1980:144. 34 WC Chapter XVI.6. 35 WC Chapter XIII.3. 36 It is entirely comprehensible that Bunyan 1795:201 – 202 used this image in the Holy War. 37 WC Chapter XVI.3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Puritan optimism in the Westminster Confession

133

greater room for the spiritual man.38 Entirely in line with this, the confession works sanctification out in much greater detail. The battle between flesh and Spirit is explained in highly realistic terms, and within this battle the progress of the Christian life is sketched as a concrete reality. Neither formally nor materially do we find the confession describing this progress anywhere as nothing more than ‘a small beginning.’ There is a chapter in the Westminster Confession entitled: ‘Repentance unto Life.’39 This title thus already serves to indicate that sorrow for sin comes in the context of a progressing conversion. The content of the chapter deals with the concrete private and public confession of sins with a view to progress in renewal. This betrays a climate different from the lifelong penitence we had found in Calvin, which has its own place and an intrinsic value within the life of faith. In the Heidelberg Catechism the heartfelt sorrow over sins was similarly treated in the context of conversion, in connection with the abiding actuality of justification. In the Westminster Confession, in contrast, sorrow over sin functions within the context of our conversion to God and therefore has a place within the positive dynamic of regeneration. This subtle difference is highlighted when we compare chapter XIII.1 of the Westminster Confession with question 115 of the Heidelberg Catechism. In the Heidelberg Catechism a thorough knowledge of our sinful nature is identified as the point of departure for the abiding justification and for our continuing renewal. The Westminster Confession, in contrast, confesses that the lusts of the body of sin are more and more weakened and mortified.40 Entirely in line with this, the confession does not speak about ‘sinners’ but of ‘saints.’ In distinction from the catechism, the Westminster Confession assumes that a qualitative improvement takes place in believers, as well as a quantitative reduction of ‘the unregenerate part’, so that it speaks more mildly when it refers to the ‘pollutions’ of our nature and heart. After all, the Heidelberg Catechism’s reference to our ‘sinful nature’ is more serious in nature than the (healthy) nature with its imperfections of which the Westminster Confession speaks. In line with its evaluation of the sinful nature, mortificatio has an intrinsic value in the Heidelberg Catechism as one of the fruits of our union with Christ and stands in the context of the life lived out of the righteousness of Christ, while in the Westminster Confession we find mortificatio emphatically located within the context of vivificatio where it is to some degree a thing of the past. We can thus conclude that the Heidelberg Catechism, through the union with Christ, 38 Rutherford 2006:664 (28 September 1651) can – as an apparent corrective – say : ‘Holiness is not Christ; nor are the blossoms and flowers of the Tree of Life the Tree itself.’ 39 WC Chapter XV. 40 WC Chapter XIII.1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

134

There is more

attributes a structural place to the dying of the old man and to suffering, but that this element of crisis is overcome in the Westminster Confession because it made room for the dynamics of regeneration.

4.3. Christian perfection in John Wesley (1703 – 1791) Sanctification served as an important theme in Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. In the holiness movements it received even greater and isolated attention, and underwent several theological innovations. It is worthwhile to examine whether there is a relationship between Puritanism’s positive attitude with respect to renewal and the similarly positive attitude of the later holiness movements. The present investigation is not so much interested in the historical dimension, as that it seeks to shed light on the theological structures of the holiness movements.

4.3.1. Perfect love John Wesley is generally recognised as the father of the modern holiness movements.41 Having come out of the Puritan tradition, he presented several theological innovations among which his doctrine of sanctification took the most prominent place. Wesley referred to this as the grand depositum (i. e. the great gift) of Methodism.42 This was at once also his specific contribution to the history of theology.43 The theme of sanctification occupied Wesley from the very beginning of his career. His first published sermon, held on 1 January 1733 before the university in St. Mary’s in Oxford, was on the circumcision of the heart.44 By the ‘circumcision of the heart’ Wesley meant ‘that habitual disposition of soul which, in the sacred writings, is termed holiness […] and, by consequence, the being endued with those virtues which were also in Christ Jesus; the being so “renewed in the spirit of our mind,” as to be “perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.”’45 Later on in his sermon we read: ‘If thou wilt be perfect, add to all these charity ; add love, and thou hast the circumcision of the heart “Love is the fulfilling of the 41 Cf. B.B. Warfield 2003:VIII,463, 562; W.E. Sangster 1984:26. Warfield 2003:VII,3 observes that Wesley was not the first perfectionist but certainly a catalyst for the movement. 42 A. Skevington Wood 1967:250 – 269, esp. 250. 43 Cf. Wesley 1952; W.E. Sangster 1984; M.E. Dieter 1987; L.W. Wood 1988; J.W. Maris 1992, 22 – 67. 44 See Wesley 1991:V,201 – 211. 45 Wesley 1991:V,203.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Christian perfection in John Wesley (1703 – 1791)

135

law, the end of the commandment” […]. In this is perfection, and glory, and happiness.’46 Wesley developed this holy love more extensively in the tractate The Character of a Methodist.47 It is through love that we keep the commandments, deny the world, walk with God, experience peace, and love even our enemies. Love is what makes our life a living sacrifice of thankfulness to God. The urge to do evil is restrained or even overcome. Christians not only do the will of God, but also will to do nothing else.48 Wesley did not hesitate to depict this life of love in concrete terms. He addressed the temptations of riches, clothes, acts of charity, the redemption of time, family devotions, the rearing of children, visitation of the sick, and national sins. Another aspect of the life of love was faithfulness in the performance of one’s concrete duties: ‘Entire sanctification, Wesley teaches, is by faith, but also by rising at four o’clock in the morning and by fasting.’49 In addition, the exultant praise and inexpressible joy which Charles Wesley (1707 – 1788), John’s brother, demonstrated in his hymns were unique in the Christian tradition.50 Beginning in 1744, yearly conferences were organised with the goal of promoting concrete devotion to God.51 In A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (1766) Wesley defended his view on sanctification. He wrote that he had discovered this message by studying the Scriptures and the example of Jesus. He further refers explicitly to the writings of Thomas van Kempen and William Law (1686 – 1761). Wesley refused to accept that sin could belong to the basic pattern of the Christian life. Although David and Paul had stumbled, in this they were not normal Christian models. A good tree bears good fruit, he reminded his readers. The grace of God would be dishonoured if we speak of believers as ‘sinners.’ From a theological-historical perspective, this means that Wesley was unable to accept Luther’s simul iustus et peccator. According to him, there was no man who had understood justification better than Luther, and yet no one had also understood less of sanctification than he.52 Roman Catholic theologians, on the other hand, had written clearly about the matter of sanctification, but were entirely ignorant of the doctrine of justification. 46 Wesley 1991:V,207. J.M. Howard 2007:12 – 13 points out how love is central to Wesley’s theology. 47 Cf. Wesley 1952:11 – 14. 48 Even scattered thoughts are overcome, Wesley 1952:23. 49 As cited in J.W. Maris 1992:39. 50 Cf. J.I. Packer 1984:134. 51 Wesley 1991:V,37 – 53 at times also emphasised fullness of the Holy Spirit. One sermon in which he did so bears the title: ‘Scriptural Christianity.’ 52 So W.E. Sangster 1984:100.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

136

There is more

The data in Scripture were what pushed Wesley to formulate his doctrine of sanctification, although he admitted that we are hard-pressed to find anyone in Scripture who was perfectly sanctified.53 The weight he places on sanctification would later bring him into conflict with Count Nicolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700 – 1760). Initially the brothers Wesley and the count were closely united in their resistance against the desperate state of the church and in their attention for the personal experience of one’s relationship with Christ. Yet Zinzendorf was unhappy with the way in which Wesley emphasised that we are saved through our good works, while Wesley could not overlook the fact that Zinzendorf scoffed at all self-denial and mortification.54 In Wesley’s eyes, antinomianism was even more dangerous than the doctrine of predestination: predestination may be just an opinion, but in Wesley’s eyes antinomianism originated directly from the devil.

4.3.2. The road to perfection The notion of perfection was taken up by Wesley in his salvation order.55 Sinners were first to be convicted of their sins; to this end, Wesley preached in a penetrating fashion about God’s law and judgment. The convicted sinner then received forgiveness of sins. This forgiveness included the testimony of the Spirit which would grant assurance of pardon. Those who were justified had to hear that they were to move on to perfection.56 Initial sanctification occurred in a progressing process of deeper knowledge of self and in a gradual mortification. In distinction from the first ‘legal’ conviction of sin, this was an ‘evangelical’ sorrow over sin. A process of many years often passed until someone finally received ‘entire sanctification’ or ‘Christian perfection’ at a specific point in time. Wesley thus maintained a distinction between sanctification and ‘entire sanctification.’57

53 Wesley 1952:35 – 38 refers to Deut 30:6; Ps 130:8; Ezek 36:26, 29; Matt 5:48, 22:37; Luke 1:69; John 17:20 – 23; Rom 8:3 – 4; Eph 3:14v, 5:25 – 27; 1 Thess 5:23; Titus 2:11 – 14; 1 John 3:8, 4:17. On p. 61 he also refers to Jer 31:31; John 7:39; 1 Pet 1:11. 54 So W.E. Sangster 1984:101. Wesley 1952:91 also refers to the antinomianism of Crisp and Saltmarsh. 55 Cf. Wesley 1952:52; K.J. Collins 1997:155 – 159. 56 Wesley 1952:106. M.E. Kluit 1961:344 identifies it as something characteristic of Wesley that he speaks about babes in Christ, thereby implicitly emphasising the element of growth and development. 57 Wesley derived this terminology from 1 Thess 5:23a: ‘Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Christian perfection in John Wesley (1703 – 1791)

137

Most Christians received this ‘entire sanctification’ shortly before their death.58 According to Wesley, one had to be in the state of perfection in order to enter heaven. Following justification, entire sanctification was thus necessary as a means of purification in order to be admitted into heaven. Since most Christians receive this final grace shortly before their death, we can deduce that crises may function as catalysts for one’s total devotion to God. Just like justification, in Wesley’s theology entire sanctification is also received all at once.59 There was a theological motive behind this position. While the process of sanctification following one’s justification takes place in a cooperation between God and man, entire sanctification is immediate and sovereign in character. This immediate character made it possible for the grace of entire sanctification to be received at any given moment. Wesley thus gave the example of a certain Jane Cooper who received the riches of God’s love through ‘simple faith.’60 Wesley meant to demonstrate with this that a long process was not necessary before someone could receive Christian perfection. It is remarkable that Wesley spoke of a ‘second blessing’ in the context of Christian perfection.61 This demonstrates that he viewed entire sanctification as a new spiritual position. A closer examination of this concept reveals that it is more about the awareness of one’s sanctification than about this sanctification as such. Entire sanctification was in the first place an experience of happiness and joy. At the same time, it was connected to ‘normal’ sanctification; love left no room even to think about sin. This second blessing was therefore related to sanctification, but theologically it really was no sanctification at all. Accordingly, experience was turned into an independent theme. In the meantime, Wesley’s position had theological consequences for justification. His fear for antinomianism made him reserved about the imputative and forensic aspects of justification.62 In order to account for the given that believers do not remain unjustified, he instead emphasised impartation and participation. Justification is completed in sanctification, so that justification was no longer an independent theological locus in Wesley’s theology. Justification was teleologically directed to a life of sanctification.63 In this light it should not strike us as strange that Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification had consequences for the place of faith as well. In reaction to the quietism of the Moravians, Wesley distanced himself from the sola fide-princi58 Wesley 1952:41, 112. 59 Wesley 1952:41, 53; K.J. Collins 1997:96 – 100. There were Christians who could not identify the specific moment, Wesley 1952:106 – 107. 60 Wesley 1952:63 – 64. 61 K.J. Collins 1997:157 – 158. For a distinction among believers, Wesley pointed to 1 John 4:18. 62 K.J. Collins 1997:92 – 94. 63 J.W. Maris 1992:28.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

138

There is more

ple.64 In his eyes, the sola fide and sola scriptura had to be understood more as signifying ‘above all’ rather than ‘alone.’ The result is that in Wesley’s thought love has come to take the place of faith. One further wonders whether there is still any room at all for the pedagogical use of the law if Christians are perfectly sanctified.65 Has experience after all not taken the place of obedience? Moreover, it is questionable whether the witness of the Spirit still has any value in justification if assurance is made to depend on the perseverance of the saints.66 The division between different groups of believers which results from Wesley’s view of sanctification is similarly not theologically neutral. Our union with Christ comes to find itself under great pressure. Can one receive Christ for justification, but be without him for sanctification?67 It is also entirely imaginable for such a division between different kinds of believers to feed a kind of spiritual elitism. Ideal types come to be placed quickly over against each other, as if the one category of Christians only suffers spiritual defeats while the other category is nothing but victorious over sin. Wesley derived his division between different types of Christians from the history of salvation; after all, the apostles lived in a time before Pentecost, and then after Pentecost. Their baptism with the Holy Spirit became a model for the life of every Christian. When people were regenerated, they reached the Old Testament level, while the experience of entire sanctification raised them up to the higher level of the New Testament. As a consequence, in the Wesleyan tradition the book of Acts was no longer seen as an unrepeatable and one-time witness to God’s salvific acts, but turned into a collection of ‘ego-documents’ so that the fulfilment of the history of salvation was lost from view. The Wesleyan tradition also supported the phases it distinguished in the spiritual life by means of a typological Old Testament exegesis. The entrance into Canaan after the 40 years of sojourn in the desert became a metaphor of the ‘second blessing’ – although, given the fact that Jesus after his baptism in the Jordan was driven by the Spirit into the desert, it would seem that the sojourn in the desert is better seen as a life led by the Spirit.68 The Wesleyan approach illustrates that there is no room for trials in such concepts of the Christian life, and that the Christian life does not function within a framework of Word and faith. In this theology Word and Spirit are not continually related to each other, but the Word is a step up that one can take toward the life through the Spirit as it

64 65 66 67

Cf. F.D. Bruner 1976:326. J.E. Marshall 1981:17 – 40, 35 – 39. J. van Genderen 1991:13. Rom 8:30 inseparably connects justification and sanctification, cf. B.B. Warfield 2003:VIII,475 – 481. 68 Cf. K.H. Miskotte 1969:187 – 188.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Christian perfection in John Wesley (1703 – 1791)

139

is realised in love. Hidden behind this conception is a certain isolation of the Christian from his union with Christ.69

4.3.3. Sin Wesley defined sin as a voluntary transgression of a known command.70 This represents an important moment in his theology. Wesley wanted to indicate by it that the Christian life cannot coexist with a life of sin. Moreover, he sought to demonstrate that sin has a psychological dimension; the involvement of the will is what make certain acts sinful. As a result, also the motives behind our acts are of great importance.71 In the third place, Wesley’s view of sin did leave room for sin understood in an improper sense. In his eyes it is possible to break a commandment unconsciously. For that reason he emphasised that a sanctified Christian continues to pray the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer because, without the blood of Christ, he is worthy of eternal punishment.72 Wesley further added that the saints are the ones who are most conscious of their weaknesses and sins. In 1765 he remarked about himself: ‘I have told all the world I am not perfect […]. I have not attained to the character I draw.’73 Wesley sought in the fourth place to do justice to Christian experience. The spontaneous experience of God’s love was not to be weakened by the mention of sin. Entire sanctification is thus a matter of subjective experience. One wonders, however, whether Christians really benefit from a weakened definition of sin if Wesley himself indicates that the Spirit makes us extra sensitive to sin.74 One also wonders whether from a biblical-theological perspective one is justified to turn voluntariness into a criterion for sin. Sin is a power that surpasses our personality. In this respect we must think not only of personal character traits, but also about the sinful structures in the world. Here too we share both in the responsibility as well as the guilt. A third problem accompanying a weakened definition of sin is the onset of legalism and moralism. A focus on sins that are committed consciously will lead 69 This emerges very powerfully from C. Leiter 2009:71 – 111. 70 Wesley 1952:45. 71 HC question 62 indicates that even our good works are all imperfect. The marginal note refers to Is 64:6, in which not our ‘unrighteousnesses’ but our ‘righteousnesses’ are called ‘filthy rags.’ 72 Wesley 1952:43. 73 J. Telford 1931:V, 43. Cf. W.E. Sangster 1984:31. Wesley 1952:73 discovered in himself nothing but hell, sin, and darkness. Wesley wrote one of his longest treatises on the doctrine of original sin in response John Taylor, K.J. Collins 1997:31. 74 Cf. J.R. Tyson 1986:257.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

140

There is more

to a greater emphasis on maintaining culturally determined traditions or else to heroic acts of asceticism.75 Accordingly, the corruption of the human heart disappears from view and no longer has a place in the Christian life. Yet in Scripture we encounter a rich young man who could honestly say that he had kept all God’s commandments from his youth.76 And from the perspective of his consciousness that was indeed the case. For that reason, sin may not be restricted to conscious acts alone. To turn human consciousness into a criterion for sin is a subtle form of antinomianism. With it, the norm of God’s perfection comes to be sacrificed for a subjective consciousness of our own perfection.77 Moreover, ever since the twentieth century, psychology has poignantly pointed to the unconscious as the deepest source for our motives.78 The unconscious element in our sins is no excuse, but rather accuses us.79 Through the Spirit we pray that we may receive awareness of and purification from our hidden errors.80 Conversely, the operation of the Spirit reaches deeper than even our deepest consciousness. But if we exclude the unconscious from our understanding of sin, we likewise close the unconscious off to the sanctifying work of the Spirit. We can thus conclude that Wesley’s concept of sin is much too limited. The doctrine of sanctification has no use for a reduced concept of sin, and does well instead to insist on a robust theology of sin.

4.3.4. Perfection in a biblical-theological perspective Wesley did have a biblical motif available to him for speaking about perfection.81 After all, in Matthew 5:48 Christians are called to be ‘perfect.’ Wesley also did not absolutise this perfection, but distinguished ‘Christian perfection’ from absolute perfection, Adamic perfection, and angelic perfection.82 ‘Christian perfection’ was therefore not ‘perfect.’83 75 Cf. R.F. Lovelace 1992:104. 76 Matt 19:20. W.E. Sangster 1984:76 defends Wesley. We may also think of the spiritual comfort which the Pharisee felt when he boasted that there were certain sins that he did not commit, Luke 18:11 – 12. Cf. J. Bridges 2006:32. Ouweneel 2010:308, 310 – 311, 317 connects notsinning also to sinful acts. He further is of the opinion that believers ought not to direct themselves to mortification but vivification, 291. 77 Cf. B.B. Warfield 2003:VIII,525 – 529. 78 Cf. R.F. Lovelace 2002:74. 79 The fact that Jesus in Luke 23:34 prays that God may forgive the sins of the criminals ‘for they know not what they do’ is often understood as a mitigating circumstance. Exegetically, however, there is reason to maintain the opposite. 80 Ps 19:13. Cf. Ps 139:23; Jer 17:9. 81 Wesley 1952:16 – 21; W.E. Sangster 1984:79 – 80. 82 This distinction can be traced back to theologians from the early church like Macarius the Egyptian and Ephraim the Syrian, J.I Packer 1984:132 – 136.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Christian perfection in John Wesley (1703 – 1791)

141

This nuance which Wesley introduced into his concept of perfection was not sufficient in the eyes of the former slave captain and catholic-minded poet of Amazing Grace, John Newton (1725 – 1807). Newton could live with differences in respect to the atonement, election, and perseverance, but considered perfection to be such an important topic that he found competing views to be nothing less than intolerable.84 In his eyes it touched upon the very foundations of the Christian faith, and he thought that an improper understanding of perfection would only lead to fanaticism and bigotry. For that reason he did everything in his power to oppose all erroneous understandings. Undoubtedly the intensity of his opposition grew out of his deep spiritual experience as he described it in the following words: ‘My perfection is to see my own imperfection.’85 In this context the exegesis of 1 John 3:9 is important.86 According to the perfectionists, this text indeed means that every Christian ought to be perfect. Yet the broader context of the epistle shows that John did not envision an ethical or moral perfectionism.87 John insisted that by faith in Christ we are no longer under the dominion of sin. In this sense, the overcoming of sin is no ‘second blessing’ reserved for specific believers alone, but it is the spiritual position in which every believer finds himself in Christ.88 At the same time, Wesley does of course remind us that Scripture speaks about perfection. Etymologically the Greek word teleios goes back to the concept of ‘completeness.’89 It is about a heart that is undivided and unconditional in its surrender to God. Given the context of 1 Corinthians 14:20, it appears that teleios can also pertain to spiritual maturity.90 Understood from that perspective, perfection and growth turn out not to be mutually exclusive after all. A seven year old child may be complimented by his piano teacher who says that his playing was ‘perfect.’ But if the student plays the same way ten years later, the teacher will hardly repeat the compliment then. The concept of perfection is thus

83 Wesley 1952:34. On p. 60 Wesley provides a list of saints who predicted the end of the world. On p. 88 – 91 he identifies the danger above all of ‘enthusiasm.’ In a letter from 7 April 1763 Wesley wrote: ‘Hence all your thoughts, words, and actions are so imperfect; so far from coming up to the standard (that law of love, which, but for the corruptible body, your soul would answer in all instances), that you may well say till you go to him you love, “Every moment, Lord, I need the merit of Thy death,”’ as cited in L.W. Wood 1988:98. 84 Cf. J.T. Murray 2007:83 – 84. 85 A saying from William Grimshaw, as cited in J.T. Murray 2007:84. 86 J. Murray 1982:3,310. 87 Cf. 1 John 1:8 – 10. 88 Cf. J. Murray 1982:2,281 f. R. Shaw 1980:144 confirms that the biblical concept of perfection does not mean sinlessness. 89 G. Delling 1982:73 – 74 (TDNT). 90 1 Cor 2:6, 14:20; Phil 3:15. Cf. Delling 1982:76 – 77.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

142

There is more

related to time and to the occasions we have in the course of our lives to grow in the Christian faith. It is worth pointing out here that Paul writes about himself: ‘Not that I am already perfect.’91 These are the words of the very same man who writes that he has accomplished more in the kingdom of God than the rest!92 It is likely that Paul was conscious of his lacking measure of maturity in comparison to the full knowledge of God. These considerations allow us to conclude that Wesley loaded the biblical concept of perfection with the suggestion of eschatological sinlessness. With this he moved the eschaton ahead, and in order to achieve this he also had to adjust the notion of sin. In other words, Wesley failed to acknowledge that the ‘already’ pertains to the reality of faith in the here and now, while the ‘not yet’ relates to the future revelation of hope.93

4.3.5. Balance If we place Wesley against his Puritan background, it strikes us that love has been added as a new dimension to theology and spirituality. This has far-reaching implications. Instead of obedience to the law, it is love that occupies the centre of the stage. Experience too came to take on a significant place in his thought. Wesley placed so much more emphasis on sanctification than justification that the former became entirely isolate from the latter and the unity between them was undone. As a result, for Wesley it was no longer pertinent to speak about a remaining sinfulness, and sin came to be quantified in terms of an ‘entire perfection’, such that mortificatio was no longer seen as a continuing characteristic of the Christian life. In the third place we note that in Wesley’s thought the believer has become more independent than was the case in the Westminster Confession, due to the way in which in the Wesleyan tradition the history of salvation has been confused with the ordo salutis and the absence of a covenantal structure in it. Materially there is a difference as well. While in the Westminster Confession it is the battling believer who stands central, Wesley emphasises above all the experience of the Christian – although, admittedly, the war which Christians must wage is not entirely lost from view in his theology. With this, Wesley adopted a mediating position between Puritanism and Von Zinzendorf. While Von Zinzendorf placed the emotional experience of one’s relationship

91 Phil 3:12. 92 1 Cor 15:10. 93 J.I. Packer 1984:139 – 140.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Keswick’s claim to holiness

143

with Christ on the centre of the stage, Wesley continued to account for the battle and life of the Christian. Wesley’s conflict with Newton goes to show that from a Puritan perspective numerous questions can be raised about the theological contours of Wesley’s theology. He did not sufficiently account for the power of sin, and his perfectionism could therefore only lead to disappointment.94 His doctrine of sin is further unable to handle the unruly reality of our hearts and lives. In spite of these shortcomings, there is an element to his message that we may not discard all too quickly : sin should never become normal for us.95 Furthermore, Wesley had a sensitivity for the eschatological character of salvation and for our participation in it. This forces us continually to place the reality of love within a theological framework in which justice is done at once to the faith-character of salvation, as well as to the power of sin that remains in us.

4.4. Keswick’s claim to holiness 4.4.1. The call for a normal Christian life George M. Marsden (1939- ) has shown how the holiness movements had their roots in the eighteenth century, only to establish themselves primarily in the nineteenth.96 The revivals led to a general consciousness that the Spirit was being poured out, and that one could be filled with him. The Higher Christian Life of William Edwin Boardman (1810 – 1886), published in 1859, gave a voice to this consciousness.97 The attention for this phenomenon was intensified through the publication of Robert Pearsall Smith’s (1827 – 1899) Holiness through Faith in 1870, and, three years later, his Walk in the Light. His wife Hannah Whitall Smith (1832 – 1911) wrote The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life (1870), a bestseller which has sold some 2 million copies to date. The roots of the ‘Keswick’ or ‘Higher Life Movement’ can be traced back to the experiences and work of the Smiths. Eight years after their wedding they both experienced a spiritual breakthrough, in which the message of Romans 6 had an important place. In order to share their discovery with others, they spoke at conferences organised in the Broadlands, Oxford, and Brighton. Their un94 M.E. Kluit 1961:352 connects Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification to Remonstrantism. 95 J. Veenhof 2005:214 – 219. 96 G.M. Marsden 1980:72 – 101. He points out that Keswick has become canonised in the Scofield Bible, 79. 97 For a short overview, see J.R. McQuilkin 1987, S. Barabas 1952 treats the history and message of the convention, while J.C. Pollock sheds light in particular on its history. For the history of the origins to the Keswick Movement, cf. J.C. Pollock 1964:11 – 46.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

144

There is more

complicated, authentic, and encouraging message appealed to many Christians, among whom the vicar of Keswick. This eventually led to the first Keswick Convention in 1875 under the title: ‘Convention for the Promotion of Practical Holiness.’ These were the days of the campaigns of Dwight L. Moody (1837 – 1899) and Ira D. Sankey (1840 – 1908), when many Christians had an insatiable craving for spiritual victories. After the first conference, annual assemblies came to be held in Keswick, and these were soon followed by other conventions in the United States and Canada, attended by Christians from all church backgrounds and ecclesiastical movements. What united these conventions was their common pursuit desire for sanctification. People agreed in their diagnosis of the churches’ spiritual condition, and judged that Christianity was not living up to the standards set in the New Testament. An important moment in this diagnosis was formed by the interpretation of Romans 7:14 – 26. Although there was no such thing as a set ‘Keswick theology’, it is still possible to say that the Keswick Movement generally understood this passage to refer not to an unconverted person, but to the life of a believer.98 These verses from Paul’s letter to the Romans were not read as a description of a sound Christian, but of a Christian who attempts in his own power to fight against sin. These verses thus were thought to be about the ‘I’ without the Spirit. According to the Keswick theology, if we remain in Christ, we have the victory over sin. For that reason, the battle and struggle depicted in this passage cannot be a description of the normal Christian life. After all, in Matthew 11:28 Jesus does not invite us to come to him so that we might experience what miserable sinners we are. For the Keswick theology, the normal Christian life is instead described in Romans 8:37: in Christ we are more than conquerors, or in Philippians 4:13: we can do all things through Christ. The Higher Life Movement understood itself as a ‘spiritual clinic’ for helping Christians who lack in sanctification, so that they might be restored to the true Christian life. It was of the opinion that, because many Christians were not aware of the possibilities of this New Testament Christianity, they were living far below the bar. The Reformed doctrine of sanctification in particular was held to be responsible for the reigning ignorance of these possibilities.99 After all, if Christians think that they will only experience a ‘small beginning’ of this new life, they only need to make a small step to imagine that there is no possibility for spiritual growth at all. The people were therefore to be convinced that the 98 Cf. S. Barabas 1952:75 – 84; A. Murray 1888: day seventeen. For criticism, cf. J. Murray 1982:4, 285 – 286; J.I. Packer 1984:164 – 165. Packer points out that the life of Christians can serve as a corrective to this doctrine, such that the power of sin is still experienced in practice. 99 Cf. S. Barabas 1952:70.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Keswick’s claim to holiness

145

Christian life has greater possibilities than an all but imperceptible, gradual growth. The Higher Life Movement also distanced itself from the trajectory we encountered in the Westminster Confession, where the power of sin is said to weaken more and more in a life of sanctification.100 What marks the Keswick theology is its serious consideration of the reality of indwelling sin in believers. For that reason, the first day of the convention was also dedicated to that theme. The first day was intended to provide a thorough diagnosis of the spiritual illness. Here we see a correction to Wesley ; while we failed to find a robust doctrine of sin in Wesley, the Keswick Movement sought to place greater emphasis on sin.

4.4.2. Christ our sanctification After the first day on the problem of sin, the second day of the convention addressed the remedy to this problem. The topic for this second day was the cross of Christ through which sin is overcome. Just as in the theology of Wesley, Keswick drew a careful distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification and sanctification can go together, so it was said, but experience shows that this is more the exception than the rule.101 In spite of this convergence with Wesley, Keswick also corrected him on several points. For example, at the Keswick Convention the topic of perfection was not addressed in as unnuanced a manner as was the case in Wesley.102 Instead of the perfect Christian, it is Christ who stands central. Spiritual riches are not related to the experience of love in the heart, but to the salvific facts to which Romans 6 – 8 testify.103 This correction to Wesley does not, however, mean a return to the Westminster Confession. For, at Keswick there was greater emphasis on our union with Christ; in that sense there was a point of connection with Calvin instead. Nevertheless, also this connection to Calvin does not imply full agreement. In Calvin’s theology we do not encounter a positional holiness as we do in Keswick. From this basis in a positional and potential holiness, Keswick emphasised the fact that we receive holiness in faith. Sanctification is not a process of discipline, self-denial, and struggle, but a mystery of faith. In faith we are to claim the crucifixion of the old man. Our identity lies in the crucified and resurrected 100 101 102 103

S. Barabas 1952:71. Cf. WC XIII,2; B.B. Warfield 2003:8,579 – 583. Cf. B.B. Warfield 2003:475 – 478 who calls this the core of the holiness movement. Cf. G.M. Marsden 1980:77. J. Murray 1982:4,281 – 286 is appreciative of this.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

146

There is more

Christ. These notions taken from Romans 6 are like the ‘Magna Carta’ for the Christian faith.104 Hannah Smith was aware that historically she was introducing a new accent here.105 She claimed that, whereas the Reformation had discovered justification and the revivals had brought the doctrine of regeneration to the fore, later yet the doctrine of sanctification was finally being placed in the spotlight. When they discover that holiness is a matter of faith, Christians can be freed from their heavy burdens. In Jesus the power of sin has been broken. For that reason Christians ought not to live for sanctification but rather out of it. Throughout all this, the emphasis is on the ‘now.’ One does not obtain the victory after a long struggle, but in Christ an immediate victory is won over every sin, doubt, or error imaginable. Because faith is an act of the will, one can decide immediately that Christ will bear our burdens: ‘By the will, I do not mean the wish of the man, or even his purpose, but the deliberate choice, the deciding power, the king, to which all that is in the man must yield obedience.’106 Many Christians doubt about the truth of their faith. According to Smith, however, this is not necessary. We must tell ourselves that we believe, and ‘never, never, never allow yourself to doubt again.’107 After all, a daughter never says to her father that she cannot believe that she is his child. And, in any case, doubts are never from the Spirit.108 Even where there are no feelings or sorrow, people ought just to believe that they believe. Feelings are deceptive, and for that reason Christians should not base themselves on them. The will, in contrast, appears to be unable to err. Any notion of self-examination is therefore rejected here.

4.4.3. Consecration The third day of the Keswick Convention was devoted to the topic of consecration. Andrew Murray (1828 – 1917) had written a short book entitled Absolute Surrender.109 The title indicates that the self ought to be ‘utterly denied.’110

104 105 106 107 108 109

S. Barabas 1952:89, 104. Cf. H.A. Boardman 1996:21 – 28. H.W. Smith 1952:80. H.W. Smith 1952:75. H.W. Smith 1952:119. A. Murray 1988. For consecration, see S. Barabas 1952:108 – 127. For biographical material connected to Murray’s doctrine of sanctification, see L.J. van Valen 2008:222 – 240, 362 – 366. 110 A. Murray 1984:51. S. Barabas 1952:71 – 72 considers it ‘dangerous’ to speak about a process of mortification.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Keswick’s claim to holiness

147

You ought to ‘sink down in your nothingness.’111 The spiritual culture epitomised in these statements is the same culture that sings songs like ‘Oh to be nothing’ and ‘None of Self and All of Thee.’112 The thought underlying the theme for that third day was the understanding that every sin is in its core a ‘me-ism.’ Our ego stands central in our life. We may desire Jesus for our justification so as to enter heaven, but we do not recognise him as our absolute Master. For that reason, our life needs a conscious moment at which Jesus is given a monopoly in us. The restoration of the image of God in our life is a lifelong process, but before this process can begin there must be a moment of complete surrender to God. This is expressed in a variety of images, as in when it was said that we first have to get on the train before we can make our trip. This moment of surrender represents a decisive turning point in the life of the Christian. It recurs several times in moments of crisis. A ‘yes’ to God implies a ‘no’ to self. We do well to pay careful attention to the Keswick position here. It is not a matter of self-denial as such, but rather a denial of the self. For, it is possible to deny ourselves without actually denying our self. Yet, this theology insists, we must not only say ‘no’ to something for ourselves, but we must say ‘no’ to our very own self. In this context, the Keswick Movement pointed to Matthew 10:37 – 39, 16:21 – 26 and Luke 14:26 – 27, 33. Concretely this means that Jesus takes the place of the ‘I’ in our life decisions. Steven Barabas hastens to add that the denial of our self does not imply a denial of all personality. Our personality is engaged in the Christian life and is placed in the service of Christ. Without denial of the ‘I’ it is impossible for the Spirit to lead our lives. For that reason, the denial of the self is a precondition for receiving the streams flowing from the Spirit. Denying the self is like removing a dam from a river, so that the stream can flow in all freedom. The precondition of surrender of the self receives even greater emphasis when the Keswick theology compares it to the salvific facts. Just like the cross of Golgotha comes before Easter, so the sacrifice of the ‘I’ precedes the resurrection to new life. Here participation dominates over substitution. What is more, participation is understood in such a way that the Christian too goes the way of Christ. This means that participation is no longer a participation in the salvation been fulfilled in him. The differences compared to Puritan theology are abundantly clear. While Puritan theology places great emphasis on the spiritual struggle in which believers are fully engaged, the weight of the emphasis in Keswick is on the ne111 A. Murray 1984:55. ‘So long as I am myself still something, Jesus cannot be everything’, p. 51. 112 Cf. G.M. Marsden 1980:77.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

148

There is more

gation of the ‘I.’ Sin is not counteracted by the believer, but by the Spirit. This means that the Spirit is much more explicitly present than he is in Reformed theology.

4.4.4. The Spirit-filled life On the fourth day of the convention the theme shifted to the life through the Spirit, with the goal of this life becoming a reality for the attendees. The Spiritfilled life can be considered the central theme for the convention.113 In contrast to Wesley, a Spirit-filled life was here not seen as a ‘second blessing.’ Every Christian receives the baptism of the Spirit in his or her regeneration, although one Christian is not as filled with the Spirit as the other. The fullness of the Spirit cannot as such be characterised as the experience of an emotion. What is particular to the Spirit is that we receive him as a Spirit of power. If we deny ourselves, he can use us. We do not surrender ourselves if we at bottom desire the Spirit so as to serve our own self. We must first be emptied of our self before the Spirit can fill us and take control of us. Keswick urges us to ‘let go and let God.’ As long as we are filled with the Spirit, there are no inclinations to sin remaining in us. When the Spirit gives way, our sinful desires return to their former place. The fruit of surrender of the self and the fruit of the Spirit-filled life it entails is rest, joy, peace, love, victory, new courage, and a new usefulness in the service of God. The life of this ‘simple faith’ turns life into an exciting, romantic adventure. All our earthly cares become for us as the chariots of Elijah which transport us to a heavenly life.114 This understanding was what brought Hannah Smith to compose her book on a ‘happy life.’ The introduction to the modern edition of this work observes that its most important secret is the way it distinguishes itself from such classics as Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress, Van Kempen’s De Imitatio Christi, and Calvin’s Institutes by the absence of uncertainty and struggle. According to Smith, the Christian life is marked by a continuous presence in the heavenly forecourts. Concrete sins hinder our joyful experience of the Spirit-filled life.115 With a reference to Acts 5:32 Smith emphasises that the Spirit is given only to those who obey God. Accordingly, our awareness of sin plays a key role. As long as we are not aware of our sin, we can be happy. Smith further argued that we do not have 113 For this theme, see S. Barabas 1952:128 – 147. As Marsden 1980:93 points out, there are lines here to the Pentecostal movement. 114 Cf. S. Barabas 1952:84, 99. 115 Cf. J. Murray 1982:4, 282 – 284.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Keswick’s claim to holiness

149

to worry about our unconscious sins since they do not stand in the way of our communion with God. Whenever we become conscious of a sin, we must immediately bring it before God. It suffices to ask for forgiveness one time, since we otherwise turn God into a liar. Such accents cannot be found either in Calvin’s theology, or in the Westminster Confession. While the notion of peace in God is not absent from them, they do not connect this peace to holiness, and certainly not to an absence of awareness of sin.

4.4.5. Christian service The fullness of the Spirit was not an end in itself. The last day of the convention therefore emphasised that a Spirit-filled life will cause us to labour fruitfully in the kingdom of God.116 Through the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, the weakness of a Christian turns into power and courage. Peter is the great example of this. First he denied his Master, but through the Spirit of Pentecost he became bold and dauntless. The believer’s entire heart is filled with God and with his love. Preaching all too often goes no further than doctrine, abandoning the Spirit and power. Wherever this is the case, the means of grace are more a hindrance to the Spirit than an instrument for him. But if we are filled with the Spirit, the glorified Christ will speak and act through us. A heart filled with the Spirit shall overflow with him. This has been the church’s great secret in times of secularisation and paganism. Historically, the term ‘Christian service’ makes us think of the work for Sunday schools as well as urban evangelism. But an essential moment in Christian service is also the work of mission. On his deathbed William Booth (1829 – 1912) related that it had been Keswick that led him to the establishment of the Salvation Army. Keswick is also known to have had an influence on Hudson Taylor (1832 – 1905). In fact, two-thirds of the missionaries of the China Inland Mission were brought to surrender themselves to God for the sake of the work of mission through the conventions held in Keswick. There are also lines that connect the holiness movements to the practical Christianity of charity and social aid.117

116 Cf. S. Barabas 1952:149 – 155. The idea that we labour effectively in the kingdom of God through our baptism with the Spirit can also be found in R.M. McCheyne 1864:71 – 85. According to G.M. Marsden 1980:79 this aspect of the Keswick Movement can be traced back to Finney. 117 G.M. Marsden 1980:81 – 92 notes how the holiness movements initially placed great emphasis on the social aspect of the gospel. Yet when liberal Christianity too began to devote

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

150

There is more

With its emphasis on Christian service, Keswick introduced new accents to the tradition. While in the tradition holiness had been a category whose point of reference was God, in Keswick Christian service in the kingdom of God gained a dynamic of its own.

4.4.6. Balance The uncomplicated message of Keswick appealed to many ; its message was attractive, encouraging, and positive. It comes across as authentic and inviting, which is in itself all the more reason to subject it to a careful theological analysis. While in the Westminster Confession justification functioned in a ‘once for all’context, Wesley tended to view justification as a stage that has been passed. This line was pursued in Keswick. Here the Christian life was no longer concentrated on personal forgiveness, but on the question of our life for God. Distinct from the Westminster Confession and from Wesley, Keswick placed greater emphasis on our union with Christ. In this, the main trajectories of Romans 6 – 8 were of great significance. Keswick made the Christian faith tributary to itself by highlighting the significance of Romans 6 for holiness. Remarkable about the Keswick theology is that the salvation-historical perfectum is applied in terms of the ordo salutis, so that there no longer is a participation in a salvation which has already been fulfilled. Instead, Keswick announces in an absolute or indiscriminate manner that believers must claim the new man and no longer have anything to do with the old man.118 Keswick takes no account of Colossians 3:3, for example, where it says that believers have died and are alive in Christ, while we read several verses later on that they are to put to death their members which are on earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness. Similarly, it fails to take account of the distinction between participation in the salvation that has been fulfilled in Christ and the salvation that still awaits revelation. In that sense Keswick can be said to have an ‘overrealized eschatology.’ Given the way Keswick interprets Romans 6 in terms of the ordo salutis (rather than in terms of the history of salvation), one would only expect the second part of Romans 7 to be understood of a struggling believer. This presents us with a remarkable paradox where sin in the Christian is on the one hand mentioned more explicitly than it is in Wesley, while Keswick on the other hand denies that attention to it, the ‘fundamentalists’ became somewhat more reserved toward the ‘social gospel.’ 118 C. Leiter 2009:96 argues that believers have a holy nature, that their hearts are not of stone (p. 84 – 85), and that Matt 15:19 does not apply to believers but to unbelievers, cf. 102 – 102, 106, 235 – 236.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Keswick’s claim to holiness

151

it ought to become a theme in the Christian’s life. Everything revolves around the notion of ‘absolute surrender’, which becomes a condition for overcoming the power of sin and for receiving the total holiness available in Christ. Here we find a remarkable paradox, if not discrepancy, in the Keswick theology. In spite of its emphasis on the passivity of the self, the self still holds that passivity in its hands. One could therefore ask whether faith has been reduced to an act of the will isolated from the mind and the affections, with the will being of determinative importance.119 In other words, we are the ones who can give the Spirit control over us, but we can also wrest that control from him again. Therefore, in spite of Keswick’s emphasis on the denial of the self, it still retains an anthropocentric tendency. And hidden behind its antinomian tendencies, there appears to be a latent legalistic root. For how do you actually know if you have sufficiently ‘let go and let God’?120 The way in which Keswick describes this passivity removes every distinction between being and sin. Although the Keswick theologians deny that this is the case, personality and the sinful ‘I’ really do come to be identified with each other. This is a quietist trait. The awareness that it is the Spirit who sanctifies us through such means of grace like prayers, trials, admonitions, examples, consolations, and instruction in doctrine thus fades from view.121 Another element that disappears is discipline. While the Westminster Confession had spoken about a lifelong war against sin, in Keswick sanctification is received immediately.122 This is related to the way in which the work of the Spirit is described; Keswick speaks about the control of the Spirit. We no longer make our own decisions, but it is the Spirit who makes decisions for us.123 This is not something we see in Scripture, which rather speaks in terms of the more subtle concept of the guidance of the Spirit. The language of Scripture means that we still have control over ourselves.

119 H.A. Boardman 1996:43ff; B.B. Warfield 2003:VIII,532 – 542; G.M. Marsden 1908:99 – 100 on Warfield’s criticism. In spite of the Keswick Movement’s insistence on the sovereignty of God, Warfield identified a Pelagian tendency in its insistence on the human decision to surrender oneself to Christ. 120 M. Horton 2011:674. 121 In Phil 2:12 – 13 and 2 Tim. 4:7 this aspect of the battle comes powerfully to the fore. 122 John Newton defended a ‘progressive sanctification’ over against an ‘instanteous sanctification,’ so J.T. Murray 2007:84. 123 McQuilkin 1987:176 – 177 pointed to the parallel with demon possession.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

152

There is more

4.5. Evaluation The investigation of this chapter brought to light that there are different understandings of the applicatio salutis (‘application of salvation’) within orthodox Christianity.124 Although I am aware that there is actually greater nuance and that there is a danger in over-schematisation, we could say that the Heidelberg Catechism is representative of a category in which the unio mystica takes a central place. Following from this position, we see in the catechism a continual movement from law to gospel, the abiding centrality of our justification, an emphasis on continuing sorrow as an element of our mortificatio, and a modesty in regard to the renewal we actually attain. The Westminster Confession and Wesley fall into a second category. Both take their starting point in the believer’s new heart, such that there is greater interest for what it precisely is that the believer receives. The circular movement from law to gospel is thus replaced by one great, lifelong movement from law to gospel so that the old may be left behind. Both concepts are marked by an optimistic dynamic whose most moderate form can be understood in terms of the progress described in the Pilgrim’s Progress, and which to this very day remains in some sense characteristic of American culture with its roots in Puritanism. The approach surrounding the Keswick movement represents a category of its own, which cannot be subsumed under the preceding. It is reminiscent of the first category on account of the central place it attributes to the person of Christ. And yet, this comparison fails as soon as we note Keswick’s Christocentricity. For, there is no continual circular movement from law to gospel, and even the one-time, lifelong movement from law to gospel is overshadowed by an immediate passage from law to gospel which demands that every recollection of the law and, along with it, a continual mortificatio be discarded. While the Heidelberg Catechism had insisted that it is important to become aware of one’s sinful nature for the sake of salvation, and while the Westminster Confession understands the old nature to weaken more and more, Keswick insists that the old reality of sin must not be taken too seriously. While on the one hand the Keswick theology does not start with the weakening of the old nature and yet does fully acknowledge the sinfulness of that old nature, this reality must on the other hand be overcome by our claim in faith to our position in Christ. In Keswick justification and sanctification have come to take on a similar structure, such that Luther’s simul iustus et peccator has been morphed into a simul sanctitus et peccator (‘at once sanctified, at once sinner’). This is the state of affairs from a Christological perspective. Given our Christological position, this process returns in Keswick in a pneumatological 124 Cf. F.G. Immink 2003:114 – 117.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

153

Evaluation

perspective where renewal does not go back to the old nature but to the position that has been given us in Christ. This makes it possible for the Christian life not to be determined by mortificatio, but to stand more in the light of the vivificatio than it does even in Puritanism. The degree of renewal is thus evaluated most positively in the Keswick theology. The relativisation of mortification and, along with it, the relativisation of the centrality of justification made the simul iustus ac peccator problematic for Wesley. As a result, also the traditional Protestant exegesis of Romans 7:14 – 26 became problematic for him, and this was true to an even greater degree for the Keswick Movement due to the central role it attributed to this passage as a hermeneutical key for defining different positions within the process of sanctification. The exegesis of these verses raises a fundamental question: does Reformed theology focus too much on sin compared to the resurrection of Christ and the believer’s vivification which flows out of it? This question renders a re-examination of this periscope necessary, and therefore serves as the question to be investigated in the following chapter.125 The Keswick Movement has put its finger on the significance of Romans 6 for the Christian life. Accordingly, it placed great emphasis on the Christian’s position of holiness. Although the way Keswick developed this notion is not altogether unproblematic, we must admit that it raised an issue which as such is worthy of further exploration. Especially the relationship between the believer’s position of holiness and his concrete renewal raises exciting questions for us. These will form the subject of chapter six. Another difference that emerged from the present chapter relates to the involvement of Christian personality in renewal. The Heidelberg Catechism showed itself to be most Christocentric, while Puritanism heavily emphasised the spiritual war, and the holiness movements manifested certain quietist traits. Keswick in particular demanded attention for the Holy Spirit. This issue of the relationship between the believer’s personality and the work of the Holy Spirit will serve us as a fitting introduction to the seventh chapter below.126 In the meantime we ought not forget that these different streams all witness a common interest in the practice of the Christian life. Believers may not be satisfied with a minimalist Christian life of complacency. This make the message of the holiness movements all the more relevant in our current ‘sorry-culture.’ From this perspective it is entirely understandable that the ‘small beginning’ of the Reformed tradition as it is expressed in the Heidelberg Catechism is deemed 125 G.C. Berkouwer 1952a:55 emphasises that the exegesis of Rom 7:14 – 24 has a key role in quantitative questions concerning the Christian life. For his treatment of this passage, see 53 – 67. 126 J.M. Howard 2007:16 has demonstrated how Reformed theology places great emphasis on the element of responsibility, while Wesley emphasised the Holy Spirit.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

154

There is more

to be somewhat problematic by engaged Christians who seek to devote themselves to God. This in fact was what once led Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye (1818 – 1874) to observe that a hint of Methodism is indispensable for a balanced Christian life.127

127 D. Chantepie de la Saussaye 2003 3:338. G.C. Berkouwer 1952a:48 – 51 reminds us that we may not be too quick to discard perfectionism.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

5.

‘O wretched man that I am!’

The previous chapter showed that the exegesis of Romans 7:14 – 25 plays an important role in the holiness movements. In fact, the last verses of this chapter are important not only for them, but for every theology of the Christian life.1 For that reason, the present chapter will focus on the interpretation of this passage. As we will see, there are a variety of positions on its exegesis. While some understand Romans 7:14 – 25 to refer to a struggling believer, others understand it of a healthy believer, and yet others of an unbeliever. After we have described the various interpretations, we will make a case for engaging this passage in our systematic reflection on the basis of a biblical-theological exegesis of it.

5.1. The struggling believer: the holiness movements Although there are considerable differences among the various holiness movements, they do all share the same basic understanding of Romans 7:14 – 25. These verses were and still are understood by them to describe a believer who lives under the flesh. This implies that Christians can be regenerated and yet live carnally. John Wesley underwent intense struggles before he came to the light of the gospel. In his mind, the words of Romans 7 describe the experiences he had prior to the definitive breakthrough in his life. Accordingly, he understood the next chapter (i. e. Romans 8) as a description of the liberating experience of freedom in Christ. After Wesley, the tradition of the holiness movements came to view Romans 7:14 – 25 increasingly in terms of the failings of a regenerated Christian.2 This led to the view that someone could after his initial conversion still remain a slave to 1 Bavinck RD IV,261 – 262 emphasises that Rom 7 has a key position within the Pauline corpus. 2 There are also theologians outside of the holiness movements who follow a similar approach, cf. A.B.R. Clark 1993:20 – 21.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

156

‘O wretched man that I am!’

sin for a shorter or longer period of time and attain to ‘entire sanctification’ thereafter. There are also variations on this basic position, as when this excerpt from Romans 7 is understood as the description of a spiritual fall in a believer’s life, or to demonstrate that Christians can attempt to reach holiness through their own power. As such, Romans 7:14 – 25 is thought to reflect the language of a frustrated Christian. Several motives can be given that support such approaches to the latter part of Romans 7. In the first place, one could point out that this interpretation appears to do justice to the spiritual experience of believers. After all, our spiritual life is not like a smooth plain, but our experience undergoes ups and downs. Similarly, it cannot be doubted that believers attempt at times to be spiritual in the way of the flesh. The first interpretative cluster is closely bound up with a specific view on the relationship of Romans 6 – 8: whereas Romans 6 is understood to describe the normal Christian life, Romans 7:14 – 25 is thought to reflect one’s fallen or carnal state, while Romans 8 is taken as a depiction of the flourishing spiritual life. From this perspective, the level of spirituality described in Romans 7:14 – 25 clearly falls short of the required mark. As such, this interpretation also launches a powerful call to seek to be filled with the Spirit. Within this broader biblical-theological framework, there are also some more strictly exegetical motives that would seem to favour this approach to Romans 7. Romans 6:2 and 6 emphatically insist that believers are in a new position. They have died to sin, and their old man has been crucified with Christ. But if they still experience the power of sin, they would appear not to be living yet out of that new position. In the third place, a comparison with Romans 7:5, where the arousing of sin is said to belong to the time when we were still in the flesh, yields a similar result. Since Romans 8:1, 4 – 5 speak about those who walk according to the Spirit, Romans 7 must be understood to describe a category of Christians who walk according to something else. From the perspective of a comparison of these two passages, it would seem that the two ways of living they describe – i. e. in the flesh, and according to the Spirit – cannot go together. In this context, we can add also a fourth observation. Romans 6:14 declares that Christians are no longer under the law, but under grace. Yet the fact that the subject or ‘I’ of the second part of Romans 7 is oriented to the law suggests that his disposition is not of faith, but rather the disposition of someone who lives as if he is not in a new position. Believers are not to be oriented to the law, but to Christ. In the fifth place, we can point to a number of other New Testament passages. 1 Corinthians 3:1 – 3 is an example of a text which deals with carnal Christians. The first verse suggests that Christians can be divided into two

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The healthy believer

157

categories: carnal Christians, and spiritual Christians. In verse 3 the carnal Christians are said to be causing strife and divisions. It is not hard to see why the categories drawn out in 1 Corinthians cause exegetes to make a quick connection to the relationship they identify between Romans 7 and Romans 8. The transition from a lower spiritual level to a higher and richer level means that the frustrations in the Christian life are overcome, and that the victory becomes visible in our lives. Finally, there are also several theological motives which seem to support this first interpretation of Romans 7. Holiness movements are characterised by a deep-seated conviction that grace is much more powerful than sin. As such, they consider the simul iustus et peccator to diminish the power of God’s grace because it leaves the impression that the life of the believer is not really changed by the power of God’s Spirit. Christians who can identify with the language of Romans 7:14 – 25 therefore do not (yet) live in the power of the Spirit. For, the Spirit’s power should make it possible for us no longer to be defeated by sin. At the end of this overview, we can note that the view on Romans 7:14 – 25 that sees in it a reference to a languishing spiritual life is of foundational importance for certain streams within the Christian tradition. This trajectory is accompanied by a distinction between different categories of believers, where Romans 7:14 – 25 is thought to describe the life of one group, which phase is then thought to have been overcome by the other group.

5.2. The healthy believer By their exegesis of Romans 7:14 – 25, the holiness movements depart from the mainstream Christian tradition in which this passage has been understood to refer to the life of a believer. This emerges when we examine several key moments in the history of this tradition.3

5.2.1. Augustine (354 – 430) The first three centuries of the Christian era were dominated by the understanding of this passage in terms of a pre-Christian experience.4 Among those who followed this reading, we find the likes of Origen (œ 185 – 254) and Tertullian (œ 160 – œ 230). The same is true of the early Augustine. In his de3 Cf. O. Kuss 1963:2,462 – 485; H. Lichtenberger 1997 and 2004; M.P. Middendorf 1997:15 – 51, 265 – 275. 4 A.B.R. Clark 1993:12 – 16.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

158

‘O wretched man that I am!’

scription of his conversion, he relates Romans 7 to that period when his heart had not yet been penetrated by faith.5 Later on, however, Augustine changed his mind. As his Christian experience deepened, he gained greater insight into his own heart. Another factor behind this development was his controversy with Pelagius (œ 354 – œ420/440). In the end, Augustine became convinced that Romans 7 is an autobiographical description of Paul’s own experiences.6 In spite of the general understanding of this chapter in terms of a pre-Christian experience, exegetes like Hilary (315 – 368) and Ambrose (339 – 397) understood Paul to be describing his own struggles with carnal lusts.7 Augustine’s insight led him to the conviction that a deeper experience of grace is accompanied by a deeper consciousness of the sin dwelling within us. This is at once indicative of a continuing battle which the Christian must wage against indwelling sin: ‘That takes effect for the main of faith in this life wherein the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, so that we do not the thing we would, wherein the other law in our members wars against the law of the mind, wherein to will is present but to perform the good is not.’8

5.2.2. The Reformation The view of the mature Augustine proved very influential for the history of the Christian church through the medieval period, so as to produce a consensus on Romans 7 among Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed theologians and scholars alike.9 While Luther first understood Paul to be speaking about the period prior to his conversion, later on he changed his mind: ‘This entire passage clearly indicates a complaint and hatred of the flesh and a love for the good and for the Law. But this attitude is in no way characteristic of carnal man, who prefers to hate the Law and laughs at it and follows the desires of his flesh. For the spiritual man fights with his flesh and groans because he cannot do as he wants to.’10

5 Conf. VII.21.27 and VIII.5.11 – 12. 6 Retractationum 1.23.1 and 2.1.1; Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum 1.10 – 11. Cf. E. TeSelle 2002:111 – 146. 7 Cf. J. Fraser 1992:254. 8 De Spiritu et Littera 33.59 (translation from Burnaby 1955:243). Cf. 14.26 and 36.66. The struggle described in Rom 7:14 can also function as evidence for Christians, Sermo 53 A, 12. 9 Cf. Steinmetz 1995:118. 10 WA 56,340, translation LW 25:328. Cf. WA 52,264 – 265. In De Servo Arbitrio Luther refers to Romans 7 as the reality in the regenerate man, WA 18,783. Cf. Steinmetz 1995:114 – 115.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The healthy believer

159

This interpretative trajectory fits in well with Luther’s theology of the cross. When during his Wartburg period he heard about the fanatics in Wittenberg, he wrote: ‘How does the Holy Spirit manifest himself personally in them? Ask them if they have experienced anything of those spiritual temptations and godly birth pangs, of those mortal fears and hellish ailments. If you hear from them that everything has happened smoothly, resignedly, religiously, and piously, you must insist on withholding your approval – even if they claim to have been taken up into the third heaven. The sign of the Son of man is absent from them, the divine touchstone for Christians and the investigator of the human heart. Do you want to know when and how God speaks to men? Listen then: “like a lion, so he breaks all my bones”, and: “you hide your face from me, and my soul is full of mourning, my life is close to hell.” God does not speak so immediately that we see him, as they claim. For no man shall see God, and live. […] Could the heavenly majesty converse intimately with the old man, and not first have to put him to death and let him dry out lest his hateful stench spread its odours?’11 Calvin too followed in the line of Augustine.12 In his commentary on Romans 7 he relates how the church father first held another view, but later recognised that the passage describes the experience of a regenerate man.13 In that Calvin claimed to have ‘many good reasons,’ he not only made it clear that one hardly ought to doubt that this passage relates the experience of a regenerate person, but also showed that there was something at stake in this exegetical question. While for Luther it was the doctrine of justification that was at stake, Calvin also applied anthropology in order to defend his exegesis. For, if even the natural man were to have good inclinations, this would appear to argue in favour of the freedom of the will. Calvin uses the term carnis reliquiae, ‘remnants of the flesh,’ to describe the old man. This phrase serves to distinguish between believers and unbelievers. If we further investigate how these ‘remnants’ are to be understood in Calvin, we encounter the notion of the ‘pars.’ Calvin’s use of this term points to a quantification of the Christian, in whom one part is renewed and the other not. If there is such a partial carnality in the believer, however, one wonders how Calvin can continue to speak of a ‘continual’ forgiveness and ‘repeating’ acquittal. If believers remain sinners in part, the notion of a ‘continual’ justification becomes difficult if not impossible to maintain.

11 WA, Br. 2, nr. 450. 12 CO XLIX:128 – 136 (comm. Rom 7:14 – 26). Cf. Steinmetz 1995. 13 When Calvin in his exposition of verse 15 addresses the spiritual position of those who use this language, he uses the concept of regeneratio a remarkable amount of times (4x). He also uses renasci one time. Calvin’s usage follows the same pattern when he treats Rom 7:14 – 26 in Institutes II.ii.27.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

160

‘O wretched man that I am!’

In the definitive edition of the Institutes, we no longer find such a quantification of the old and new man,14 although Calvin still does speak about the carnis reliquiae. That this expression is not to be seen as a kind of watered down description of the reality of sin in the believer is evident from the fact that Calvin, in contrast to Augustine, speaks not only about weakness in the believer, but explicitly also about indwelling sin.15 Sin no longer rules in believers, but it does still dwell in them. As such, Calvin maintains a qualitative distinction between believers and unbelievers. Theologically this position also serves to justify the continual need for justification. This notion is emphasised in Calvin’s decision in his Romans commentary not to put the phrases ‘I am carnal’ and ‘sold under sin’ together, but to treat them separately. With this he shows that he did not understand sarkinos (carnal) as an adverbial qualifier of ‘sold’, but as an adjective that pertains to the apostle Paul himself. However, Calvin did not draw out the full implications of this move, namely, that carnality is also total in nature. At the same time, his approach cannot be explained such that Romans 7:14 would be thought to meant – as was indeed done later on (see below) – that I ‘am sold under sin insofar as I am carnal.’

5.2.3. The Reformed tradition The trajectory that we traced from Augustine to the Reformers came to be codified in the Reformed confessional documents. Both article 24 of the Belgic Confession as well as article 13.2 of the Westminster Confession refer to the second part of Romans 7 to reject the perfectionist doctrine. The article in the Belgic Confession closes by insisting that we depend on the merits of Christ alone for our salvation, which serves to indicate that the Christian life continues to revolve around the matter of justification. The Reformed trajectory can also be clearly seen in the Heidelberg Catechism, especially in question 60. Here the life we live out of our justification is played out under our conscience’s accusation that we fail to keep God’s commandments. In this context the catechism refers to Romans 7:23.16 The textual reference is added to the line which states that we are still inclined to all evil. This basic theme comes out even more explicitly in question 114. Here the catechism refers to Romans 7:14 – 15 in support of its statement that we have 14 Institutes III.iii.9 – 11. So also K. Barth CD IV/2,571 – 572. 15 W. Krusche 1957:284 argues that Calvin holds the regenerate to be in themselves carnal. 16 Leaving aside for now the question of the historical origin of these textual references, it is indicative for the Reformed tradition that this confessional document refers to Rom 7.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The healthy believer

161

only a ‘small beginning of this obedience’ in this life. Question 115 makes it clear that the law is not preached so that we may be renewed through it, but so that we may become more and more aware of our sinful nature. The catechism’s language suggests that we have only a small knowledge of our sinful nature. It does not, however, saying anything about the carnis reliquiae we find in Calvin. A tension thus remains in the answer of the catechism. For if we come to know our sinful nature more and more, it might seem to imply that believers have not undergone any qualitative change. Yet the Heidelberg Catechism itself does not draw this conclusion, and states instead that we are being renewed more and more after the image of God. This leaves us with the question how these two elements – i. e. our increasing knowledge of our sin, and our renewal after the image of God – relate to each other. The catechism does not describe the relationship between these two sides in quantitative terms, however, and instead leaves the paradox to stand. In other words, the more thorough our selfknowledge, the more our renewal manifests itself. We must be spiritual, or so it seems, in order to know that we are carnal. There are numerous points in the tradition at which we see the language of the Reformed confessions at work. Willem Teellinck (1579 – 1629) treated the exegesis of Romans 7 issue in his De worstelinge eenes bekeerden sondaers, ofte Grondige Verklaringe van den rechten zin des VII Capittels tot den Romeijnen, enz. (‘The struggle of a converted sinner, or : Thorough exposition of the correct meaning of the seventh chapter to the Romans, etc.’).17 Here Teellinck emphasised that Paul uses the present tense in Romans 7:14, and accordingly distinguished between a carnal and a spiritual part in the believer and quantified them. The carnal part is entirely sold under sin, as was true of Ahab in the Old Testament. With this comparison, Teellinck showed that he considers the nature of sin in the regenerate to be equivalent to the sin that is in the unregenerate. The Puritan tradition too applied this passage from the letter to the Romans to the life of the believer.18 This emerges when we examine the references to Romans 7 in sermons and treatises, as well as lengthier expositions written by the Puritan writers. As early as 1639 Edward Reynolds (1599 – 1676) wrote an extensive treatise on The Sinfulness of Sin in which he devoted a long section to Romans 7.19 Here we find the all-important Reformed and Puritan distinction sin as it dwells in the Christian’s heart, and the failure of that sin to rule us there.20 17 Cf. W. Teellinck 1650:285 – 291. This work was written against Socinus, Joris, and Arminius, W.J. op ’t Hof 2011:151. 18 Cf. the annotations to WC Chapter XIII.2 – 3 where Rom 7:18, 23 are applied to believers. 19 E. Reynolds 1826:I,244 – 286 wrote on Rom 6:12 and Rom 7:9 in I,102 – 243. The latter section does not treat Rom 7:14; contra R.P. Martin 1997:377. 20 E. Reynolds 1826:I,247. For this distinction J. Fraser 1992:279 – 280 points to Zech 2:7, John 6:56 and 1 John 4:13. We find the same in Calvin, Institutes III.iii.11, and in CoD V,1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

162

‘O wretched man that I am!’

The most significant Puritan study in this regard comes from John Owen (1616 – 1683) in his The Nature, Power, Deceit, and Prevalency of the Remainders of Indwelling Sin in Believers. On the first page of this work Owen writes that he is aware of the discussions about the ‘I’ of Romans 7: ‘Many, indeed, are the contests about the principal scope of the apostle in that chapter, and in what state the person is, under the law or under grace, whose condition he expresseth therein.’21 Owen, however, right away presents his own solution: ‘I shall not at present enter into that dispute, but take that for granted which may be undeniably proved and evinced, – namely, that it is the condition of a regenerate person, with respect unto the remaining power of indwelling sin which is there proposed and exemplified, by and in the person of the apostle himself.’ Another work written in the Puritan spirit is A Treatise on Sanctification of James Fraser (1700 – 1769), where the author devoted some 100 pages to the identity of the ‘I’ in Romans 7:14 – 25.22 Fraser makes the necessary efforts to assure his readers that this passage does not describe an unbeliever, but is about a believer.

5.2.4. Kohlbrugge (1803 – 1875) on Romans 7:14 There is no one who has applied Romans 7:14 – 25 to the life of a healthy Christian in a more poignant fashion than Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge (1803 – 1875).23 The existential character of his approach to this text is abundantly evident from his personal account of his famous sermon on Romans 7:14, which he preached in 1833: ‘The occasion for this sermon was as follows: on a Monday evening I was in the Missionshaus, where I read Romans 7 and thought that the fourteenth verse must be read in this way : I am carnally (i. e. adverbially, “insofar as the flesh is concerned”) sold under sin – without a comma. When I came home in the evening, I found a message from Krummacher Sr. asking me to preach for him on Wednesday. Tuesday morning I went to see him, and as I found him ill I took over his preaching engagement. Back home I prayed to God that he might give me a text, opened my Greek Bible to Romans 7:14, and read: I am carnal, sold under sin. Nothing has ever gripped me more in my life than the sight of this comma. I fell down before the Lord, praised his Name, extolled his

21 J. Owen 1967:VI,157. 22 J. Fraser 1992:254 – 356. According to J. Murray 1990:257n, Fraser numbers among the most able proponents of the view that Rom 7:14 – 26 refers to the Christian life. 23 For the sermon on Rom 7:14, see H.F. Kohlbrugge 1967:I – II, 45 – 71; 1892, part two, cited below as 1892:II; 2009:171 – 191.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The healthy believer

163

compassion, and wrote my sermon out with a speed I fail to grasp myself, in einem Guss.’24 Kohlbrugge’s great exegetical discovery was the comma in Romans 7:14. This comma indicates that the Christian is not carnal in part, but that this carnality is – in a more Lutheran sense – comprehensive.25 In his epistolary exchange with Isaac da Costa (1798 – 1860), Kohlbrugge described his newly gained insight in greater detail: ‘I am entirely, with my whole person, with body and soul, with mind and will, with all my senses and limbs – carnal, in the way I live internally and externally, born entirely of flesh, grown from sinful seed, and conceived in sin […] and the soil of my heart is no more than sin, yes everything that stirs and moves in and around me, together with all my powers, desires, lusts, inclinations, – my entire being is sin, and all the impressions I receive from within and without become sin, or else sin comes and lingers and attaches itself to my being.’26 For Kohlbrugge this discovery was like a second conversion experience. After his first encounter with the grace of God in 1826, he wrote, he underwent spiritual growth: ‘I grew and increased in the law more than others did, and everyone who knew me can testify that I was equal to or more than them, and many were even offended at the holiness I advocated, and even more were offended that I was so consequent in my persistence in and exercise of this holiness […]. But then the righteousness of God was revealed to me for the first time, such that my own righteousness suffered total shipwreck. I learned that someone can earnestly defend the law and all holiness, and can also exercise it practically, – and yet have no understanding of law, or sin, misery, inability, faith, grace, and on the contrary commit all kinds of sins and abominations without being conscious […]. I managed to persist for a long time in attempting to reach perfection with the law in hand, and to fight until my nails began to bleed. But in this pursuit I sank ever more deeply, and when I could not sink any deeper and was far lower than the devil, the Lord met me there in my lost and desperate state, and said to me: “Just as you are, so you are holy to me; nothing more, nothing less!” To me this was at once unexpected and incomprehensible. I saw a lamb at the right hand of Glory, – and there I took my leave of the law, of all holiness, of all my knowledge of good and evil, of my regenerated, converted, and pious self, from my knowledge of God, my vision of him, of all my piety, of all that has, gives, or produces flesh, and now my only salvation is found in the heights and depths (i. e. with our God), and that he is, is my eternal, only joy, peace, and life, 24 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1967:I – II,80; 2009:33. 25 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1892:I,25 – 26. 26 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1892:II,15.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

164

‘O wretched man that I am!’

gladness, Gospel, law, and gospel, – everything else I consider, together with myself, to be dust and ashes […]. I became drunk with comfort that, when I was blinded by my unrighteousnesses, when they numbered more than the hair on my head and when my heart had left me, when my leprosy and its plagues were at their worst, the Lord said to me: “You, o leprous man, are now clean! You have put off the old man, your old man is crucified along [with me], you have put on the new man. And who was I, that I should not believe what the Lord said to me? And even though from then on the devil attempted time and again, with all his fury, to drive me from that word, that word, on which I continued to depend in all my sorrow, proved to be stronger than everything assailing me, – and that word is my rod and staff, and a lamp to my feet. What I am relating to you is not an example so as to tell something about myself, for when I lost my way, I experienced that the word of the Lord endures forever.’27 Kohlbrugge’s autobiographical account could appear to suggest that he had travelled to Wuppertal without any previous reflection on the ‘I’ in Romans 7, and that he received a ‘revelation’ there. The reality of the situation was somewhat more nuanced, however, as the issue had already been circulating in the spiritual climate in which Kohlbrugge moved. Materially his great discovery had already been described by Friedrich Wilhelm Krummacher (1796 – 1868) and Willem Laatsman (1806 – 1883).28 In addition, we can identify a trajectory to Kohlbrugge stretching back to the Hernhutters and von Zinzendorf.29 Yet it still was Kohlbrugge who clearly perceived the consequences of his view and worked them out. As a result, he soon found himself in great tension with the R¦veil.30 While the R¦veil was permeated with the notion of growth in holiness after justification and regeneration, Kohlbrugge questioned this. He turned the matter around, for in his eyes the spiritual reality involves a paradox: as soon as we seek to do something spiritual, the carnal in us is called to life.31 Using the story of Jonah, Kohlbrugge vividly demonstrated that one does not so much advance in Christian spirituality, as discover more and more the carnal nature of one’s heart: ‘Jonah emerged on land as one who had been spit out, as one cast from hell. How this Jonah differed from the old Jonah! He used to be stout and strong, he used to be so holy and could walk with such dignity, with his head in 27 28 29 30

As cited in W. Otten 1992:66 – 68. J.E. Cantillon 1925:265 – 266, 269 – 283; T. van Es 2009:20 – 25. T. van Es 2009:16 – 20. O.W. Dubois 1997:198 – 204 points out that prior to his famous sermon on Rom 7:14, Kohlbrugge was sorely disappointed in the R¦veil because he was not given the support he needed to obtain membership in the Dutch national church (Hervormde Kerk). 31 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1892:II,21 – 22.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The healthy believer

165

the clouds. How clean his clothes used to be, with gold bells of holiness along the seams, so that all could hear the sound and exclaim: “There he comes, there he goes!” But look at him now! Did he have any form or comeliness? Had the Jews seen him in these circumstances, they would no doubt have asked: is this Jonah, is this a prophet of God, is this a Christian? His elegance had melted away altogether, his glory had disappeared […] so that he looked worse than ever before. He was more sinful than ever before, more miserable and helpless, more unclean and blemished than at his first conversion […]. And so he had to tell the whole truth and confess how he wanted to be holy but had sinned in this, how he is no longer holy now, and how he had to acknowledge that God alone is holy and that, regardless of the way he looks right now, now he really is holy because salvation is from the LORD.’32 Kohlbrugge’s discovery was thus all-determinative for his understanding of the Bible. His exegesis turned what had been a single incident in Jonah’s life into something characteristic of every healthy Christian; the story of Jonah was internalised, and applied to the lives of all believers.

5.2.5. Karl Barth (1886 – 1968) While Karl Barth followed Calvin on many points of sanctification, he could not accept his thematisation of the doctrine of repentance.33 He was similarly critical of Kohlbrugge.34 In Barth’s eyes, the fear of God (timor Dei) is not a part of the believer’s participation in Christ, and the dark side of mortification otherwise risks over isolation as to end in a proclivity for self-negation. Furthermore, so Barth argued, the Christian life is not only lived coram Deo, but involves also the neighbour from the very beginning. He was afraid that if repentance were to be thematised as a separate topic, it would end up being isolated from the human soul, disconnected from the concrete experience of life. Barth also had a Christological motive for his criticism: in his eyes, what Paul wrote about the old and new man refers in the first place to Christ, rather than the conversion of believers. For these reasons he appealed for a positive emphasis on our belonging to God and turning to him. Against this background, Barth’s approach to Romans 7:14 – 25 is nothing short of remarkable.35 Barth posited that one of the ways in which the Spirit works on us is our horror over ourselves as people. Through the Spirit we 32 33 34 35

H.F. Kohlbrugge 1989:56 – 58. M. den Dulk 1987:73 – 95. K. Barth, CD IV/2:576 – 577, 581. Barth 1933:257 – 270.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

166

‘O wretched man that I am!’

discover the law and see that we fail to meet the demands of the law even in our most upright of moments. The apostle who had devoted himself to God recognised that God alone is good. Here Barth essentially followed the traditional Reformed position. In his Church Dogmatics he further added that the believer is ‘a great sinner’, and that those who have been redeemed are conscious of their lack of freedom so as to have no reason for smugness at all.36 This allowed him to emphasise that there is a continual need for justification; in fact, Barth radicalised Luther’s simul iustus, simul peccator to simul (totus) iustus, simul (totus) peccator.37 At the same time he acknowledged that God’s ‘no’ is at work in us against our sinful will. How this total sinfulness and the operation of God’s grace relate to each other in us, however, is something he did not address. The movements do not exclude each other, they cannot be quantified, and they are both realities in us. Above all, sin and grace ought not to be described in terms of partiality (partim) but totality (totaliter). With this, Barth occupies a remarkable position within the Reformed camp. While he in his exegesis of Romans 7 he followed the radical approach of the Reformed tradition, he shrank back from accepting its consequence, namely, that the negative aspect of mortificatio has a structural place in the Christian life.

5.3. The unbeliever 5.3.1. Voices from history Throughout the history of the Christian church there have always been moments when the ‘I’ in Romans 7 was understood to refer to unrepentant sinners sub lege (‘under the law’). As David C. Steinmetz (1936 -) has pointed out, this position was not always indicative of a particular confession adherence.38 While Bernard Ochino (1487 – 1565) was at first Reformed, he later adopted Anabaptist thoughts; Jacopo Sadoleto (1477 – 1547), on the other hand, was an exception among his Roman Catholic co-religionists; and, finally, Fausto Sozzini (1539 – 1604) numbers among the anti-Trinitarians. The position that understands the ‘I’ of Romans 7 as an unrepentant sinner can also be found in humanists like Erasmus and Hugo Grotius (1583 – 1645). In this regard, Erasmus’s work on the freedom of the will is illustrative.39 A re36 Barth CD IV/2, 524 – 531. 37 Barth CD IV/2, 572 – 573. Horton 2011:658n cites Mannermaa who suggests that we find a combination of both totus-totus and partim-partim in Luther. For Barth, cf. also Berkouwer 1952a:74 – 76. 38 D.C. Steinmetz 1995:111 – 112, 117. 39 D. Erasmus 1969:IV, 41 – 53. See also 120 – 157.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

167

The unbeliever

markable feature of his Romans commentary is the absence of references to Augustine.40 Erasmus argued that intellect and will cannot function properly without the grace of God, insisting nevertheless that this does not mean that they do not function at all in the absence of grace. He thus held there to be a higher and a lower part in man, a good and an evil inclination. Later on, also Jacobus Arminius (1559 – 1609) occupied himself with the identity of the ‘I.’ His treatment of Romans 7 (De vero et genuino sensu cap. VII epistolae ad Romanos dissertatio) is in fact his lengthiest work.41 Arminius rejected the traditional understanding of the ‘I’ in Romans 7:14 – 25 as a regenerated person. In his eyes, the description of new life as we find it in Romans 6 and 8 cannot be reconciled with the negative qualifications applied to the ‘I’ in Romans 7. This led Arminius to argue that this chapter ought to be understood of a sinner who is in the process of being regenerated. The Holy Spirit convinces the sinner of the goodness of God’s law, which goodness the sinner then recognises, although he cannot obey it. For while his mind wants to obey, his flesh does not. In the understanding of Arminius, therefore, sinners find themselves in a dilemma along the road to regeneration. Arminius’s appointment as professor of theology in Leiden was surrounded by concerns about his orthodoxy. The conference that was organised between him and Fransiscus Gomarus (1563 – 1641) in 1603 came to focus on the meaning of the ‘I’ in Romans 7.42 At the end of the conference, Gomarus stated that was willing to accept Arminius’s appointment. An agreement was reached between them whereby Arminius could maintain that the ‘I’ was sub lege, although he conceded to Gomarus that the ‘I’ was also not without the Spirit. Another moment in history at which a divergent interpretation came to light was the Pietist movement. It too came to a new understanding of the ‘I’ in Romans 7. In their fight against a hard and cold orthodoxy, Philipp Jakob Spener (1635 – 1705) and August Hermann Francke (1663 – 1727) focused everything on a life of devotion and good works. Accordingly, they understood Romans 7:14 – 25 to refer to an unregenerated man. Such a person could be living under certain convictions, yet without truly having experienced regeneration. The words of the ‘I’ witness of an absence of the power of the Holy Spirit in this person, and that he does not share in the new life in Christ. The Pietist tradition was probably also apprehensive of an overly great emphasis on internal corruption, fearing that it could make people passive. 40 J.B. Payne, 1984:xviii-xix; M. Reasoner 2005:76 – 77. 41 Arminius 1629:824 – 934; 1986:II,488 – 683. Turretini writes that Arminius holds there to be a third position between believers and unbelievers, ITE II.xvii.ii.xii-xiii. See also W.A. den Boer 2009:135 – 141; E. Dekker 1993:29 – 31. On flesh and spirit in the believer, see K.D. Stanglin 2007:120 – 130. 42 Cf. Starreveld 1997:160 – 161.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

168

‘O wretched man that I am!’

5.3.2. A dissenting voice within the Reformed tradition: D.M. Lloyd-Jones (1899 – 1981) David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899 – 1981) occupies a remarkable position when it comes to the exegesis of Romans 7:14 – 25. As a theologian he was committed to a classical Reformed framework, and yet he adamantly distanced himself from its interpretation of Romans 7. Although he maintained the Reformed understanding of grace, in his exegesis of this passage he was in fact closer to Arminius. In unequivocal words he rejected the view whereby this passage is understood to refer to someone in the state of regeneration. In the context of verse 14 he remarked: ‘Is this, then, a description of the regenerate man? Here again I have no hesitation in asserting equally strongly that it is not, and that it cannot be so.’43 Lloyd-Jones’s rejection of the traditional exegesis of Romans is related to the way he understands the overall structure of this letter in terms of the ordo salutis.44 As he sees it, there are verses in Romans 6 that leave no doubt that we are no longer slaves to sin after conversion; Romans 6:22 indicates unambiguously, after all, that we have been set free from sin. Lloyd-Jones observes the same in chapter 7, where above all verse 5 occupies a key position for him: when ‘we were in the flesh, sin was at work in us.’ Verse 6 then emphasises the greatness of the contrast: ‘but now we have been delivered from the law.’ Given his understanding of the structural order of Romans as describing the phases in the Christian life, Lloyd-Jones cannot reconcile verses like the above with an interpretation that understands Romans 7:14 to describe a Christian. For, believers are not under the law, but under grace. Lloyd-Jones points out that chapter 8 confirms to us that the Spirit has set us free from the law of sin and death (verse 2). Lloyd-Jones’s basic point is that two things cannot at both be true of Christians at the same time: you cannot say that believers are carnal and sold under sin, and at the same time state that they have been delivered from sin. While this might suggest that exegetes ought to draw a dividing line between verses 14 and 15, Lloyd-Jones does not do so. Instead, he understands these two verses to refer to the same person in the same spiritual condition. As such, they describe someone who has seen the spiritual character of the law and also wants to keep it, but experiences that he cannot. The person in question is therefore carnal, sold under sin: ‘I assert that it is neither the unregenerate nor the regenerate.’45

43 D.M. Lloyd-Jones 1973:192. 44 D.M. Lloyd-Jones 1973:192 – 200. 45 D.M. Lloyd-Jones 1973:192.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

169

The unbeliever

Here we see something in Lloyd-Jones of the Puritan legacy and its notion of the ‘awakened sinner.’ An awakened sinner is conscious of spiritual matters, but is not him- or herself spiritual yet. In the Puritan tradition this approach appears to have had a pastoral background. Lloyd-Jones, however, has turned a Puritan practical and pastoral application into an independent spiritual category! Just as with Kohlbrugge, the experience of the Christian plays an important role in Lloyd-Jones’s exegesis. Because he could not imagine a Christian to experience such an intense struggle with sin, he concluded that the text does not refer to a Christian.46 In the end, however, Lloyd-Jones actually ends up accepting in his solution the same duality he had initially attempted to avoid. He could not accept a Christian to be said at once to be and not to be under sin. Yet his own solution implies in the end a spiritual category of people who are neither converted nor unconverted. Thus, his solution to one theological unclarity only called another one into being. In the final analysis, Lloyd-Jones’s unique approach within the Reformed tradition serves to highlight that this tradition finds itself in a significant dilemma. For, while it argues on the one hand that sin no longer reigns in the believer, it on the other hand understands the words of Romans 7 to be those of a healthy believer. But are Paul’s words not much too radical to come from a healthy Christian? Or is Lloyd-Jones correct to insist that this passage of Scripture cannot be understood to refer to a partial carnality? This raises the question whether the Reformed-Puritan tradition was all too quick in applying the apostle’s words to a believer. Just like Arminius, LloydJones understood Romans 7:14 – 25 to describe a dominion of sin that is irreconcilable with the power of the Holy Spirit. Applied to the dichotomy between the indwelling of sin in believers and the dominion of sin in unbelievers, it would imply that the final part of Romans 7 cannot be understood to refer to a believer.

5.3.3. The salvation-historical line Werner G. Kümmel’s (1905 – 1995) monograph on Romans 7 marks an important turn in the exegesis of this chapter by virtue of its salvation-historical 46 M. Eaton 1994:190 – 191 wants to follow the line of Lloyd-Jones, but concludes that Rom 7:14 – 25 refers to an unbeliever. He understands Rom 7:7 – 25 as a development of Rom 7:5, and connects the delight in the law of God mentioned in verse 22 to the unbelieving Pharisee, 202 – 203. Eaton further sees the expression of thanksgiving in verse 25 as a Pauline interpolation, 205 – 207. The passage thus describes the extent of and limits to what the law can accomplish in unbelievers. In the end, for Eaton Rom 7:14 – 25 sounds a warning not to live under the law, and functions as an appeal to walk by the Spirit, 194, 198 – 199.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

170

‘O wretched man that I am!’

approach.47 Kümmel no longer read the letter to the Romans from the perspective of an individual Christian’s position in the ordo salutis, but as the description of the new state of affairs that is in Christ and as the contrast between law and Spirit. The result was that from a biblical-theological perspective it was no longer necessary to relate Romans 7:14 – 25 to a believer.48 By now, this salvation-historical interpretation has also met general acceptance.49 The arguments that various proponents of this view have given in favour of their position can be summarised as follows:50 1. Just like Romans 7:5, also verse 14 is about someone who is ‘in the flesh.’ The latter pericope could thus also refer to an unbeliever. 2. What strikes one about Romans 7:14 – 25 is the absence of a reference to the Holy Spirit, which in turn explains the failures of the ‘I.’ The person described in this passage does not live through the Spirit, but serves God in the power of the ‘I’ (verse 26).51 3. Romans 7:14b describes someone who has been sold under sin. Such language does not match with Romans 6:2,6,11, 18 – 22, which emphasise that the Christian has been delivered and no longer lives in sin. Once we were slaves to sin, but in Christ we have now become slaves of righteousness. 4. The language of Romans 7:14 – 25 cannot be harmonised with the language of Romans 8:2. Here the freedom in the Spirit is contrasted directly with the ‘law of sin.’ The law of sin is addressed in Romans 7:15 – 20 and 23, so that these verses must be about someone who is in another spiritual position. Romans 7 and 8 therefore do not describe the same reality. 5. The New Testament witnesses that believers have a war to wage against the power of sin.52 While the many admonitions we find in the epistles confirm that the power of sin is not simply something they have left behind, the New Testament does not warrant the notion that Christians undergo the kinds of failures described in Romans 7:14 – 25. Believers may indeed be under the influence of sin, but they no longer belong to the kingdom of sin.53 47 W.G. Kümmel 1929. For the historical context, cf. D.J. Moo 1996:444. 48 Cf. J. Ashton 2000:218; H. Ridderbos 1975:126n. The classical Reformed position can be found in Bavinck RD III,81 – 82; J. van Bruggen 2006:256 – 260; M.P. Middendorf 1997; J.I. Packer 1984:263 – 270; J. Cottrell 2000:1,445 – 446. The same conclusion was drawn in Roman Catholic exegesis, Th.C. de Kruijf 1986:161. T.R. Schreiner 1998:379 – 392 leaves the spiritual position of the ‘I’ undecided, but does list arguments in favour of the Reformed position. 49 Cf. Starreveld 1997:157. 50 Cf. D.J. Moo 1996:445 – 446. 51 J. Murray 1990:257 refers in this context to W.H. Griffith Thomas. 52 Rom 6:12 – 13, 13:12 – 14; Gal 5:17, 6:1. 53 Dunn argues that the powerful claims regarding Christian freedom are qualified somewhat in Rom 7:14 – 26. He thus understands this pericope to apply to a believer who lives in the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

171

The unbeliever

6. Romans 6:14 and 7:4 – 6 state that the Christian is free from the law. Since Romans 7:14 – 25 depicts someone who is under the law, the ‘I’ cannot be a believer. 7. Galatians 5:18 confirms that when we are led by the Spirit, we are not under the law.54 This is entirely in line with Romans 6:14. The final pericope of Romans 7, in contrast, describes life under the law, without the Holy Spirit. There the flesh is not said to be crucified, in contrast to what we find described for us in Galatians 5:24. 8. Romans 8:4 states that the righteous requirement of the law is being fulfilled in believers. Since the final part of chapter 7 describes someone’s failures, that ‘someone’ cannot be the same person as the believer of Romans 8:4. 9. Paul uses the ‘I’-form as a stylistic device, and it is not intended to be understood autobiographically.55 Instead, he is looking back to the pre-Christian situation under the Mosaic dispensation, and wants to demonstrate for the benefit of the Jews that the law cannot save us. This is why he identifies himself with the Jews. The last verses of Romans 7 must therefore be understood more in a salvation-historical manner than in terms of a person’s position in the ordo salutis or autobiographically. This variety of arguments suggests that it will be difficult to be consistent in maintaining a salvation-historical perspective on Romans 7:14 – 25, given that the comparisons which different interpreters draw between Romans 6 and 7 frequently use arguments of an ordo salutis-nature. In the second place, it should strike one that the salvation-historical interpretation understands Spirit and law as polar opposites. In the third place, there is a considerable variety among the various salvation-historical interpretations. While some argue that Paul is in this section speaking autobiographically about his life prior to his conversion, others suggest that he is speaking about the Jews in general. Yet others have argued that the apostle was seeking to indicate generally that life without the Spirit is bound to end in frustrations. These three critical observations will function as a framework for guiding our own biblical-theological proposal in what follows toward an exegesis of Romans 7:14 – 25.56

54 Cf. H.K. Chang 2007: 275 – 276. 55 Cf. D.J. Moo 1996:448, 450. 56 T. de Kruijf 1978:127 points out that the exegesis of this passage is closely related to one’s broader theological position.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

172

‘O wretched man that I am!’

5.4. The contours of a Christian anthropology 5.4.1. Citizens of two worlds It is altogether true that Romans 7:14 – 25 differs on the whole from the broad context in which the salvation-historical reality in Christ is described. This is what has led many to conclude that Paul must be speaking about the situation prior to the new state of affairs which has come about in Christ. This raises the question why Paul would have chosen at all to speak in the present tense and in the first person singular. Some have suggested that the use of the ‘I’ was meant to convince the Jews that the law cannot save.57 This solution is not, however, entirely without its problems. After all, Jews were a minority in the church at Rome,58 and those who did belong the church at Rome were believers. Paul would therefore have had no reason to make any accommodations to them. In fact, Paul does not accommodate himself, as is evident from his explicit mention of Christ in this pericope. Moreover, the unbelieving Jews would readily have admitted that Paul was carnal.59 In the third place, it must be observed that Paul never shrunk back from proclaiming the full truth to the Jews; when he addresses certain issues in other places of this letter, he does not mince his words at all.60 The argument which insists that Paul is using the ‘I’ as a figure of speech is similarly unconvincing. This observation finds further support when we note that Paul does not use this device anywhere else in his letters. Wherever he writes in the first person singular on other occasions,61 he always speaks autobiographically. Assuming now that Paul was indeed speaking about himself, we still have to ask why he chose to use the present tense in Romans 7:14 – 25. Would it not have been more natural for him to have used the past tense? As such, he could have highlighted how great the riches are when we live in Christ by contrasting this life with the time when he was still living as a rabbi. The use of the present tense is even more remarkable in light of Paul’s use of the aorist in the first part of Romans 7. This suggests that Paul must have had a reason to speak in the present tense in Romans 7:14 – 25.

57 58 59 60

J. Lambrecht 1992:59 – 65 mentions Paul, Adam, Israel, or the believer. D.J. Moo 1996:4 – 13. Cf. J. Fraser 1992:261. Rom 4:14, 6:16 – 20, 7:5, 8:7,9. According to Burger 2008:273 Paul is not entirely negative toward Judaism. 61 Gal 1:13 – 2:10, 2:19 – 20; Phil 3:4 – 17, 4:10 – 20; 1 Tim 1:11 – 16 (regardless of the question of authorship). Paul’s intention is biographical, Burger 2008:272.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The contours of a Christian anthropology

173

To suggest that Paul had stylistic reasons for his use of the present tense strikes one as somewhat forced, however.62 When he describes his past in Galatians 1 and 2, for example, Paul did use the past tense.63 Furthermore, in light of the structure of the letter to the Romans, it would have seemed much more natural if chapters 2 and 3 had given a description of his past life. Moreover, the relationship between the first and the second part of verse 25 becomes entirely incomprehensible if the cry in the latter should be understood to refer to the past. Why would Paul have decried his past in this way when he uses such triumphant language in the present?64 The real question is therefore not why Paul used the present tense in Romans 7:14 – 25, but why he did not do so in the preceding section. The fact of the matter is that, when Paul uses the aorist in the surrounding context, he is pointing to the new salvation-historical state of affairs which has come about in Christ. The current state of affairs, in contrast, are described by Paul in relation to himself. This places us before the staggering observation that Paul is not speaking here about the time before his conversion, but about his spiritual reality twenty years after his dramatic and powerful conversion on the road to Damascus. The great apostle to the gentiles says that he is ‘carnal’! There are several considerations which lend themselves to support this position. In the first place, the new salvation-historical state of affairs does not mean that the old world has definitively passed. After all, the continuing presence of death reminds us that we still must face the old world.65 The dispensation of the Spirit did not in this sense put an end to the power of sin and death.66 The fulfilment of the history of salvation cannot be absolutised. Closely related to the preceding consideration is the recognition of the salvation-historical dimension of the letter to the Romans.67 While an exclusively ordo salutis-reading of the letter leads to conflicts within the letter as a whole, the recognition of its salvation-historical dimension does create room for a salvation-orderly element.68 Thus, from his position in the salvation-historical reality of Christ, Paul takes a step back as it were and compares himself to the reality that is in Christ. As such, we have a ready explanation for the distinction between Paul’s use of the aorist tense and his use of the present tense. While the present tense relates to Paul himself, the aorist pertains to the history of salvation as it 62 K. Kuula 2003:239 – 250. The present tense argument was already used by Turretini, ITE II.xvii.ii.xiii. 63 Cf. 1 Cor 13:11. 64 J.D.G. Dunn 1998:474. 65 D. Garlington 1994:110 – 143; A.F. Segal 1990:225. 66 Both Rom 6 and Rom 8 show us the reality of sin in the believer, cf. Burger 2008:272. 67 Cf. A.B.R. Clark 1993:25 – 51. 68 Cf. A. van de Beek 2008:186.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

174

‘O wretched man that I am!’

has been fulfilled in Christ. This serves to indicate that Paul’s letter to the Romans does have a salvation-orderly dimension, but also that it ought not to be read in purely salvation-historical terms. Within a salvation-historical framework, there is room in this letter for the pneumatological dimension in which salvation is appropriated by believers to function. This creates a tension in Paul’s letter to the church at Rome. Salvation is complete and Christians share in this complete salvation, but the appropriation of this salvation is not complete. Christians stand in a reality that now includes mortality and sin. When the letter describes what is true for believers in Christ, it powerfully witnesses to us that our old man has been crucified with Christ.69 This ought not to be understood to mean that believers no longer have anything to do with the old man. Also in this respect, faith is a testimony of the things we do not see. All of this means that Christians share in two realities. They are part of the new aeon, but they also belong to the old aeon. The result is a tension for the life of faith. This tension cannot be reduced to a psychological category ; rather, a real spiritual conflict is taking place. The reality of God’s kingdom and the reality of the old dispensation meet each other in a full, frontal collision. The description of this conflict surpasses the personal struggles of the apostle Paul. It is the contrast between Adam and Christ, flesh and Spirit, earth and heaven, sin and justification. This conflict takes place within the soul of each and every Christian.70 As Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos (1909 – 2007) has concluded that, ‘because of the very faith-character of the battle against the power of sin, cf. 6:11, and because of the continuing resistance of the flesh, Gal 5:16 – 18, [the apostle Paul] does not in Rom 7:14 – 26 describe a battle that has shed every threat or relevance for himself or for his readers.’71 This exegesis is supported by the admonitions we encounter in Romans 8.72 The imperative of the command in Romans 8:12 not to live according to the flesh implies that the flesh is still present. This imperative is borne by the indicative of the eschatological salvation which is in Christ.73 For, the full transition to the eschatological reality in Christ has not yet taken place. The same is true of the appeal in the next verse to put to death by the Spirit the deeds of the body.

69 Rom 6:6. 70 Starreveld 1997:155 – 156 points to the rhetorical element in this passage, suggesting that Paul is speaking on behalf of the category of believers. 71 H. Ridderbos 1959:170 – 171. Cf. J. Lambrecht 1992:86. 72 J.D.G. Dunn 1998:479 – 481. For Luther Rom 8:7 was one of the most important proofs for the bondage of the will. If even in believers the carnal mind is enmity against God, there is no freedom at all for the old man, WA 18,783. 73 Cf. Rom 6:12 – 13, 15 – 16; Eph 4:22 – 24; Col 3:1 – 5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The contours of a Christian anthropology

175

5.4.2. The identity of the ‘divided man’ Paul repeatedly emphasises in Romans 7:14 – 25 that he wills to do the good. He does not saying anything about having an evil will; the evil he does, he does against his will. He is not coerced from without to do what is evil, but it is the sin which dwells in him that does so. This is what makes the conflict so intense. The sin dwelling within him is apparently able to conquer him over and over again.74 This makes Paul a divided man. New Testament studies have shown that this ‘divided man’ was not a strange phenomenon in the culture in which Paul lived. As Frank Thielman has demonstrated, there are parallels in ancient thought.75 In the Greek and Roman world, as well as at Qumran, there was an awareness that one could will to do the good and yet be powerless to bring this will into effect. Paul, so Thielman argues, followed in this trajectory. However, Thielman’s reference to Qumran makes his position on the ‘I’ of Romans 7 as an unbeliever rather difficult to follow. After all, Qumran was a community of faith, such that it seems quite likely that this chapter would have been interpreted of a believer. In fact, Geurt Henk van Kooten (1969- ) has shown that, in light of first-century culture, the ‘I’ in Romans 7 must be applied to a believer.76 The ‘I’ of this believer wills to do nothing but the good, but the sin which dwells within him takes him captive.77 A difficulty of such a reading is that it would appear to suggest that the believer is being held captive against his will, and that the sin to which Paul refers thus passes outside of the personality of the believer. This would lead to the unacceptable consequence of the believer not being responsible for the evil he commits. The context of this passage shows that this consequence is not drawn, however. Paul knows that he is responsible for his sin. It is not someone or something else that commits the sin, but he himself sins. In this context he also speaks in the first person singular. Paul does what he hates.78 Because the believer knows that he is responsible for these sins, he must humble himself. Moreover, the integrity of personality is maintained in a remarkable phrase found in verse 14. Here the ‘I’ is identified with the flesh: ‘I am carnal.’ In contrast 74 Rom 7:17, 20. 75 G. Thielman 1989:104 – 111. H.K. Chang 2007:272 – 274 has in mind Paul during his rabbinic period. 76 G.H. van Kooten 2008:381. Van Kooten identifies a trichotomy in Pauline anthropology. The sarkinoi are the unbelievers who live according to the flesh; the psychikoi are Christians who do not walk by the Spirit; the pneumatikoi are healthy Christians. A degree of carnality remains in the pneumatikoi. 77 Rom 7:23. 78 Rom 7:15, 16, 19, 20.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

176

‘O wretched man that I am!’

to the other verses, here the pronoun egoo (‘I’) is explicitly used and therefore indicative of emphasis. If we examine the context more fully in this regard, we see that there are more expressions that identify the ‘I’ of Romans 7 with sin. In verse 18 we read that nothing good dwells in me, in my flesh. Here too the subject is identified with the flesh. Similarly, verse 24 identifies the ‘I’-subject with the misery of the body of death. Does this mean that there are two ‘I’s’ in the one soul? This is not a conclusion we necessarily have to draw. There is a single ‘I’, and that ‘I’ is carnal but at the same time the ‘I’ wills to do what is good. The ‘I’ confesses at once to will what is good, but to do what is evil. This suggests that we ought not to draw a sharp distinction between the ‘I’ and the power of sin. But having said this, we must also insist on the converse; for, we also cannot draw a distinction between the ‘I’ and the desire for the good. This means that there are two opposing powers within the one Christian heart, a spiritual dualism. This leads us to the conclusion that there appear to be two totalities in the one believing heart. Christians are entirely carnal, but they are at the same time also entirely Spirit-ual. The Spirit dwells in the carnal heart. In this way the tension in Christian anthropology is raised up to new heights. Theology in general, and the doctrine of sanctification in particular, cannot escape paradox.79 The spiritual paradox of the Christian life far surpasses every psychological notion of the human spirit.80 Christians are in Christ, and in the Spirit, and in God. But they are at the same time also in the sinful flesh. This introduces an unbearable tension into the heart of the believer. This tension is only resolved when we breathe our final breath. At that time the sarkinos dies, and the pneumatikos remains. This spiritual paradox leads us to ask what the identity of the Christian then really is. Are believers at bottom sinners, or are they saints? The first thing we must observe at this point is that the Christian’s true identity is in Christ. This is the truth aspect of the distinction between the sin dwelling in the believer and the dominion of sin over him or her. Christians are sinners, but their sinful state is not determinative for their identity. Kohlbrugge’s view could be understood to suggest that Christians find themselves under the dominion of sin, that participation in the salvation won by Christ has no effect on their soul, and that their personality is only carnal or that 79 D.J. Moo 1996:448 rejects the paradox. As he sees it, the contrasts ‘can be applied to the same person in the same spiritual condition without doing violence to Paul’s language.’ H.K. Chang 2007:268 cites this statement approvingly, although he does acknowledge that Rom 7:14 – 26 uses the language of faith. Cf. p. 272. For the divided man, cf. ITE II.xvii.ii.xiii. 80 Th.C. de Kruijf 1986:160 points to the combination of despair and joy in the Psalms, cf. Ps. 3, 4, 22, 118.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The contours of a Christian anthropology

177

they themselves are in the flesh. This is not a conclusion we are allowed to draw, however, given the paradoxical character of Kohlbrugge’s entire theology. He also says that Christians are totaliter Spiritus. We do justice to his thought if we instead relate both attributes of flesh and Spirit to the one person of the Christian.81 Then we can say that believers are entirely carnal, without denying faith and participation in the work accomplished by Christ. This approach further raises questions about the suggestion that Christians are partly carnal. Such speech about the Christian’s carnality in terms of a ‘partiality’ suggests that Christians are in fact composed of two parts: a carnal part, and a spiritual part. Such a way of conceiving of the relationship between flesh and spirit leads to a quantification and division which undermine the qualitatively aggressive character of the flesh. We are better off instead to follow Calvin and to abandon any notion of quantification, or else to take note of Kohlbrugge who reminds us that the aggressive character of the flesh qualifies the whole man. In the third place, we can conclude that our description of the power of the flesh in believers must be embedded within a refined theological toolset which can do justice at once to the identity of the new man in Christ (and in the Spirit) and to the reality of the old man. In short, we conclude that while the identity of the believer is Christian (and spiritual), his reality is carnal.

5.4.3. To become a greater sinner Having examined the broad contours of Romans 7:14 – 25, we now focus our attention on the smaller and seemingly problematic details. One such detail is Paul’s statement in verse 14 that he is ‘carnal.’ Here we do well to take note of Kohlbrugge’s discovery. As he understood it, there is a comma separating ‘I am carnal’ from ‘sold under sin.’ Although a comma cannot be found in the original Greek text, it is not difficult to surmise what Kohlbrugge meant to say. He meant that our translations ought to introduce a comma at this place in order to prevent the word ‘carnal’ from being understood as an adverbial modifier of the word ‘sold.’ The introduction of a comma would serve to highlight that the adjective ‘carnal’ is a qualification of the entire sinner. But what is the nature of this carnality? In the next chapter we find Paul observing that those who are in the flesh cannot please God.82 There he contrasts 81 We could speak here of an anthropological communicatio idiomatum. While the notion of an anthropological anhypostasis of the flesh for the believer might initially seem tempting, it could give the false impression that the temporal carnal nature of the believer is comparable to the human nature of Christ. 82 Rom 8:8 – 9.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

178

‘O wretched man that I am!’

those who are in the flesh with those who are in the Spirit. We therefore need to consider how Paul’s insistence in Romans 7:14 that he is ‘carnal’ relates to his statement in the next chapter that those who are in the flesh cannot please God. It is significant to note that Paul writes about the carnal man in different ways. Someone can be in a position of carnality. This is what Paul refers to in Romans 7:5, when he speaks of the time when he was in the flesh and sin was at work in his members. He refers to this state again in Romans 8:1,5 – 9, where he mentions those who are without the Spirit. This does not include the ‘I’ of Romans 7:14. An important difference between being in the flesh and being with the Spirit is one’s position before the law. The carnal mind is enmity with God, while the Spirit brings delight in the law of God.83 Secondly, 1 Corinthians 3:1,3 illustrates that Paul can also use the word ‘carnal’ in respect to believers who are in a new position but still grieve the Spirit and live in such envy and strife that there appears to be no difference between them and the world.84 Compared to other believers they do not live spiritually but carnally. Does the apostle mean something similar in Romans 7:14? In the end, this is not very likely. Lapsed Christians abandon the battle against their carnality, while in the context of Romans 7 we see Paul groaning under his carnality and longing to be freed from it. This brings us to the third way in which Scripture speaks about the flesh in Christians. We find this third way in Romans 7:14. Compared to how they used to walk in the flesh, Christians are no longer carnal. When they compare themselves to other believers, they similarly cannot be considered carnal. Paul can honestly say that he laboured more abundantly than all.85 When he now declares that he does not do what is good, he is not referring to his acts! He does not undermine Christian morality, but gives us a view of his inner struggles. Paul thus speaks of a ‘carnal’ existence in three ways. First, it refers to the carnality of unbelievers; second, to a carnal disposition in believers; and, third, to the carnality that believers discovers within themselves. Even in one who is pneumatikos, there remains a dimension which must be described as sarkinos.86 This is thus a way in which the paradox of the Christian life is made more concrete than ever before. Through their increased spiritual sensitivity for what is carnal, believers come to a deeper realisation of what is amiss inside their heart.87 The greater their spiritual sensitivity, the greater the pain over the sin 83 84 85 86 87

Respectively Rom 8:7 and 7:22. Eph 4:30. 1 Cor 15:10. Cf. Phil 4:9; 1 Cor 11:1. G.H. van Kooten 2008:381. In Rom 7:18 Paul uses the word katergazomai, which points to a full correspondence to the holiness of God, cf. ITE II.xvii.2.x-xix. Turretini further emphasises that the groaning under the power of sin is a sign of faith, ITE II.xvii.2.xiii. A.W. Pink 1998:58: ‘A pure heart is one that

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The contours of a Christian anthropology

179

dwelling within them. Unbelievers experience no pain over the sin within them, and can for that reason boast of their righteousness.88 In the New Testament letters this spiritual sensitivity of believers is mentioned several times. In 1 Corinthians 15:9 Paul called himself ‘the least of the apostles.’89 In Galatians 2:17 believers are referred to as ‘sinners.’ In the letter to the church at Ephesus the apostle writes that he is ‘the least of all the saints.’90 Similarly poignant is the apostle’s confession in 1 Timothy 1:15 that is the chief of sinners.91 What strikes one throughout is the use of the present tense. While Romans 8 teaches us of a consciousness of the effects worked by the Spirit in our lives, Romans 7 makes it clear that there is also an awareness of sin dwelling within us.92 The reality of indwelling sin implies that this consciousness will be a life-long reality, which in its turn implies a life-long dependency on Christ. That was the importance of the comma for Kohlbrugge. Today we may add that the carnality of believers also emphasises their dependence on the Spirit of Christ.

5.4.4. Sold under sin The above section made it clear that believers must be described as ‘carnal.’ Romans 7 further describes this carnality with the expression ‘sold under sin.’ Recognising that Paul was sold under sin, exegetes in the tradition have understood this latter phrase as an allusion to the Old Testament. For, Elijah accused Ahab of having ‘sold’ himself to do evil in the sight of God.93 From a strictly exegetical perspective, this connection to the disposition of Ahab appears to be questionable – for, did Paul really intend to allude to Ahab? Nevertheless, it is remarkable how often these words are understood as an allusion to Ahab, which in itself is reason enough to consider the possibility. If Roman 7:14 – 26 is understood as an allusion to Ahab, the strong expressions used in 1 Kings 20 suggest that the allusion to this text in Romans 7

88 89 90 91 92 93

loathes impurity, and whose heaviest burden is the realization that such an ocean of foul waters still indwells him, constantly casting up their mire and dirt, polluting all he does.’ On p. 78 he writes: ‘There is nothing which more plainly evidences a person to be sanctified than a broken and contrite heart – grieving over that which is contrary to holiness.’ John Newton remarks that Christians who complain about their heart are humble and meek, J.T. Murray 2007:129. Phil 3:6. D. Guthrie 1970: 441 – 443 argues that this letter must be dated to the spring of 57. Eph 3:8. D. Guthrie 1970:479 – 508 defends Pauline authorship. This would suggest a date of composition during his first Roman imprisonment ca. 59 – 63, cf. 515 – 516. See D. Guthrie 1970:584 – 622 for a discussion of the authorship of the letter to Timothy. Cf. Van Ruler 1947:514. 1 Kings 21:20.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

180

‘O wretched man that I am!’

would be most applicable to Paul in his pre-Christian state.94 At that time he dragged Christians from their homes and delivered them over to the executioner. Understood as an allusion to Ahab, Romans 7 would therefore seem to deny the reality of Paul’s conversion. Although Christians indeed fail to keep God’s law perfectly, that disobedience takes on a radical dimension when the history of the godless Ahab becomes its point of reference. Did Paul really sell his soul as Ahab did? In Romans 7:14 – 25, Paul speaks out of the knowledge he has gained about himself in his encounter with the Christ: it is his way of pointing to the radicality of the corruption living inside of him. On the inside we are carnal and worldly, proud and selfish, unbelieving and disobedient, sensual and egocentric, whether we eat or drink, or even pray or read the Bible.95 It is a risky endeavour to use all too harsh words to describe the sin dwelling within us. If we identify Ahab and Paul, it implies the dissolution of each and every distinction between believers and unbelievers.96 It would in fact force us to conclude that there are no differences between believers and unbelievers. For this reason it is all the more noteworthy that this consequence is not ever drawn. And even if the expression ‘sold under sin’ has been applied to unbelievers, the ‘better’ unbelievers were meant. Yet in the end, the textual context itself makes it clear that there is a difference between Romans 7:14 and Ahab. Ahab pursued sin, but Paul sought to be freed from sin.97 Ahab did not resist the power of sin, but Paul felt imprisoned by it. He pined away under the dictatorship of this tyrant and fervently desired to be set free. In this light we need to ask whether the distinction between the indwelling and dominion of sin in believers is actually appropriate.98 The motive behind this distinction is indeed good; believers refuse to accept the dominion of sin. Yet it could also leave the impression that the power of sin has been neutralised. The reality, however, is more disappointing. If sin has the power to take me captive and to force me to into slavery, it must have a say over my life. Sin too desires to have complete dominion over our lives.

94 Cf. treatment in G.C. Berkouwer 1952a:60. 95 Jesus used Matt 15:19 against his disciples. John Newton wrote several poems in which he described the reality of Rom 7:14. We are free of evil neither on the pulpit, nor at the Lord’s Supper table, J.T. Murray 2007:88, 98 – 107. 96 This was already noted by Erasmus 1969:IV, 128 – 129. For more on this question, cf. Berkouwer 1952a:71 – 76. 97 According to the Arminian position, Rom 7:14 – 26 pertains to humanity’s natural ability. The godless Ahab could have willed to do what is good. 98 Cf. J. van Bruggen 2006:110; A.B.R. Clark 1993:70.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The contours of a Christian anthropology

181

The above serves as a plea to do full justice to the notion of being ‘sold under sin,’ and not to diminish the concrete power and aggressive character of sin in the believer’s life in any way. As such, we can say that Kohlbrugge was indeed correct to concentrate on this expression as a means to underscore the reality of the sin dwelling within us. At the same time, we also have to acknowledge that sin does not have the final word.99 In this respect, the distinction between the indwelling and dominion of sin is indeed an accurate one.

5.4.5. Joy in the law of God The interpretation of Romans 7:22 occupies a significant place in the exegesis of the entire pericope (i. e. verses 14 – 26). The Greek root sunydomai literally means that one delights in the same things as the law. Because this verb is not found elsewhere in Scripture, we cannot draw any extended conclusions from the use of the word itself. A form of the verb without the prefix sun- does occur, however. We thus read that Herod heard John gladly.100 The crowds also listened to Jesus gladly.101 The use of this root as such is apparently not reserved for any supposed spiritual character to this joy. The same is true of the other roots that Scripture uses for our delight in spiritual matters. The Jews are said to have rejoiced in the light shed by John.102 The Word may be heard and immediately received with joy, yet without growing deep roots.103 In fact, even while we walk in sin there may be a certain desire to hear the Word of God in us.104 Even unbelievers can thus be enamoured with the biblical message about the heavenly future, forgiveness of sins, etc. Because the word sunydomai is itself not decisive for the character of this delight, we must turn to another expression in the text: esoo antroopos.105 This concept appears to have its roots in antiquity ; Plato and Philo drew a clear distinction between the inner soul and outward appearance. The true man was the inner man. There is reason to assume that Paul consciously adopted this philosophical terminology from the Greco-Roman world so as to defend himself against the sophists in Corinth who concentrated on external appearance. This is 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Rom 5:21. Cf. Rom 6:14. Mark 6:20. Mark 12:37. John 5:35. Matt 13:20. Is 58:2 – 4; Ezek 33:31 – 32; Rom 2:18 – 24. For this notion, see Van Kooten 2008:358 – 388. L. Floor 1998a:134 reached the same conclusion.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

182

‘O wretched man that I am!’

at any rate how the expression functions in 2 Corinthians 4:16,106 where it says that we ought not to be directed to the corrupted exoo antroopos, but to the growth of the inner man. The apostle follows the philosophers in distinguishing between body and soul. We may not conclude from this that evil is as such to be identified with the physical or corporeal. Paul is simply too emphatic about the bodily nature of the resurrection to allow such a conclusion. For him the esoo antroopos is instead a spiritual category. Christians alone have an inner man.107 We can draw a link to Ephesians 3:16, where we similarly read about the inner man. In this text it is abundantly clear that the esoo antroopos is a spiritual category. The esoo antroopos appears to be an indication of the spiritual man and the deepest will of faith, and we never find Paul using this expression in reference to unbelievers. This description pertains to the believer’s delight in the law of God. After all, the deepest love of an unconverted person cannot be for the law of God; unbelievers instead love what is against his law.108 Romans 8:7 teaches us that the carnal mind is enmity with God, and that it is not subject to the law of God. Paul could hardly have chosen more poignant language. The Pharisee is zealous to keep the law of God, but without any truly spiritual knowledge of this law and love for God.109 In the end the unconverted religious man hates the law which he thinks he loves. He does not know his own heart or the law. This is what Paul describes in Romans 7:9. Everything suggests that he is weaving autobiographical elements into his preaching. He admits that he in his earlier state lived without the law. He lived to keep God’s laws most carefully, but failed to understand the spiritual nature of the law. What he wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:14 applied to himself, namely, that the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. As a result, we must read Romans 7:22 not as a description of a legalistic delight in the law, but of the believer’s delight in the law.110 Paul does not spare the unbeliever in any way when he writes that he still wills to do much that is good. The Pauline doctrine of sin is radical: there is no one who looks for God, even though some may think they are. The unrepentant may keep God’s law carefully,

106 Cf. Rom 2:28 – 29. 107 In verse 23 the concept of nous appears to explain esoo antroopos. In verse 26 we encounter the nous-concept once more. The use of this concept in Romans 1:28 makes it clear that it does not always pertain to the spiritual man, cf. Van Kooten 2008:379. 108 Rom 1:28; Eph 4:17; Col 2:18; 1 Tim 6:4 – 5; 2 Tim 3:8; Titus 3:3. 109 Rom 10:2. Turrettini points out that reason and the conscience are also involved in a kind of struggle against sin, although it is of another nature, ITE II.ii.xvii.ii.xv. 110 Cf. ITE II.ii.xvii.2.xiii. Th. C. de Kruijf 1986:157 draws a connection to Ps 119.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The contours of a Christian anthropology

183

but they only do so to keep God happy. Through the grace of God, the situation changes in its entirety. Through his grace, we receive true love for his law.111 The exegesis of Romans 7:22 implies that we must discard the understanding according to which Romans 7 describes a believer who attempts to live according to the law out of his own power, as some have suggested by pointing to Paul’s reference to ‘I myself ’ in verse 26.112 From a grammatical perspective this understanding is somewhat forced.113 It is not what the word-pair autos egoo signifies, nor have we found any other passages in which Paul does use it in that way. In fact, the opposite is true. Jesus used this word-pair when he appeared to his disciples.114 When Paul emphasises that he wants to be accursed from Christ for his brothers, the autos ego there is not in any way indicative of a carnality in him.115 It was through the Spirit that he emphasised his own love. In short, the ‘I myself ’ of Romans 7:26 must not be understood as the ‘I without Christ’ or the ‘I who is left to my own means,’ but very simply as a direct reference to Paul himself. We should not read more into the text than we actually find in it. The exegesis of Romans 7:22 that we have presented above also lifts the tip of the veil over the relationship between law and Spirit. This verse does not give us any ground to conclude that we may only speak of law and Spirit as each other’s opposites. The fact that the ‘flesh’ is mentioned in Romans 8 as well indicates that we need not think about the relationship between Romans 7 and Romans 8 in terms of an antithesis, either.

5.4.6. Bound, yet free The deep-seated will to do what is good elicits counterforces. The terms used in this context conjure up images of violence: the ‘I’ is taken captive under the law of sin.116 The force of this expression is analogical to the expression used in verse 14: ‘sold under sin.’ Both expressions attribute a violent power to sin. Romans 7:23 describes the battle against this violent power in terms of the operation of two laws, namely, the law of sin and the law of the conscience. Such descriptions can be found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus as well. In Galatians 5:7, for example, the apostle writes about the flesh which lusts against the Spirit. Paul does not shy away from identifying conflicts within believers; they have sin 111 Cf. D. Peterson 1995:107 – 109. 112 C.L. Mitton 1954:78 – 80, 99 – 103, 132 – 135. Cf. A.B.R. Clark 1993:94 – 95, 133 – 143, 137 – 138. 113 Cf. J.I. Packer 1984:267. 114 Luke 24:39. 115 Rom 9:3. Paul uses this word-pair also in Rom 15:14; 2 Cor 10:1, and 2 Cor 12:13. 116 Rom 7:23.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

184

‘O wretched man that I am!’

living in them, but also a new will under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These two powers oppose each other in a life-long battle. H. Ridderbos has argued that this is not a convincing explanation.117 In his view, there is a difference between Galatians 5:17 and Romans 7:14 – 25. Galatians 5:17 pertains to the inner battle within the believer, but Romans 7 is about a man without the Spirit who remains imprisoned in his inability and has been sold as a slave under sin.118 Ridderbos argues for this by noting that the language of Romans 7 falls short of the language we find in Romans 8: ‘The despairing “who will deliver me from this body of death?” is, to be sure, followed by the interjection of faith: “Thanks be to God! through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (vv. 24, 25) But this does not mean that the description of having been sold and made captive under sin and having been given over to the body of sin was not intended so absolutely as it is expressed. The power of Jesus Christ, the delivering might of the Spirit of life in Christ, which is spoken of in verse 25 and in Romans 8:2 ff., are not in some way to be “accommodated” or otherwise discounted in the (description of the) death situation of Romans 7:14 – 25; rather, they put an end in principle to the absolute sovereignty of sin over the ego described in Romans 7.’119 Ridderbos argues that Romans 7:25 and Romans 7:14 cannot both be true at the same time. To boast in Christ means the end to one’s despair about the power of sin. He further suggests that verse 25 is a fremdkörper in this pericope.120 Other exegetes have pointed to the same tension, with some arguing that verse 25 represents an ancient gloss.121 Yet others have argued that this very expression represents a reason to interpret this pericope in reference to a Christian.122 In this light it comes as no surprise that we encounter many forced explanations of the text, given that the tradition gives us no occasion to think that we are dealing with a later addition.123 Rather than seeking recourse to any one of these forced solutions, it is more satisfying to think once more in terms of paradox. Despair and joy are inseparably connected with each other. The paradox can be stated more radically yet: only through the freedom we have in Christ do we experience the power of

117 118 119 120 121 122 123

H. Ridderbos 1975:126 – 130. Cf. H. Ridderbos 1959:154. H. Ridderbos 1975:127. Cf. H.K. Chang 2007:272. R. Bultmann 1947; H. Paulsen 1974:24 – 26; H. Lichtenberger 1997:284 – 295. H. Lichtenberger 2004:150 – 160; E. Käsemann 1974; O. Hofius 2002:151 – 152. See J. van Bruggen 2006:259 for examples.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

185

Evaluation

sin.124 The indwelling of the Spirit is what exposes the indwelling of the flesh. We must be saved sinners in order to crave to be set free from the power of sin. The cry of despair in Romans 7:24 is not that of an unbeliever, but of a believer. When Paul was without Christ, the power of the flesh did not bother him.125 Instead, he was quite impressed with himself and his ‘spiritual’ accomplishments. It is a great sign of the work of the Spirit when we come to see the carnality in our ‘spiritual’ accomplishments. Given this tension within the believer’s heart, the joy in Romans 7:25 does not represent a disruption in the discourse. The intention of this cry is to provide a response of faith to the power of sin dwelling within the heart. Even when the believer still finds himself in the body of sin, the victory is already certain in Christ. Given this victory there is perspective and expectation for the future. We hear the same duality in 1 Corinthians 15:56 – 57: ‘The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Here we hear the mystery of faith. The language of faith cannot be deduced from the circumstances, but faith glories in tribulation.126 Our walk with the Spirit does not neutralise the spiritual battle. On the contrary, the Spirit rouses the flesh from its slumber. A life lived by the Spirit in which we experience no battle against the flesh is not a life by the Spirit. A victorious life may therefore mean enormous spiritual losses.

5.5. Evaluation The ingredients for a proper exegesis of Romans 7:14 – 25 could already be found in the tradition. Highly significant was the way in which Calvin treated this passage, as well as the development his vision underwent. Yet Kohlbrugge drew out consequences that others before him had failed to draw. Moreover, he was sensitive to the salvation-historical dimension in the epistle to the Romans. Together these elements produced a decided certainty in him concerning the totalitarian character of indwelling sin. From a dogma-historical perspective, Kohlbrugge’s exegesis represents a radicalisation of the exegesis that had already been offered within the Reformed 124 Cf. Horton 2011:658, 660. There is a Christological parallel in Matt 4:1: Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Spirit. 125 Phil 3:1 – 8. D.J. Moo 1996:450 notes the discrepancy between Phil 3 and Rom 7. He argues that Phil 3 must be interpreted from a Jewish perspective, and Rom 7 from a Christian perspective. According to J. Fraser 1992:257, the Jews in Paul’s days did not understand inner desires to be sinful. 126 Rom 5:3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

186

‘O wretched man that I am!’

tradition. The dogmatic consequence is that it is now impossible to speak about a partial carnality in sinners. The spiritual ramification of indwelling sin is that it spurs us on to the humility which we treated above in chapter three. Growth in grace means growth in recognition of the depth to which we have fallen: ‘For it is our experience that, the more we progress in sanctification, the more we fall back in our own eyes’ (Johannes Hermanus Gunning (1829 – 1905)).127 We are not dealing here with incidental moments in the Christian life, but a continuous theme that pervades it throughout. Here we find comfort for failing Christians because it is not the expression of a frustrated Christian life, but keeps the stumbling Christian from frustrations.128 A robust hamartiology (doctrine of sin) is also beneficial in an ecclesiological perspective. There is no sin or error that the Christian church has simply left behind, and this means that the admonitions to keep from being derailed remain ever relevant. A thorough hamartiology helps the church to survive in the crisis of our present history. The awareness that every evil potency can be found in us is at once an antidote to overconfident Christian utopias for improving the structures in this world, as well as a means to prevent us from escaping out of the brokenness of life into an imaginary world of bliss and perfection. To find the world in the church is a necessary condition for the church to rid itself of its feeling of superiority over the world, which condition in turn functions as a powerful remedy against the church’s secularisation, such that its compassion for the world may flourish in times of need and room may be created for participating in God’s preference for those who are despised and lowly.129 An important and exciting question in all of this remains the extent to which the notion of indwelling sin must be understood to be determinative for the identity of the Christian. In this chapter we distinguished between the Christian and spiritual identity of the believer, over against the carnal reality in which she is found. This relationship implies that the New Testament qualifications of the believer ought not to be understood ontologically. When it says that believers are a ‘good tree,’ a ‘good man,’ have a ‘new heart,’ and share in the nature of God, these expressions concern the new identity that we have in Christ130 but do not 127 Gunning 2008:26 – 27. Cf. Institutes III.iii.20; D.L. V,1 – 2; HC questions 5, 8, 60, 89, 115; Ps 138:6; Is 57:15, 66:2; Matt 5:3 – 4; 1 Pet 5:6. In the traditional Reformed form for the Lord’s Supper, believers are called to reflect on their sins and accursedness; the form speaks in this context of ‘broken and contrite hearts.’ 128 ‘There are few chapters in the New Testament which the devil hates more than Romans 7, and strenuously and subtly does he strive to rob the Christian of its comforting and establishing message’, A.W. Pink 1998:168. 129 Cf. 1 Cor 1:26 – 28. 130 Cf. Ezek 36:26, Matt 7:17 – 20, 12:33 – 35; Acts 11:24; Rom 15:14; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 John 3:4 – 9. In Leiter 2009:84 – 85, 96, 102 – 103, 235 – 236 the function of these texts is to absolutise the Christian’s new nature.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

187

Evaluation

deny or downplay the aggressive character of indwelling sin or the ability of the old man. As such Romans 7:14 – 25 has a significant hermeneutical role to play within the interpretation of the entire New Testament. The distinction and tense relationship between identity and reality is an instrument whereby at once indwelling sin might not be held to be determinative for the believer’s identity, and the reality of the indwelling sin might not be downplayed. The latter aspect functions as a plea to maintain the continual penitence described by both Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism, expressed in justification as the central nervous system to the Christian faith, in accordance with the prayer which Christ himself has taught us: ‘Forgive us our debts.’131 Furthermore, the reality of indwelling sin makes it entirely comprehensible that the renewal of the Christian life represents a continuous movement from law to gospel, as characterised by our mortification. This is where we take our leave from the views of Barth and the Keswick Movement in which the notion of a continuous mortificatio was subjected to criticism. All the same, Barth and Keswick do serve to remind the Reformed tradition that the notions of sorrow and humility do not form isolated chapters. Our knowledge of ourselves is coram Deo.132 Paradoxically, this means that our penitent knowledge of the self is accompanied by a joy in God.133 When the relationship between knowledge of self and knowledge of God is described as it should be, a proper space is created for doxology, which would otherwise take on idealistic tendencies when isolated from poenitentia.134 Thus, poenitentia on the one hand keeps us from a theologia gloriae in which one reaches ahead for the revelation of the eschaton without being prepared for it, while it on the other hand functions a sign of that future revelation.

131 Institutes III.iii.15; III.iv.2 – 3. A. van der Dussen 2008 pleaded for attention for this issue. Kohlbrugge 1982:83 has poignantly described how we can subtly boast in our knowledge of our sin: ‘Dat de Heere ’t al is, and wij nul – is eene waarheid; maar als men nu van die nulliteit wat maakt, and naar eene gestalte staat, waarin men dat voor zich zelven als met handen zou kunnen tasten, dat men zulk een niet is, dat men weg is, dat het ik aan een kant, and Gods ik het alles is: – dan is men toch ook al weÞr van de eenvoudigheid – men behaagt zich zelven in zulk een gedwongen staat.’ Cf. Berkouwer 1952a:128 – 131. 132 Institutes I,i,1. Cf. A. de Reuver 2007:47 – 48 on Bernard of Clairvaux. 133 Luke 19:1 – 10. In Matt 5:4 we read that those who mourn are makarios. G. Wisse comes close to this concept in De droefheid naar God, 9 and 17. According to R. Sibbes 2001:II,322, the reason is that sin conflicts with the nature of God. R. Sibbes 2001:I,48 can thus observe that sorrow is marked more by an awareness of sin itself than a fear for its consequences, cf. G. Wisse, De droefheid naar God, 18 – 19, 40. R. Sibbes 2001:I,184 points to Luther in regard to the same matter. 134 Cf. J. Murray 1984:II, 314; J.T. Murray 2007:138. See also John 3:30.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

6.

Process or Position

In chapter three we gave a positive account of the effects of the unio mystica, while chapter five pled for the continuing validity of our state as simul iustus et peccator, emphasising nevertheless that this phrase must not be understood quantitatively but qualitatively. This still leaves us with the question, however, whether it is possible at all to speak about a process of renewal. The question of investigation for the present chapter can thus be stated as follows: given our position of imputation and participation, how can we yet speak about a process of renewal? A related question is whether such a process can be described in quantitative terms. This chapter will address the preceding questions at the hand of the nineteenth-centry conflict that pitted Kohlbrugge against Da Costa. While Kohlbrugge argued for the spiritual position, Da Costa defended the understanding of renewal as a spiritual process. I will begin by examining the conflict between these two theologians, then offer a biblical-theological defence in favour of Kohlbrugge’s view, and also consider what ‘positional sanctification’ means for the practice of the Christian life. After this, we will explore what the notion of positional holiness actually means for the Reformed tradition. Once we have examined these contours, we will return once more to Da Costa. For, what was it that moved him to defend renewal as a process, and where can biblical theology support him in his position? The results of this latter investigation will once more be brought into a confrontation with Kohlbrugge with a view to arriving at a proper balance between the qualitative and quantitative aspects. In the final evaluation offered in this chapter, we will reap the harvest from the dispute between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa, and formulate a number of consequences.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

190

Process or Position

6.1. The conflict between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa (1798 – 1860) 6.1.1. Da Costa’s criticism Da Costa, a converted Jew, addressed the question of renewal as a process or a position immediately upon the publication of Kohlbrugge’s sermon on Romans 7:14, and he did so from an existential perspective. Da Costa argued that Kohlbrugge had failed to maintain a distinction between justification and sanctification. Kohlbrugge, so he charged, did speak about Christ for us, but not about Christ in us, meaning that there was no room anymore for him to treat the notion of our thankfulness. He claimed that Kohlbrugge’s theology was unable to account for the pious life, leaving soteriology without its crown. Da Costa suggested that Kohlbrugge was defending a ‘surety sanctification’ (borgtochtelijke heiligmaking),1 and argued that this amounts to an inner contradiction (contradictio in adjecto). Sanctification is by definition not a matter of imputation, but a process of renewal. Although justification takes place entirely outside of us, sanctification occurs very concretely within us. Da Costa was thus afraid that Kohlbrugge’s view would end up erasing every difference between believers and unbelievers. Da Costa took his criticism very far, arguing that Christology itself was at stake. In wisdom the prophetic office of Christ comes to us; his high priestly office is related to justification; sanctification, then, is where the kingly office of Christ comes to expression.2 Christ fulfils God’s law in all three offices: as prophet he presents the demands of God’s holy law to us; in his priestly office he carries the holy law of God within him so as to fulfil it; and in his office as king he writes the law in the hearts of all believers as an unchangeable declaration of the holiness of God. Da Costa’s concern was that this final element of the kingly office of Christ would be unable to function anymore in Kohlbrugge’s theology and preaching. This threatened to cause the work of the Holy Spirit to fade from view. The Christological motif of Da Costa’s criticism, the author of Bezwaren tegen de geest der eeuw (‘Objections against the spirit of the age’), serves to indicate how serious his criticism of Kohlbrugge really was. He charged his interlocutor with nothing less than not taking God’s law or our obedience very seriously.

1 This phrase was used by Da Costa in a letter to Kohlbrugge 1892:15. 2 For this distinction, cf. also A.W. Pink 1998:13 – 14.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The conflict between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa (1798 – 1860)

191

6.1.2. Kohlbrugge’s view Salvation in Christ Kohlbrugge was unhappy with Da Costa’s critique, believing the latter to have overlooked a number of fundamental theological insights. In his response to Da Costa, the Elberfeld theologian emphasised our unity with Christ: through faith Christians are united with the entire Christ. This means that they are from the very outset involved in all of Christ’s three offices, which extend to every facet of the Christian life. As such, this realisation implies that the kingly office of Christ cannot be limited to the life of sanctification; it relates also to the power through which we come to faith and deny our own righteousness. Kohlbrugge thought that Da Costa’s division between the old and new man belied a dichotomy according to which people are compartmentalised. In Kohlbrugge’s eyes, such a conception fails to do justice to the totalitarian character of the flesh and the Spirit. Christians are entirely carnal, but they are at once also entirely holy. Romans 6 and 7, so he argued, cannot be separated from each other. A significant role in Kohlbrugge’s argumentation was played by 2 Corinthians 5:17.3 We do not just have a new and spiritual beginning within us, but in Christ we are a new creation. Christ is the new man in the most proper sense; we are a new man by virtue of being in Christ.4 Regeneration is not partial, but in our union with Christ we share in his death and resurrection.5 In him our old man has passed away, and in him we are a new man. Through faith we share in both the active and passive obedience of Christ.6 In line with this, our restoration is not structured in future-eschatological or chiliastic terms.7 The eschatological salvation is present in Christ. For the eyes of faith, the new earth is already a present reality. The Spirit does not add anything to the work of Christ, but applies that eschatological salvation which has already been fulfilled.8 Kohlbrugge’s concern was for the relationship between Christ 3 Kohlbrugge 1892:25 – 27. 4 Cf. G. Oorthuys 1990:196. 5 Cf. G. Oorthuys 1990:202. Oorthuys also draws a connection to Kohlbrugge’s view on the image of God, 204. Cf. Kohlbrugge 2005. 6 Cf. G. Oorthuys 1990:209. 7 ‘Ik spreek niet van een nieuwe zichtbare hemel, van geen nieuwe zichtbare aarde, maar van een onzichtbare hemel, van een onzichtbare aarde, om welker wil de zichtbare hemel en de zichtbare aarde nog bewaard blijven. Van een hemel en van een aarde, die alleen voor het geloof zichtbaar zijn, en die eerst dan volkomen worden gezien, als alle zichtbare dingen volkomen zullen zijn opgelost. Ik spreek van een hemel, die Boven is en toch hierbeneden is; van een aarde, die Boven gelegen is en door welke wij toch gedragen worden’, Kohlbrugge 1890:91. Cf. W. Aalders, De grote ontsporing, 10. 8 J. Loos 1948:150.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

192

Process or Position

and Spirit. He rejects the notion whereby Christ laid the foundation in the atonement, and then erects as king, through his Spirit, sanctification upon that existing foundation. Thankfulness does not represent a super-structure established upon the foundation of redemption, but it is rather the life we live out of the foundation which is Christ: ‘The word “thankfulness” was chosen very carefully for the third part of the Catechism, since one can never lament the full extent of the damage done to God’s church when the word “thankfulness” was replaced with “sanctification.” This was how the basis of all true sanctification came to be erased from memory. […] Those who are ignorant of the “how” of redemption will apply themselves to carnal sanctification in an effort to stay upright. That is when we forget thankfulness, especially the “how” of thankfulness, because we have never come to know how great our sins and misery are and because we have accepted redemption as a way to evade the pain of sin and to avoid punishment. And where things are viewed in this way, everything quickly resolves into what we can call “ethical progress.”’9 Kohlbrugge’s concern was that the ‘Christ for us’ would be isolated from the ‘Christ in us’, as if to suggest that justification were an external event and sanctification an inner matter.10 For him this was a symptom of the objectification of the Word, where the gospel was reduced to a collection of doctrinal truths. Here there would be no room at all for the spiritual reality of the Word in which justification and sanctification are included, and which the Spirit causes us to enter. If the riches of the living Word are abandoned, there is a need for something in addition to faith and justification – in other words, then something needs indeed to be added to Christ. In his life, preaching, and theology, Kohlbrugge took his point of departure in Christ’s salvation. This salvation was a perfectum for him. He was thus averse to any suggestion that something would have to be added to this salvation in Christ. Every notion according to which a spiritual man could exist apart from Christ was an absurdity and horror to him. This made him critical of all other views on sanctification, whether that of Da Costa or others.11

9 H.F. Kohlbrugge, De eenvoudige Heidelberger, 105 – 106. M.E. Kluit 1961:352 has suggested a connection between the R¦veil’s pursuit of holiness and the Remonstrant movement. 10 Cf. W. Aalders, De grote ontsporing, 95 – 96. 11 C. Graafland 1987:399 – 405 discusses Kohlbrugge’s position on the Canons of Dort. The latter’s criticism was not directed against its doctrine of predestination, but rather the amount of attention the canons devote to the regenerated man. See also T. van Es 2009:55 – 57.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The conflict between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa (1798 – 1860)

193

The holiness of the law of God The criticism Kohlbrugge offered against the activism of the spiritual man at the same time represented a critique of the theological-spiritual climate of the Wuppertal region.12 His arrival there had been immediately preceded by that of a certain Jörgens, whose preaching proved to be highly influential and effective. Jörgens was hoping to initiate a revival movement by emphasising the need for sanctification. Kohlbrugge fiercely opposed the notion that, after they have been justified, believers must themselves become active in their sanctification: ‘There are many Christians who think that sanctification is the work they must do once they have been justified; they now devote themselves to it with all diligence.’13 It is pure hubris to try and maintain God’s law in all scrupulousness, as if to suggest that we can fulfil the law and that God could be satisfied with our half measure of obedience. For that reason, Kohlbrugge’s sermon on Romans 7:14 can be read as a hymn to extol the law of God.14 Through faith we begin to ask how the law of God can be fulfilled.15 This question reaches deeper than our awareness of deserving punishment according to his law.16 For that reason, the gospel cannot be properly appreciated if we fail to see that the gospel is there for the sake of the law. As long as you do not have a proper knowledge of God’s law, you will never properly understand salvation or thankfulness.17 Believers die to the law: ‘The law uncovers this for us not in order to accuse us of our sins, but in order that we may acknowledge that the Law is right, acknowledge and keep it in its unblemished sanctity, so that we may no longer attempt in any way to do anything for this Law – so that we may be dead to the Law, dead to what we can and must do, and indeed dead even to our faith.’18 It is from the perspective of God’s law that the meaning of the gospel comes to be illumined for us: ‘But Christ has satisfied it fully, and I therefore experience rest and peace through and in the righteousness and holiness of Christ alone. […] But once I have him, I no longer worry about my sanctification, but instead press on to follow Him (Phil 3:8, 14), and count all things loss for the excellence

12 T. van Es 2009:34 – 36 points to the works of Jacob Böhme, Johann Heinrich Jung, F.A. Lampe, Gottfried Menken, and Gerhard Tersteegen as indicative of the spiritual climate there. For the pietistic climate, cf. also J. Kommers 2005:73 – 134. 13 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1892:II, 20. Cf. also I,39. 14 J. Loos 1948:99 – 100, 150. 15 H.F. Kohlbrugge, Heidelberger, 129, 143, 145. Cf. J. Loos 1948:99, 133. 16 H.F. Kohlbrugge, Heidelberger, 133. 17 H.F. Kohlbrugge, Heidelberger, 129, 440. 18 H.F. Kohlbrugge, Heidelberger, 81.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

194

Process or Position

of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; my perfection shall be this, that I am daily found more and more in him.’19 What Kohlbrugge resisted above all was the idea of progress in this ethical improvement: ‘The Apostle who rejoices in Christ does not say : “I have already made some progress in holiness and the good.”’20 Entirely in line with his foundational critique against every form of human activism, Kohlbrugge ridiculed the many ways in which one might pursue such holiness: ‘All our fretting over the law and sanctification is most pleasing to the devil. Oh, how great we are in our own eyes! Taller than our shadow, in fact! And how important we think it to be steadily to work out our own salvation, and to stand firm and upright!’21 It was in this context that Kohlbrugge made his well-known remark: ‘Cast your crutches of holiness away, far away! They will never help you to climb mount Zion.’22 Remarkably, this means that we have a point of comparison here to the (Lutheran inspired) theology of the Keswick Movement. Like it, Kohlbrugge emphasises that when Christians seek to keep the law by virtue of their own power, they actually testify to their own legalism. In spite of this convergence, Kohlbrugge and Keswick remain separated by the large cleft of their respective appreciation for the law. While Kohlbrugge considered the law to be eternally applicable, Keswick emphasised that explicit attention for the law is no guarantee for a disposition of faith.

6.1.3. Criticism of the Reformed tradition It is worthwhile to note that Kohlbrugge’s criticism was directed not only against Da Costa, but against the entire Reformed tradition. Although Kohlbrugge had embraced the Reformed religion because of its doctrine of election, he did not just abandon Luther in everything. It is especially in the context of his doctrine of sanctification that Lutheran influences can still be seen in Kohlbrugge, and these led him to keep a critical distance from the Reformed diligence to pursue sanctification. A letter written in 1835 to his friend Van Heumen is symptomatic of his reserve: ‘Where do you find that in the books? We do indeed find systems of sanctification, but there is nothing about being taken up in all things “eis auton” (= in him = Christ). And insofar as the church’s Reformers preached the latter, they were witnesses of God. But by what they patched onto it, they, as well 19 20 21 22

H.F. Kohlbrugge 1892:II, 18 – 19. Cf. I, 21. H.F. Kohlbrugge 1892:II,19. H.F. Kohlbrugge 1982:62 – 63. H.F. Kohlbrugge 1892:II,13.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The conflict between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa (1798 – 1860)

195

as those who dream of nothing but reform, broke down their own work soon after they had begun building, when they thought they had to fight the Anabaptists, antinomians, Pelagians, etc., etc., with Moses. As a result, the devil still had half a victory in the Protestant church, to go along with his total victory in Rome. … Just read the treatises of Musevoet which were translated by Perkins and which influenced Perkins, or even Perkins himself, and you will find even there traces of the leaven of self-justification. And Musevoet gives you an entire method for passing your life in meditating on the heavenly or divine. And why did the Remonstrant army arise so soon? And why did professor Saravia not manage to beat down Coolhaas or Coornhert (or whatever his name was)? Indeed, what a lengthy dispute that was, and what writings it involved! Why was Arminius not firmly taken to task? Why did the conferences at Delft and The Hague preach faith more than the synod of Dort? And why did [the deputies] allow themselves to be outwitted and dissuaded from the iustitia Christi in favour of predestination, so that this 1618 Synod took on an unfortunate bearing when it had to cast the Remonstrants out, although they could have chased the Remonstrants away by preaching the iustitia Dei et Christi and silenced the mouths of many for the time to come? There is also the fruit of the Synod, the Dutch Authorised Version [Staten-bijbel], with the proper meaning of the Greek words in the margin, and with a textual system. And marginal annotations, many of which are on (?) the exercise of piety, in which the very essence of the papal doctrine has been mixed once again! … And then Voetius (read his Politica), Brakel (read his essay on watchfulness), the elder Brakel (‘The Steps of Spiritual Life’ [Trappen des Geestelijken Leven]), Sara Nevius (‘The searching soul brought to Jesus’ [Zoekende Ziel gebracht tot Jezus]), Lodenstein, [while] Miss Schuurman and Labadie (read about the end of his church in Fokke Sjoerd’s church history) together form a religious conventicle in Utrecht in order to pray for and meditate on a reform of the churches; what was their doctrine like, and what was the outcome of that reformation? […] And then from the time of Groenewegen and his defence of Eswijler. Finally the practice of [Gerardus] Kuypers and the revivals in Nijkerk, etc. Then the quasi revival in the final part of the last century, and what has recently happened here in our own country. The Jewish Reformation under da Costa and Capadose. Add to this as a summary what you yourself write: the essence of faith was maimed among us at an early time, and the devil has pushed his ship through semi-Pelagianism and stranded it on Pelagianism and Socinianism. And now a secession under Scholte […]. What is the sum of the matter? The Lord once built an eternal home in heaven and continues to work on it with stones that have been rejected by all, and yet, he did build it once for all while the rest is just an addition. Since then he has broken everything down, and while the people do not give up building, he does not stop breaking down, and choosing stones out of what has been broken down to add to

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

196

Process or Position

his building according to his good pleasure. For the rest, everything comes down to 1 Corinthians 3:12 – 14. Amen. The Word of God endures forever.’23 Kohlbrugge raises many important matters in this highly important letter. But in the context of the present study, the most significant claim is no doubt his claim that the sola fide was assailed once again soon after the Reformation. In the emphasis which the Reformed tradition put on sanctification, its attention for the process of sanctification, and the phases and quantitative progress it outlined within this process, Kohlbrugge thought to detect an abandonment of the liberating extra nos-character of salvation, as if the perfect salvation in Christ needs to be supplemented or even replaced by our diligence and zeal.

6.2. Where Kohlbrugge was right 6.2.1. The testimony of Romans 6 Kohlbrugge’s view calls for a biblical-theological evaluation. His starting point in the salvation fulfilled in Christ reminds us of what we read in Romans 6.24 There Paul declares that we are in a new position in Christ. Before we were united with Christ, we were slaves to sin.25 But through the grace of God we have been freed from our harsh taskmaster Sin, and become slaves of King Jesus. In chapter 2.1 above, we saw that our break with the old life of sin is definitive and decisive. The definitive character of this break is determined by the oncefor-all salvific event of Christ’s death and resurrection. Our faith may be rise or fall in strength, but even the weakest faith makes us share in the entire Christ. Accordingly, Paul can say that we have died with Christ. That is why we do not speak of sanctification in terms of a process, but place it within the category of a once-for-all salvation-historical fact: Christ died for our sins once and for all. Because believers have a part in Christ, they can be said to have died to sin.26 The old man has been crucified with Christ.27 Grammatically this is emphasised in the text by the use of the aorist tense, highlighting the decisive character of this one-time event.

23 The letter has been printed in J. van Lonkhuijzen 1905, appendix B. Cf. C. Graafland 1987:400 – 401. 24 Places in which Kohlbrugge does so explicitly include a sermon on Rom 6:3 – 4, Kohlbrugge 1967:IX – X, 61 – 74, and sermons on Rom 6:6a and 6b, Kohlbrugge 1967:I – II,449 – 470 and 497 – 524. 25 Rom 6:23. 26 Rom 6:2. 27 Rom 6:6.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Where Kohlbrugge was right

197

The definitive position of believers is determined by Christ’s definitive coming to this earth. Kohlbrugge’s primary concern was for the life we live out of the full salvation which is in Christ. In a sermon on Romans 6:6 he remarked: ‘Many would be glad to read: “Those who belong to Christ crucify the flesh with its acts and desires”, instead of: “They have crucified the flesh” […]. But if we gradually want to crucify and put to death the old man through our daily penitence and sorrow, we hinder Christ and contravene Scripture. For it says: “Our old nature our old man was crucified ‘with’ (that is: with Christ), that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.” If these things have happened through and with Christ, do not try to obtain them through your sorrow and penitence, and to crucify by your own efforts what has been crucified once and for all with him.’28 In short, the satisfactio vicaria (i. e. vicarious satisfaction) of Christ is not just iustitia aliena (‘alien righteousness’) but also sanctitas aliena (‘alien holiness’). Our holiness in Christ does not make our good works superfluous; rather, our works are implied by our spiritual union with Christ. To put it another way : we must do good works because they are a part of Christ’s work of salvation. The dying of the old man thus does not begin in the believer’s diligence in fighting to put the old man to death, but it begins with Christ in whom the old man has been crucified. While, from the perspective of Da Costa’s theology, spirituality leads us to seek to increase the small beginning of renewal in us, the biblical notions to which Kohlbrugge has pointed us locate the starting point for our spirituality outside of ourselves, namely, in the new Man Jesus Christ in whom there is complete renewal.

6.2.2. Holiness in the Old Testament A biblical-theological examination of Kohlbrugge’s view further brings to light that the definitive aspect of one’s position before God is related to the biblical notion of holiness. In the Old Testament this is the notion of qds. It is widely accepted that this Hebrew root goes back to the idea of ‘separation’, while qd derives from ‘cutting.’ The roots used in the Old Testament’s concept of sanctification thus appear to suggest that people or things are set apart for the purposes of their religious destination. Etymology has, however, generally fallen out of practice, and also this specific etymological derivation for the notion of sanctification has been called into question.29 Instead, recent studies suggest that

28 Kohlbrugge 1967:I – II,466 – 468. 29 TWAT VI:1181. According to Dubbink 2007:11 – 12, this etymological account can no longer

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

198

Process or Position

the boundary itself, rather than that against which boundaries are drawn, is most important.30 Yet sanctification can be reduced to an anthropological category if our reverence for the sacred disappears. The root qd(s) must therefore be indicative of devotion to God and point to his holiness. Another important element is the realisation that the Old Testament notion of ‘holiness’ finds no parallel in the Ancient Near East.31 Th. C. Vriezen in fact identifies holiness as the most distinctive thing about the Old Testament faith.32 There is only One who is absolutely holy, and that is God. God swears by his own holiness.33 This is indicative of his position of transcendence; he simply cannot be compared with other gods. The revelation of God’s holiness demands that his holiness also be recognised. The altar, the tabernacle with all the instruments, and even the nation of Israel are all called ‘holy.’34 The holiness of the nation does not point to the moral or ethical status of the people, but is indicative of a position. Because the people are in a position of holiness, they must also act accordingly. For Israel this implies that they, as the people of God, have been set apart among the other nations of this earth.35 God cannot be compared with other gods; for this reason, also his people cannot be compared with other nations. Israel’s position of holiness calls for dedication.36 For that reason, Israel were forbidden contact with the rites of other nations. The laws of clean and unclean animals were given to Israel because they are a holy people.37 God’s holiness demands that the nation also hallow itself and break with every form of idolatry. The observance of the Sabbath was a special sign of Israel’s status as a holy nation.38 For Israel, the holiness of God is like a high-voltage wire. Its proper use brings great blessing, but its improper use brings destructive results. When the holiness of the altar was not taken seriously, Nadab and Abihu were immediately killed.39

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

be maintained. In Bavinck GD II,184 – 189 the notion of separation occupies the primary place. Cf. J. Dubbink 2007:18. Barth CD IV/2,511 – 512 emphasises the Holy One who acts instead of the holy people. H.G.L Peels 1999:36. In the LXX the term hagios was used instead of the more common religious term hieros in order to emphasise the exclusive character of holiness in the Old Testament, G.J.M. Bartelink 1999:113. Th.C. Vriezen 1977:322. Amos 4:2. God is the ‘Holy One’, Is 40:25. His Name is holy, Is 57:15; Ezek 36:23. Elsewhere he is called the ‘Holy One of Israel, 2 Kings 19:22. Cf. Th.C. Vriezen 1977:322 – 336. Exod 19:5 – 6, 29:36 – 37, 30:26 – 30; Deut 7:6; 26:19; Jer 2:3. K. Barth observes that the nation is rarely referred to as ‘holy,’ CD IV/2,511 – 512. Lev 20:26. Lev 11:44, 19:2, 20:7, 26. Lev 11:44 – 45. Exod 31:12 – 17; cf. Gen 2:3. Lev 10:1 – 3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Where Kohlbrugge was right

199

Similarly, the sin of Moses and Aaron was that they brought dishonour to the name of God.40 For that reason they were not allowed to lead the people into the Promised Land. Through the punishment he exacted, the Lord hallowed himself.41 In its history, Israel neglected its call to be holy, and mingled with the other nations. Their actions tarnished God, and made him out to be one of many gods.42 Israel’s neglect of its ‘separation’ amounted to a denial of God’s incomparable nature. This helps us to understand the message of the later prophets. They constantly appealed to the people to sanctify God’s name. Especially in the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel, the real motive behind the judgments of God is identified as the desecration of his name. The return from exile was likewise motivated by God’s holiness. Isaiah’s forgiveness points ahead to the forgiveness in which the ‘remnant’ will share.43 This ‘remnant’ is called a ‘holy seed,’ and will in turn become a symbol of hope for the whole world.44 In Ezekiel the hallowing of God’s name is the deepest motive for return and restoration.45 God demonstrated his holiness to the nations by bringing his people back from exile in Babylon. In conclusion, we must insist that holiness is based in God. Peoples and nations are called ‘holy’ by virtue of their relationship with this holy God.46 Holiness is a special position, with exceptional responsibilities. God’s holiness pervades the lives of those who are part of God’s holy covenant.

6.2.3. Holiness in the New Testament In Christ, the special position of Israel finds its fulfilment. The Father sanctified the Son and sent him into the world.47 Our spiritual relationship with Christ then causes us to share in the holiness of the Son.48 This serves to emphasise that we do not contribute anything to our holiness, but that our holiness is determined by our participation in the holiness of Christ. Although there are differences over against the Old Testament, there is also continuity. Like the people of God in the 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Num 20:12. Num 20:13. K. Exalto 1994:18. J.A. Motyer 1993:80. Is 4:2 – 6. Ezek 20:41, 28:22, 25. J. Webster 2003:45 – 47 emphasises that the holiness of God is not ontological, but is to be understood relationally. He draws the same conclusion in regard to the church and believers, 59 – 60, 81. 47 Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; John 6:69, 10:36, 17:19; Acts 3:14, 4:27, 30. Cf. Barth CD IV/2,515 – 516. 48 John 17:17 – 19; Heb 2:11; 9:13; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

200

Process or Position

Old Testament, so we too have been set apart through the holiness of the ‘Holy One.’49 Some scholars conceive of the New Testament notion of holiness as a spiritualisation of the holiness of the Old Testament.50 With this they mean to point out that the New Testament is no longer about the external temple in Jerusalem, but about the spiritual temple which is the church and believers.51 Paul is a liturgist in the spiritual temple of Christ, as it were, and the people of God become a great spiritual given. The notion of the ‘people of God’ no longer runs along national lines, but pagans too have become fellow citizens.52 Yet since God is one, there still is only one people of God. All the same, one wonders whether the Old Testament notion of holiness can really be contrasted to the New Testament, as if the latter no longer has any room for external structures. The accuracy of his observation is suggested by a text that emphasises that holiness in the New Testament is a matter of one’s position, namely, 1 Corinthians 7:14.53 There marriage to a Christian, or else birth into a Christian family, is shown to be determinative for one’s position of holiness. This position also follows from the definitive character of this holiness, as expressed in the use of the perfect tense.54 The New Testament witnesses of this definitive character of holiness also in connection with believers. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 1:2 Paul addresses the church at Corinth as ‘those who are sanctified,’ and a little later on he writes that they are ‘sanctified’ and ‘justified.’55 The rest of the letter to the church at Corinth leaves no doubt that the holiness of the church had nothing to do with a supposedly elevated moral disposition. After all, the majority of this letter is taken up by Paul’s reproaches against the sins and errors of the Corinthians. Remarkably, they are never denied the qualifier ‘holy’ on account of their life praxis, nor is anything ever taken away from their holiness. The sin in Corinth did not relativise the qualification of the church as ‘holy’, but only intensified the punishment on them. In fact, it was the very holiness of the church of Corinth that made its sin so serious.

49 50 51 52 53

John 17:9; Rom 12:2. TDNT I:105, 110. The same thing has been noted by G.J.M. Bartelink 1999:112, 114. Rom 15:16; 1 Cor 3:16, 6:19; Eph 2:20 – 21, 5:2. Eph 2:19. G.J.M. Bartelink 1999:116 – 117 has pointed out that the notion of holiness obtained a moral and ethical dimension under the influence of Montanism. This trajectory was continued in Origen and Chrysostom. 54 E.g. Heb 10:10. See also D. Peterson 1995 on this point. 55 1 Cor 6:11.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Practical implications

201

There are also other letters in which Christians are called holy.56 In particular the Christians in Judea are called ‘holy,’ perhaps in light of Israel’s calling to spread their light in this world.57 Similarly, when we read in 1 Thessalonians 4:7 that God has not called us to uncleanness but to holiness, this is indicative of a position of holiness.58 In Acts 15:9 it says that our hearts are purified. In 1 Peter 2:24 the apostle writes that we have died to sin, so that we might live to righteousness. An important text for underlining the holy position which is ours in Christ is 1 Corinthians 1:30: ‘But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God – and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.’ The concepts of righteousness, sanctification, and redemption here function equally. It is the concept of redemption that makes it clear to us how these notions function. For, it is a metaphor pertaining to the liberation from slavery in Egypt and release from exile in Babylon. In Christ this redemption has been fulfilled. Christians belong to their new Master alone, Jesus Christ, who has fulfilled the work of salvation. These biblical data led John Murray to emphasise that sanctification is an ‘once-for-all definitive act.’59 Victor P. Furnish similarly concluded that sanctification ‘consists not in a particular moral quality which had been attained, but in a particular relationship to God which has been given.’60

6.3. Practical implications The biblical-theological conclusion which we reached above – i. e. that Christians are in a position or state of holiness – has implications for the practice of the Christian life. It implies that our holiness does not depend on the internal process of renewal in us, or on the measure of progress within that process. This first means that normal Christians are holy, and, secondly, that Christians who experience unholiness in their hearts still are holy. In what follows, I will discuss these two liberating ideas. 56 Acts 9:32, 41, 20:32, 26:10, 18; Rom 1:7, 8:27, 12:13, 15:25 – 26, 31, 16:2, 15; 1 Cor 6:1 – 2, 14:33, 16:1, 15; 2 Cor 1:1, 8:4, 9:1, 12; Eph 1:1, 15, 18, 2:19, 3:5, 8, 18, 4:12, 5:3, 26 – 27, 6:18; Phil 1:1, 4:22; Col 1:2, 4, 12, 22, 26, 3:12; 2 Tim 2:21; Heb 13:24; Jude 3; Rev 5:8, 8:3, 15:3. 57 Rom 15:25 – 26, 31; 1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 8:4, 9:1, 12. 58 What strikes one is the ‘direction’ of the preposition; we are called epi akatharsia and in hagiasmos. 59 So J. Murray 1984:2,277. Murray wrote ‘Definitive Sanctification’, 277 – 284 and ‘The Agency in Definitive Sanctification’, 285 – 293. A.W. Pink 1998:102 – 120 argues that the Reformed confessions come up short on this point. Turrettini ITE II.xvii.i.ii was aware of this notion, but consciously opted for an understanding of sanctification as a process. 60 V.P. Furnish 1968:155.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

202

Process or Position

6.3.1. Normal Christians are holy Augustine’s sermons are very useful in showing that it is not up to us to bring the Christian life to realisation. In his treatment of the Lord’s Prayer, for example, he points out that the best pray-er – i. e. Christ – has taught us the words of the perfect prayer.61 From this he derives the application that we have a good hope of winning the trial if he pleads for us as the best jurist possible. We may then repeat the words of our great Advocate after him. These words have power, even if the power of the Holy Spirit rises and falls within our hearts depending on the times. Luther too showed at the hand of the life of prayer that we do not carry the Christian life, but that it is the Christian life which carries us: ‘I do not know how strong in spirit others may be, but I cannot make myself so holy, even if I were so learned and Spirit-filled as some fancy themselves to be. But my experience is always that when I am without the Word, when I do not think about it or occupy myself with it, then no Christ is present nor indeed are any spiritual desires. […] As we all discover within ourselves, our mind and thoughts are so uncertain, slippery, and inconstant that even if we wanted to begin to pray in earnest or to think about God and Scripture, it inevitably happens that before we realize it, we have strayed a hundred miles from our first thoughts. Let anyone who will, give it a try, and tell me how long he is able to say with his intended thought. […] I must tell and example of this. We read about St. Bernard, who made such an attempt. He once lamented to a good friend that he had such difficulty praying as he ought that he could not even pray through the Lord’s Prayer without having other thoughts intrude. […] I speak like this so that […] we may learn why such external words and actions are helpful and necessary : namely, so that the heart may be focused, rather than distracted, and fasten itself in its thoughts to the letters, just as one must grip a tree of a wall to keep from slipping, lest we flutter off and go astray with our own thoughts.’62 A fear for laziness and traditionalism, together with a desire for uprightness and authenticity, can produce a distaste in us for standard expressions.63 Yet Augustine and Luther teach us that in our prayers we may allow ourselves to be carried by the words of others. Just like children learn to walk by holding someone’s hand, so also fixed prayers may function as an aid to teach us how to pray.64 The point Augustine and Luther wish to make is that we are allowed to be very normal people in the presence of God. The mark of holiness is not an ability 61 62 63 64

Sermo 58,1. M. Luther, WA 28,76 – 77 (translation LW 69:18 – 19). Puritans sometimes condemned the use of set prayers, D. Webber 1981:52. So H.J. Selderhuis 2002:44. In Scripture we find the same words repeated, Luke 18:2 – 6; 2 Cor 12:8; Matt 26:44.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Practical implications

203

to recite lofty prayers or achieve other special accomplishments, but the fact that we are holy because of the special holiness of Christ.

6.3.2. Unholy saints The Christian life can sometimes be depicted as a most beautiful thing, as if were nothing but harmony and happiness. What some Christians experience, however, is the very opposite. This may be the result of lifelong consequences to the mistakes they make, as was the case for David. Others have a pessimistic character. Some believers compare themselves to other believers and then determine that their faith deserves a failing grade. Yet others think they are not special enough to be a believer. For them, words like ‘upright’ and ‘humble’ are out of their league, and they certainly do not see themselves as a light to the world. If only, they then think, I could pray more intensely, witness with greater fire, be more enthusiastic in reading spiritual literature, be more certain about my salvation and less worldly in my cares, and had a better character, I would be able to believe that I make a good Christian. But since in our eyes there is no one who is as petty and sneaky as us, as greedy and selfish, as proud and quick-tempered, as useless and unfruitful, doubt soon raises its ugly head. Can the Spirit really be living in a heart that is as carnal as mine? Personally and pastorally, grace can be turned into something cheap, as when we point out that we are after all still sinners. There are also theologians who insist that all our worries about our sinful inclinations are a matter of unbelief. God, they say, sees no sin in us, and so we may not allow ourselves to be frustrated by our impure desires. Did the apostle not say that we are to consider ourselves dead to sin?65 It is important to evaluate whether or not this solution is tenable. It is also important to note that the converse is possible as well, namely, that we show great concern about our holiness and encourage one another to overcome our unholy desires – by being filled with a special measure of the Holy Spirit, for example, so as to put to death specific desires. This attitude is motivated by the all too recognisable inclination to work toward our sanctification, and to attempt out of our own power to climb up out of our misery and to ascend to a higher spiritual level. In light of this chapter, however, we reach the surprising conclusion that another option is available to us. A theology that takes its starting point in the 65 W. Nee 1994 turns Romans 6:11 into a central point of departure in his doctrine of sanctification without including the unio mystica, with the result that the concepts found in Romans 7:14 – 26 are not given sufficient room to function well in his theology.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

204

Process or Position

history of salvation fulfilled in Christ does not deny or suppress the reality of the old man. At the same time, it does not take anything away from our new position in Christ. The reality of our holy position in Christ teaches us not to live for sanctification, but rather to live out of our holiness in him. Christ has sanctified himself for the sake of his people.66 This holiness does not become ours only after a ‘second blessing,’ a crisisexperience, a special spiritual accomplishment, or after a certain measure of renewal has been attained. We are holy in Christ; we are saints by virtue of his covenant. Our holiness does not depend on our faith, piety, or experiences. The weakest believer is just as holy as the strongest. Holiness is not reserved for a certain Christian elite, but is a gift for all Christians without distinction. The doctrine of our holy position effected by faith offers us a way to resist a moral understanding of the Christian life according to which we must prove our faith in Christ. Children who are rude and disobedient to their parents do not lose their position as children through that behaviour. It is in this respect that Kohlbrugge was entirely correct. From this perspective, it is entirely misleading to think or speak in terms of human progress in sanctification. Christians ought not to take their starting point in themselves and their sanctification, but in Christ. When we discover that we are united with Christ, we discover what we have in him. God asks us, ‘Where is my law, my command, my honour, my image, the obedience I demand?’ As we stand in embarrassment, Christ comes and shines in us. He did not make half work of it. His work does not have to be supplemented by our sanctification. Sanctification is not a work on our part in response to him, but it is a grace in him. Even the weakest faith makes him entirely our own.67 Jesus Christ is our holiness before God. That gives us the most unshakable certainty that we are holy enough before God. This is the freedom of the Christian.

6.4. Reformation of the Reformed doctrine of sanctification The Reformed tradition has always shown itself to be aware that sanctification is about a holy position. This is evident at baptisms, where we are ‘received into the

66 John 17:19. 67 A.W. Pink 1998:174 – 191 put considerable emphasis on this in the final chapter to his treatment of sanctification: ‘O my Christian reader, what a difference it would make were you to steadily realize the truth that, every temptation you encounter, every defeat you suffer, every distressing experience you pass through, is a call and a challenge for the exercise of faith’, p. 187.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Reformation of the Reformed doctrine of sanctification

205

church of God and set apart from all other peoples and false religions, to be entirely committed to Him.’68 At infant baptism, parents acknowledge that their children ‘are sanctified in Christ and thus as members of His church ought to be baptized.’69 It is important to note that the Reformation churches did not posit that our children can or must be sanctified in Christ, but that they are sanctified.70 At the time of the Reformation, believers lived out of the reality of God’s covenant.71 A given holiness can also be found explicitly in the Heidelberg Catechism. Question 60 speaks about the imputation of the holiness of Christ to believers. It should be noted that this comes within the context of justification. Since the catechism speaks in the wider context about the imputation of the obedience of Christ, this implies a connection to his active obedience. This notion of a holiness given in Christ has functioned in the Reformed tradition above all in the context of God’s covenant. Whenever the tradition referred to ‘sanctification,’ it most often meant a spiritual process of renewal. On the basis of a biblical-theological study of positional sanctification, David Peterson has criticised this understanding of sanctification as a process: ‘But a focus on sanctification in terms of discernible moral progress may leave us in doubt about final acceptance at the bar of God.’72 Peterson made this observation in the context of his response to a remark from Ryle that we cannot consider ourselves to be Christian if we do not see the sanctifying effect of faith in our lives. Peterson also distances from Ryle’s claim that certainty of faith is inseparably tied to the sanctification of our lives. In Jean Louis Bernhardi (1811 – 1873) we see a different approach, as he refused to admit any notion of a gradual sanctification.73 Bernhardi did not hesitate to shy away from forceful language, calling gradual sanctification a temptation from the devil. Gradual sanctification, so he argues, serves to fortify the kingdom of sin. By appealing to the non-regenerated part in them, sinners can indulge in sin and continue to cling to it.74 Yet Bernhardi was also aware of the potential danger in activism; in his eyes, the zeal for mission or for com-

68 BC art. 34. 69 Book of Praise:587. 70 In the eighteenth century there were detailed discussions on the import of this expression in the form for baptism, cf. T. Brienen 1983:352 – 359. 71 It is highly significant in this regard that the Heidelberg Catechism was printed between the form for baptism and the form for Lord’s Supper in the Kirchenordnung Pfalz:335. The preface refers explicitly to the covenant. 72 D. Peterson 1995:70. Cf. Ryle 1981. 73 J.L. Bernhardi, De parel van groote waarde, 2. 74 J.L. Bernhardi, De parel van groote waarde, 3, 59, 113.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

206

Process or Position

mittee work can be a way to promote a false sanctification.75 The same is true of spiritual experiences.76 Bernhardi instead emphasises that we are all at once completely holy. We have no opportunity to become something in our own eyes, for Christ is all. Special experiences do not make us any more holy. Jacob, for example, no longer had the power to pursue sanctification after Peniel.77 He lacked the spiritual power of faith, and needed a holiness that was imputed to him. Given Bernhardi’s criticism of any notion of sanctification that understands it as something gradual, one would have expected him to be critical of the Heidelberg Catechism as well. Yet we actually find him appealing to the catechism without any qualifications.78 In his reading, questions 30 and 60 outright reject any such notion of a process in the Christian life. If our sanctification were not in Christ, we would not receive everything in him. From a formal perspective, Bernhardi is indeed correct. When it uses the word ‘holiness,’ the catechism does so in the context of the imputation of the holiness of Christ. Conversely, where the catechism treats the process of the dying of the old man and the coming to life of the new, it uses the term ‘conversion.’ All the same, it would seem that Bernhardi in the end reads too much into the catechism, and one wonders whether its authors really had such subtle distinctions in mind. After all, the tradition has never identified any conflict between the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession on the topic of sanctification, even though article 24 bears the heading ‘Our sanctification and good works’ in the context of its discussion of the process of renewal As a result, we must conclude that Bernhardi is not justified to appeal to the Heidelberg Catechism as he does. In it we find no contrast between an imputed righteousness and the process of renewal. All the same, in the end Bernhardi still does have a point. Our biblical-theological study above brought to light the positional character of the biblical notion of holiness. This is something that the Reformed tradition can only ignore its own detriment. The theological debate between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa, and our own examination of Scripture, have illustrated that the Reformed tradition could have used a little refinement in its treatment of sanctification. Whether this also implies that we ought no longer to speak about a process of renewal at all is a topic that will be addressed in the following section.

75 J.L. Bernhardi, De parel van groote waarde, 7. 76 ‘Er wordt wel eens breed uitgemeten over Bethels en PniÚls die men in de weg der heiligmaking ondervonden heeft’, J.L. Bernhardi, De parel van groote waarde, 19. 77 J.L. Bernhardi, De parel van groote waarde, 20. 78 J.L. Bernhardi, De parel van groote waarde, 21, 107.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Where Da Costa was right

207

6.5. Where Da Costa was right There is no question as to who emerged from the conflict between Da Costa and Kohlbrugge in a better state – Kohlbrugge clearly demonstrated the weaknesses in his interlocutor’s theological arguments. This does not mean, of course, that we have done justice to Da Costa’s deepest intentions. Did he, with arguments that are admittedly weak, still defend something that is clear in Scripture? Da Costa’s greatest concern was for the process of renewal. In this section we will examine the biblical evidence for such a process with a view to considering how this the material we unearth fits within the contours provided by the last sections.

6.5.1. Holiness as a moral category In Scripture, the notion of ‘holiness’ has moral and ethical implications.79 For example, God expressed his holiness in concrete commandments. Or else Leviticus 18 and 20 make it clear that the other nations were expelled from Canaan because of their sins. Accordingly, Israel’s position of holiness also implies a moral appeal. In the vision of Isaiah’s calling we see that God’s holiness serves to illustrate our moral unholiness.80 The forgiveness which Isaiah then receives also highlights the moral aspect to the holiness of God. The moral implications of God’s holiness come to expression in the New Testament in the believers’ lives.81 The key chapter that addresses our position of holiness in Christ mentions a process in one and the same breath. Romans 6:6 confesses in powerful terms that our old man has been crucified with Christ. It immediately adds, however, that the body of sin is being done away with. We hear the same thing reflected in Colossians 3:5 – 10. Verse 3 had witnessed to our definitive position in Christ, and the letter as a whole is addressed to ‘the saints and faithful brethren.’82 Two verses further down (3:5) we read that these brethren are to put to death ‘fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.’ It would therefore seem that the brothers there had come under the spell of prostitution and greed.83 Paul for that reason exhorts 79 Hab 1:12 – 13. For an analysis of the problems related to the progress in the Christian life, cf. Berkouwer 1952a:101 – 113. Berkouwer also addresses the conflict between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa. 80 Is 6:1 – 8. 81 Cf. 1 Cor 5:7; 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 4:13 – 16, 22 – 24; Phil 1:3 – 11, 3:8 – 14; Col 1:3 – 8; 1 Thess 4:1, 10; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 1:15; 2 Pet 1:3 – 8. 82 Col 1:2. 83 So Kohlbrugge 1967:VII – VIII, 374.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

208

Process or Position

them not to fall in with their surroundings, but rather to keep God’s commandments over against the reigning culture. In his letter to the church of Thessalonica, Paul exhorts the members to live in accordance with the new position that had become theirs. When he says in 1 Thessalonians 4:3 that sanctification is the will of God, he immediately adds that the members of the church ought to abstain from sexual immorality.84 And two verses later he writes that they ought not to live in the passion of lust, like the gentiles do. Their position of holiness in Christ also has consequences for their mutual interaction.85 Verse 7 then follows as a kind of climax to the first part of this chapter, in that the believers are called to holiness rather than uncleanness. Through their uncleanness, they reject God, who has given them the Holy Spirit. From this it appears that one’s position of holiness demands that one live a life of holiness as well. The above finds further confirmation in chapter 5 to Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus. In this epistle, the congregation is said to be sanctified with the washing of water by the Word.86 Through baptism in the name of Jesus, it has been set apart. The next verse then says that the church has no spot or wrinkle. In the wider context this is depicted concretely in terms of the love of a husband for his wife. In Paul’s first letter to Timothy we see the other side of the same coin, as it were. Here unholiness is described in terms of lawlessness and insubordination, murder, adultery, theft, lying, and perjury.87 This serves to indicate one more time that the biblical notion of holiness is qualified by a spiritual-ethical dimension. In short, the above survey means that it is possible to participate in a positional holiness, whose effects nevertheless show themselves in life to varying degrees.88

6.5.2. Renewal as a gradual process Scripture also explicitly mentions a process of renewal.89 Romans 12:2 speaks of a renewal by the transforming of the mind so as to discover what is the will of 84 85 86 87 88

Cf. Titus 1:8. 1 Thess 1:6. Cf. K. Exalto 1994;21. 1 Tim 1:9 – 10. Cf. 2 Tim 3:2 – 5 and Heb 12:16 on Esau. J. Bridges 2006:75 – 76 uses the image of an emancipated slave or a Russian pilot who was granted asylum in the USA. Those who find themselves in a new position do not necessarily have a new character. 89 It is not possible to treat all scriptural data in this chapter. Think also of Rom 8:13, Gal. 5:22, or John 15:1 – 8 where a distinction is drawn between being and becoming purified, cf. Keener 2003:I,996. On p. 994 he points out that the vine requires the most care.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Where Da Costa was right

209

God. By discovering this will, we no longer conform ourselves to the world. Paul is apparently well aware of the pressures we experience under certain social groups or cultural norms. Through the Spirit our conscience undergoes a wonderful metamorphosis: the old is being renewed day by day.90 God does not renew us from one moment to the next; not a day passes over the course of which the Spirit does not exercise his renewing work in us. While it may not be perceptible each and every day, and while we will at one time make greater progress than at others, the influence of the Holy Spirit does remain always. In the Spirit’s renewing work our mind, the nous, is of great importance. Colossians 3:10 speaks of the renewal in knowledge according to the image of him who created us. This text implies that there is an increase in our knowledge of our Creator.91 Here the image of God is also mentioned.92 While this concept is not without its difficulties, in the present context it suffices for us to recognise that God has reached his original goal with us through our restoration in Christ. 2 Corinthians 3:18 illustrates that, by beholding the glory of Christ, we are being transformed into his image. Spiritual knowledge has a renewing power, and in order to be renewed we must look up in faith to the glory of Christ. The use of the passive in the text serves to emphasise the role of the activity undertaken on the part of God’s Spirit.93 It thus emerges that we are being renewed internally through a lengthy and intense process toward the position in which we have been placed.94 This passage also indicates that this process of change is progressive; in other words, growth is a typical aspect of the work of the Spirit. In Acts we read on several occasions that the Word of God ‘spread.’95 Such expressions refer in the first place to numeric growth.96 Yet this does not mean that the spiritual growth caused by the influence of the Word upon the heart is excluded.97 Paul observed that there had been an increase in faith in the church of Corinth98, and in Thessalonica as well.99 In Thessalonica Paul also noted an increase in their

90 2 Cor 4:16. Cf. Titus 3:5. 91 Just as at creation, so also at the re-creation there will first be light, cf. Gen 1:3, 2 Cor 4:16, and other texts discussed in this section. 92 Cf. Gen 1:27 and Rom 8:29. 93 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2. The Spirit is called the ‘Spirit of holiness (or : sanctification)’, Rom 1:4. 94 Cf. J. Murray 1982:2,294 – 304. 95 Acts 6:7, 12:24, 19:20. 96 A. Noordegraaf 1984:110 – 146. 97 Acts 15:9. Cf. Noordegraaf 1984:95. 98 2 Cor 10:15. 99 2 Thess 1:3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

210

Process or Position

love.100 Similarly, to the Jews scattered in Minor Asia Peter wrote about growth in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.101 Spiritual growth is also one of the underlying themes of Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus: the saints are to be edified so as to come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.102 In this way their spiritual life will flourish, so that they may not be carried about by every wind of doctrine. As the previous chapter above has demonstrated, this growth is paradoxical in nature. There is indeed growth, but this growth ought not to be understood in a triumphalist sense. Spiritual growth goes together with humility on the part of the believer.103 We come to a better knowledge of ourselves so as to become more and more amazed at the grace of God. Spiritual growth never means that we are any less dependent on God and his grace, and therefore stand on our own. On the contrary, spiritual growth is a growth in dependence, a growth in how we bow ourselves down before God. In light of the above, we see where also Da Costa was right – and by extension also Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas van Kempen, the Puritans, and the representatives of the so-called Nadere Reformatie. All of them emphasised the importance of piety as the expression of personal renewal. For that reason they can speak of the holy and the ‘most holy.’ This came to be confessionally embodied in the Westminster Confession, where we read that ‘the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they are more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces.’104

6.5.3. Sanctification as renewal The above raises the question whether Scripture maintains a rigid distinction between the word ‘holy’ as a description of the believer’s position, and the concept of ‘renewal’ as a reference to the Spirit’s work.105 There are several examples which indicate that Scripture does not give us any warrant for maintaining such an overarching distinction. Paul, for example, speaks in Romans 6:19 about members who no longer present themselves as slaves of uncleanness and lawlessness, but as slaves of righteousness for holiness. From the context it is clear that the word ‘holiness’ must be related here to a life in line with one’s 100 101 102 103 104 105

1 Thess 3:12, 4:10; 2 Thess 1:3, cf. Phil 1:9. 2 Pet 3:18, cf. 1 Pet 2:2. Eph 4:13 – 15. Cf. H. van den Belt 2009:15 – 16. Chapter XIII.1. Cf. D. Peterson 1995:136.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Where Da Costa was right

211

position of holiness. The life of a believer cannot be the same as that of an unbeliever. The concrete character of the holy life also emerges from 2 Corinthians 7:1: ‘Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.’ This verse clearly appears in the context of a preceding process. This process in turn consists negatively in the purification of the self from every corruption of flesh and spirit.106 Hebrews 12:14 is an important text in the Reformed tradition in regard to the topic of sanctification: ‘Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.’ If this verse had referred to a position of holiness, it would have used the indicative. But since the imperative is used, it means that the verse does not present an observation here, but rather indicates what ought to happen: Christians must seek to be sanctified. An important question in this regard is whether Christians actually achieve something in their pursuit of sanctification, or whether they pursue an impossible ideal. The texts that we have already considered above give us every reason to expect God’s commands to be effective. The effects of the exhortations are, moreover, a well-known characteristic of the way the Bible speaks.107 Holiness is thus not only the starting point for Christians, but also the goal they are to pursue, as well as something that comes to expression in life to at least some degree.108 The second half of this text emphasises that it is a matter of sanctification in the here and now. By pursuing sanctification and attaining it, we will see the Lord. The only way to God is the way of holiness. The text underlines this same point once more when it denies the converse: if there is not spiritual progress, no one will see the Lord, now through faith or else later in the eschaton. The same can be seen in the writings of Peter. When he speaks about the sanctification of the Spirit, his words point to a pneumatological dimension in one’s position of holiness.109 Through the Spirit we become pilgrims. Just like Israel in the Old Testament, so the New Testament church is a holy nation which is to serve God.110 In its entirety, Peter’s epistle makes it clear that this position of holiness has consequences for our actions, teaching, and conduct.111

106 1 Cor 3:16 makes it clear that the divisions in the church are not in line with its holiness. 107 CoD III/IV, 17 explicitly observes that God communicates grace through his admonitions. Cf. CoD V,14. 108 D. Peterson 1995:141 admits this interpretation. 109 1 Pet 1:2. Cf. D. Peterson 1995:63. 110 Cf. Exod 19:6 with 1 Pet 2:9. 111 1 Pet 1:15 – 16.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

212

Process or Position

In 1 Thessalonians 5:23a we hear the same message resound: ‘Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely.’ This text does not mean to suggest that there are different phases in the Christian life. As the second part of the text indicates, the words of the apostle stand in the light of the eschaton. Total sanctification is an eschatological matter.112 As such, this text indicates that there is another element to definitive sanctification: the entire life of a believer is directed to this total sanctification. Our analysis thus shows that Scripture does not just understand the Christian’s position formally. What Christians receive as a position comes to expression in their hearts and lives through the Holy Spirit. Given the language of Scripture, we are not prevented from using the notion of sanctification in order to refer to the process of renewal. In this sense, the Reformed tradition was indeed correct in the way it used the term ‘sanctification.’113

6.6. Kohlbrugge’s concern for sanctification In light of the above, we return to Kohlbrugge one more time. Did he then overlook the biblical notion of concrete renewal in our lives? His resistance to the notion of sanctification within us and his emphasis on the holiness which is given in Christ can leave us with the impression that he failed to safeguard the Spirit’s work of application and regeneration by the way he collapsed the work of the Spirit with the work of Christ. This seems to find confirmation when he insists that God does not need a single penny, tear, or sigh from us.114 In order to evaluate the accuracy of this impression, we need to take account also of Kohlbrugge’s intentions. On the one hand, Kohlbrugge directed himself again the front of works-righteousness; he had nothing good to say about the efforts of human activism for sanctification. On the other hand, his statements were intended to provide comfort to believers who had hit a wall in their search for that new obedience. It is here, when he seeks to offer comfort, that Kohlbrugge is at his best. He does not try to comfort despondent believers by pointing them to the manifestation of sanctification in their lives, but rather by noting that the total righteousness and holiness of Christ is imputed to them: ‘But when the Spirit of sanctification comes and removes this veil of the condemning law from our face, we see the Spirit of sanctification: God revealed in the flesh, in Christ his 112 Cf. Burger 2008:256. 113 The same connections of words can be observed outside of the Reformed tradition as well. I.W. Kargel 1978:17. 114 So A. de Reuver 1992:238 n. 29.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Kohlbrugge’s concern for sanctification

213

righteousness; we no longer see ourselves, but Christ alone. And now we become ever poorer, ever more sinful, ever more miserable; and the more poor, sinful, and miserable we are, and the more we are crushed by our distress, the more beautiful becomes the image which the Spirit of sanctification holds up before us […]. We therefore see here the image of Jesus, of his goodness, his riches, his care and protection.’115 This quotation serves to emphasise that the extra nos-character of salvation does not imply an objectification of salvation for Kohlbrugge, or lead to the cheapening of grace. For him the justification of a godless person does not mean to deny the element of sorrow: ‘Your conversion, your sorrow and sadness over sins can, indeed, never be the ground of your justification before God, since that ground is Christ alone and your sorrow cannot undo your corruption in any way. But I tell you before the face of the living God that if you experience no sorrow over sin, if you do not have a broken and contrite heart – then you may dream and speak as much as you want about your righteousness before the judgment seat of God, about the need for sanctification, and you can mention countless other religious or ecclesiastical themes, but in your mouth these words will be nothing but lying and deceit.’116 The Holy Spirit is fully present in the application of salvation: ‘By sanctification we thus understand the total work of the Holy Spirit as he is at work in the elect, so that we may not just know the benefits of Christ objectively, but also subjectively, that is, as we ourselves personally come to share or already share in them.’117 It is remarkable that Kohlbrugge understands the concept of sanctification as the Spirit’s work of application. Does this also mean that the Spirit’s work is reduced to application, while regeneration fades away altogether? Many indications suggest that this was indeed the case: ‘I now ask: does someone who has been converted by God have works, or does he not? No! he does not have works, not he, that is, he does not know that he has them.’118 In his correspondence with Da Costa, Kohlbrugge confirmed that sanctification does not constitute a separate locus after justification. That ‘sanctification must be treated as a separate doctrine after the doctrine of the righteousness of the grace of Christ which rules to life is not something I see reflected in Scripture.’119 From the rest of this letter it is clear that Kohlbrugge wants to insist that 115 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1884:349 – 350 116 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1974:2,70. 117 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1884:341. Kohlbrugge 1892:41 – 43 consciously followed Calvin on this point. In his Schriftverklaringen he regularly refers to the catechism, cf. Kohlbrugge 1974:Register, 92 – 93. 118 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1974:2,72. 119 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1892:39.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

214

Process or Position

we remain sinners and live out of the forgiveness of sins. The righteousness of Christ remains the very core of the life of faith. Kohlbrugge was also critical of scholastic theology, which located sanctification after justification.120 But was Kohlbrugge concerned about the order between them as such, or did he seek to distance himself from a once-for-all justification? He in any case resisted the notion of justification as an independent locus.121 In the whole of his theology he appears to place great emphasis on one’s continuing state as a sinner before the face of God. The experience of justification never becomes a chapter that we close before we turn the page to open the chapter of sanctification. This led to the question whether sanctification has disappeared from view in the theology of Kohlbrugge. In spite of this, there is no denying that Kohlbrugge left room in his theology for faith to come to expression: ‘My dear friends! Where one is really bent over before the judgment seat of God, there a real conversion from sin takes place, there a true and upright fear of the Lord is awakened […]. If the Lord God has kept you on your way, there he begins to show you what you have stolen even though you would have kept it hidden for another ten years; then you, o murderer, become the helper of those who are in misery ; and you, o greedy man, become a benefactor to the poor […]. We can live in the delusion of conversion, but if God applies his balm to your eyes so that you come to see even a single tear that was shed because of you, a single injustice that you committed, then you will remain on the road to hell if you do not immediately dry that tear and make that injustice good!122 In connection with the Spirit’s work of application Kohlbrugge also wrote: ‘The Spirit speaks objective justification subjectively in the heart, so that we may obtain certainty that mercy has also been shown to me! He further produces in us a hatred against sin, a love for justice, that we may break with the devil and the world and devote hand and heart to God: my God, here I am, one who is lost! That is true sanctification.’123 Kohlbrugge fiercely resisted the meritorious character of good works, but not good works as such. Rather, good works are absolutely necessary as a mark of true faith: ‘You cannot pay off with your deeds an eternal debt that you accumulated before the eternal law of God, and yet the accomplishment of such deeds is a mark and fruit of a life lived out of God.’124 120 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1884:341. 121 Cf. A. de Reuver 1992:245 – 247. 122 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1974:2,71. According to J. van Lonkhuijzen 1905:470 these accents came from a later period, see 470 – 475, 489 – 491, 497. 123 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1884:344. Cf. Heidelberger, 66. 124 H.F. Kohlbrugge 1974:2,73. In two sermons on Col 3:1 – 5 (Kohlbrugge 1967:VIII,369 – 400) the tension between position and process comes out repeatedly. See, for example: ‘Alle

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Kohlbrugge’s concern for sanctification

215

The basic features of this understanding can already be found in Kohlbrugge’s epistolary exchange with Da Costa. He writes, for example, that Christians want nothing to do with a pious walk of life in their orientation to Christ, although there is indeed such a thing as a pious walk.125 Kohlbrugge also goes one step further when he writes that good works must indeed be performed and taught, but in their proper time and place.126 This means that from a theological perspective there is indeed room in Kohlbrugge’s thought to treat good works. This room has led other scholars to conclude that Kohlbrugge was in the end concerned with sanctification above all else.127 There are certain statements which seem indeed to point in that direction. In De eenvoudige Heidelberger, for example, he writes that we must believe that we are holy in order also to walk in holiness.128 Elsewhere in his catechism commentary we read that Christ teaches us how we must walk in the law fulfilled by him.129 In ourselves we find no readiness to keep God’s commandments, but Christ makes us willing through the Holy Spirit so that we delight in the law of God.130 Kohlbrugge considers it ‘absolutely necessary for us to ponder our justification continually, so that it may lead us to walk in true holiness before God and man.’131 In his sermons on Jonah we read: ‘If you live by the law, by the old man which Christ has killed and rendered impotent in you, you may talk all you want about obedience and yet not accomplish any of it. If you are borne by grace, if you find yourself in the hand of the LORD, do not worry then about your works and holiness. The LORD will cause you to find holiness where you least expect it.’132 While these statements could also appear to suggest that sanctification is not an important issue for Kohlbrugge, they can also be explained teleologically. As such, we do justice to a deep seated notion in the theology of Kohlbrugge, namely, that God is concerned about the fulfilment of his law as this fulfilment is realised by the Spirit in our heart and life. In this sense, Kohlbrugge was indeed concerned with sanctification.

125 126 127

128 129 130 131 132

heiliging, alle goede werken, alle waarachtige deugd moet van Boven komen, ik kan ze niet teweegbrengen; maar dit is alles is er ; het is er bij mijnen Heere en Heiland Christus, en het is alles besloten in dit ¦¦ne: in het geloof ’, p. 383. Kohlbrugge speaks about growth in our union with Christ, Heidelberger, 356. Kohlbrugge 1892:29. Kohlbrugge 1892:33. A. de Reuver 1992:237 mentions S. Gerssen and G.W. Locher. J. Loos 1948:150 and G. Ph. Scheers 1976:124 consider Kohlbrugge as a theologian of sanctification. A. de Reuver 1992:239 – 240 distinguishes a tertius usus legis in Kohlbrugge. With this, he distances himself from W. Kreck 1936:144. J. van Lonkhuijzen 1905:460, 463 – 464 indicates that the later Kohlbrugge was more sensitive to the law as a rule for life. H.F. Kohlbrugge, Heidelberger, 107. H.F. Kohlbrugge, Heidelberger, 269. H.F. Kohlbrugge, Heidelberger, 65. As cited in A. de Reuver 1992:236. H.F. Kohlbrugge 1989:65 – 66

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

216

Process or Position

6.7. Balance Da Costa-Kohlbrugge The difference between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa cannot simply be captured by suggesting that Kohlbrugge refused to have anything to do with the renewal of the heart and turned grace into a cheap means of assurance so that we might continue to live in our old life as before. Da Costa’s criticism against Kohlbrugge that the latter wanted no more than a ‘surety sanctification’ was therefore not justified. Kohlbrugge did not deny the power of the Word and the Spirit in the heart at all. Both he and Da Costa subscribed to the effects of our union with Christ. Kohlbrugge insistently denied that believers are just as carnal as unbelievers. It is the indwelling of the Spirit that makes all the difference. This makes it all the more interesting and fruitful to consider where the difference between these two theologians does then reside. One is tempted to think that they each pushed the other into an opposing position, although this had not actually been necessary.133 We could thus conclude: to say that Kohlbrugge was right is not to say that Da Costa was wrong. Kohlbrugge was correct in taking his starting point in a positional sanctification, while Da Costa was correct to insist on the renewing work of the Spirit. This harmonising model at the same time denies that there are structural differences between the theologies of Kohlbrugge and Da Costa. Da Costa thought to discern a totally different environment in Kohlbrugge when he fiercely opposed him. This has been detailed by Aalders.134 Da Costa was concerned with the new man, the new principle of life, and Christ in us. In his meditations he described it with the following words: ‘The truths which flow from the work of Christ must be the life-principles, the drive behind the Christian’s entire life, and behind all his work in the present and future, in family, school, church, society, state […]. The Christianity of the Scriptures must thus be the leaven which is to penetrate every imaginable circle and to conquer it for Christ.’135 Elsewhere he wrote: ‘We must thus view all the powers placed in us through the grace of God as so many seeds which we are to develop into fruits by planting and cultivating them. With God at work in us, we work out of the power of God upon us, upon the world, upon all possible spheres and circumstances of life.’136 Starting with the spiritual principle in nobis, there was to be impact on the outside, an evolution. Accordingly, Kohlbrugge opposed slavery and pleaded in 133 W. Verboom 1999:257. O.W. Dubois 1997:211 remarks that Da Costa was later on less harsh on Kohlbrugge’s sermon. 134 W. Aalders, De grote ontsporing, 8 – 10. Da Costa lived – partly because of his social position – out of a positive appreciation of the world, which Kohlbrugge criticised in De Clercq, Dubois 1997:221 – 224. 135 I. da Costa, Bijbellezingen IX,14 f, cited from W. Aalders, De grote ontsporing, 96. 136 I. da Costa, Bijbellezingen IX,32 f, cited from W. Aalders, De grote ontsporing, 96.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Balance Da Costa-Kohlbrugge

217

favour of vaccination.137 In his theology salvation became immanent and thisworldly, and therefore obtained a chiliastic dimension. Kohlbrugge lived and theologised from the starting point of the salvation which has been fulfilled extra nos in Christ. The centre of his theology was not on earth, but in heaven above. In his eyes, Da Costa’s thinking suggested that it was man who – admittedly with the help of the Spirit – would overcome. For Kohlbrugge the question is not about what we do for God, but what he has done for us in Christ. The regenerated man cannot supplement the infinite Creator and Re-Creator. For that reason he was decided in his refusal to depart from the notion of a new seed in the believers or regenerate from which their sanctification was to sprout. With this he offered a theological defence against every conception that views this new beginning independently of Christ and turns it into a theological system. For Kohlbrugge the orientation of renewal went counter to the direction of Da Costa. While Da Costa proceeded from the renewal in man, Kohlbrugge spoke of renewal external to man.138 Kohlbrugge was more critical of the spirit of his age than the author of the ‘Objections against the spirit of the age.’ He saw how Da Costa departed from the assumption that we could create piety and society.139 Kohlbrugge proceeded from the opposing assumption. He was not concerned with the kingdom on earth, but the kingdom of God which transcends earthly relationships, that is, the new creation in Christ. Believers do not live towards the new creation, but out of the fulfilment of salvation. For that reason, the life of believers must have a vertical rather than a horizontal dimension. Living out of Christ who is sitting at the right hand of God, believers cannot fail to show evidence of their renewal in their lives. Salvation is in Christ, and the firstfruit of the Spirit can be found in the hearts and lives of believers. With this, we have attained a balance in the relationship between Kohlbrugge and Da Costa. Recent developments in biblical theology have demonstrated that Kohlbrugge was correct to emphasise the believers’ position of holiness in Christ. This is a qualitative given, which must form the framework within which the relationship between position and process must be conceptualised. From within such a qualitative framework, there is room for the quantitative aspects that Da Costa had emphasised. If these quantitative aspects are not placed within a qualitative context, our attention for sanctification can quickly degenerate so as to end up undermining Christian freedom. Conversely, if the quantitative

137 See W. Balke 1993:234 – 235. 138 W. Marshall 1811 argues that we do not sanctify ourselves, but that it is Christ who sanctifies us. Cf. J. Welsh: ‘So it is not thy faith that feeds thy soul… but it is Jesus Christ’, as cited in P. Lewis 1981:115. 139 Cf. W. Balke 1993:249.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

218

Process or Position

aspects are not used as the material explanation of this qualitative position, grace can be quickly corrupted and turn into cheap grace.

6.8. Evaluation The outcome of our dialogue with Kohlbrugge and Da Costa is that we must speak of both a spiritual position as well as a spiritual process, as long as we remember that theologically the position precedes the process.140 Once this order has been established, we make a limited albeit essential progress in our reflection on the problems that Reformed theology has witnessed in respect to the notion of personal renewal. This teaches us that in a theology of personal renewal we ought not to take our point of departure in the believer or regenerated person, but in the salvation fulfilled in Christ. Christ is not hidden in us, but our life is hidden with Christ in God.141 Our study also revealed that the biblical-theological concept of holiness demands of us that we refer to the manifestation of spiritual renewal and point to the process of renewal. For that reason, we can note the examples of believers, and can use spiritual qualifiers for them.142 A balanced theology of renewal will seek to do full justice to the two aspects of position and process, and to place them in a proper relationship to each other. The mutual relationship between these two facets is best described such that the process is constituted by the effects of the position. To put it in the terms of Kohlbrugge and Da Costa: Kohlbrugge creates the theological structures that must look to Da Costa for their material content. The relationship between these elements is connected to the relationship between Christology and pneumatology. Through our union with Christ, we participate in the three offices of Christ (i. e. where Kohlbrugge was right); through the Spirit these offices are beginning to be realised concretely in us in our hearts and lives.143 The order between Christ and the Spirit cannot be reversed. It is the unio cum Christo that bears the weight of the Spirit’s work of application, and not the other 140 Cf. G.C. Berkouwer 1952a:23. 141 Col 3:3. G.C. Berkouwer 1952a:9 – 14 opened his volume on faith and sanctification with the problem of the relationship between the visibility and invisibility of sanctification. 142 See esp. Heb 11. Cf. Gen 6:9; 2 Chron 15:17; Job 1:1; 1 Cor 10:6; Jas 5:17 – 18. 143 Cf. I.W. Kargel 1978:59: ‘De verzekering dat u de rijkste man van de wereld bent, omdat u zulke onmetelijke goudlagen bezit, mag dan waar zijn, maar werkelijk rijk wordt u niet door die verzekering of door die goudlagen, maar pas dan, wanneer die schatten worden opgedolven en omgezet in klinkende munt. Zo is het met Christus. Leer Hem kennen en uit Zijn rijkdom te leven!’ Cf. also A.W. Pink 1998:101: ‘This sanctification is not something which we have in our own persons, but was ours in Christ as soon as we laid hold of him by faith.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

219

Evaluation

way around. Anyone who begins with the human expression of renewal will never attain to Christian freedom. Conversely, this means that the weight of renewal in nobis is carried by the certainty of salvation extra nos. Because renewal arises from the salvation fulfilled in Christ, our good works can be described as kalos, and the performance of good works as something in which we walk, a Sabbath labour.144 Moreover, the realisation that renewal begins with the salvation which is in Christ means that we ought not to conceive of this progressive process as a linearly quantifiable progression, but as a spiritual deepening and a qualitative course. These notions have been expressed very fittingly in the classic Reformed form for baptism when it states that the Spirit imparts to us what we have in Christ.145 Remarkably, in the form’s description this includes not only justification, but also God’s work in nobis. The Spirit therefore does not add anything to Christ and his work, but we walk in the good works which Christ has prepared for us.146 As such, the theology of good works does not conflict with the sola gratia, but is its actualisation. Several remarks can be added as a consequence of this conclusion. A first observation concerns the language of question 88 and 89 in the Heidelberg Catechism, which refer to a number of terms from Romans 6:1 – 11 in order to describe the process of the dying of the old man, although the use of the aorist in this text indicates that it speaks about our having died with Christ in definitive terms. We of course wonder how the authors of the catechism actually interpreted Romans 6. And one might also ask of Kohlbrugge whether he in his plea for the Heidelberger did not actually deny rather than acknowledge this difference. It is difficult to answer these historical questions in the present context. What we can do, however, is to give a theological account for the present. Because the structure of Romans 6 is fully Christological, this passage is more appropriate for describing the believer’s position than his process. This does not mean that the catechism’s appeal to this passage for the notions in question is entirely incorrect, however. It did right, after all, to recognise that these Christological notions have a pneumatological dimension to them.147 Furthermore, the pneumatological dimensions of mortification and vivification are Christologically motivated and structured. The language and reality of Romans 7:14 – 26 therefore pertain to the efficacy of the unio cum Christo of Romans 6. The crisis of the cross is thus not limited to isolated moments prior to 144 Matt 5:16 and Eph 2:10, respectively 145 Book of Praise:584. HC question 86 asks about our good works in the context of our redeemed state. 146 Eph 2:10. Cf. also Heb 13:20 – 21 and 1 Pet 5:10. 147 Berkouwer 1952a:92 – 97 deals with the relation of position and process in reformed confessions.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

220

Process or Position

or during the Christian life, but mortificatio and poenitentia rather belong to the most basic structures of the Christian life. As such, this observation serves to criticise every theology of sanctification that does not allow these elements to function. From that perspective, the Heidelberg Catechism indeed offers a better theological instrument set than the Westminster Confession, since in it the dying of the old man is a part of the structure of the life of faith and takes its point of departure in our union with Christ. Related to the above, we can further posit that our spiritual union with Christ pleads for a parallel between mortification and vivification. Although this is indeed the structure which question 88 of the Heidelberg Catechism demands, in its actual treatment of these topics the catechism had shown itself to be oriented more toward the dying of the old man. We could wish that the concrete meaning of the coming to life of the new man had been expanded upon in greater detail in both the catechism of Ursinus and Olevianus, as well as in Kohlbrugge. In both, mortification dominates vivification, with the latter functioning more as the other side of the coin of the former.148 Because in these theological concepts the dying of the old man is developed so extensively, they offer a framework in which also the coming to life of the new man can be worked out in greater detail. This is evident when the catechism in question 90 describes the coming to life of the new man – in contrast to Calvin and the Westminster Confession – as a ‘heartfelt joy.’ As such, the Heidelberg Catechism expresses a profound biblical-theological insight, namely, that we in the Christian life in principle already begin to live the eschatological life. It is of foundational importance to recognise that the catechism precedes its insistence on the seriousness and exercise of the new obedience our joy in God with our joy in God as a way to indicate that the new life is of a different nature than our earthly existence, and that it does not imply continue our present earthly existence. In every tear of upright sorrow, in every break with our old life, in every pure and holy thought we see the complete triumph in Christ come to shine in us. A fourth remark concerns the motive of spiritual renewal. In chapter five above, we gave a defence of Calvin’s movement from law to gospel. In Kohlbrugge the notion of spiritual renewal seems to be motivated from the gospel: ‘This is preached to you, who find yourself in sexual immorality, impurity, shameful acts, etc., and would gladly be delivered from them, – preached, so that you may just believe and look to Christ, hold on to Christ alone, so that you may not remain fixed upon your members that are on earth, or devote yourself to the cutting off or killing of [these members], – for in this way they continue to remain in you, – but so that you might be wise and understanding, do not allow 148 For a more detailed analysis, cf. W. van Vlastuin 2011a. In Bavinck RD IV:253 – 254 we implicitly hear that he wants to attribute equal value to vivificatio and mortificatio.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

221

Evaluation

yourself to be moved from the conviction that you belong to Christ, that you belong in heaven; that you not allow yourselves to be moved from the conviction that you are moving upwards, in the lofty skies of freedom and of life in Christ. If you do that, you put to death the members that are on earth, then you do not give them food to eat, then they are exposed to the influence of the prince so that they end up losing all utility, power, nourishment, and life, and can only rot and perish.’149 This quotation from Kohlbrugge serves to emphasise that renewal is only effected through the gospel of Christ and realised through faith. No one has emphasised this like Kohlbrugge. From this we cannot, however, conclude that renewal is in his theology motivated from the gospel. After all, this chapter demonstrated that in his theology the gospel is there to do justice to the law. Moreover, the position of holiness functions for him as gospel out of the pedagogical use of the law (usus elenchticus). Given that personal renewal is for Kohlbrugge motivated by the law and effected through the gospel, there is no need to adjust the insight we reached in the last chapter above. Finally, personal renewal as an effect of our mystical union with Christ underlines the relational character of the Christian life. Renewal is not an end in itself. If our life revolves around renewal, it means that we have understood little of the new Man. We do not pursue our satisfaction, but reach out for Christ and knowledge of him.150

149 Kohlbrugge 1967:VII – VIII,399. 150 Phil 3:10 – 14. Cf. Phil 1:21. ‘Know ye what the apostle Paul, with all his holiness, says? ‘I count all things but loss and dung, that I may win Christ’’, in W. Guthrie, Times of Persecution.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

7.

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

In the previous chapter we concluded that, given the position in which we share in Christ, we may also speak about renewal in terms of a process. In our reflection upon this process of renewal, we must inquire also into the relationship between the Spirit of God and the spirit of man. Does renewal imply activity on the part of the Spirit alone, or does our human spirit also undertake activity? Must believers seek to pursue growth, does the grace-character of renewal undo the need for all human efforts, or should the emphasis rather be on the dying of the old man? The answers to these questions will be largely determinative for shaping our spirituality in preaching and pastoral care. In order to listen to the voice of Scripture together with the church of all times, we will scour the history of the church for concepts that can help to us to gain greater insight into the relevant issues. This implies a dialogue with a more or less eclectic set of conversation partners, whose choice will nevertheless prove to be more than just random. We will first look for theological concepts that emphasise the monopoly of the Spirit’s activity, and then turn to consider the concepts that underline the freedom of the human spirit. Finally, we will attempt to develop our own theology of the human spirit on the basis of the insights delivered by our dialogue with the Christian tradition.

7.1. The monopoly of the Spirit 7.1.1. Luther and the bondage of the will The exhortations found in Scripture have repeatedly aroused debates throughout the history of the Christian church. Erasmus objected to Luther that the Bible’s exhortations cannot be devoid of meaning.1 They mean that we have been called by God’s grace to walk in his ways. Luther fiercely resisted Erasmus’s line 1 Erasmus 1969:IV, 59 – 91.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

224

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

of reasoning in his De Servo Arbitrio.2 His main argument was that salvation lies beyond the reach of our human will. In his case for the bondage of man, Luther ended up in the freedom of the Spirit.3 This freedom was unattainable for Erasmus, since he had chosen to take his starting point in human ability.4 In the second place, the Reformer emphasised that we do not live for salvation, but through faith live out of the salvation which has been accomplished extra nos. It is a recreatio ex nihilo, as it were – with an emphasis on re-creation without human input.5 Closely tied to this was Luther’s conviction that salvation remains extra nos. Luther did not understand salvation to be a gift in the first exercise of faith alone, but insisted that it is and remains a gift in the life of the believer, which lies beyond our control. His image of man as a horse is highly expressive in this regard; either God or the devil will leap into the saddle to ride us. Of course, Luther did not accept all the possible implications of this image. For example, although this well-known image may appear to suggest a negation of the will (noluntas) in man, this is not a consequence we find Luther himself drawing in his writings. Rather, he used the image to stress that man continues to be dependent on the grace of God throughout his life from beginning to end. In the fourth place, Luther considered the distinction between law and gospel to be highly important. In his mind, the imperatives in Scripture ought to be understood as the accusing law, and do not imply in any way that people contribute to their salvation. Although Luther’s insight should not be abandoned, there still is more to say. After all, the imperative remains an imperative. Luther’s theology of Word and Spirit offers us the room we need to develop the presence of the Spirit in the Word. Luther firmly believed in the power of the Word, and could sum up the entire Reformation by saying that the Word had done its work. At the same time, he failed to develop this insight in respect to the admonitions we encounter in Scripture. Luther’s shortcoming in this regard can be illustrated well using Jesus’ command to Lazarus: ‘Lazarus, come forth!’6 Jesus did not appeal here to the final traces of power remaining in Lazarus, but addressed him in his capacity as the Resurrection and the Life.7 In this story Jesus’ imperative did not reflect the pedagogical use of the law, but was expressive of the life-giving gospel by which Lazarus could be raised from the dead. That Luther failed to create room for this aspect of the gospel to function in his theology is unfortunate. He did speak 2 3 4 5 6 7

WA 18,673 – 699. See A. Vos 1981:275 – 278 for a discussion of Luther’s necessitarianism. G.O. Forde 2005:43 – 44 argues that Erasmus ended up in bondage. O.W. Dubois 1997:196 has drawn attention to this (Lutheran) tendency in Kohlbrugge. John 11:43. John 5:25 can be considered the ‘constitution’ of the kingdom of God. John 11:25a.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The monopoly of the Spirit

225

about The Freedom of the Christian Man before God and fellow man, but the fact remains that he failed in his theology to develop the new man as he might have.8 There may be moments at which the new man is mentioned in Luther’s theology, but for the rest it never forms a topic of discussion on its own.9 This means that Luther’s theology is of no further use to us to develop the pneumatological dimension of the biblical verbs.10

7.1.2. The hyper-Calvinism of John Gill (1697 – 1771) ‘Arminianism’ was and continues to be a shibboleth in the history of Protestantism, and the fear for it has at times resulted in hyper-Calvinism. While the Arminians argued that the imperatives in Scripture imply ability in the natural man, the hyper-Calvinists negated the force of these imperatives out of their conviction that human beings have no ability at all in their natural state. Yet the fact is that Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism actually shared a common foundation: both drew a direct connection between human ability and the biblical imperatives. Where they differed was the conflicting conclusions each derived from this one common foundation. John Gill (1697 – 1771) may be considered representative of hyper-Calvinism.11 In 1720 Gill was ordained in London at the church that Benjamin Keach (1640 – 1704) had served until his death. Keach had been an important Baptist within the trajectory of The Baptist Confession of 1689, which in turn went back to the Westminster Confession. In 1729 Gill presented a new ‘Declaration of Faith and Practice’ for his particular Baptist church.12 One of the most striking features of this declaration is its structure. For one, it contains no chapter on providence. Furthermore, Gill subsumed the covenant under the chapter on election: God established an eternal covenant with his Son for the sake of the elect. This means that we no longer find a separate chapter on God’s covenant with man, and further implies the absence of the ‘free offer of the gospel.’ Another remarkable feature about the 8 This was observed by O. Noordmans 1981:III, 510, 514 – 515 in connection with Kohlbrugge’s theology. Noordmans considers Kohlbrugge in the end to have been a Lutheran theologian, 525. G. de Ru 1966:130 follows those the critics of Noordmans; for criticism on Noordmans, see A. de Reuver 1992:240. 9 WA 18,635 represents a rare moment at which the new will and love are mentioned. Luther describes the new heart as a believing heart, WA 33,285 – 286. 10 In this context it is remarkable that Rom 9:30 is translated in the passive voice in Het Boek and Groot Nieuws (i. e. Dutch dynamic equivalence translations). Just as in Phil 3:12 – 14, the translation ought to be active, as is indeed the case in the NKJV, NIV, and ESV. 11 Cf. M.A.G. Haykin 1997; R.W. Oliver 2006:3 – 15. 12 www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/gill’s.htm.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

226

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

‘Declaration’ is the way it sums up the doctrine of salvation in its chapter on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This chapter is followed by a brief chapter in which regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and faith are indeed mentioned, but, in contrast to the Westminster Confession, remain undeveloped. These features are entirely in line with what we find in Gill’s A complete Body of doctrinal and practical Divinity.13 This work does not contain a chapter on faith, nor does faith have a significant place in the chapter on justification.14 Instead, the focus is on eternal justification, a doctrine that had actually been rejected both in the 1689 ‘Declaration’ as well as in the Westminster Catechism.15 While the Westminster Confession’s view of the covenant is marked by attention for a salvation-historical dimension as well as the covenant’s historical character, in Gill the historical character of the covenant of grace has faded since the covenant is located in eternity and related to the elect alone.16 Within such a theological and spiritual climate, the call to conversion threatens to become overburdened with problems. People spoke of their spiritual experiences instead of their faith. And, for assurance of their salvation, sinners were not directed to look to the Christ of history, but to seek immediate assurance instead. The source for assurance was no longer located in the external gospel, but in the internal witness of the Spirit.

7.1.3. Keswick’s anti-anthropologism The negation of the human spirit The Keswick Movement heavily emphasised the person and work of the Holy Spirit, which conversely implied for it the denial of the human spirit or the self. This topic was discussed by Andrew Murray, a theologian representative of Keswick17: ‘When God created man a living soul, that soul, as the seat and organ of his personality and consciousness, was linked, on the one side, through the 13 J. Gill 1995, entitled A complete Body of doctrinal and practical Divinity, which first appeared in 1809. 14 J. Gill 1995:506: ‘He works faith in convinced and enlightened persons, to look at the righteousness of Christ, and take a view of its glories and excellencies; to approve of it, desire it, and to lay hold on it, and receive it as their justifying righteousness.’ In the practice of piety there is indeed a chapter on faith, but it deals rather with believers. 15 WC Chapter XI,4 recognises the decision to justification in eternity, but justification itself occurs through its application by the Holy Spirit in time. 16 J. Gill 1995:214 – 255, 345 – 360. 17 See A. Murray, The Spirit of Christ, 33 – 41; cf. notes B (p. 325 – 332) and C (p. 333 – 338). Murray appeals to W. Nee.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The monopoly of the Spirit

227

body, with the outer visible world, on the others side, through the spirit, with the unseen and the Divine. The soul had to decide whether it would yield itself to the spirit, by it to be linked with God and His will, or to the body and the solicitations of the visible. In the fall, the soul refused the rule of the spirit, and became the slave of the body with its appetites. Man became flesh; the spirit lost its destined place of rule, and became little more than a dormant power ; it was now no longer the ruling principle, but a struggling captive. And the spirit now stands in opposition to the flesh, the name for the life of soul and body together, in their subjection to sin.’ As Murray conceives of it, the soul occupies a place between the spirit and the body. In the soul we find the gifts of consciousness, intellect, and will. In Paradise it could choose for either the spirit or the body. If the soul had chosen for the spirit, the Spirit would have perfected the human person. The spirit would then have ruled soul and body, so that the entire man would have become spiritual. Even the body would have become a spiritual body. At the fall, however, the soul succumbed to the temptation of the senses and became enslaved to them. Although the spirit had borne the image of God, through the fall that image became dormant. As a result, it was the soul rather than the spirit that ruled. In regeneration the human spirit is made alive again, and the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in it. Furthermore, also the original relationship between soul and spirit is restored. Consequently, the soul (i. e. intellect and will) increasingly comes under the guidance of the Spirit in the human spirit. Yet this is where Christians often fall short. They are so used to being governed by their mind or personality that it is not the Spirit who rules over them. They are not conscious of the Spirit dwelling in them, and do not even know that they have a spirit. Therefore, Keswick maintained, people ought to abandon themselves to the guidance of the Spirit. When we abandon the life of our soul, we abandon our self-consciousness. With this the God-consciousness of the spirit is given an opportunity to develop itself in us. A battle takes place in Christians between their soul and their spirit. The Christian soul wants to assert itself, but the power of the Spirit can only assert itself if our soul relinquishes its leadership. If our soul does not abandon its natural abilities, we end up deferring to human wisdom.

Evaluating trichotomism A defining characteristic of Murray’s anthropology is its ontological trichotomy, in which soul and spirit are understood as independent and competing sub-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

228

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

stances.18 The loci probantes for trichotomism are 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12, in which both psychÀ and pneuma are mentioned. Scripture’s use of the concepts ‘psychÀ’ and ‘pneuma’ does not warrant a division in the human inner being, however.19 For, it uses soul and spirit as parallel concepts.20 Furthermore, in the gospels both psychÀ and pneuma are used in order to refer to Jesus’ deepest emotion.21 Similarly, joy is said to be in both spirit and soul.22 The same applies to our devotion to the Lord’s cause.23 Scripture describes death as the departure of either soul24 or spirit.25 At times the dead are referred to as souls,26 but at other times also as spirits.27 This indicates that pneuma and psychÀ ought not to be understood as separate entities. ‘Spirit’ and ‘soul’ both refer to the very centre of human personality – although this does not imply that the two ought to be fully identified with each other. Spirit and soul refer to the same thing, but from different perspectives. While the spirit commonly points to life as a gift of God, the soul refers to the living centre of the body.28 In 1 Corinthians 15:44, Paul distinguishes between the sooma psychikos and the sooma pneumatikos. The sooma psychikos is buried, but it is raised a sooma pneumatikos. Both expressions refer to a believer’s body in which the spirit is not at rest but active. Consequently, the contrast between the words psychikos and pneumatikos in this text does not imply a distinction between the Christian’s soul and his spirit. The pneuma-psychÀ distinction we find in Scripture therefore does not point to an ontological duality in the human person.29 The conception promoted by Murray and the Keswick Movement also involved deeper theological issues. For example, it latches onto the biblical notion of the denial of our mind and will.30 When this denial is absolutised, emotion18 Murray’s approach is not to be identified with the spiritual trichotomy described in chapter 5.4.3 above. 19 See also John Murray’s article ‘Trichotomy’ in J. Murray 1982:II,23 – 33. 20 Matt 6:25, 10:28; 1 Cor 7:34; 2 Cor 7:1; Jas 2:26. 21 Cf. Matt 26:38 and John 12:27 with Mark 8:12 and John 13:21. 22 Cf. Luke 1:46 – 47; 1 Cor 14:14 – 16, 16:18, and 2 Cor 7:13 for the joy in the spirit, and Heb 6:18 – 19 for the joy in the soul. 23 Acts 4:32, 14:2, 22; Eph 6:6; Phil 1:27, 2:2, 19 – 20. 24 Gen 35:18, 1 Kings 17:21; Matt 20:28; Acts 15:26, 20:10. 25 Ps 31:6; Matt 27:50; Luke 8:55, 23:46; Acts 7:59. 26 Rev 6:9, 20:4. 27 Heb 12:132; 1 Pet 3:19. In Ps 42:1 – 6, 63:5, 103:1 – 2, 116:7, 130:6, and in Is 26:9 we come across the highest joy in the nefesh. In Ps 32:2, 34:18 51:10, 12, 17; Prov 11:13, 16:19; Is 57:15; Ezek 11:19, 18:31, and 36:26 the same experience is described with regard to the ruach. 28 Cf. J. Murray 1982:II:32 – 33. 29 In 1 Cor 2:14 the psychikos antroopos does not pertain to a part of man, but his entire being. The word pneumatikos can also be used for other matters, see Rom 7:14 and 1 Cor 12:1 – 12. 30 Eph 2:4:18; 1 Cor 2:14. Cf. Prov 3:5; Matt 11:25; Rom 10:2; Col 1:21, 2:18.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The monopoly of the Spirit

229

alism, irrationalism, and fideism indeed become attractive alternatives for Christianity.31 The broad witness of the Word, however, points us in another direction. God’s Spirit does not throw our intellect to the side, but he illuminates it.32 The catholic Christian tradition has therefore repeatedly insisted that the illumined mind is placed in the service of God. The same is true of the will. Self-denial is a central aspect of the Christian life. This does not, however, mean that the grace of God represents the denial of our will; instead, the grace of God renews it.33 The sanctification of our personality and character goes another step further yet. In history, the Spirit has used human characters and personalities. In this way we can retain the balance between creation and re-creation. Creation is not destroyed, but it is re-created and redeemed. Given such a view, we find room for the anthropological infrastructure of the human intellect and will. The existing ‘hardware’ of the human mind is re-programmed. With a view to the future eschaton we might even say that the hardware of the human spirit receives an update in which the personality markers of our spirit still remain visible. Re-creation also does not mean the annihilation of our nature, but is a restoration of created nature. Murray’s view is most marked by its dualistic tendency.34 It undervalues created reality, and turns it into something negative. At the same time, Murray does not go far enough in his recognition of sin in the human heart. In his view the spirit sleeps, and yet he fails to speak about our active resistance against God, our being dead in sin and transgressions.35 This reminds us of the medieval view on the relationship between nature and grace, which does recognise that there is corruption in man but does not admit his spiritual inability to do the good.

7.1.4. Balance Luther and John Gill can instruct us in terms of their fervour for the sola gratia. At their respective place in Christian history, they defended the transcendent character of the kingdom of God. They were deeply impressed by the realisation that salvation is not inner-worldly, but comes to man extra nos. The converse of this view is the negation of the (new) man. If re-creation is a restoration of our original nature, and if we receive the firstfruit of the Spirit through our partic31 32 33 34 35

This is characteristic of charismatic thought, W. van Vlastuin 2006: 94 – 99. Luke 24:45; Eph 1:18. Cf. Ps 119:104, 134; Prov 2:6; 1 Cor 1:30. Phil 2:13. Cf. Ps 110:3; CoD III/IV, art. 11 – 12, 14, 16. H. Bavinck makes this observation in connection with trichotomism, RD II,555 – 557. Eph 2:1, 5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

230

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

ipation in Christ, theologically we can speak about the new man. This, however, also suggests that their soteriology is not as pneumatological as it might have been. From the Keswick Movement we can be instructed by its attention to the role of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit-filled life can only be ignored by us to our detriment. The Spirit-filled life is not only a salvation-historical notion, but the epistle to the Ephesians illustrates that being filled with the Spirit also has a place in the Christian life.36 Because Scripture speaks so concretely about the indwelling of the Spirit, also the grieving and quenching of the Spirit have become relevant notions.37 Keswick’s weakness is the way it depicts the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the human spirit. The Keswick theology considers the Spirit and the spirit to be active in one and the same place, so that there must be some kind of division between them. According to Keswick, where the human spirit withdraws, there the Holy Spirit finds room. The ‘I’ of the Spirit thus comes to take the place of the ‘I’ of the human spirit, as if the Spirit believes and loves God vicariously in our place. In other words, the reciprocity between Spirit and spirit has become a competition between them. Furthermore, the Keswick theology seems to suggest that the human spirit has become autonomous from the Holy Spirit. Scripture is better understood if we recognise that the Spirit of God and the spirit of human operate on different wave-lengths. The Holy Spirit causes us to believe and love, without the ‘I’ of the Spirit and our own ‘I’ becoming identified with each other. Whenever these two centres of consciousness are denied, creation will be devalued or subjected to a dualism, or else it will introduce a quietism and immediacy to our re-creation.

7.2. The liberation of the human spirit In this section we will dialogue with several theologians about the way they conceive of the liberation of the human spirit. We will begin by going back to the early history of the church and examining Irenaeus and Augustine, and then consider several moments from the history of Reformed Protestantism.

36 Eph 5:18. 37 Eph 4:30 and 1 Thess 5:19.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The liberation of the human spirit

231

7.2.1. Irenaeus ( – 202) The distinction between God and man is one of the deepest underlying principles in Irenaeus’s thought. In this context he writes that creatures add nothing to the Creator. The Old Testament sacrifices do not make God any richer, since he already owns the cattle on a thousand hills.38 This was Irenaeus’s way of denying the meritorious character of our service to God. The creature-Creator distinction not only has a negative function in the theology of Irenaeus, but also functions positively : it is the grace of God that he invites us to serve Him.39 Our service to God is a participation in his salvation. This is how Irenaeus places the Christian life in the light of the gospel. Remarkably, he attributes a certain independence to man. In his treatment of the will, Irenaeus emphasises that God does not force us to do the good.40 In that he has the ability to do what is right or wrong, man is to some degree independent of God.41 Irenaeus understood Scripture’s statement that we will take the kingdom of God by force to mean that our life will involve a spiritual struggle.42 The critical nature of this struggle and the desire to participate in it serve to emphasise that the will is mobilised. It is the mobilisation of the will that makes our struggles worthy of a prize. Moreover, the road of struggle demonstrates to us how valuable God’s heavenly kingdom is when compared to life on earth. The struggle in which we engage lead us to a deeper knowledge and bring us on to spiritual maturity. This spiritual maturity is necessary in order to participate in the glory of God’s immortality. As mortal creatures we could not bear the perfection of God without being prepared for it. Here Irenaeus uses the image of a child.43 A child cannot eat meat, but receives milk. Just like children must grow up, so also the redeemed must reach spiritual maturity so that they can see God.

38 39 40 41 42 43

AH 4.17.1. AH 4.17.3. AH 4.37.1, 6. AH 4.37.3. Matt 11:12, Irenaeus also refers to 1 Cor 9:24 – 27, AH 4.37.7. AH 4.38.1. E.P. Meijering 2003:60 writes: ‘Irenaeus kijkt niet terug op een ideaal paradijs, want daarin was Adam nog een onmondig kind, maar hij kijkt vooruit.’ This observation must be placed in the context of the trajectory in Irenaeus according to which Christ will lift humanity up to a higher level than Adam ever possessed, E.P. Meijering 2008:28 – 29. We cannot conclude that Irenaeus considered Adam to be less responsible since he knows that he is guilty of having transgressed God’s command, AH 3.23.5. Irenaeus speaks of disobedience, guilt, and forgiveness in Adam as well, AH 5.16.3, 17.1 and 3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

232

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

In this way, Irenaeus made the creature-Creator distinction an important theme in soteriology as well, while he also insisted that the struggle of the human will was necessary in order to share in the kingdom of God.

7.2.2. Augustine Augustine devoted much of his energy to reflect upon the relationship between grace and the human will.44 Against the Pelagians he insisted that our will is without grace a wicked will: non posse non peccare.45 The will is not free to believe.46 Augustine emphasised this by pointing to the foolishness of those who boast at length about their freedom before they are freed by the Spirit.47 He also saw in this the paradoxical character of spiritual slavery, since spiritual slaves consider themselves to be free. Our spiritual blindness also means that, if we do not have the Spirit, we can only delight in sin.48 This delight is, of course, a totally corrupted delight, since sin does not belong to our created nature.49 The above implies that salvation is in itself not available to sinners. In his work of salvation, the Holy Spirit makes the law to be a mirror in our lives so that we may run to find grace.50 Remarkably, in Augustine’s theology the law not only acts as a mirror, but he also incorporates the element of the fulfilment of the law into it.51 If the Spirit writes the law in our heart, we come to love the law of God. This means that our will is purified, so that we do not act according to the commandments of God against our will, but in love.52 And when we act in love, we delight in his commandments. Augustine even insists that walking in these commandments can be said to be a part of our nature.53 In this context the restoration of the freedom of the will is important. Through the Spirit we are set free to do the will of God out of our own free will.54 We do not do the will of God out of a fear for punishment against disobedience, but we act 44 De Libero Arbitrio treats the origin of evil. The relationship between the admonitions of the law and grace is dealt with in De Corruptione et Gratia. According to S. Harrison 2006:vi, Augustine was the first to demand attention for the freedom of the will. 45 In De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio 29 – 30 Augustine demonstrates that the gift of a heart of flesh cannot be preceded by a will that is good. There can be no good will in a heart of stone. Cf. De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio 12, 31.15, 41.20. 46 De Spiritu et littera 34.60. 47 De Spiritu et littera 30.52 48 De Spiritu et littera 16.28, 32.56, 33.58. 49 De Spiritu et littera 27.47. 50 De Spiritu et littera 19.34. 51 De Spiritu et littera 26.46. 52 De Spiritu et littera 8.13, 14.26, 19.32, 29.51. 53 De Spiritu et littera 27.47 54 De Spiritu et littera 16.28, 27.47, 29.51, 30.52, 32.55, 32.56.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The liberation of the human spirit

233

in freedom and in love. For the development Augustine’s thought, such texts as 2 Corinthians 3:17 and John 8:36 played a significant role. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 15:10 and Philippians 2:12 – 13 demonstrated in his mind that there is a duality between God’s Spirit and the human spirit.55 This duality means that we ought not to say that the Holy Spirit has fought the good fight, but rather that Paul did so in the power of the Spirit.56 Augustine placed greater emphasis on the liberation of the will than Irenaeus had done before him, although Irenaeus had been more attentive to the notion of the will’s act of willing. What we can learn from our brief survey of Augustine is that grace determines the human spirit, yet in such a way that it is set free and brought to its destination. The re-creative work of the Spirit leads us to true humanitas.

7.2.3. The Canons of Dort (1618-’19) It would be a worthwhile exercise to examine the medieval and Reformation perspectives on the freeing of the human spirit, and to dialogue with some of its representatives.57 Here, however, we are forced to limit ourselves to several key moments from the history of Protestantism. In the context of sixteenth-century renaissance and humanism, a greater consciousness of individuality and human freedom began to develop. In the church this led to a conflict on humanity’s place in its encounter with God. In response to the Remonstrants, the Canons of Dort emphasised that God acts in a personal way with people. Accordingly, it confesses a personal election, a personal reconciliation, and a personal regeneration.58 In order to stress that regeneration does not arise from the natural man himself, the canons confess that it is God who produces regeneration in us, without us.59 The irreversible order is that the Spirit draws us in and that we then follow him, so that regeneration is something that can never be resisted. Over against the Remonstrants, Dort insisted that grace is more than a ‘suasion’ or advice from the Holy Spirit. The Canons of Dort therefore use powerful images to 55 De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio 12. 56 De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio 16.7. Cf. De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio 28: faith precedes obedience to the law. Cf. De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio 21.9. 57 Significant in this regard is the liberation of the will in Calvin’s Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii. 58 Van de Beek 2002:179 – 182; 2008:212 – 213 sees in this an individualistic tendency. In this context it is significant that Augustine saw the ordination of God to be at work in unbelieving baptised children and in believing unbaptised children, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio 44.22, 45.23. In Dort we also see the force of the covenant at work, CoD I,17. 59 CoD III/IV,12.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

234

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

depict the gift of grace, such as ‘creation’ and ‘resurrection from the dead.’ The frequent use of such expressions as ‘entirely supernatural, very powerful, very sweet, wonderful, hidden and inexpressible’ similarly serve to underline this element as well. The canons further insist that we, in spite of sin, remain human beings and also function as human beings when grace is at work in us.60 The Holy Spirit uses the structures that are ours by virtue of our creation. This means that the Spirit does not believe in our place but rather leads us to believe; as a result, it is the people, whom the Spirit converts, who actually do the willing and believing.61 In this way, Dort was able to combat a certain form of quietism. Our regeneration and renewal does not come about through a ‘simple’ decision to do nothing but believe or to believe that we are holy. The process of renewal is similarly not limited to several isolated moments of crisis in our lives. Rather, personal renewal pertains to the totality of our human existence and extends over the course of our entire life. In light of the above, it should come as no surprise that the canons extensively discuss matters related to anthropology as well.62 They carefully lay out what happens in the intellect, in the will, and in the heart.63 The Canons of Dort speak concretely and positively about how personal renewal is manifested: ‘Where formerly the rebellion and resistance of the flesh fully dominated, now a prompt and sincere obedience of the Spirit begins to prevail, in which the true, spiritual renewal and freedom of our will consists.’64 When we are renewed, our renewal thus does not just graze over our human personality, but it is effective in and throughout our entire existence. It is unimaginable for the Spirit not to change our character, as some think. Even though we encounter carnality in believers and conversely meet unbelievers with a more appealing character, it does not mean that the renewal of the Spirit is powerless. If our character had not been renewed by the Holy Spirit, it would have been much worse off than it now is under his sanctifying influence.

60 61 62 63

CoD III/IV,16. CoD III/IV,12. CoD III/IV,11. See also article 16 for the liberation of the will. Modern scholarship speaks about the anthropological aspect in theology. This could imply that rearing of children, development, character, culture, and psyche are to be introduced into the spiritual life, and opens up the possibility of sociological or psychological study on people’s faith experiences. 64 CoD III/IV,16.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The liberation of the human spirit

235

7.2.4. John Owen (1616 – 1683) John Owed took up the cause of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit against numerous opponents.65 As he argued, we should speak not only of the work of the Spirit, but also about his dwelling inside of us. Owen considered the indwelling of the Spirit to be the greatest promise of the covenant of grace. Following Westminster, Owen used concrete metaphors to describe the tension between the ‘regenerate part’ and the ‘unregenerate part’ in believers. The old man fights and is wounded, can inflict harm on the regenerate life-principle, apply violence to and mislead the renewed part, restore itself, increase in power, and nourish itself. The same things are also true of the regenerate part, however. Owen’s use of war imagery is indicative of the intensity of this spiritual struggle, and of the changing state of affairs within the Christian life. There is a spiritual progress that takes place within this spiritual struggle.66 We are daily renewed in our spiritual power. Conversely, our sinful disposition or habit also weakens. We could say that the regenerate part and the unregenerate part are inversely proportional to each other, and together make up the entire person. Owen’s language makes the regenerate part a most concrete reality for us. This finds confirmation when he writes that ‘the sanctification of believers, the Holy Ghost doth work in them in their whole souls, their minds, wills, and affections, a gracious, supernatural habit, principle, and disposition of living unto God.’67 In Owen’s description we hear ‘physical’ language.68 In fact, elsewhere he speaks explicitly about ‘a physical immediate operation of the Spirit by his power and grace.’69 By using such terms as ‘habit’, ‘principle,’ and ‘disposition’, Owen seeks to do justice to such biblical themes as the circumcision of the heart, the new heart, the writing of the law on the heart, the good tree, and birth from the Spirit.70 65 WJO XI:329 – 365; esp. 332 – 333. There is a parallel with Jesus: the same Spirit who dwells in Christ also dwells in believers, 337. Cf. B. Kay 2007:175 – 178. 66 WJO III:386 – 406 thematised this progress. Owen too speaks about a progress in mortification, 545. See also WJO VI:28, 32. 67 WJO III:468 – 469. We also find Owen using such terms as ‘virtue’ or ‘power’, 475. Elsewhere he even speaks about a ‘real spiritual principle’, 485. 68 Cf. R.C. Gleason 1995:98 – 100. Gleason refers to the use of such terms as ‘real internal efficiency’, ‘immediately,’ and ‘creating act.’ For the new nature, Owen used such expressions as ‘new nature’, ‘new creature’, ‘renewed faculties, ‘new dispositions, power or ability’, ‘divine principle,’ and ‘a gracious, supernatural habit.’ A transformation takes place in the ‘faculties’ of the intellect, heart, and affections. 69 WJO III:316. S.B. Ferguson 1987:43 explains that the ‘physical’ aspect ought not to be understood materially, but functions as the opposite of a ‘moral’ operation. 70 Respectively Deut 30:6; Jer 31:33; Ez. 36:26 – 27, Matt 7:16 – 20, and John 3:6, WJO III:476 – 477, 480.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

236

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

Owen uses such language in order to make it clear that personal renewal is more than just an external formality. One can perform great things, but if they do not come from a ‘disposition’ to serve God, it is not obedience to him. Another point we see reflected in Owen’s language is that our service to God is not just limited to specific acts. Rather, we have a constant desire to serve him.71 The expressions used by Owen add a deeper layer to the question of the precise relationship between the Holy Spirit and the human spirit. Owen is at all events careful to avoid a dualism between them: ‘Sanctification is an immediate work of the Spirit of God on the souls of believers, purifying and cleansing of their natures from the pollution and uncleanness of sin, renewing in them the image of God, and thereby enabling them [italics mine – WvV] from a spiritual and habitual principle of grace, to yield obedience unto God, according unto the tenor and terms of the new covenant, by virtue of the life and death of Jesus Christ.’72 We see the same point, but now expressed more clearly than above, in Owen’s exegesis of Romans 8:13.73 Owen dealt with this passage in a work entitled The Mortification of Sin in Believers (1656). In it he wrote about the Spirit: ‘He doth not so work our mortification in us as not to keep it still an act of our obedience. The Holy Ghost works in us and upon us, as we are fit to be wrought in and upon; that is, so as to preserve our own liberty and free obedience. He works upon our understandings, wills, consciences, and affections, agreeably to their own natures; he works in us and with us, not against us or without us; so that his assistance is an encouragement as to the facilitating of the work, and no occasion of neglect as to the work itself.’74 This quotation at the same time makes it clear that Owen did not imagine there to be a major ontological change in the human heart at regeneration.75 He emphatically distanced himself from the view according to which the Spirit of God and the spirit of man are identified with each other, and the habitus of the new man belongs ontologically to his soul.76 Owen’s use of ‘physical’ language is thus intended to be understood in a somewhat nuanced way. The Reformed tradition’s insistence on an operatio physica (‘physical operation’) was intended to indicate that the Spirit’s work is more than an operatio moralis (‘moral op71 72 73 74 75

WJO III:486. Owen refers to the fountain (John 4:14) which constantly produces water. WJO III:386. Cf. O. Winslow 1991:151 – 155. WJO VI:,20. Later neo-Reformed theology sometimes went very far in its description of the change in nature, cf. A. Kuyper 1927:400 – 402; RD IV:249. And yet, this radical terminology was qualified. Kuyper 1927:401 emphasised that it is a matter of spiritual change, while Bavinck RD IV:436 stressed that the regenerate man does not differ substantially from the unregenerate man. See also RD IV:83 – 84. 76 WJO III:472, 475, 491.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The liberation of the human spirit

237

eration’) or operatio ethica (‘ethical operation), and yet it insisted that this physical operation was no operatio simpliciter physica (‘simply physical operation’).77 As such, grace does not become an independent principle in the person. An important question in all of this concerns the relationship between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and our union with Christ.78 From the perspective of our union with Christ, our mortification is determined by the cross of Christ. Owen bases this insight on Romans 6:6.79 The death of Christ is meritorious, effective, and exemplifies the death of the sin that dwells within us. At first the one to be crucified resists, but in the end his strength runs out and he slowly tires. Several observations must be added concerning Owen’s approach, however. In the first place, we are left with the impression that the power of sin disappears entirely from view. Yet this is not consistent with the persistent aggression of indwelling sin, an element that Owen himself also admits. In the second place, we see in Owen’s view nothing of the salvation-historical character of the cross of Christ in which believers participate.

7.2.5. Jonathan Edwards (1703-’58) Jonathan Edwards numbers among the theologians from the later tradition who pleaded persistently for the freedom of the will. During his stay among the indigenous people in Stockbridge, he developed his views in the book we now know under the title A careful and strict Enquiry into the modern prevailing Notions of the Freedom of Will, which is supposed to be essential to Moral Agency, Vertue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame.80 This work is guided by Edwards’s search for philosophical purity. Edwards argued in this work for the compatibility of human freedom: we will freely. The compatibility of human freedom can function fully within a pneumatological perspective. Basic to Edwards’s theology of sanctification is his understanding of the fall as the loss of the Holy Spirit.81 Christ has won the Spirit back for us. This implies in turn that the redemptive work of Christ does not centre around or just end with the atonement. This becomes even more apparent

77 Cf. RD IV:83 – 84. Cf. Berkouwer 1952a:78 – 88 for an introduction to the problem of the gratia interna. 78 In Owen the indwelling of the Spirit in the end comes from the unio mystica, WJO III:464 – 467, 516 – 518. Cf. R.C. Gleason 1995:90 – 94. Here the filioque is of importance, cf. P. de Vries 1999:306. 79 Cf. WJO III:540 – 541, 560 – 565; VI:30 – 33, 84 – 85. 80 WJE 1. 81 WJE 20:153; 24:1085 – 1090.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

238

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

when Edwards argues that the appropriation of the Spirit is the goal of the work of Christ.82 This is a remarkable element in Edwards’s theology. John Owen had distanced himself from the notion of speaking about the work of the Spirit alone, and insisted instead on the importance of his indwelling in us.83 While Edwards followed him in this,84 he also went one step further when he called the Spirit the real gift of grace. We should also observe that Edwards was aware of the danger that the distinction between incarnation and indwelling might fade away. For that reason he insists that we do receive new ‘principles,’ but no new ‘faculties.’85 The human spirit is not mystically collapsed into the Holy Spirit.86 It is important to remember that there is an eschatological dimension in this for Edwards. The indwelling Spirit is ‘the sum of the blessings of eternal life, which shall be given in heaven […]. ‘Tis through the vital communications and indwelling of the Spirit, that the saints have all their light, life, holiness, beauty and joy in heaven: and ‘tis through the vital communications and indwelling of the same Spirit, that the saints have all light, life, holiness, beauty and comfort on earth; but only communicated in less measure.’87 This is an important point, and serves to remind us that there is continuity between our life by the Spirit today and the eschatological life in the future. Or, to put it the other way around, Christians already live the eschatological life today. In the third place, we note that the new life principle of believers is summed up in love: ‘The Spirit is a Spirit of love, and when the former enters the soul, love also enters with it. God is love, and he that has God dwelling in him by his Spirit, will have love dwelling in him also. The nature of the Holy Spirit is love.’88 Edwards speaks about the baptism of the Spirit as a baptism with the fire of love.89 This yields an important characteristic of the Christian life. Through the concept of love, great emphasis is placed on the compatibility of spiritual renewal. Believers serve God in the freedom of the Spirit. This implies that spiritual renewal does not come at the cost of humanitas, but in fact restores humanity.90 82 WJE 2:236; 13:466. Cf. S.H. Lee 2003:39. 83 WJO XI:330, 332 – 336. Cf. Kay :175 – 178. 84 WJE 21:192 and 196. The Spirit is an ‘indwelling vital principle’, WJE 20:411. See also 13:462. The Spirit joins himself to the ‘faculties of the soul’, WJE 2:200. 85 WJE 17:192. 86 If the Spirit should leave the soul, a sinner remains, WJE 21:196; C. Cherry 1966:28 – 29, 30 – 31, 41 – 43; A Morimoto 1995:44, 46. 87 WJE 4:236 – 237. 88 WJE 8:132. 89 WJE 17:297. 90 WJE 18:157.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The liberation of the human spirit

239

In the fourth place, the indwelling of the Spirit shows itself to be determinative for Christian identity. Through the habitual operation of the Holy Spirit in our human spirit we truly are spiritual people. For this new spiritual nature it is only natural to live in holiness. Yet a consequence of Edwards’s pneumatological soteriology is that it has no room for the indwelling of sin. Accordingly, Edwards applies Romans 7:14 – 26 on the whole to unconverted sinners.91 The result is that his theology threatens to downplay the sin in the believer.

7.2.6. A. A. van Ruler A.A. van Ruler explicitly addressed the issue of sanctification and the work of the Spirit in his theology. An important characteristic of his thought is his persistent distinction between Christ and Spirit: for van Ruler it revolves around Christ, but the point is the Spirit. In the eschaton Christ will step back, the incarnation will be undone, and the kingdom of God will come to its full development in the way of the Spirit. Accordingly, it revolves around (draait om) justification, but the point is (gaat om) sanctification.92 Van Ruler reflected on the relationship between pneumatology and anthropology in his lecture ‘Structuurverschillen tussen het christologische en het pneumatologische gezichtspunt’ (‘Structural differences between the Christological and pneumatological perspective’).93 In pneumatology there is indeed a unification of God with man, but this unification is not – as is the case in Christology – structurally enhypostatic. Man is and remains a person vis-—-vis God. If an enhypostatic union were to be introduced into the pneumatological doctrine, it would mean the end of both pneumatology and anthropology. While Christology is about assumption instead of adoption, the converse applies to pneumatology. Christ accomplished his suffering and active obedience in the place of believers. In that sense it can indeed be said that Christians do not have to accomplish anything. Yet things change when we speak about faith or the other acts of the soul. Of them we cannot say that Christ has per91 So Original Sin, WJE 3:274 – 282. Cf. WJE 2:198; 17:125, 345; 24:853. In volume 45 the title to a sermon on Romans 7:14 reads as follows: ‘Men, as they are by nature, are perfect slaves to corruption; or, they are entirely under the dominion of sin.’ An exception is formed by the isolated text of Rom 7:24, which depicts the battle of the Christian, especially in Brainerd’s biography, WJE 7:165, 167, 172, 181, 183, 231, 250, 379, 483, 492. Cf. 4:329; 8:310; 17:17, 84, 684; 22:194; 24:1005 – 1007, 1085. 92 Van Ruler 1947:163; TW V:13; VW 1:183, 275; 2:293, 444, 458; 3:72v, 352, 384. In VW 3:118 he uses the word ‘belangrijker’ (‘more important’) to describe the relationship between justification and sanctification. 93 Printed in TW I:175 – 190 and VW IVA:369 – 391.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

240

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

formed them substitutionarily for the believers; it is not Christ but the Christian who believes. The Holy Spirit operates in us so that we believe. The Spirit does not witness only in us, but also with us. Through the groaning of the Spirit we also groan along with him. In pneumatology there is a reciprocity : Christ makes us his own, but we also make him our own; God justifies us, but humanity in a way also justifies God. Something happened at Golgotha, but something happens in our soul as well. The same applies to the element of sacrifice. Christologically the only sacrifice that actually counts is the sacrifice on Golgotha. From a pneumatological perspective, however, we also offer ourselves as a living sacrifice of thankfulness. Van Ruler in fact goes one step further when he insists that God and man are reconciled with each other. In view of this reciprocity, van Ruler writes that Rome was in fact not too synergistic, but could actually have used a greater synergism.94 In the context of this study, we must also evaluate van Ruler’s view. The way he depicts the structural difference between Christology and pneumatology, for example, cannot escape criticism.95 Given the reciprocity of Son and Spirit, we cannot speak about opposing structures in Christology and pneumatology. In fact, we must go a step further, since neither the Son nor the Spirit demand attention for themselves. In light of these insights, we must insist that there is a similarity of structure between the Christological and pneumatological dogmas. Van Ruler’s approach threatens to divide the accomplishment and application of salvation into two isolated divine acts. As such, application would no longer be participation in the reality of the salvation in Christ, but becomes a life lived toward the realisation of salvation through the Spirit.96 Van Ruler speaks about the indwelling of the Spirit apart from a direct connection to our mystical union with Christ. One wonders, therefore, whether this does not reduce the work of Christ for him to the acquisition of a mere possibility, and locate our real salvation in the pneumatological order instead. In other words, it seems as if in van Ruler’s theology the Spirit goes to work with the building stones that Christ has obtained for him. In spite of the above hesitations concerning Van Ruler’s view, we cannot take anything away from the fact that he has demanded attention for the pneumatological dimension of soteriology. Personal renewal cannot be reduced to a 94 TW VI:29. 95 For criticism, cf. A.N. Hendriks 1977; J.W. van Pelt 1999:92 – 94; W. van ’t Spijker 1986:67 – 68. 96 Cf. F.G. Immink 2003:92. Immink has recently pleaded for the indwelling of salvation and the human factor to be taken into account with a view to working them out in practical theology. Immink defends his position theologically in F.G. Immink 2003:95 – 118.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The liberation of the human spirit

241

relational model.97 There is something that happens in the hearts and lives of believers. The basic outlines of Van Ruler’s theology offer a framework in which justice can be done to humanity, and in which the human response to the Word is allowed to stand in all its fullness. There is a place for us as men and women! Numerous data in the Bible emphasise the human element.98 The Psalms, for example, speak at length about the activities of the soul,99 and they find further support in other passages from Scripture.100 Illustrative in this regard is also the call in Philippians 2:12b to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. These words have left many readers and exegetes perplexed, because they seem to diminish the grace-character of our salvation. While some have suggested that the words of this verse must be understood in terms of our responsibility for the social relationships within the church, neither the root sootÀria nor the phrase ‘fear and trembling’ actually support such a reading.101 This demonstrates that the words of this verse rather seek to maximise the responsibility believers have. Since the next verse confesses that it is God who works the will and the act in us, the words in question can hardly have been intended to nibble away at the gracecharacter of God’s work of salvation. The relationship between these verses highlights instead that the emphasis on God’s sovereignty offers the possibility to do full justice to human responsibility. We also see human responsibility honoured in Jesus’ praise for the Canaanite woman.102 A similar dynamic can be observed in the story of the meeting on the road to Emmaus. The men pushed the Lord Jesus to stay with them.103 Such negotiations with God reach their climax in the biblical narrative when we read of Jacob that he wrestled with God at Peniel. It is beyond us to imagine how someone could wrestle with God. But it is even more incredible that a believer should prevail over him.104 Because of the unapologetic and exaggerated way in which Van Ruler demanded attention for these aspects, he forces us to reflect further on the relationship between Spirit and spirit. If we can create room for these notions to 97 Burger 2008:554 – 556 notes the failings of both a substantial as well as a relational model. A substantial model fails in respect to the notion of the Spirit’s indwelling, while a substantial model runs the danger of isolating the believer from Christ. 98 John 21:1 – 14; 1 John 4:19. 99 Ps 34:23, 63:9a, 116:1, 119:30, 130:5. 100 2 Chron 30:8; Prov 23:26; Matt 11:28; John 1:12, 6:37b, 15:4 – 7; 1 Cor 6:17; 1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7. 101 Exod 15:16; Deut 2:25, 11:25; Ps 55:6; Is 19:16 show that this expression is related to theophanies. 102 Matt 15:28 m. Jesus asks his disciples for the fish they have caught, although he had given them these fish in their nets, John 21:10. 103 Luke 24:29. 104 Gen 32:28.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

242

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

function within the context of our mystical union, we succeed in doing justice to the biblical-theological structures.

7.2.7. Balance Our exploration in 7.2 has revealed that there are numerous reasons to do justice to the human spirit in our theology. All the same we must insist in this as a precondition on the independence of God’s Spirit from the human spirit, and on the dependence of the human spirit on God’s Spirit instead. Furthermore, we need to meet the challenge to take the personality of the Holy Spirit seriously as well.

7.3. Contours for the doctrine of the spiritual man In order to gain some understanding of the relationship between the Spirit of God and the human spirit, we will draw out from our preceding discussion several trajectories and central elements for a doctrine of the spiritual man. Important considerations in this are the primacy of the Holy Spirit, and the liberation and freedom of the human spirit.

7.3.1. Be filled in the Spirit The notion of the indwelling of the Spirit is concentrated in the Spirit’s call in Ephesians 5:18 to be filled with the Spirit.105 The Greek uses the preposition en, so that we might also translate: ‘be filled in the Spirit.’ The word en alludes to the fullness of Pentecost in which we have been immersed, as it were. The exhortation to be filled in the Spirit comes in the form of a so-called ‘divine passive.’106 The use of this passive voice points us to the hidden presence of God’s kingdom and to the Spirit who has been obtained for us by Christ. We do not fill ourselves with the Spirit, but it is the Spirit who fills us. To be filled with the Spirit is not something we can do, and yet we appear to be within the reach of Christ who communicates his Spirit to us. All of this serves to emphasise the extra nos character of salvation, concretised in the primacy of the communio cum Christo. 105 For a popular account, cf. W. van Vlastuin 2009:230 – 286. 106 Cf. J. Jeremias 1971:20 – 21; Mark 1:41; Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 5:20.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for the doctrine of the spiritual man

243

The grace-character of pneumatology becomes even clearer against the background of our flesh: the flesh lusts against the Spirit and resists him.107 The notion of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit also deepens our awareness of the grace of God.108 The Holy Spirit dwells in a heart of which Jesus said to his disciples that from it come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.109 The indwelling of and fulfilment with the Spirit has an effect. In the context of Ephesians 5:18, the Spirit-filled life is the opposite of drunkenness.110 In the immediate surrounding context, being filled with the Spirit has to do with speaking, singing, and thanksgiving. The wider context stresses the relationships in marriage. The effects of the Spirit can also be described on a more general level: while life without the Spirit is described as asootia (i. e. immoderation and debauchery)111, the life lived through the Spirit is characterised by self-control and moderation.112 The secret to moderation is participation in the eschatological fullness, since we are no longer dependent for our happiness on the here and now. Here we see the liberating work of the eschatological Spirit, who breaks the structures and powers that keep us captive and who causes us to share in the firstfruit of the freedom of God’s children.113 A relevant question which deserves consideration is whether our being filled with the Spirit must be understood in terms of a theúsis or ‘deification.’114 Scripture contains several notions that connect the Christian life to God. Our walk in love is related to our God who is love, and is further described as imitation of God.115 Christians are also called the light in the Lord, since God is light.116 The same notions are encountered from a Christological perspective. By beholding the glory of the Kurios, we are being transformed into the same image

107 Acts 7:51; Rom 8:7; Gal 5:17. 108 Ezek 36:27, 37:5, 14; John 7:38 – 39; 14:16 – 17; Rom 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 6:16. 109 Matt 15:19. 110 Cf. Acts 2:13. Eli mistook Hannah’s spiritual disposition for drunkenness, 1 Sam 1:13 – 15. Acts 2:4, 4:8 and 31 connect being filled with the Spirit with boldness. 111 This also describes the life of the prodigal son, Luke 15:13. 112 Gal 5:22; Titus 1:6. Wine itself is not a wicked thing, Luke 7:34; John 2:1 – 12; 1 Tim 5:23. N.T. Wright 1992:27 – 39 has demonstrated how good gifts can obtain an idolatrous, totalitarian, and destructive character when they are absolutised. 113 Rom 8:21. 114 Cf. Finlan & Kharlamov 2006; Yoo 2008 examines the opportunities this concept presents in Reformed theology. 115 Eph 5:1; 1 John 4:8, 16. Cf. Matt 5:48. The church fathers hardly ever referred to 2 Pet 1:4, and instead preferred Ps 82:6, Yoo 2008:269 – 270. 116 Eph 5:8; 1 John 1:5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

244

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

from glory to glory.117 Another example is the idea that Christ dwells in believers, that he is formed in them, and that his mind rules in them.118 Something similar also becomes apparent in a pneumatological perspective, when Paul speaks about the love of God which has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us, and in the present theme of being filled with the Spirit.119 It would seem that we are pervaded by the eschatological reality in a special way, so that our citizenship in heaven is not only a forensic position but also a pneumatological sphere of influence. The Christian tradition has also incorporated these notions in its theological reflection. Athanasius latched onto the divinity of the Son in order to support his view that we are being deified. In this respect he can be considered an Eastern theologian. He did not mean an essential deification, however, for he insisted that there was a distinction between the essence of God and his energy, just as the sun is distinct from its rays.120 In the Eastern Church we not infrequently encounter this distinction between the three categories of Creator, his energies, and the creature. Because the Western Church has on the whole maintained a bipartite distinction instead (i. e. Creator and creature), it was unable to assimilate these notions. Nevertheless, some traces of them can still be found in Western theology. Calvin, for example, emphasised that we share in the glory of God through the Spirit.121 When he speaks about the unio mystica, he observes that Christ grows more and more together with us until he becomes one with us.122 In the chapter of the Institutes on the resurrection, Calvin writes that we share in the glory of God, that we enjoy him, and, in fact, that we somehow become one with him.123 In his commentary on 2 Peter 1:4 he can go so far as to say that we are ‘deified as it were’ (quasi deificari).124 Yet Calvin also insists on two qualifiers in this regard. The first is eschatological, such that our union with God must in the present time be understood along the way of faith and promise.125 Secondly, our eschatological unification with God must not be understood ontologically.126 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

2 Cor 3:18. Gal 2:20, 4:19; Phil 2:5. Rom 5:5. Cf. M. Horton 2011:689 – 690. Yoo 2008:269 – 275 explains that the church fathers were more concerned with the soteriological elements than the metaphysical and ontological. Institutes I.xiii.14; II.vii.1. J. Todd Billings 2005 has emphasised that Calvin’s view cannot be harmonised with all Eastern concepts of theosis. Institutes III.ii.24. In his conflict with Osiander, Calvin emphasised this once more, III.xi.10. In the latter passage, it should be noted, Calvin introduces an eschatological condition. Institutes III.xxv.10. CO LV,446 (comm. 2 Pet 1:4). Prior to 1550 Calvin used less nuanced language, such that it is at times suggestive of an essential and ontological unification with Christ, cf. F. Wendel 1997:235 – 237. Cf. what he writes about the Lord’s Supper, Institutes IV.xvii.2, 4, 11. The Spirit of God and our human spirit are not identical, J.P. Versteeg 1980:376. Nor are they

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for the doctrine of the spiritual man

245

In this qualified sense one can indeed speak about the mystery of theúsis in order to do justice to the mystery of the indwelling of the Spirit in us and the effects which this indwelling has. Here we must be careful to maintain a careful balance between Spirit and spirit. On the one hand, the human spirit ought not to be so Spirit-ualised that it disappears entirely from view, but on the other hand the activity of the human spirit may also not be identified with and collapsed into the activity of the Holy Spirit. Although Spirit and spirit are not identical, the Spirit remains determinative for the identity of the believer as a spiritual man.127 Through the Spirit we will, believe, convert, and put our old nature to death.128 The human causae secundae (‘second causes’) remain real causes, even though they are subordinated to the prima causa, who is the Spirit.129 That Spirit and spirit ought not to be identified is already evident in that the divine passive comes in the form of an imperative. It is indeed beyond us to be filled with the Spirit, and yet it is our responsibility to do so. An imperative between people is intended to set an act in motion. In the case of this passive imperative in Ephesians 5:18 we must insist on a small nuance. The imperative could also be translated as: let yourself be filled in the Spirit. As a result, it is clear that we must allow the Spirit to do his work. This suggests in turn that we can hinder the Spirit, and extinguish or grieve him.130 Van Ruler emphasised the reciprocity of God’s Spirit and our spirit.131 Keswick taught us that we must take account of the personality and sensitivity of the Holy Spirit. Luther taught us that the goal of the admonition is not that we evaluate ourselves morally as to whether or not we grieve the Holy Spirit. Augustine taught us that God gives what he commands, and that we ought to pray for it. Dort goes one step further, and teaches us that the admonitions in Scripture are re-creative.132 As such, we discover that the Spirit fills us with the Spirit through the Word. Kohlbrugge has described the relationship between the Spirit of God and the spirit of man as follows: ‘The disciple does not say that this readiness and willingness are found in his heart. He rather says: Christ makes me ready and

127 128 129 130 131 132

fused together, J.P. Versteeg 1980:365. The distinction between God and humanity will remain in the eschaton. Even then we will not have direct knowledge of God’s essence, since the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. Yet God will pour out over us his light, love, holiness, joy, glory, life, and the fullness of every blessing, and he will dwell in us, ITE III: XX.viii.viii-x, xvi. 1 Cor 2:14. Rom 8:13 witnesses clearly of a certain independence of the human spirit. Cf. CoD III/IV,12. Cf. RD II,609 – 610, 613 – 614; H. Berkhof 1979:60; G.C. Berkhouwer 1952b:152; W. van Bruggen 1983:79 – 80. Eph 4:30; 1 Thess 5:19. God’s love can be presented conditionally, as in Deut 7:12 – 13; Ps 146:8; Prov 8:17, 15: 9; John 14:21,23, 15:10, 16:27; 2 Cor 9:7; 1 John 3:17, 4:12; Jude: 21. ‘For grace is conferred through admonitions,’ CoD III/IV, 17.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

246

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

willing, and that is why I am indeed ready and willing. While the disciple on the one hand says: ‘This is not something that lives in my heart,’ he on the other hand also knows: ‘And yet I am [ready and willing] through the Holy Spirit, through Christ, through the Spirit of grace’ […]. If readiness and willingness are found in our heart, we will certainly do good works, then everything will happen on its own.’133 With this, we come to another point of intersection that allows us to describe the relationship between flesh and Spirit. Steven Barabas uses the image of iron.134 The old man does not change in his nature, but as long as this ‘iron’ remains in the fire, it is malleable. This metaphor allows us to do justice to the notion of the Christians’ carnality, while we at the same time also have room for the influence of the Holy Spirit without the Spirit’s renewal becoming rooted substantially in the human spirit. Furthermore, we see that we are approaching the boundaries of our human speech: ‘We do not know the mode of the Spirit’s indwelling nor the mode of his efficient working in the hearts and minds and wills of God’s people by which they are progressively cleansed from the defilement of sin and more and more transfigured after the image of Christ.’135

7.3.2. The healthy soul In the preceding subsection, we saw that the Spirit-filled life does not level off or eliminate the human spirit, but gives it shape and activates it. Numerous theologians in history have made the human soul the object of study. Augustine, for example, wrote several works on the soul.136 Among the Puritans, John Flavel (1628 – 1691) was one who composed a book on the soul.137 Finally, the reception of Lewis Bayly’s Praxis Pietatis, a manual for personal spiritual growth, is proverbial: it has seen more than 200 reprints.138 The care for the healthy soul is a theme that comes out in the titles of books. John Owen, for example, wrote Temptation, Indwelling Sin in Believers and The 133 H.F. Kohlbrugge, De eenvoudige Heidelberger, 65. Burger 2008:255 – 256 notes that four actors are mentioned in the context of sanctification: God, in Col 1:22; Christ, in 1 Cor 1:30 and Eph 5:26; the Holy Spirit, in Rom 15:15; and the believer, in Rom 6:18 – 19, 22; 2 Cor 7:1; Eph 4:22 – 25. 134 S. Barabas 1952:79. 135 J. Murray as quoted in J. Bridges 2006:108. 136 De anima quantitate, De immortalitate animae, De origine animae, and De anima et eius origine. 137 J. Flavel 1982:II,475 – 609 and III,1 – 238. 138 L. Bayly 1642. For this tractate, see W.J. op ’t Hof 2009. W. van der Zwaag 2001:160 and A.A. van Schelven 1951 II:243 ff. give an indication of the influence which this work has had. The Dutch translation saw at least 53 printings.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for the doctrine of the spiritual man

247

Grace and Duty of being Spiritually Minded. Stephen Charnock (1628 – 1680) treated The sinfulness and Cure of Thought. Thomas Goodwin (1600 – 1680) wrote a similar work which he published under the title The Vanity of Thoughts. In A Christian Directory Richard Baxter (1615 – 1691) writes that Christians must above all carefully examine their hearts. Robert Bolton (1572 – 1631), finally, is known to have written Some General Directions for a Comfortable Walking with God. A sample of quotations can help us to form a more concrete picture of this care for the soul. John Flavel emphasised the ‘constant care and diligence of such a renewed man, to preserve his soul in that holy frame to which grace hath reduced it, and daily strives to hold it.’139 Two pages later he wrote that this is no small task: ‘Heart work is hard work indeed. To shuffle over religious duties with a loose and heedless spirit, will cost no great pains; but to set thyself before the Lord, and tie up thy loose and vain thoughts to a constant and serious attendance upon Him; this will cost thee something.’ Thomas Brooks (1608 – 1680) wrote along the same lines: ‘O sirs! Though heart defilement is least taken notice of, yet heart defilement is the worst defilement, and the most dangerous defilement in the world […]. The hypocrite’s only care is to keep his life from defilement, but the sincere Christian’s care is mainly to keep his heart from defilement […]. The reformation of the heart is indeed the heart of reformation. […] A sincere Christian though he has a special respect to the well ordering of his life, yet his main business and work is about his heart. Oh that this ignorant heart were but more enlightened! Oh that his proud heart were but more humble! Oh that this profane heart were but more holy! Oh that this earthly heart were but more heavenly! Oh that this unbelieving heart were but more believing! Oh that this passionate heart were but more meek! Oh that this carnal heart were but more spiritual! Oh that this lukewarm heart were but more zealous for God, and Christ, and the gospel, and the great concernments of eternity! Oh that this slight heart were but more serious! Oh that this dull heart were but more quickened! Oh that this dead heart were but more enlivened! The highest and hardest work of a Christian lieth with his heart. Mark, common light, common conviction, education, enforcement of conscience, principles of common honesty and morality, the eye of man, the fear of man, the examples of man, the laws of man, and the rewards of man, with a hundred other things, may be very prevalent to reform the life, to regulate the outward conversation, and to keep that in some due decorum; and yet all these things will be found too weak, too low to change the heart, to reform the heart, to mend the heart, to purify the heart.’140 139 J. Flavel 1982 V:426. 140 T. Brooks 1980 III:383 – 385.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

248

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

In these quotations we observe a certain independence of the human spirit, a strong directedness to the inner life, and a great interest for the Christian character – all notions that remain defensible in the current state of scholarship.141 Biblical-theologically and systematically, the relative independence of the soul is entirely in line with the eschatological dimension of the salvation in Christ, namely, the circumstance that salvation is of another order than the here and now.142 This consciousness of transcendence is accompanied by an internalisation which does not stand on its own, but is the other side of the life directed to the eschatological reality outside of our current order. This eschatological perspective is the primary criterion for a healthy pietism. Scripture too speaks concretely about the human heart and soul.143 Our mind is transformed.144 That the soul can exist without the body further highlights the importance of devoting proper attention to the soul.145 In the New Testament we also encounter the contrast between the outward man who is perishing, and the inward man who is being renewed day by day.146 Moreover, several New Testament imperatives and indicatives do not pertain to the physical life, but to our inner disposition.147 Anyone who pleads for the recognition of a certain independence of the human soul will soon find himself suspected of secretly harbouring an illegit141 D. Swaab 2010 and V. Lamme 2010 argue that our brain is neurologically determined and that there is no such thing as a free will. Their s materialistic approach has important consequences, especially in regard to ethics and the recognition of good deeds. Although in the context of this study it is not possible to assume a definitive position within this debate, classical theology tends to reject such an approach especially because nearly all classical philosophers do not reduce the spirit to materialism but held ultimate reality to be spiritual in nature, cf. K. Ward 2008:12 – 14, who names Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, and Hegel. Moreover, it is worth noting that matter is becoming an increasingly mysterious object to physicists. On neurological and religion-philosophical grounds, G.H. Labooy has argued that the soul is not a function of the human brain, and that there is indeed such a thing as an ontologically irreducible soul, G.H. Labooy 2007. Labooy 2004:919, 929 – 930 criticised the notion of nonreductive physicalism (NRP). Labooy admits that religion stimulates parts of the brain, but insists that this does not mean that the Spirit is a figment of the imagination. Why should the spiritual activity of the brain be considered as nothing more than the sum total of electronic brain activity? Labooy’s most important argument pertains to human freedom. If the human spirit and will were material, human freedom would be undone. The spirit has an alternativity which is not available to matter. This pleads for the immateriality and a certain independence of the human spirit. 142 1 Cor 2:9. Cf. 2 Cor 4:18. For the biblical notions, cf. J.B. Green 2008. 143 Cf. Prov 4:23; Jer 17:9; Matt 10:28, 15:8, 18, 16:26; Acts 2:37, 7:51, 11:23, 15:9; Rom 2:29, 5:5; 2 Cor 1:22, 4:6; 1 Thess 2:4; 2 Tim 2:22; 1 Pet 3:4. 144 Rom 12:2. 145 Luke 23:46; Phil 1:21, 23; Rev 6:10. 146 2 Cor 4:16. 147 See e. g. Matt 5:1 – 12; Gal 5:22; 1 Pet 3:3 – 5, 5:6.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for the doctrine of the spiritual man

249

imate internalisation and be called to examine himself seriously. The Puritans were aware of this: ‘It is the sin of upright hearts sometimes to use an over-rigid, and merciless severity against themselves.’148 Richard Baxter acknowledged that he was more inclined to look to his own heart than to look to Christ: ‘Yet I see more need of a higher work, and that I should look more often upon Christ, and God, and heaven, than upon my own heart’149 – and still he added: ‘Though I am greatly convinced of the need heart-acquaintance and employment.’ This did not undo the call to self-examination altogether. Through self-examination we become conscious of our spiritual needs and of a concrete communion with the Holy Spirit in prayer. Insistence on the independence of the human soul will quickly arouse suspicions of spiritualism as well.150 Our culture is marked by a relativisation of the earthly life and a certain sensitivity to transcendence, and yet this does not necessarily imply an intuition for the transcendental character of the eschatological kingdom found in Christ. The transcendental character of the kingdom of Christ demands a spiritual concentration on that reality. In this respect monastics can teach us the necessity of meditation and spiritual exercises, while the Puritans also made their own contribution to the exercise of this piety.151

7.3.3. The spiritual war In the Christian tradition a variety of biblical metaphors have been used for the Christian life, including a banquet, pilgrimage, exile, and battle. The final metaphor has been chosen as the overall framework for this section because it finds a precedent in the tradition, because it is more expressive of the intensity of the spiritual effort than any other metaphor, and because it has provoked the greatest amount of discussion in theology. The metaphor that demands the greatest effort on the part of the Christian is no doubt this battle metaphor. It reminds us of the warning Bonhoeffer sounded against cheap grace: ‘Cheap grace is the mortal enemy of our church. Our struggle today is for costly grace (…) Cheap grace means grace as doctrine, as principle, as system. It means forgiveness of sins as a general truth; it means God’s love as merely a Christian idea of God (…) The world finds in this church a 148 149 150 151

J. Flavel 1982 V:481. R. Baxter 1974:114. Jonathan Edwards1997: 14,532 – 533 assumed that the earth would be annihilated. Cf. R.F. Lovelace 1992:162 – 164. The Puritan writer Robert Traill’s observation is spot on: ‘Many ministers have found, that they have preached better, and to more profit to the people, when they got their sermon by meditation on the word, and prayer, than by turning over many authors’, R. Traill 1810 I:243. Cf. M.J. Roberts 1981:1

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

250

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

cheap cover-up for its sins, for which it shows no remorse and from which it has even less desire to be set free (…) Cheap grace means the justification of sin but not of the sinner. Because grace alone does everything, everything can stay in its old ways.’152 Although on a theological and spiritual level there are also differences over against Puritanism, Bonhoeffer is entirely in line with its theological trajectory when he resists cheap grace. As we have seen, Samuel Rutherford was another theologian who resisted cheap grace. He writes that it is ‘hard wrestling’ to maintain a ‘constant course of sound and solid daily communion with Christ.’153 In this struggle there needs to be a watchfulness, a topic that was addressed by Richard Sibbes.154 Owen described this watchfulness as ‘a universal carefulness and diligence, exercising itself in and by all ways and means prescribed by God, over our hearts and ways, the baits and methods of Satan, the occasions and advantages of sin in the world, that we be not entangled, is that which in this word is pressed upon us.’155 Flavel appealed to his readers to be on guard for the first signs of sin.156 In a period of great political tension, Samuel Rutherford began one of his letters by observing that we must fear our own spirit more than our enemies.157 The New Testament uses such phrases as the race for discipline, exercise, persistence, and devotion in the Christian life.158 Every day is an exercise in injustice or justice, especially when we are aware that temptations can come to us in the most subtle of ways.159 Aside from prayer, meditation, and remembrance, also sufferings represent a way to keep one’s spiritual life at the right level.160 This is our militia christiana (‘spiritual war’).161

152 D. Bonhoeffer 2001:43. 153 S. Rutherford 2006:172. McKay 2008:172, 174 – 175 emphasises the active role of the believer in sanctification. 154 Cf. R. Sibbes 2001VII: 298 – 305. See also CoD V,4. 155 WJO VI:88 – 151, 100 – 101. 156 J. Flavel 1982 V:505 – 506. 157 S. Rutherford 2006:649. 158 Rom 12:1; 1 Tim 4:7; 1 Cor 9:24 – 26; Phil 2:12 – 13, 3:12 – 14, 4:11 – 13; Col 1:28 – 29; Heb 12:1 – 4, 14. Heb 12:4 underlines that sin is not sufficiently resisted. In terms of devotion, we can also think of the practice of fasting. In the Old Testament, Ps 1, 119:11 – 16 and Job 31:1 provide examples of commitment. J. Bridges 2006:118 – 119 uses the image of a race-car driver to depict how the Christian life demands concentration; driving with cruise control is not a fitting image. On pp. 157 – 158 he notes a number of ethical dilemmas that demand commitment. 159 J. Bridges 2006:192 – 194, 215 – 219. 160 Acts 14:22; 2 Cor 4:16 – 18; Heb 12:10 – 11. Earthly cares and riches can be disadvantageous to us for the life of faith, Matt 13:7 and 22; 1 Tim 6:10 – 12; 1 John 2:15 – 17. 161 Luke 13:24; Eph 6:10 – 20; 1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7 – 8; 1 Pet 5:8. An implicit reference to this battle can be found in Scripture’s references to the victories in 1 John 5:4; Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26, 3:5, 12, 21. Cf. also Matt 5:29, 7:13 – 14, 16:24 – 26; Phil 2:12.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for the doctrine of the spiritual man

251

The above images go back to Old Testament motifs. Israel had to fight the Canaanites, Philistines, and Amalekites. The land which had been given to them in promise had to be wrest from each and every enemy, over and over again.162 All enemies who were allowed to live represented a threat to the people of the covenant.163 Israel often found itself in a minority position. If we want to draw an application from these motifs for today, we must proceed carefully on a hermeneutical level. We note, for example, that war in the Old Testament had a spiritual character. Given this perspective, the New Testament is an intensification of the Old. While the Old Testament war was directed against concretely identifiable nations, in the New Testament we read about a battle that is much more intense for the very reason that it is not directed against flesh and blood.164 In the tradition this realisation was repeated in numerous ways to indicate that the Christian life is about participation in a transcendental reality : ‘Seeing we must have a devil to hold the saints waking, I wish a cumbersome devil, rather than a secure and sleeping one.’165 This quotation is suggestive of war terminology ; Rutherford, however, was not the only to use such terminology.166 John Bunyan, for example, spoke about a Holy War.167 The Heidelberg Catechism used the phrase ‘sworn enemies’ as a way to express the intensity of the spiritual warfare.168 The war is closely related to the battle we must fight against the sin dwelling within us. As such, it is entirely in line with our findings in chapter five above.169 The admonitions of the New Testament cannot be summed up more powerfully than in its call to ‘put to death your members which are on the earth.’170 In the first place, when this admonition is made concrete, the letter addresses not only outward prostitution, but also the inner disposition of lust and greed. This suggests that the apostle was concerned that we declare war on the sin dwelling within us.171 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

Cf. Josh 8, 10, 11; Judg 1, 7. Judg 1:21 – 2:23. Rom 6:19 speaks about ‘lawlessness leading to more lawlessness.’ Eph 6:12. S. Rutherford 2006:151. See R.W. de Koeijer 2010. Cf. T. Brooks 1980:I,1 – 166; W. Gurnall 1964; D.M. Lloyd-Jones 1976 and 1977. HC question 127. Cf. HC question 127. Ouweneel 2010:302 – 318 has argued that we find no battle against sin in the context of the New Testament. He further argues that the issue of sin is determinative for the theology of the Reformed tradition, 291, 305, 308, so that its adherents can never progress further than a ‘wretched-sinner-that-I-am faith’ (‘arme zondaarsgeloof ’). Ouweneel pleads for an interpretation of the spiritual battle that sees it as more offensively directed to the outside. 170 Col 3:5a. 171 Cf. Rom 7:14 – 26; Gal 5:17; Heb 12:1, 4. Because sin comes to us especially in our lusts and

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

252

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

One of the things with which Luther reproached Erasmus was his location of the battle between God and Satan outside of man.172 The Reformer emphasised against him that we are not like spectators who look upon this battle from a distance, but that a battle for life and death is taking place within our very soul. Theologically we are talking about the dividing line within the human soul where we most feel the tension between the old and the new aeon.173 In the second place, the admonition of Colossians 3 shows us that a spiritual offensive is directed against the sin within us. The militia christiana not only envisions the expansion of the kingdom of God, but Christians must also continue to pay attention to themselves. As a third observation we note that the spiritual battle is not exhausted by our fight against the sin that dwells within us. The contours outlined in chapter 3.5 above show that believers stand in a relationship to God’s creation; this is the reason why they participate in public life. Yet they also participate in the kingdom of God – in a spiritual battle, that is, to win others for Christ.174 In the Pauline corpus there are numerous indicators that make it clear to us that the apostle was actively trying to win individuals and entire population groups over for the gospel.175 As Martin Hengel has demonstrated, Paul applied a conscious strategy to plant the gospel of God’s kingdom in the world.176 Hengel in fact depicts the apostle as a man with strong organisational skills who consciously applied the funds available in those days to finance his considerable expenses for travel and lodging. Through the Spirit of God, Paul was able to accomplish much in God’s kingdom. He was himself aware of this, and referred to his achievements on several occasions throughout his writings.177 We do well to follow him in this.178

7.3.4. The freedom of the Spirit There is one final matter that demands our attention, which can be illustrated with an example from Colossians 3:5. This is the verse which contains the imperative to put our members to death. The imperative in this verse is an aorist

172 173 174 175 176 177 178

desires, our mortification takes place in the sphere of the affections, Bridges 2006:200. This does not deny that there are concrete instances at which we may stumble, as the classic form for baptism also notes, Book of Praise:584. WA 18:750. Cf. J.P. Versteeg 1980:359. Cf. 2 Cor 10:4 – 6. In 1 Cor 9:19 – 22 Paul mentions ‘winning’ people no less than four times. M. Hengel 2002:529 – 537. Cf. 1 Cor 15:10; 2 Cor 10:12 – 18, 11:5, 21 – 33. Cf. 1 Cor 4:16, 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 3:9.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for the doctrine of the spiritual man

253

imperative, stressing its one-time nature. In light of the use of the aorist tense, Kohlbrugge translated this verse as: ‘Have killed your members’ (‘Hebt uw leden gedood’).179 With this he meant to indicate that by faith we must hold on to the reality in Christ. In Christ our old man has been crucified. This underlines for us that we do not have to repeat the battle that has already been fought by Christ. When we, in the thanksgiving prayer included at the end of the traditional Reformed form for baptism, pray that the baptised child may ‘valiantly fight against and overcome sin, the devil, and his whole dominion’, these words may seem to suggest that Christians need to face this battle all on their own.180 Yet in order to be able to maintain such a reading, we would have to overlook the fact that this line follows what the prayer says about God having shown his compassion to us in Christ, and about the battle being fought under Christ as our Teacher, King, and High Priest. Accordingly, the Reformed tradition witnesses a persistent conviction that sin need not have the final word. This notion was worked out by John Owen in a work on Romans 6:14.181 There he emphasised that in Christ the fountains of grace are available for resisting sin and putting it to death. The Westminster Confession similarly observes that ‘through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.’182 In spite of the above, one wonders whether Reformed spirituality has really done sufficient justice to the notion that we are more than conquerors with the notion of our union with Christ.183 There are moments when we get the impression that – with the help of the powers present in Christ, admittedly – the real battle is something that still needs to be fought. Within such a perspective, the Christian life moves toward salvation rather than arises from and flourishing out of it. As a result, greater emphasis comes to be placed on what the Spirit must yet do, than on what has already been realised in Christ. The Christian battle thus receives greater emphasis than the biblical notions of ‘walking,’ ‘happiness,’ ‘rest,’ etc.184 The latter set of notions remind us, however, that we participate through faith in the kingdom of Christ and have received the firstfruit of the Spirit. This in turn 179 180 181 182 183

Cf. Col 3:9. See Kohlbrugge 1967:VII – VIII,376, 387. Book of Praise:587. WJO VII:545 – 560. WC Chapter XIII,3. Cf. CoD III/IV,16. Rom 8:37. The Spirit is the guarantee that we will not lose, 2 Cor 5:5. For the strength of the Spirit, cf. Rom 15:13, 19; 1 Cor 2:4 – 5; 1 Thess 1:5. The Spirit of the resurrection dwells in us, cf. Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 6:14, 15:43. See also Gräbe 2000:246, 248. D. Peterson 1995:114 warns that the battle ought not to receive greater emphasis than the Spirit-filled life. 184 Cf. Gen 5:24; Ps 3, 23, 100; John 10:1 – 16; Rom 14:17; Eph 2:10, 5:2 and 8; Col 2:6; Heb 4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

254

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

implies a qualification in the concept of the spiritual battle: the battle we must fight concerns the pneumatological actualisation of a victory which Christologically has already been obtained. Through the Spirit we stand and walk in freedom.185 Through the Spirit we are in a new eschatological way bound to the will of God, so that his will is not a prison for us but constitutes our freedom.186 The highest form of freedom is not the freedom of choice between good and evil, but the freedom to desire and to do the good.187 In their original state, people were able not to sin (posse non peccare). Through the power of sin in our present aeon, we cannot not-sin (non posse non peccare). Through the firstfruit of the Spirit we participate in the reality of not being able to sin (non posse peccare). Although from a strictly logical perspective this eschatological reality would appear to restrict human free choice since we can no longer choose evil, the opposite is in fact true. Non posse peccare implies a higher degree of freedom than posse non peccare! If we reflect on this, we arrive at two further considerations. In the first place, the absence of possible wicked choice sets us free from trials and temptations. The agony of choice is aptly summed up in the words of a German proverb: ‘Wer der Wahl hat, hat die Qual.’ It is a liberation to be set free from dilemmas of choice and sinful temptation. In the second place, eschatological freedom points us to the secret of love, where love is axiomatic.188 Love is not a coercion, but the greatest freedom. This is entirely in line with the deepest sensibilities of the gospel. The Spirit of God pours love into our heart so that we may love God and serve him.189 Without love our service to God has no spiritual value whatsoever.190 The eschaton is marked by a life filled with love.191 Through our participation in the eschatological Spirit, our service to God is free and voluntary (i. e. of our own free will). In short, the notion of the eschatological gift of the Spirit gives us a theological framework in which we can do justice to the renewal of man, to Christian freedom, and to a life of love. The converse applies as well. If we do justice to the new man, we cannot pass over the eschatological framework, or over the framework of Christian freedom and love. 185 Rom 8:2. Cf. Rom 7:6; J.P. Versteeg 1980:343 – 348. The Spirit sets us free from the power of sin, Versteeg 1980:360. Cf. Gunning 2008:63. 186 Love compels us, 2 Cor 5:14. Cf. J. Bridges 2006:25. 187 Cf. J. Moltmann 1993:55, 217, notwithstanding the context in which Moltmann makes these observations, namely, the suffering of God. 188 J. Moltmann 1993:107 writes that freedom and necessity come together in love. He relates God’s love to creation and re-creation. In this context, a pertinent question is whether God was free to not-create. 189 Rom 5:5. 190 1 Cor 13:1 – 3. 191 1 Cor 13:13.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

255

Evaluation

In light of this, we can appreciate the way Kohlbrugge translated Colossians 3:5 and his underlying theological motive for it. Yet Kohlbrugge actually goes one step further.192 For, he applies this principle to all the imperatives in Scripture: in his view, all of them are to be translated as future indicatives. Exegetically, however, this is indefensible, and systematically Kohlbrugge’s choice has far-reaching implications.193 For example, these future indicatives could be taken deterministically, whereas the imperatives in the text place all the emphasis on human responsibility. If the imperatives are taken away, we will no longer be able to describe disobedience as disobedience. Furthermore, Kohlbrugge’s proposal places a one-sided emphasis on the future eschatological aspect, and thereby threatens to deny the unruly reality of the here and now. This brings us to the following nuanced position. When we evaluate the relationship between the spiritual battle and spiritual freedom, we must insist that the latter forms the framework in which the former is to be placed. Our walk in the freedom of the Spirit, however, finds itself under great pressure from the old aeon. Our walk in the Spirit therefore calls a spiritual war into life. In this context, Scripture’s admonitions and commands remind believers of their responsibility and of their concrete struggles. A theology that speaks about spiritual freedom alone is unsuited to the unruly reality of the Christian life, especially in apocalyptic times. A theology that pushes our spiritual freedom aside puts a basket over the light of the gospel. Also in pneumatology, the indicative of the eschatological salvation precedes the imperative.

7.4. Evaluation The Reformed tradition is marked by its openness for the pneumatological dimension of our salvation and the internality of the spiritual life. These elements can function soundly when the eschatological, transcendent dimension of the fulfilled salvation, together with our mystical union with Christ, are established as its framework. If these two preconditions are not met, the Christian life becomes internalised so that the dimension of faith and hope is lost. If our communion with the salvation fulfilled in Christ does not form the framework for the Christian life, the result will be a legalistic or activistic, semi-Pelagian life open to the chiliastic inner-worldly intuitions regarding the new creation. The pneumatological anthropology developed in the present chapter offers us the possibility to do justice to the transcendent and gratuitous character of the new 192 Stiasny 1935:18. 193 Cf. Van Ruler 1947:509 – 510.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

256

God’s Spirit and the human spirit

creation on the one hand, and the manifestation of the new man as one of the firstfruits of the new creation on the other. The concept of the indwelling of the Spirit represents an instrument for us to do justice to the spiritual identity of the believer without the old and new man being split apart, without the Holy Spirit and the human spirit becoming identified with each other, without creating the impression of a dualistic donum superadditum, without the gratia interna assuming ontological traits in which the subjectivity of the Spirit disappears, and without the gratia interna leading to a transsubstantiatio of the human spirit, while conversely full justice is done at once to the continuity of the creature as well as to his transformation. The distinction between Spirit and spirit offers us a theological instrument for placing the human spirit under the lens of the Word and for doing justice to humanity. Our spirit is involved in renewal in a fully human way. Standing by faith in the freedom of Christ, walking in the freedom of the Spirit, the human spirit pursues daily renewal and fights the sin dwelling within it.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

8.

‘You are not under law’

Chapter seven demonstrated to us that the freedom of the Spirit is one of the key components of our spiritual renewal. In the Protestant tradition the notion of freedom has consistently been discussed against the background of the understanding that the law does not contribute to our salvation.1 In the debates over justification, the law was sharply contrasted with the gospel. Paul further appears to have been so radical in his rejection of the law as the way to redemption that he himself already had to confront the question whether the kingdom of Christ implies a lawlessness.2 Paul was insistent in his denial of this consequence, and called the law righteous, holy, and good instead.3 In fact, obedience to God’s law shows itself to be of decisive importance for distinguishing between those who are in the kingdom and those who are on the outside; idolaters, the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit the kingdom of God.4 In spite of this, Paul remained convinced that we are free from the law.5 What does the above mean for the place and function of the law in personal renewal? While our obedience to the law does not save us, obedience still does form a part of the road to salvation. Over the course of Christian history, this realisation has raised the question as to the place the law does have in the Christian life. Is the law for the unrepentant alone, and do believers learn their piety from the gospel alone?6 Or must the law be preached sharply to believers, so that they might cast themselves more fully upon Christ and his Spirit?7 Some 1 In Scripture the question of the fulfilment of the law pertains to the entire Torah. In the present chapter, however, we will focus on the place of the Ten Commandments. 2 Rom 6:1. 3 Rom 7:12. 4 1 Cor 6:10. Cf. HC, question 87. Cf. 1 Pet 2:11 – 25. 1 Pet 4:15 (ESV) also refers to the busybody. 5 Rom 6:14. Cf. Rom 7:1 – 6; Gal 4:1 – 6. 6 1 Tim 1:9 – 10; Titus 2:12. 7 Cf. HC question 115.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

258

‘You are not under law’

Christians understand the law as a rule for Christian living, while others fear that such a perspective will end up undermining Christian freedom. Numerous questions can be raised here. Kierkegaard once argued that the sacrifice of Abraham shows that there is no general, normative ethic since God’s commands are highly personal in nature.8 Given the eschatological context of the Christian life, we also do well to consider whether we must turn to this eschatological reality instead of the law for our Christian norm.9 In the third place, there is the all-important question of the relationship between the Old and the New Testament. Of what significance is the law’s embeddedness within Israel’s basic structures as a nation, and what does it mean that we can only speak about the law in light of the fulfilled history of redemption?10 Fourthly, in our present context these questions pertain also to the exercise of the Christian life. Must we, in a time when freedom is valued so highly, give the impression that the Christian faith is a religion of rules? Or ought we instead to describe our era as a time of lawlessness in which Christians are called to defend the normativity and holiness of the law, partly as a way to emphasise that grace is no cheap cover for a life of sin? In the end, these questions all come down to the theological and existential question of the Christ: what place does the law have in our lives if Christ has fulfilled it? The main question which this chapter will therefore investigate is whether Christians must be given norms as they come to concrete expression in the Ten Commandments. In order to address this question, we will examine a variety of competing views. Our study will further seek to derive benefit from recent discussions by engaging in dialogue with both Messianic Jews as well as modern theologians. At the end of this chapter, we will use the insights gained to work toward a theology of the law.

8.1. The law as rule of thanksgiving 8.1.1. The Heidelberg Catechism Historically the Heidelberg Catechism marks the Palatinate’s transition from the Lutheran to the Reformed faith. Its treatment of the place and function of the law leaves no doubt that the catechism has Reformed characteristics. For, the law is

8 Kierkegaard 2006:46 – 59. 9 Cf. G. de Kruijf 2008:16 – 26. 10 Van Ruler 1947:277 lists cultic and ceremonial aspects in the Decalogue, arguing that it cannot be separated from the rest of the Torah.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The law as rule of thanksgiving

259

not discussed in the section on misery, as was typical of Lutheranism, but in the section on thankfulness.11 The catechism’s move was motivated by its conviction that the most important function of the law is the usus tertius, usus didacticus, or usus normativus – that is, as a rule for the Christian life.12 Calvin clearly defends this position as well.13 With this he distanced himself from the Lutheran approach where the pedagogical use (i. e. usus elenchticus) of the law predominates. When it actually discusses the Ten Commandments, however, the Heidelberg Catechism still does have room for the law in its function as a mirror (i. e. pedagogical use).14 In its reflection on the law at the end of this exposition of the commandments, the catechism makes the significant and controversial confession that in this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of the new obedience.15 For that reason, the next question proceeds to ask why the law is preached so sharply if no one can keep it anyways. The catechism’s primary response is that we must become more and more aware of our sinful nature, so that we seek to be renewed more eagerly and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit so as to be renewed more and more after God’s image. Therefore, while the third use of the law is not entirely absent from the Heidelberg Catechism, the usus elenchticus or usus paedagogicus still appears to dominate. This circumstance is further related to the way in which the catechism addresses the topic of renewal.16 Although it mentions sanctification on numerous occasions, the Heidelberger never actually thematises it. After it has discussed the content of the Christian faith, the catechism asks in Lord’s Day 23 and 24 what it helps us now that we know all this. With this, it places sanctification within the context of justification. And yet, when the catechism actually deals the Christian life, its emphasis is on what we must do. Although formally the Heidelberg Catechism recognises the coming to life of the new man as a heartfelt joy in God and a love and delight to live in all good works, materially the text places a greater emphasis on the pursuit of this renewal than on our actual walk in this new life. In short, the third use of

11 Nevertheless, even Luther could say that we end up turning the law into a god without justification, WA 40.1,557 – 558 (on Gal 4:3). Herman Faukelius in his Kort Begrip followed a more Lutheran approach when he dealt with the Ten Commandments in the context of our misery. 12 Cf. HC question and answers 86, 91, 115. 13 Institutes II.vii.6 – 9, 12; CG, 228 – 229. 14 Bierma 2005:86 – 91 sees in this the influence of Melanchthon. 15 HC question and answer 114. For an analysis of the catechism, see W. van Vlastuin 2011a. 16 Renewal is mentioned in, for example, HC question and answer 24, 43, 45, 64, 70, 86, 88 – 90, 114 – 115. It is also implicitly present in question 20, 53, 55 when the catechism speaks about all the treasures in Christ.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

260

‘You are not under law’

the law is not absent from the catechism, and yet it too functions as the usus elenchticus due to the imperfection of the believer.

8.1.2. The Puritan tradition In Puritan spirituality one’s view of the law is of great significance.17 The Westminster Confession addresses numerous ethical questions,18 and calls the law a ‘perfect rule of righteousness.’19 The confession goes one step further when it explicitly states that those who are justified are bound to the moral law as a ‘rule of life’ even in the New Testament dispensation.20 The lives of the Puritans show that they were very conscious of serving a ‘precise God.’ Someone once said of Rutherford: ‘He is always praying, always preaching, always visiting the sick, always catechising, always writing and studying.’21 At the same time, the Puritans were aware that they were able to keep the law by the power of Christ’s Spirit.22 With this they meant that their obedience was a new, voluntary obedience practised in love. The Westminster Confession clearly thought this topic needed to be addressed explicitly one more time, and did so in a separate chapter on Christian freedom following the chapter on the law. This circumstance is reflective of the struggles of the Puritans between freedom and slavery. When we compare the Westminster Confession to the Heidelberg Catechism, we see that the confession places an even greater emphasis on the law’s usus didacticus than the catechism did.23 This circumstance is no doubt related to the Westminster Confession’s more positive view of renewal. The confession has been criticised at times for its exhaustive treatment of renewal, and the attention it devotes to the law has also garnered suspicions of legalism. This suspicion seems to be justified when we find the confession treating faith after its discussion of sanctification, such that the Christian life is in danger of becoming a theme of its own and being externalised.24

17 In WLC question 99 we find eight rules for properly understanding the law. Sixty of the 196 questions treat the commandments. Cf. E.F. Kevan 1993. 18 P.J. Beale 1981 has described the demands in marriage, while E. Hulse 1981 treated the issue of Sunday observance. 19 WC Chapter XIX,2. 20 WC Chapter XIX,5 – 6. Cf. E.D. Morris 1900:507. 21 A. A. Bonar 2006:5. 22 WC Chapter XIX.7. 23 In its treatment of the Ten Commandments, the WLC consistently first asks what ‘duty’ each commandment requires of us, and then what it forbids. 24 Cf. W. van ’t Spijker 2006:370.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The law as rule of thanksgiving

261

Currents of legalism (i. e. ‘perfectionism’ or ‘neonomianism’) have existed both within and outside of Puritanism, where they met considerable resistance. In 1644, for example, the The Marrow of Modern Divinity of Edward Fisher (1610 – 1655) appeared from the presses.25 This booklet was divided into three parts, according to its threefold view of the law. First it treats the law as the covenant of works. The second part examines the law of faith, or the covenant of grace. The third part takes its point of departure in the theme of the law of Christ, to which an exposition of the Ten Commandments was initially appended. The clear distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace offered a structure for emphasising the unconditional offer of grace and the assurance of faith. Yet the Marrow’s structure also raises the question as to what precise function the law of Christ really has. For, the bi-unity of the covenant of works and of grace could appear to suggest that the law contributes something in addition to faith and the covenant of grace. Another example of an anti-legalistic approach to sanctification is the The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification (1692) of Walter Marshall (1628 – 1680).26 In his first ‘direction’ he emphasises that the holiness of God’s law is not external but internal. In the second chapter he insists that good works grow out of our assurance concerning the forgiveness of our sins and God’s personal love toward us. In the third ‘direction’ he describes how it is Christ who sanctifies us.27 The next chapter then argues that we receive Christ himself in the gospel; we can only be obedient according to the comfort of the gospel. In the seventh chapter, Marshall insists against Baxter that sorrow over sin is a fruit of rather than a condition for faith. In this way he placed Christ in the centre, yet without abandoning the process of sanctification.28

8.1.3. Kohlbrugge The reproach of ‘antinomianism’ appears on the very first page of the letter Isaäc da Costa wrote to Kohlbrugge concerning his sermon on Romans 7:14. Da Costa 25 E. Fisher 2002. 26 W. Marshall 1811. For Marshall, cf. K. Exalto 1988; J.E. Marshall 1981. 27 We find this same accent in John Welch: ‘So, I say, there is a virtue in the death of Christ, to cause thee daily to die unto sin; and there is a virtue in the resurrection of Christ, to raise thee daily from death to life, and make thee a new creature; there is a virtue in the ascension of Christ, to lift thee up to heaven, and to set thy heart above, where Christ is […]. But ye will say, How can faith do this? I answer : it is not thy faith that does it, but it is Christ who is the object of thy faith. It is not the hand that puts meat in thy mouth that feeds thee, but it is the meat itself […]. So, it is not thy faith that feeds thy soul […] but it is Jesus Christ,’ as cited in P. Lewis 1981:114 – 115. 28 Keswick appealed to Marshall, cf. J.I. Packer 1955:154n.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

262

‘You are not under law’

wrote that a distinction must be maintained between the law of Moses and the law of Christ. While Moses’ law condemns us, the law of Christ is a royal law of freedom. Kohlbrugge did not take the accusation of antinomianism lightly, and described this position as a ‘terrible and hellish error.’29 Da Costa’s reproach further occasioned him to put his reflections on the law down on paper. Kohlbrugge argued that the great error of both the repentant as well as the unrepentant is that they seek to satisfy the demands of God’s law themselves: ‘I listened to this word as proceeding from the law, in order that I should be stimulated to purify myself again and again, and make myself as clean as possible.’30 Christians ‘cannot retain the law without disgracing it in every detestable form and manner.’31 ‘And so long as you think of giving place to the Law by the side of Christ, however you may maintain that salvation is of grace, believe me, you do not belong to Christ.’32 Christians must die to the law. Kohlbrugge further defended his controversial claim that the law is as a corpse by insisting this can be deduced from what Paul writes in Romans 7:1 – 4. If we do not die to the law, there can be no spiritual sanctification.33 ‘For this reason, it is imperative upon us that we rightly understand that we have been made free from the law, in order to serve God according to His will […]. Everything prospers, and there is nothing but good works; for here everything is the fruit of the Spirit, and we walk in good works, prepared beforehand of God, for we enter into the spirit […]. What is it which causes you to be still entangled with fear, as if you were in any respect still held by the law? Verily, you ought no longer to serve the law, for you have entered into the service of God, and have become entirely the possession Jesus Christ.’34 It is easy to see why Kohlbrugge’s radical statements about the death of the law elicited suspicions of antinomianism against him. Paradoxically, however, his negative statements were actually intended to do justice to the law. The law can only receive its due if and when believers expect everything from Christ: ‘But let this be borne in mind, that there has been no violence done to the law; it has not been pushed aside and discredited, but has received its full claim; it has been treated according to its due; and you have been liberated from the law in no other way than by the righteousness of faith.’35 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Kohlbrugge 1892:20. Cf. Van Lonkhuyzen 1905:175 – 176 on this reflection. Kohlbrugge 2009:50. Cf. Kohlbrugge 2009. Kohlbrugge 2009:61. Kohlbrugge 2009:22. Cf. a letter to De Clercq in Kohlbrugge 1982:116. Kohlbrugge 2009:33 – 34. Kohlbrugge 2009:25. For believers the keeping of the demands of God’s law can end up becoming more important to them than their own salvation, cf. Kohlbrugge 1974:2,71

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The law as rule of thanksgiving

263

If we are free from the law, it does not mean that the law is no longer a norm for life: ‘I love the law as a rule of life and conduct: I do not preach that man is unconditionally absolved from the law. I love the law, because I believe God, because I celebrate His will.’36 Kohlbrugge therefore does not seek to neutralise the law in any way, but emphasises instead that we fulfil the law through faith in the gospel alone.37 For that reason we must insist that we only value the law if we follow Christ.38 We should not think that our new will is able to keep God’s law.39 Through the Spirit of God we walk in his law, so that we delight in that law.40 In light of the above, the fulfilment of the law is not a demand made of believers, but it comes to them as a promise.41 In Christ we have the fulfilment of the law. If this fulfilment were not in Christ, we would still be lost after our conversion. Believers for that reason live their faith rather than their sanctification. This is how God fulfils his law in us, and how we delight in it: we love God and neighbour. For, ‘love, not sanctification, is the fulfilment of the law.’42 Kohlbrugge was convinced that he was following in footsteps of the Reformed tradition, and pointed especially to the Heidelberg Catechism in this regard, although he also referenced the Belgic Confession. He further claimed to stand in the trajectory of Calvin, Olevianus, Melanchthon, Newton, and Comrie.43 If we evaluate Kohlbrugge’s view, we must first point out that no one in the tradition has ever claimed that someone can fulfil the law without faith. All the same, we can say that Kohlbrugge expressed himself in much more power terms when it came to the death of the law in the face of nineteenth-century notions of self-justification. This led Kohlbrugge to be more insistent concerning a walking in the law by faith. Furthermore, we can observe that Kohlbrugge speaks about practical obedience to God’s law. This is why the law has to be presented to Christians as a rule: ‘Believers carry their flesh and blood along with them: as such, they are exposed to every temptation and must constantly be kept on the road of righteousness. This does indeed happen internally through the Spirit, but in this he uses no other rule or guideline than the Ten Commandments. Within these limits he himself takes believers by the hand to the promise of the Lord, against every carnal temptation and excess. And in this he makes believers free in the freedom of Christ, so that they know of nothing but grace and yet walk 36 Kohlbrugge 2009:101. 37 Kohlbrugge 2009:76. 38 Kohlbrugge 2009:81: ‘But if you highly esteem the law (…) you will then trust entirely to Christ.’ Cf. p. 119: ‘By faith we exhibit the law.’ 39 Kohlbrugge 2009:84. 40 Kohlbrugge 2009:73, cf. p. 103: ‘For verily! Just as God rejoices in His law, so do I share in His joy in it, because it is His law.’ 41 Kohlbrugge 1892:32. 42 Kohlbrugge 1892:39. 43 Kohlbrugge 1892:41, 43, 49.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

264

‘You are not under law’

in God’s Law, humble themselves because of their imperfection in face of the law, and still they walk and work justly.’44 A third observation we can make is that the Reformed tradition has indeed treated the law more independently than Kohlbrugge did; in Kohlbrugge’s theology, the gospel came so that the law might be fulfilled.45 The law fulfilled by Christ is a promise for believers. By virtue of the heavy emphasis it consistently places on the believer’s obedience, the Reformed tradition has been unable to insist as radically as Kohlbrugge did on the promissory character of the law.

8.1.4. Van Ruler In the twentieth century Van Ruler devoted considerable attention to the law in his dissertation De vervulling van de wet (‘The fulfilment of the law’).46 Van Ruler departed from the general direction of classical Reformed theology with his emphasis on the (salvation-) historical limits of the law. He argued that the fulfilment of the law ought to be viewed as a salvation-historical category, such that the distinction between legal, ethical, and cultic aspects of the Torah can be overcome, and the rigid division between the ceremonial, civil, and moral laws is no longer necessary. This implies that the law, as a medium between revelation and existence, has an eschatological character in which the basic outlines of God’s eschatological kingdom are drawn. In the Christological intermezzo between incarnation and the eschatological kingdom, the law is fulfilled through the Spirit. The salvation-historical and pneumatological category of fulfilment means for Van Ruler that the ‘now’ of the fulfilment cannot be historicised simplistically as if to suggest that there is an essential difference between the ‘before’ and the ‘after’ Christ. The fulfilment of the law must therefore not be viewed as the fulfilment of prophecy, together with a Marcionite abolition of the Old Testament order, but as a pneumatological effectuation of the law’s intentions. The New Testament commandments are empowered by the redemption which has been given in Christ. This means that the life of reconciliation will become manifest, and that the law can be seen as a form of the gospel. Accordingly, the fulfilment of the law may never be turned into an anthropological category – although Van Ruler does emphasise the human participation in God’s fulfilment of the law. Within the New Testament context, one must resist every attempt to obtain salvation through the law as if there were no 44 Kohlbrugge 1892:22 – 23n; cf. Kohlbrugge 2009:101. 45 Th. Stiasny 1935:16 – 36 has analysed Kohlbrugge’s theology from the perspective of the law. Kohlbrugge’s concern is for the fulfilment of the law, Van Ruler 1947:268. 46 Van Ruler 1947.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The law as rule of thanksgiving

265

Christological-pneumatological fulfilment of the law; on the other hand, Van Ruler insists that only those who do the works of the law are justified. We do not ‘have’ the law, but the Spirit rather receives us in the reality of the law which has been fulfilled. At the same time, he distances himself from those who would read the Bible’s imperatives as future indicatives. Not only does he consider such an approach to be grammatically unwarranted, he also insists that it would make it impossible to speak about disobedience to the law, that a distinction must be maintained between God’s commands and promises, that the biblical imperatives serve as an antidote to fatalism, and that a denial of the imperatival form deprecates the position of the law or even makes it entirely unnecessary. There are several questions that must be raised in connection with Van Ruler’s approach. One wonders, for example, whether the salvation-historical category of the law needs further explanation, or whether his insistence on the realisation of God’s law in culture as the manifestation of the Spirit is not overly optimistic. Relatedly, one could ask whether Van Ruler distinguishes sufficiently between the manifestation of the Spirit in the heart and life of believers, and the manifestation of the Spirit in politics, culture, and state. This point is closely related to Van Ruler’s view on the end of the incarnation, whereby the believers’ relationship with Christ is not definitive and whereby insufficient room is left for the notion of judgment on the world to function as it should.47 Notwithstanding these critical questions, we still need to acknowledge that Van Ruler has taught us to take the fulfilment of the law as the point of departure for our reflection. This offers us the theological warrant to continue speaking about the law, and furnishes us with a framework in which the law can be discussed from the perspective of the gospel.

8.1.5. Balance In Reformed theology, the law has an enduring place in the Christian life. While the Reformed tradition recognised the danger of legalism, it also continued to insist that the law has a legitimate place as a norm for the Christian life. But does the threat of legalism not undermine the legitimacy of this starting point? Does the Reformed tradition really do justice to the new state of affairs that has come about in Christ? If it has failed in this regard, we end of being cast upon a set of rules, rather than the living Christ. Furthermore, the New Testament teaches us that the Spirit is not connected to the law but to Christ.48 The Spirit is opposed to 47 G.Th. Rothuizen 1962:241 poignantly observes that man only really becomes man once Christ is at a distance. 48 2 Cor 3:3,6,8, 17. Cf. J.P. Versteeg 1980:325 – 326. 329; Ridderbos 1975:88.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

266

‘You are not under law’

the letter of the law. These questions reach a climax in the theology of Van Ruler who demonstrated that Christ and Spirit stand in the shadow of God’s eschatological kingdom, and that they will withdraw in the eschaton; this could be referred to as the ‘Messianic-pneumatological intermezzo.’

8.2. The fulfilment of the law The believer’s relationship to the law proves in fact to be more complicated than we first assumed when we realise that the law does not have the power to put sin to death.49 While the Pelagians of Augustine’s day claimed that we can put sin to death through the law, the great church father insisted that the opposite was in fact true.50 Drawing on 1 Corinthians 15:56b (‘the strength of sin is the law’), Augustine demonstrated that without grace the law is a power for sin.51 In his elaborate discussion of this text, Ralph Erskine (1685 – 1752) made a similar point using the image of dogs and wolves who only pull harder when they are tied, of a stream which flows with greater force when it is passes through a dam, and of a manure pile whose odour becomes even more pungent under the sun.52 Today we might compare the good law to an MRI, which discovers invisible ailments and yet is powerless to heal them; we only find healing from the power of sin in the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason, the Protestant tradition has always been critical toward the law. In what follows, we will examine this critical position in greater detail and consider its merits.

8.2.1. Seventeenth-century antinomian controversies Both England and New England passed through several antinomian controversies. The first took place in New England and lasted from October 1636 to March 1638,53 occasioned by Anne Marbury Hutchinson (1591 – 1643). In 1634 Hutchinson had left England for Boston together with her fifteen children. Because of her firm conviction that we are saved through faith alone, Hutchinson became increasingly dissatisfied with the Puritan theological, ecclesiastical, political, and social climate with all its rules and laws. She therefore began to lead 49 Rom 8:3. Cf. Versteeg 1980:352 – 353; Hengel 2002:443 – 444. 50 De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio 6.4, 23.11. 51 Augustine appeals to 1 Cor 15:56. Cf. Rom 7:11, 13. See also Kohlbrugge 2009:29 – 30, 44; Versteeg 1980:345. 52 See R. Erskine 1815 I:3 – 166. For the example, see p. 116. Cf. p. 7. 53 Cf. E. Battis 1962; D.D. Hall 1968. For a brief overview of the various antinomian controversies, see G.A. van den Brink 2008:5 – 47; K.M. Campbell 1974.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The fulfilment of the law

267

Bible studies in her own home, claiming to be guided by the Spirit of God in this. Hutchinson was further convinced that the majority of pastors in the new world did not have the freedom of the Spirit. Because her views made her a threat to the existing order, Hutchinson was questioned at length and eventually excommunicated and banished. The tensions ended several years later when she was killed by North American natives. The antinomian tensions revived in the 1640s, due among others to the religious toleration effected under the Cromwellian regime. Samuel Rutherford was one theologian who felt the call to defend the public rights of King Jesus. He understood antinomianism to be the common denominator dividing the various sects, and attacked it in A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist. He also attacked antinomianism in Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself. In The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Edward Fisher similarly opposed not only every form of legalism, but also anyone who gladly spoke of Christ only to push the law aside. But what was that front which Rutherford and Fisher opposed? In reaction to Puritanism’s serious pursuit of sanctification, John Eaton (1574/1575 – 1630/ 1631) wrote a first important antinomian work under the title The Honey-combe of Free Justification, published in 1641.54 A year later a posthumous sermon collection from Tobias Crisp (1600 – 1643) appeared, entitled Christ Alone Exalted. Crisp had first preached in an Arminian and legalistic way, but later reached a deeper understanding of the gospel. In 1645 John Saltmarsh (-1647) published Free-grace, or Flowings of Christ’s Blood Freely to Sinners. The works of these three men caused great commotion. And although we could list a host of other representatives from antinomianism, Eaton, Crisp, and Saltmarsh were the most influential of the lot, and even among these three Saltmarsh was undoubtedly the most radical. Furthermore, the extent of his significance can be measured by the position he held as Cromwell’s personal chaplain. A third wave of antinomian polemics broke out upon the 1690 republication of sermons from Tobias Crisp, whose ideas were then countered by the neonomians Daniel Williams (ca. 1643 – 1716) and Richard Baxter (1615 – 1691).55 Richard Baxter was abhorred by antinomianism, considering it a reaction to what was essentially a corrupted form of Puritanism in which people were more concerned about humility than the love of God in Christ.56 Baxter had already written to oppose antinomianism in the 1640s, but appears not to have been very effective at that time.

54 B. Brook 1994 II:466 gives the dates 1575 – 1641. On the basis of a recent biography, G.A. van den Brink 2008:19, 22 – 23 makes a case for the dates in the main text. 55 For Baxter, cf. J.I. Packer 1954; H. Boersma 1993. 56 J.I. Packer 1954:405.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

268

‘You are not under law’

An interesting line can be drawn to the ‘Marrow Men’ and the ‘Marrow Controversy’ (1718 – 23). Thomas Boston underwent a significant change in his reflection when he happened to read Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity.57 The republication of this work resulted in great tensions within the Scottish kirk during the Marrow Controversy, similar to the upheavals that had earlier been experienced in England. The opponents of the Marrow Men accused them of antinomianism.58 The matter at the heart of these controversies can be examined at the hand of Crisp’s writings. Not only were his writings the source of unrest on at least two occasions in history, but as a scholar Crisp also gave the most balanced account of the antinomian position. For the purposes of the present work, the contrast he drew between law and gospel is important. According to the antinomian position, the law was the teacher until Christ came. But if we personally come to Christ in the present time, we must cling to him and abandon the law and its works.59 As long as we allow ourselves to be led by the law in any way, we remain under its curse: ‘Let me tell you, you that are under the curse of the law, that is, have still the law telling you that as you fail, so you must have the curse […]. [W]hoever you are, that will apply still to yourselves, the sentence and curse of the law, because of transgression […] you are the men that are under the law, that are under the curse of it.’60 In Crisp’s theology there is no room for faith to experience temptation, and he denied that the law can be a mirror for us. Noting that David saw his sinful actions and asked to be cleansed from them, Crisp argued that he had actually been mistaken in what he felt and prayed for, given that his sins had in fact already been forgiven.61 Crisp admitted that believers do sin, but insisted that this ought not to alarm us: ‘The freemen of Christ, when they transgress the law, as in all thing they sin, yet when they sin, there is no curse, no menaces, no threatenings of the law to be executed upon them.’62 There is thus an unresolved tension in Crisp’s theology, since it has no room for the sorrow over sin: believers ought not to experience any sorrow over concrete sins, but be comforted by the fact that Christ has taken his sins upon him.63 57 Boston 1988:169. 58 Cf. D. Beaton 1926; M.D. Geuze 1971; D.C. Lachman 1988; D.M. McIntyre 1938; Th. M’Crie 1831-’32; S. Mechie 1950. 59 Crisp 1791:259 – 260, 418. 60 Crisp 1791:205 – 206. 61 Crisp 1791:475 – 486. 62 Crisp 1791:207. Cf. 260 – 261. 63 Cf. the observations of J.I. Packer 1954:425: ‘Where the Puritan had said, Put sin out of your life, the Antinomian said, Put it out of your mind. Look at the law, consider your guilt, learn to hate sin and fear it and let it go, said the Puritan; Look away from the law and forget your sins and guilt, look away from yourself and stop worrying, said the Antinomian […]. In short, Antinomianism made repentance unnecessary for assurance and good works unnecessary

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The fulfilment of the law

269

Therefore, as a consequence of Crisp’s position in which the law no longer functions theologically, there is also no place for an abiding sorrow over sin. One also wonders whether Crisp really can account for good works, given that his theology has removed the objective norm for such good works. Crisp himself does insist that there is such a thing as good works – they witness to faith and glorify God – but emphasises that Christians ought not to be occupied with them.64 In light of the above, we can conclude that Crisp was afraid that Christ and the salvation accomplished in him would recede into the background if one were to insist that a believer has duties he must perform. In order to place every emphasis upon the honour due to Christ and upon the freedom of believers, he so insisted on the extra nos character of our salvation that there no longer was any room for the application of salvation to function properly in his thought.65 In Crisp, the accomplishment of salvation and its application have been collapsed. As a result, it should come as no surprise to us that there was a declining interest for the responsibility of the Christian, that there no longer was much room for the means of grace, and that Crisp departed from the notion of eternal justification.

8.2.2. Spirit over law in Edwards Like the Puritan tradition, Jonathan Edwards insisted that none of the Ten Commandments had been abolished.66 He further claimed that the Decalogue was reflected in the New Testament; it was, in fact, the content of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.67 Edwards further agreed with the Puritans that the law serves to convict unbelievers so that they made be led to Christ.68 He similarly taught that believers struggle in their attempt to keep the commandments.69 Even in heaven the saints are obedient to the law.70

64 65 66 67 68 69

for heaven. Its leaders proclaimed the paradox that sanctity would spontaneously appear in the lives of those who did not need it, but Baxter knowing human nature did not believe this. He consistently treated Antinomianism as an exotic and streamlined version of the happygo-lucky religion of the pagan Englishman which the Puritan Pastor had fought so long, a religion equally notable for its liberal offers of ‘comfort’ to those who were not entitled to it.’ Crisp 1791:76 – 78. Everything is referred to the imputation (imputatio), Oliphint 2007:109 – 114. WJE 18: 400 – 401. Cf. WJE 3:129, 131, 139, 315, 319; 8:138 – 139; 14: 399. The law belonged to the creation order, P. Ramsey 1989:35. WJE 20:368 – 369. WJE 4:248; 17:183. Christ fulfilled the law, WJE 14:529; 15: 295. WJE 19: 695. We also see this reflected in Edwards’s own life, WJE10:548 – 549; 16:762; 17:433, 442; 20: 65, 203.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

270

‘You are not under law’

However, Edwards also differed significantly from Puritanism on several important points. He did not see the law as a means to incite believers to obedience. In his mind, this would only serve to discourage the service of God.71 Rather, believers will be encouraged to serve God if they hear that they have been freed from their slavery to the law. For the promotion of the new obedience, one ought to point not to the law’s demands but rather to God’s grace. Edwards refused to speak about ‘the law,’ and preferred the expression the believer’s ‘rule of life’ instead.72 Laws apply to servants, but rules are for children. Children are free from the law because they are free from the curse of the law. As children we serve God in the freedom of the Spirit.73 The Spirit writes the law of God in our hearts so that we no longer need an external law. Believers therefore do not serve God out of a legalistic mind-set, but in love, joy, and peace. Such a mind-set serves as an antidote to legalism. To this Edwards added another notion. In his perception, the Ten Commandments are highly determined by their Old Testament context. Old Testament times were marked by service; the New Testament dispensation, however, is one of freedom. As a result, the gospel’s prescriptions must be seen as new in comparison to the moral law of the Old Testament.74 In the New Testament, the demand to love one’s enemy is much greater than it is in the Old Testament. The love of Christ which has been revealed raises the call to love, humility, meekness, and patience to a much higher level. The rules do not come from the law, but from the Trinity. In summary, in Edwards’s view Christians must not be directed to the law, but to the highest fulfilment of the law in the love which is in Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Christians do not need the law but the Spirit. In this view, the distinction between the Old Testament and New Testament dispensations thus plays an important hermeneutical role.

8.2.3. The gospel as rule of life In the nineteenth-century a controversy over the character of the law was occasioned by the Calvinistic Baptists, including William Huntington (1745 – 1813), William Gadsby (1773 – 1844), and J.C. Philpot (1802 – 1869).75 70 WJE 17:258. 71 WJE 15:198 – 199. 72 WJE 9:181. Edwards treated these issues at length in his exposition of Gal 5:18, WJE 15:108 – 115. 73 WJE 20: 411; 24 II:1011. 74 WJE 13: 416 – 417. 75 The term ‘Reformed Baptists’ or ‘Calvinistic Baptists’ is theologically problematic; I have

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The fulfilment of the law

271

While he served as pastor in London, Huntington clearly expressed his position in The Eternal Task, Five Letters on the Difference between Law and Gospel and The Moral Law not offended by the Gospel.76 According to Huntington, the law is not meant to be addressed to believers; it is not for believers, but unbelievers. Conversely, the gospel is not to be presented to unbelievers, but to believers. For the latter the gospel serves them as their rule of life. Huntington, a former coalman’s labourer, was apprehensive of any notion of works that must be accomplished by believers. Entirely in line with this, he did not speak about a progressive sanctification, but emphasised instead one’s passivity in sanctification. William Gadsby closely followed the position of Huntington. After the death of Abraham Booth (1734 – 1806), Gadsby wrote The Gospel the Believer’s Rule of Conduct and The Perfect Law of Liberty in which he attacked Andrew Fuller (1754 – 1815).77 Gadsby explicitly rejected the notion of the law as a rule of thankfulness, and similarly insisted that the distinction between the law as a covenant and the law as a rule was too subtle and philosophical in nature.78 Basic to his position was the conviction that the relationship between God and his children is no longer determined by the law, but by the gospel.79 For that reason, Christians should not look to the law but to Christ.80 When believers are told to go to the law, they stand before the covenant of works and face God in his role as Judge. The result is that all spontaneity and joy will be removed from faith.81 Furthermore, the sin inside of us is not put to death by the law’s admonitions, but by the knowledge of God’s law in the gospel.82 It is through faith in Christ that we honour the law.83 This final aspect also allowed Gadsby to counter the accusation of antinomianism: Christians are free from the law, but they are not free from its prescriptions.84 We are concretely admonished to love our enemies, not to love the world, not to be greedy, as husbands to love our wives, as wives to be obedient, to obey our parents, to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, and to baptise

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

chosen to maintain them on sociological grounds, however. For the historical development, cf. R.W. Oliver 2006. R.W. Oliver 2006:119 – 145. G.M. Ella wrote a number of books out of his congeniality with Huntington, http://evangelica.de/books (last accessed 21 July 2011). One of Fuller’s important works is The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. A Dutch translation, with a historical introduction, was published by P.L. Rouwendal in 2004. W. Gadsby 1996a:16, 26; 1996b:I,20. W. Gadsby 1996b:I,22. The perfect law of liberty in James 1:25 is the gospel. W. Gadsby 1996b:I,44. W. Gadsby 1996b:I,28. W. Gadsby 1996a:37. W. Gadsby 1996a:25; 1996b:II,49 – 50. Gadsby 1996b:II,14 recognised the sin dwelling in believers. W. Gadsby 1996b:II,42vv. Cf. 1996a:9 and 1996b:II,8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

272

‘You are not under law’

believers. Christians are also to be an example of good works.85 Gadsby himself exemplified such a life. For many years he preached the gospel in Manchester. His life in fact serves to undermine the stereotype of hyper-Calvinists who shut themselves up in their chapels and are off from society.86 Spiritually Gadsby was also of great influence through Gadsby’s Hymns.87 He further founded the Gospel Standard. In spite of the above, Gadsby refused to call the law a ‘rule.’ In his mind, this would imply that we are motivated to do good works through the law. He feared that the view of Andrew Fuller, who claimed that we are able through the gospel to do the works of the law, would reintroduce a meritorious character to our good works.88 Another theme in Gadsby’s theology is that the gospel rules are of a higher order than the rules of the law. According to Gadsby, the law is for all creatures.89 Yet the relationship between God and believers is much richer than the Creator’s general relationship to his creatures. After all, the children of God do not live by the law of slavery, but the law of sonship.90 This theme presupposes an essential distinction between God as Creator and God as Father. Accordingly, Adam is said not to have walked and conversed with God as Father, but as Creator alone. This is indeed a conclusion that Gadsby draws: Adam only knew God in his virtues as Creator.91 As such, Gadsby can do justice to the understanding of re-creation as something richer than the original creation. At the same time, we see that in his theology the notion of a new creation (nova creatio) all but supplants the notion of re-creation (recreatio). Whereas Huntington and Gadsby failed to give a more systematic and theological account of their convictions, such a systematisation was later effected by Joseph Charles Philpot. In spite of the differences between them, Philpot and Gadsby shared the conviction that the law cannot be called a ‘rule’ for believers.92 Philpot addressed this topic in Meditations on the Preceptive Part 85 W. Gadsby 1996b:II.81. 86 Cf. his efforts on behalf of the poor, Ramsbottom 2005:126 – 129; his opposition to the Corn Laws, 172 – 176. 87 Gadsby 1974. Cf. Ramsbottom 2005:88 – 96. This work is a collection of hymns from Cowper, Doddridge, Hart, Newton, Toplady, Watts, together with a significant number of hymns written by Gadsby himself. Several are marked ‘C.W.’ for the author. This makes us think of Charles Wesley, although Gadsby writes in the table of contents that he looked for hymns that do not promote Arminianism. 88 W. Gadsby 1996a:31. 89 W. Gadsby 1996b:I,12 – 13, 23 – 24. 90 W. Gadsby 1996a:28. 91 W. Gadsby 1996b:I,29. Cf. 1996b:II,50. 92 In a review of Philpot’s best-known sermon (‘The Heir of Heaven Walking in Darkness, and the Heir of Hell Walking in Light’), Gadsby wrote that it overlooked the elements of the glory of Christ, cf. Oliver 2006:278., and he was more active in social life, Oliver 2006:298 – 309.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The fulfilment of the law

273

of the Word of God. In this work, Philpot consciously distanced himself from John Owen, John Bunyan, and the Puritans in general.93 ‘The pilgrim’s companion’ understands it to be dangerous to preach the law to believers, and to threaten to lead to externalisation and self-justification. While carnal Christians manage to stand upright under the law’s admonitions, the burdened hearts of true believers only experience these admonitions as the scourging of a whip. Because of his deep insight into his own heart, the former Anglican became allergic to any notion of believers having to do something. According to Philpot, any view in which demands are made of believers fails to take into account our spiritual inability and internal corruption. This is better expressed in Philpot than in Gadsby. Philpot also went one step further than Gadsby in his view on the relationship between the Old and the New Testament. For him this distinction is not relative but absolute; accordingly, the law was not intended to be there forever.94 When people speak about the law, so he claimed, they constantly forget the Spirit. For that reason Philpot argued that the prescriptions to Israel may not be placed on one line with the fatherly admonitions to believers we find under the New Testament.95 Philpot sought a way to preach the demands of the gospel in an experiential way.96 He meant that the preaching ought to demonstrate most clearly how the Spirit makes the concrete admonitions manifest in our lives through love. With this, Philpot shows himself to be more nuanced in his view of the new obedience than Gadsby. From these Baptist theologians we learn how legalism can creep all too easily into the Christian life. Meditations on the Preceptive Part of the Word of God points out to us that our walk with God is a walk in love in the law which has been fulfilled, and that it gives a certain warmth to the Christian life. As such, the church is not driven by a whip, but understands that our service to God is a service of love. This was not something we saw in the Heidelberg Catechism, in which the law is still presented as a high and unattainable norm. As such, the approach of Gadsby and Philpot can serve to enrich the spirituality of this catechism. However, the contrast they create between the two testaments threatens to undermine the significance and force of the biblical admonitions,

93 J.C. Philpot 2011:58. He wittily observes that the gospel is treated as a lion which is not allowed to roam freely, but must be tamed by the cage of the law, Philpot 2011:75. 94 J.C. Philpot 2011:68, 71. 95 In these prescriptions the letter is not entirely absent, Philpot 2011:66. Philpot refers to the example of a father who gives rules to his children. Philpot does not see this Father-son relationship reflected in the Old Testament, Philpot 2011:79. Against him, we could point to such texts as Jer 3:1c, 3:14a and Ezek 16:21a. 96 J.C. Philpot 2011:99.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

274

‘You are not under law’

the commandments, and human responsibility. In this respect, the particular Baptist tradition has little to offer for our reflection.

8.2.4. K.H. Miskotte (1894 – 1976) The view of K.H. Miskotte is of an entirely different order than nineteenthcentury antinomianism. Miskotte reflected on the law and freedom in his Liturgie des levens (‘Liturgy of life’). His analysis of Romans 12 is important because he addresses there at once the eschatological consciousness of theology, as well as the modern interest in freedom. From the perspective of that eschatological awareness, Miskotte highlights the special position of the church. In his view, the Christian church shares in the position of Israel. This means that we have been freed from the chaos of the powers and the gods. While the law rules outside of Christ’s church, the church itself has been freed from the law as one of the structures of the world.97 In light of the above, the church’s existence in the world must in essence be characterised as an alien existence.98 Our position in Christ is marked by an essential non-conformism. In practice, however, we show that we cannot handle this freedom, and are more at home in the law than in the freedom we have in Christ. Accordingly, the admonitions which the gospel gives out of the reality in Christ are easily distorted into a new law, an ideal we are to pursue by our own efforts.99 Miskotte is just as insistent in his resistance against an absolute freedom which denies the structures of reality, however.100 Absolute freedom isolates us from God and from our fellow man, so that both God and others come to be experienced as a threat to the freedom of the self. As such, self-embrace leads in the end to self-estrangement. Whereas God’s salvation in Christ humanises the world, absolute freedom leads to our dehumanisation. It is a nihilistic freedom devoid of any sense. Miskotte penetratingly demonstrates how this absolutisation of freedom can be effected within the Christian faith alone. Miskotte must also face the question as to what true freedom in Christ then really consists in. Freedom in Christ is recognised by the freedom of our selfsacrifice to God. This surrender is different from a surrender that actually constitutes a subtle form of self-preservation in which we follow rules, since true 97 Miskotte 1969:244. 98 Miskotte 1969:247. 99 Miskotte 1969:246. Miskotte 1969:251 – 252 speaks there about the desire of the nation of Israel, when it had been freed, to return to the meat pots of the law in Egypt, which was its house of slavery. 100 Miskotte 1969:256 – 257.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

The fulfilment of the law

275

surrender is characterised by the service of others. We have been freed to free others, and to do good to our enemies. True love means that we give room to others. The theological motive for this love is the recognition of others as God’s ambassadors. This leads us to perceive the infinite value of human life. Through Miskotte’s analysis, we are made poignantly aware how we can still seek to hold our own when we maintain and follow certain rules; such selfpreservation is devoid of Christian freedom, however. At the same time, Miskotte has demonstrated how freedom can be extended absurdly so as to destroy our very humanity. Here we face a tension in Miskotte’s thought. On the other hand, he says that the structures of the world no longer apply in the church; on the other hand, he reproaches those who deny the structures of reality. In Chantapie de la Saussaye we find a complement to this assessment.101 Our freedom and our resistance to slavery find their basis in the keeping of ordinances. Faith does not undo the notion of demands, but gives us more elevated notions of justice and order.

8.2.5. A. van de Beek In his study on Israel, van de Beek was forced to reflect on the question of the law as well.102 Like Miskotte, he takes his starting point in the law fulfilled in Christ. Here the notion of a pedagogue (paidagoogos) stands central. Parents establish rules for their children. These rules are not random, but are aimed at the wellbeing of the child. A child of three may not play close to water; if it does, it will be punished. Such punishment is hardly pleasant, but it is even worse to fail to recognise the danger of the creek. This example serves to demonstrate that the law is no more than temporary, that it only lasts until Christ. But in Christ a new age has dawned. Now the law no longer has to tell us what we may or may not do; as mature people we now know the law out of ourselves. This does not mean that we no longer follow the former rule. On the contrary, the law has been internalised in our heart. We now know of ourselves that the creek is dangerous. The same applies to all God’s commandments. In their union with Christ, believers have died to the law, and do what is of the law freely and of themselves. Mature Christians know that they should not be greedy ; there is no one who needs to tell them that. In Christ we love our enemy. A life lived in accordance with the commandments is not imposed upon us, but forms a part of our existence in Christ. 101 Chantepie 2003 3:333 – 334. 102 Cf. A. van de Beek 2002:225 – 253.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

276

‘You are not under law’

Through baptism we have died to our old existence and entered the reality of Christ. In Christ the commandments are not abolished but radicalised; our righteousness will exceed that of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. A frightened preoccupation with obedience to the commandments is therefore out of place in the joy of the law. Yet those who skirt the edges of God’s commandments have not yet died to sin. Van de Beek will therefore have nothing to do with any notion of lawlessness, and pleads for an elevated Christian life. This life he depicts as a life lived in the power of the Spirit. Van de Beek may accordingly be said to be pleading for a ‘kerygmatic antinomianism.’ With this, he seems to have an overly positive view of the Christian and to underestimate the power of the flesh in believers. Do all Christians spontaneously live out of that salvation-historical maturity? The fact that stern admonitions had to be given in the apostolic era due to the many sins found in the church appears to suggest the contrary.

8.2.6. Balance In the Christian tradition’s reflection on the function of the law we noticed that the word ‘law’ often raised red flags and elicited a powerful, negative energy. The Christian church can use these moments from its history as the voice of its conscience, to remind itself how the freedom of the Spirit did not come from the law but the gospel.103 Through the Spirit we are freed from the law of sin, while the demands of God’s law are at the same time fulfilled in us when the law is written in our heart so that we can participate in the joy of the law.104 The critics of the law resist in particular the formalisation of the law, the imposition of its demands, and the reference to concrete commands. Our study has revealed that the main threat in all of this is perceived to be the reduction of the law to a set of manageable rules in which the Christian life comes to be externalised, and in which people can subtly still maintain themselves and stand outside the freedom which is in Christ. Such obedience is not the fruit of the Holy Spirit. In this respect, antinomianism is entirely correct to insist that the grace of forgiveness and renewal is outside of us (extra nos), and excludes every form of human ‘accomplishment.’105 For that reason, we must resist every attempt to give the law an independent place alongside Christ.106 103 2 Cor 3:3,6,8; Gal 3:2. Cf. Versteeg 1980:325 – 326, 329. The law in our heart is not a new law, Versteeg 1980:345. 104 Rom 8:2, 4; Versteeg 1980:360. 105 Irenaeus, AH 4.17.1 and 3 emphasised that our obedience does not add anything to God. 106 Cf. M. Hengel 2002:447 – 448.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

277

The eternal Torah

This resistance to legalism is founded on deeply rooted biblical-theological insights. What is at stake is the significance of the coming of the Christ and the fulfilment of the eschatological salvation which is in him. For that reason, Christ’s appearance on earth places us in a new position. We no longer serve in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the Spirit.107 In Jeremiah we already read the promise that the law will be written in our heart.108 Against the background of these key biblical building blocks, we can ask whether the Christian church can do justice to the indwelling of the Spirit if it emphasises the letter of the law.109 Our unio mystica cum Christo cannot coexist with a law which is placed alongside Christ. In this respect the parable of the vine is very significant: the branch that abides in Christ bears much fruit.110 Nothing is said in this parable about the keeping of the law. At the same time, our study revealed that this freedom may not be extended to the absurd. If that is done, the anti-nomos (anti-law) can become anti-antropos (anti-man), such that our humanity is displaced or even destroyed. Here we also see the danger inherent in an ‘anti-’ theological position, based on opposition. We must abandon an ‘anti-’ stance toward the law. Standing within the freedom of the gospel, Paul confesses that the law is holy, righteous, and good.111 For that reason we ought to speak about the fulfilment of the law instead, so that there still is room for us to speak about the law in a positive way. Such a perspective also offers us a way to allow the distinction between law and gospel to function as it should. Furthermore, it provides the possibility for the distinction between Christology and pneumatology, between our salvation and its application, to come to expression, so that both the extra nos as well as the in nobis receive their deserving place. Finally, it can account for the fact that the law’s demands are fulfilled in us in our union with Christ and through the power of the Spirit.112 This leaves us with the question whether the law must still have a formal function in the Christian life, a topic that we will address in the remainder of this chapter.

8.3. The eternal Torah As Christians, it is good to listen to the voice of Messianic Jews, in particular to those who insist on the eternal validity of the Torah. David H. Stern (1935- ) is one such Messianic Jew who has addressed what he perceives to be the mis107 108 109 110 111 112

Rom 7:6. Jer 31:33. Cf. Heb 8:10, 10:16. Cf. T. Smail 2001:152 and 162. John 15:5. Rom 7:12. Rom 8:4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

278

‘You are not under law’

understandings in the Christian tradition concerning Israel and its interpretation of the New Testament, with a view to demonstrating the Jewish character of the New Testament. Stern views the Torah as a marriage-act between God and his people.113 The events at Sinai are the wedding as it were, and the Sabbath the wedding band. Galatians 3:10 – 21 indicates the importance of the distinction between the covenant with Abraham and the covenant with Moses. The Abrahamic covenant was decisively prior. People participated in it according to the promise and by faith. The Mosaic covenant, which came four hundred years later, did not replace the covenant with Abraham but expanded it. Accordingly, its character is also different from the covenant with the patriarch Abraham. The Sinaitic covenant was not about faith but obedience. The Torah gives the rules of life for the community which has already been redeemed. In line with the above, the Torah is not intended to save sinners or to serve their justification.114 Like the gift of Christ, so also the gift of the law is grace.115 As a result, Torah and gospel cannot be opposed to each other : the Torah is the rule of life for those who already believe. Although Christ’s appearance on earth put an end to the sacrifices,116 the Torah as a rule of life did not as such end. The fulfilment of the law does not imply its abolition but is its spiritual content, and it functions as the guarantee that all promises to the Jews will certainly be fulfilled.117 Christ did not abolish the Torah, but only confirmed it.118 In the Sermon on the Mount he gave the proper spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament commandments. An important consideration for Stern in this regard is the fact that Paul followed the prescriptions of the Torah.119 In Acts we similarly read of

113 Berkowitz 1999:22 – 27. 114 Berkowitz 1999:31 – 33; Stern 1992 on Rom 3:21. Legalism is a corrupted way of keeping the Torah, Stern 1988:xi. We are saved by Christ alone, Stern 1992 on Rom 1:17. 115 Stern 1992 refers to John 1:17, cf. his exposition of Rom 6:14. Cf. Berkowitz 1999:130 – 138. 116 Berkowitz 1999:60 – 61. 117 Stern 1992 on Matt 5:17. He refers in this context to 2 Cor 1:20. Cf. Jocz 1979:25 – 27 for the significance of the fulfilment of the law. 118 Stern refers here to Rom 1:5 and 3:31. Jesus did keep the traditions, but did not recognise their divine authority. Jesus was criticised because he did not follow the oral Torah, Mark 7:1 – 8, cf. Berkowitz 1999:103 – 110; Stern 1988:52. In Jewish scholarship there is a multiplicity of views concerning Jesus’ attitude toward the Torah, cf. Jocz 1979:22 – 24. 119 In this respect the events of Acts 21:15 – 26 are important, cf. A. and D. Berkowitz 1999:66 – 68. If the book of Acts is indeed to be dated after the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, Paul’s actions are even more significant. For Paul’s Jewish ways, Stern 1988:8 refers to such passages as Acts 16:13, 17:2, 18:18, 20:16, 23:6 – 7, 25:8, 28:17. We could also add Rom 3:31, 7:12, 14, 22, cf. Jocz 1979:288. Paul was also concerned with practice, Rom 2:13.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

279

The eternal Torah

the thousands of Jewish believers who were zealous for the Torah.120 What is more, the Torah is of significance for the other nations that share in God’s spiritual marriage with Israel.121 Finally, according to Isaiah 2:3 the nations were instructed in the Torah.122 Stern reports how Hebrews 8:6 represented an important discovery for him.123 He notes that this verse uses the word nenomothetÞtai (confirmation of the law), in which we see the word nomos. In his mind this suggests that the new covenant is nothing other than the renewal of Torah. Accordingly, he translates this verse as: ‘For this covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises.’ The continuing existence and validity of the Torah can hardly be expressed in more powerful terms. It is altogether understandable that the Messianic Jews have many points of contention with the history of Christianity on this matter. From the beginning Christians had reservations toward the Jewish customs. Accordingly, they replaced the Jewish feasts with pagan holidays.124 This is in particular true of their adoption of the Sunday in place of the Sabbath. Messianic Jews thus see the Sunday as a symbol of the Christians’ rejection of the Torah and their break with Judaism. Things went even further when Christians demanded of Jews that they give up their Jewishness.125 The synod of Jerusalem represents an important moment in Stern’s view on the Torah. If the Torah is the concretisation of God’s marriage with his people, one would expect that the believers from the nations would be bound to the Torah as well. Yet Stern himself does not draw this consequence. In his commentary on Acts 15:19 – 20, he observes first of all that the Gentile Christians must devote all their energy to their conversion, and thereafter may adapt to Torah at their own pace. The entire Torah thus appears not to be binding on Gentile Christians.126 In this we see an inconsistency in Stern’s view. For, if Torah

120 Acts 21:20. 121 Berkowitz 1999:81. Here the ‘theology of the olive tree’ is important, Berkowitz 1999:78 – 80. 122 In Is 56 we find the structures for the non-Jews, Berkowitz 1999:61, 73 – 75. Berkowitz 1999:80 – 81 writes that Christians will inherit land in the Messianic kingdom according to Ezek 47:21 – 23. This was fulfilled in the Great Commission. 123 D.H. Stern 1988:46 – 69. 124 A. and D. Berkowitz 1999:82; D.H. Stern on Gal 2:14. 125 Stern 1988:2 – 7. Jews in the church of Constantinople had to declare: ‘I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads and sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all the other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations, and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, ands hymns and chants and observances and synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce absolutely everything Jewish’, p. 4. Those who returned to Judaism therefore called down a curse upon themselves. 126 Cf. D.H. Stern on Rom 14:14; Gal 2:3, 2:14, 5:2 – 4; 1 Cor 7:18; cf. Stern 1988:1 – 2. According

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

280

‘You are not under law’

really were the marriage between God and his people, observance can hardly be an open matter to the non-Jewish believers.127 Yet we must go even further in our criticism of Stern. The New Testament indicates at many instances that a new state of affairs has been introduced with respect to the Torah. Jesus, for example, declared all food to be clean when he said that it is not whatever goes into a person that defiles him, but whatever comes out of him.128 Stern argues in contrast that Jesus’ words must be understood within the context of clean food. Furthermore, Stern explains Paul’s words to Peter that he lives like a Gentile as a reference to Peter’s position as a simple Jew, who lacked the intellectual capacities of Paul to study and observe the Torah on that higher level.129 Yet Stern’s exegesis is entirely speculative; God did not give the Torah such that the Jewish elite alone could follow its prescriptions. Stern further does not see Peter’s vision as an indication that the food laws were no longer valid, but understands it as pertaining to people rather than food.130 As such, this interpretation is entirely comprehensible. These days we discover more and more that the Old Testament food laws actually hide profound biological wisdom. Yet Stern’s position remains problematic in that we must ask whether it implies that also the punishments of the Old Testament are still in force. And at all events, the synod of Jerusalem serves to confirm for us that the strict maintenance of the Old Testament food laws is not binding for Christians. Also relevant is Stern’s interpretation of Paul’s statement that he is a Jew to the Jews, and a Greek to the Greeks.131 Stern understands the common Christian reading of this text to mean that Paul acts like a chameleon according to the principle that the end justifies the means. He himself proposes that Paul’s identification with his interlocutors is to be understood as the expression of his empathy toward them, and that his words further pertain to the methods he applied. Thus, in his conversations with the Jews Paul started with the Old Testament, but with the Greeks he took his starting point in philosophy. Stern denies that this passage refers to Paul’s life practice, given that the apostle never identified himself as a former Jew who no longer lived according to the Torah.

127 128 129 130 131

to A. and D. Berkowitz 1999:144 Jews and Gentiles will be united in that they both keep the Torah. Stern 1988:47 argues that Jews and non-Jews are called to follow the Torah. Stern 1988:54 – 56 suggests that a new explanation of the Torah is given which is binding on nonJews. He argues that this is the scope of Matt 18:18 – 20. Mark 7:17 – 19. Gal 2:14. According to Stern 1988:51 – 52, Gal 2:11 – 14 does not allow us to conclude that the food laws are no longer valid for the Jews. Stern on Acts 10. Cf. Stern 1988:52 – 54. 1 Cor 9:20 – 22.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for a theology of the law

281

Remarkably, however, in his commentary on Acts 18:13 – 15 Stern admits that the Jews accuse Paul of negligence in regard to the Torah.132 We could also examine Stern’s exegesis of other texts.133 For the present purposes, however, we have already garnered sufficient data to present two considerations. In the first place, Stern’s theology serves to alert Christians to the fact that the coming of the Christ did not imply a simple abolition of the Torah. Stern is entirely correct to base himself on the fulfilment of the Torah as it is expressed in Matthew 5:17. Furthermore, the civil and food laws have an abiding principle in them. As such, Stern reminds us of the continuity between Old and New Testament. He also makes western Christians aware that they tend to exercise greater pressure on the Jews to adopt their own non-Jewish life, than they themselves are inclined to adapt to the Jews.134 Anti-legalism can easily be accompanied by anti-Semitism.135 In the second place, however, Stern’s position concerning the absolute continuity of the Torah under the new covenant remains unconvincing. Messianic Jews who follow in his line fail to do justice to the new situation that has dawned in Christ. The spread of the gospel would therefore be hindered if account were to be taken of their deepest intentions, according to which all nations are subject to the Old Testament demands of the Torah.136

8.4. Contours for a theology of the law The preceding has demonstrated that it cannot be denied that Christians will live according to the law of God, that they will become like Christ, and that they will be marked by the fruit of the Spirit. The question is rather whether the law is a rule of life for Christians. In this section we will examine several theological considerations by which we will argue that this is indeed the case. Special attention will be devoted to the way in which the law must then be held to function. 132 Many different interpretations have been offered for this passage. It could also be that Paul was accused of contravening Roman morals, Rom 16:21 – 22, 17:7. F.F. Bruce 1989:353 has argued that Paul was not covered by the Roman protection of the Jewish religion. 133 Stern denies that the ‘dividing wall’ in Eph 2:14 – 15 pertains to the keeping of the Torah: in Christ there is unity among all nations. An important moment in his exegesis is his interpretation of Rom 3:19 – 26. Stern writes that this passage must be understood to relate to Jews alone. The judgment of Rom 3:19 is not pronounced over the world, but is rather displayed to it. D.J. Moo 1996:449 – 450 sees indications in Rom 7:1 – 6 suggesting that it applies to Jews alone, since the other nations were not under the law. 134 Cf. Stern on Eph 2:14. 135 Stern remarks about Eph 2:15: ‘In this way antisemitism is made virtually a pillar of Christian faith!’ 136 Cf. R.F. Lovelace 2002:83.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

282

‘You are not under law’

8.4.1. The New Testament admonitions It is not in the letter of James alone that the New Testament addresses the matter of good works. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ pointed us very concretely to the marks of a believer.137 Similarly, Revelation 12:17 teaches us that believers are conscious to keep the commandments.138 Moreover, Hengel has demonstrated that we can hardly describe Paul as an antinomian.139 Augustine once asked in his disarming way : which commandment do Christians not have to keep?140 Remarkable about the Ten Commandments is the fact that we find them reflected in the admonitions of the New Testament. Edward Fisher developed this principle further so as to demonstrate that we must continue speaking about the law under the New Testament dispensation.141 If there were no objective norm, the exhortations in the New Testament epistles would lack a foundation altogether. Nowhere is sin more terrible than when it is found in God’s church. This is also the reason why the New Testament admonitions are so urgent: ‘For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. […] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.’142 The church stands under the high-voltage power lines of God’s holiness, as it were. These lines can give us much godly energy, but their misuse can prove fatal to us. The early church saw this unforgettably displayed to them in the sin of Ananias and Sapphira.143 They dared to speak lies in the temple of the Spirit of truth. God showed for all times that the lie does not weigh any heavier than in the Christian church. What strikes us in the story of Ananias and Sapphira is that the church did not become so attractive by downplaying the commandments of God. Although there was every reason for people to be hesitant to join the holy church, it still grew.144 This story further demonstrates to us that God’s commandments are never addressed as urgently as in the Christian church, while we do not forget

137 Matt 5:3 – 12. 138 Cf. Rev 14:12; 22:14. 139 M. Hengel 2002:441. The believer needs commandments, p. 447 – 448. He refers to 1 Cor 13 as a concentration of commandments, p. 447. Van Ruler 1947:311 considers it remarkable that Romans and Galatians speak so positively about the law. 140 De Spiritu et littera 14.23. 141 E. Fisher 2002:311 – 312. 142 Heb 10:26 – 31. 143 Acts 5:1 – 11. 144 Acts 5:13 – 14.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for a theology of the law

283

that a weighty preaching of God’s commandments is the very opposite of the fulfilled law.

8.4.2. Eschaton and proton The most important question related to the place of the law may well pertain to the relationship between proton and eschaton, and what this relationship means for the Christian life in the here and now. Where the antinomian movement in all of its forms was correct is its insistence on the new situation in which we participate through our mystical union with Christ. There is the danger that we may place such a heavy emphasis on the eschatological character of salvation that we only speak about a new creation (nova creatio). While the transcendental character of salvation can indeed be described as nova creatio, it must be balanced by the notion of re-creation (recreatio). The fact that the present creation will be taken up in the transformation of this world implies that creation will be vindicated. This is one of the basic presuppositions in O’Donovan’s Resurrection and Moral Order.145 This insight is an important one. In the first place, it means that the notion of re-creation does justice to the primal order we find in creation. Given the way National Socialism and apartheid-theology historically abused the appeal to the existing order, people today are somewhat hesitant to use such arguments based on the order, and rightly so. Yet the abuse of this appeal to the existing order does not mean that it cannot be properly applied at all. There are basic structures to creation which we can better understand out of our union with Christ and to which we can direct ourselves, while looking ahead to the transformation of the entire creation.146 Irenaeus gave the unity of creation and re-creation a Christological foundation. His recognition of the unity of Creator and Redeemer provided him with a theological basis to say that it was Christ who gave the law.147 In this way he could highlight that the law is not an abstract moral code, but is directed to the wellbeing of the believer, that it is founded on the covenant, and that the gospel does not abolish the law but in fact confirms it. Accordingly, in the New Testament the demand of obedience is not diminished, but is in fact raised to a new and higher level.148 145 O’Donovan 1986:13, 24, 45, 54 – 55, 76, 88, 143, 153, 190, 191, 204. At times the new is emphasised, at others the restoration of the old – the one never comes at the expense of the other, however, O’Donovan 1986:15. 146 Cf. 1 Pet 1:13, 2:13; O’Donovan 1986:58. 147 AH 4.11.1, 4.12.4, 5.17.1. Chantepie 2003 3:329 makes the same observation. 148 From the perspective of faith, there is also obedience, Rom 1:5, 6:16, cf. O’Donovan

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

284

‘You are not under law’

The unity of creation and re-creation implies in the second place a difference between the creation ordinances and the laws given to Israel. We never find the apostles directing believers to maintain the food laws or the law of circumcision. The letter to the Hebrews forcefully announces that the sacrifices were fulfilled in the one sacrifice of Christ. When we think of the Torah, we must thus distinguish between its moral aspects rooted in the socio-religious context of the Israel of old, and the Mosaic laws that were a special marker of the Old Testament people of God. The structures of the Christian community are for that reason not to be understood in full parallel to the structures of the community in the Israel of the Old Testament. The Mosaic laws were fulfilled in the person of the Christ, and we need to proceed with utmost care if we are going to speak about their continuing normativity in the present. Even the words of the Ten Commandments are spoken today within a different context and to a different community than in Old Testament times. After all, the Decalogue refers to the liberation from Egypt, to the Sabbath, the land of Canaan, and man-servants and maid-servants. Furthermore, in the eschaton the threat of idols will be no more, nor will people marry or (perhaps) even have personal property. Christians tend to recognise the contextual element in the fourth commandment alone, and fail to see that it applies equally to all the other commandments as well. The sixth commandment, for example, tempers the principle of vengeance, while the ninth commandment must be read in the context of testimony at legal trials. In the third place, the salvation-historical setting of the Ten Commandments does not undo the fact that they reflect the moral order willed by God.149 Although we cannot simply identify the revelation of God’s will with nature, nevertheless, God’s moral order also cannot be isolated from the order in creation. There is a deep-seated connection between the Ten Commandments and God’s order. The Decalogue offers us a concentrated knowledge of creation and of its structures, by which God offers us in his commandments the wisdom we need to grasp the entire created reality and to bear responsibility for it.150 This realisation further implies that there can be no contrast between law and gospel, between the law of Christ and the Ten Commandments, between the moral order in creation and the new order incarnated in Christ. To assume that 1986:110. While the Old Testament demanded a tithe, Jesus lays a claim on everything in Matt 19:21, AH 4.13.3. Cf. 4.13.3 – 4, 4.16.5, 4.28.2. Disobedience and punishment are treated more sharply in the New Testament, 4.27.2, 4.28.1. Cf. Meijering 2001:189. Irenaeus also observes at one point that Christians no longer need the law, Epideixis :96. According to J. Webster 2003:96 freedom and obedience accompany each other in the holy life. 149 O’Donovan 1986:183, 191, 204. 150 C.S. Lewis 1952:5 – 6, 10 – 12 defended the existence of an absolute morality. He called morality an instruction manual from the Creator for the creature, 55. Just as a mathematical calculation must be made, so also there is the duty to respond to the Creator’s morality, 56. J. Webster 2003:95 has argued that the law expresses the form of life that God intended.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for a theology of the law

285

there is a contrast between law and gospel implies that we must also admit a contrast between creation and re-creation. As such, anything we say about the creation order comes to be painted with the same brush of negativity with which the law is often tarnished. Just as we must be freed from the law, we must also be freed from creation.151 If the relationship between law and gospel is conceived of in this way, it is a symptom or even a catalyst for the negation of creation. Law and gospel relate to each other as creation and re-creation, as proton and eschaton. A theology that does not begin with creation will also fail to give an abiding place to the law. When we begin with creation and law, the gospel finds a place for itself in the restoration of creation and law. For that reason there is good reason to say that the gospel exists for the sake of the law; as such, we do justice to the notion of re-creation. Recreatio reminds us that sanctification, as the restoration of God’s order, is bound up in the atonement.152 The announcement of the law teaches us what we can expect from Christ in the renewal of life. The more concrete the law becomes for us, the more concretely the significance of Christ is displayed to us. The new life can therefore never be reduced to the exercise of faith, but the law makes concrete for us what we can expect from the gospel.153 And conversely, we see how the law is not abolished in the gospel dispensation, but has been taken up in it in its transformed and fulfilled state. It is impossible to speak about justice on the new earth if every normative framework is taken away. The eschaton thus gives us the theological context in which we can continue to speak about the law. Some theologians in the tradition have gone one step further, and see in God’s commandments an expression of his character : ‘And since his law is an eternal law and the expression of his holy essence, of his justice, it will continue to be highly revered; and I want nothing but the very thing it wills: for by the same Spirit from whom the Law has come, I will what the Spirit wills in the Law.’154 There is much that pleads in favour of such an approach in which the eternity of God’s law is traced back to God himself.

151 Cf. O’Donovan 1986:153. 152 Cf. Van Ruler VW 1:185. We learn love from justice, and not the other way around. 153 This reduction threatens to be made in Berkouwer 1952a:179. W.H. Velema 1987:130 speaks about the existentialisation. 154 Kohlbrugge 2009:72, 79 – 80, 94. Cf. ITE II:XI.1.iv ; Bavinck RD III,373; Van Ruler 1947:378; Gunning 2008:50. O’Donovan 1986:44 observes that we can know God’s goodness from the order of creation. On p. 147 he writes that God’s moral order was not created, but is expressive of his character. Given that God’s nature is expressed in his law, classical Reformed theologians emphasised that each and every creature has some notion of it; see ITE II:XI.1.vii-xxi, 2.xvi-xvii. The bond between the nature of God and his law surpasses the so-called Euthyphro dilemma.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

286

‘You are not under law’

8.4.3. Externality and internality Those who insist that the law does not function anymore frequently appeal to the eschatological reality in Christ in which the law is written in our hearts. They then contrast this with the Old Testament dispensation, which was about the external letter. On this basis they argue that the law ought no longer to be preached publicly. This line of argumentation is untenable, however, and challenges some of the most profound essences of the Christian faith. Our God is the God who speaks, who by his word called the earth into being out of nothing, who established a covenant with Israel through his word, and who still speaks to us through his prophets. Finally, Christ is called the Word of God. It is significant that God bound us to his son by saying: ‘Hear him!’155 In the Word the Spirit has taught us to abide by the prophetic word. In short, in creation and re-creation God comes to us as the God who speaks external words to us. Our relationship to God consists in listening to and obeying his word. The obedience of faith means listening.156 The Greek word hupakouoo means to listen to, to comprehend, to acquiesce, to will and do. All these things are accomplished by the hearing of the Word of God. The word ‘obedience’ is a loaded term. It seems to express a slavery to God, as if to suggest that we must impress God with our zeal and effort or compensate him for our shortcomings. When it comes to the accomplishment of our salvation, we continue to fight a battle within us so as not to work for it but to believe.157 Consciously or unconsciously we think that God’s relationship to us and our position before him are determined by our accomplishments before the law. However, this does not fittingly describe either the covenantal law of the Old Testament or the fulfilled law in the New Testament, nor does it properly depict the relationship between the Old and the New Testament. In the Old Testament the law was not intended as a suffocating contract imposed by a tyrant upon his subjects, but the law was proclaimed within the context of God’s covenant with Israel. The law governed God’s marital life with his people. Even the Old Testament was about a relationship of love with God.158 The urgent nature of the admonitions reflect the serious nature of God’s jealousy. In the negative commandments we hear the holy jealousy of the heavenly Bridegroom, who refuses to share his bride with idols. The negative form of the commandments reminds 155 156 157 158

Matt 17:5. Rom 1:5, 6:16. Rom 4:5. Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5, 10:12, 30:6. Cf. Luke 10:27; Rom 13:8, 10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for a theology of the law

287

us of the concrete possibility of sin, which is mentioned explicitly. Yet we also hear in the commandments the love of a Father who wants to protect his children from evil. When we realise that our service to God does not contribute anything to him, it becomes clearer than ever that the call to serve God is a call of grace. Our service to God is an aspect of our salvation.159 In this sense there is no absolute contrast between Old and New Testament, since in both testaments the obedience to the commandments is a matter of love.160 Just as the concrete commandments of the Old Testament were about love, so also the love of the New Testament does not come without the law as its external principle (principium externum). This insight is accompanied by two further basic patterns in God’s acts. God calls an external creature into life, he demonstrates an inner love in the external form of marriage, and establishes the most intimate of relationships with himself along the road of external baptism, an external ecclesiastical community, and external preaching. He furthermore confirms our faith by the external sign of the sacraments. The external preaching of God’s commandments makes up a harmonious part of the present order. And in the eschaton there will be a visible, tangible world once again. Secondly, there is sufficient reason to entertain realistic expectations concerning the manifestation of faith and love in believers. The spontaneity of love in marriage and family does not undo the need for admonitions to sharpen our love and to prevent it from being extinguished. If these admonitions are left aside, we overestimate how spontaneous the partners in a marital relationship really are, since we do not marry as innocent angels but as human beings with an inclination to selfishness. The rebellion of the old man is goes even deeper in relation to the spiritual reality.161 This is what makes the sharp preaching of God’s law legitimate, so that we may know what to look for in Christ such that the image of God might be restored. Both aspects highlight the fact that we may continue to speak about the notion of ‘obedience’ in the Christian life. Just as Christ was obedient to the will of his Father, so believers are obedient to the will of God in their union with Christ.162 The new man has been freed from his autonomy, and places himself under the guidance of God’s commandments. The classical Reformed form for baptism speaks about a ‘new obedience’ to reflect the small beginning of our obedience, and to reflect the evangelical character of our obedience to the law. God’s commandments incite us to be serious in our service of him in the notion of 159 160 161 162

Cf. Irenaeus, AH 4.17.3. John 14:15, 21, 23, 15:10; 1 John 5:3. Rom 8:7. Cf. Berkouwer 1952a:168, 176.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

288

‘You are not under law’

praecisitas properly understood. To act justly is a matter of the very heart of the Christian life. The preceding points raise a fourth issue, namely, whether the law will function in the eschaton. Here we do well to remain somewhat reserved, since it has not yet been revealed what we shall be.163 On the one hand we can hardly imagine negative forms of the law in the eschaton, while we on the other hand cannot simply say that the law will just be a matter of the past. Moreover, love for God and neighbour as the fulfilment of the law is quite imaginable as the way in which the law will manifest itself in the eschaton. Given the law’s deep roots in creation and re-creation, we may expect the law to remain recognisable in the eschaton in some way.164 In short, if there are indicators to suggest that the law will have a certain place in the eschaton, we have all the more reason to fulfil the law in the present in love and out of thankfulness.

8.4.4. The joy of the law The law is not abolished or set aside in the mystical union with Christ, but through the Spirit the demands of God’s law are fulfilled so that the righteousness of believers exceeds even that of the Pharisees.165 The use of the passive voice in Romans 8:4 reminds us that the fulfilment of the law is not a human accomplishment but the grace of the Holy Spirit. The gratuitous character of good works is determinative for participation in the eschatological life. This means that antinomianism, in spite of its desire to safeguard God’s grace, in the end undermines the riches of God’s grace since our participation in the fulfilment of God’s law forms a part of the salvation which Christ has accomplished. Union with Christ produces a new mind.166 Through the Sprit Christ’s love is poured out in the heart.167 As a result, imitation of Christ is not just pure ‘imitation.’ His compassion, his love for his enemies, his unconditional surrender to his Father, his heartfelt love for God’s law, his magnanimity in associating with disciples of lowly birth, his wisdom in his answers to the Pharisees and teachers of the law, and his noble attitude in the face of suffering are given shape in lives of 163 1 John 3:2. Cf. 1 Cor 13:12. 164 Van Ruler 1947:7 calls the law the ‘primal paradigm’ (oerparadigma) of all forms of God’s kingdom. 165 Cf. Matt 5:20; 1 John 3:24. The law is written on our heart through the Spirit of Pentecost, Jer 31:33; 2 Cor 3:3; Heb 8:10. Van Ruler 1947:315 has shown that the word ‘demand’ (Dutch: recht) has a forensic aspect to it, which he sees reflected in John Calvin, a theocrat and theologian of the Holy Spirit. 166 Rom 8:29, 12:1 – 2; 1 Cor 2:16. 167 Rom 5:5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Contours for a theology of the law

289

believers. To walk in the Lord’s commandments is an exercise of the love that cannot exist without joy.168 Every commandment reminds of Christ who carried the law within him and fulfilled it in its entirety. Through the gospel of Christ the law is satisfied. In that sense the gospel is indeed there for the sake of the law.169 In the gospel the Lord gives what he commands. His commands represent as many promises. While in the Old Testament the Lord’s people already experienced joy in the law, in the New Testament that joy is even more profound.170 All Old Testament notions concerning the joy of one’s service to God find their fulfilment in Christ. That God has given us his laws means that we are free.171 The freedom of the Spirit does not compete with the law, nor does it plead for human autonomy, but it functions within a life of walking in the fulfilled law. The opposite of walking in God’s commandments is not freedom, but slavery to unrighteousness.172 In the freedom of the Spirit believers do not take anything away from the commandments, but are ready to suffer themselves lest God’s commandments be damaged in any way. Herein lies the secret of the many Christians who have resisted injustice or confessed the Name of God in spite of suffering. They still rejoiced in their tribulations.173 Entirely in conflict with what our the nature would want, Christians no longer consider their good works to be meritorious.174 If someone who has done less good works flourishes more in life, the new man does not become jealous. Just like a husband does not use his infidelity as a bargaining point, so Christians do not seek any reward for their good works. That is what sets them apart from the Pharisee who trusts that he is righteous.175 At the same time, the husband is very conscious of his marital fidelity and of what he stands for.176

168 Cf. John 14: 15, 21, 15:10; 1 John 2:3 – 4; 5:2 – 3. In the old Dutch Psalter from 1773 the believer sings: ‘k Zal Uw geboún, die ik oprecht bemin/ Mijn hoogst vermaak, mijn zielsgenoegen achten/ Ik reken die mijn allergrootst gewin (Ps 119:24). The final two lines of Ps 119:36 are similarly remarkable: Ver boven goud, en zilver, en wat meest/ de mens bekoort, zal ik Uw wet waarderen. 169 This led Bavinck GD IV:435 to observe that the gospel is temporal and the law eternal. 170 Rom 7:22. 171 Antinomians emphasise the freedom or liberty mentioned in Jas 1:25, 2:12, but these texts only express that obedience to the law is freedom. 172 Rom 6:16. The freedom of the Spirit is no carnal freedom, but a freedom to serve, Gal 5:13. Berkouwer 1952a:179 – 180 poignantly observes that unbelievers in the end do not desire freedom. In this context he connects freedom to liberation from being ruled by the many instead of the one (i. e. God). 173 Rom 5:3. 174 Matt 20:1 – 16 demonstrates our inclination to resist a reward of grace. 175 Luke 18:9. 176 Cf. Neh 2:20; Ps 26; 1 Cor 15:10; Heb 10:39.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

290

‘You are not under law’

In this way, there is room for the normative use of the law (usus legis normativus) to develop. We are not anomoi Theoi (‘without the law of God’) but innomoi Christoi (‘in the law of Christ’).177 Kohlbrugge’s son-in-law Eduard Böhl (1836 – 1903) gave an impulse to reflect on the Ten Commandments, as well as the Christian life, from the perspective of fulfilment.178 If this is how we speak about the law as a rule, we will be able to break through the resistance which some antinomians feel against the law, and concretely demonstrate the riches of the Christian life.

8.5. Evaluation The refusal to speak about the law as a rule of thankfulness is correct insofar as it seeks to give Christ a central place in the life of grace. At the same time, we do right to fear that this refusal will cause us to lose both law and gospel. Law and gospel are closely related to each other. It is in the light of the law that we see the importance of the Christ, and it is out of a life lived in union with Christ that the law is fulfilled. The gospel does not replace the law, nor can we conceive of the gospel without the law. The normative use (usus normativus) of the law can only imply and intensify the pedagogical use of the law (usus elenchticus). The strength of the Heidelberg Catechism is the way it made this function explicit; its weakness is its failure to develop the joy of the law explicitly. The Reformed tradition does on the whole recognise the normative use of the law, although that use does not function from within the gospel as its starting point. The stimulus given by Böhl can thus serve to enrich both the tradition and the Christian life, without becoming sacrificing depth for superficiality. This pleads in favour of the paradox of the Christian life in which mortification and vivification can both function fully, the one in parallel to the other. Where dogmatics and ethics intersect in the normative use of the law, we clearly see that Christian doctrine cannot be retained without Christian ethics. The doctrine of the law protects at once against a privatised morality in a fragmented society, and against the neonomian response to antinomianism where countless cultural and sub-cultural prescriptions are held up as conditions for the Christian life.179 For the sake of apologetics and mission (to the Jews), we ought to make it clear that the Christian faith is no sum of rules; for the

177 1 Cor 9:21. 178 Böhl 1887:512 – 527. 179 Cf. Chapell 2001:117 – 119.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

291

Evaluation

sake of mission (to the Muslims), we must emphasise that the justification of the sinner does not imply the justification of sin. Through a theology of law, the church’s consciousness of the sacred is also safeguarded, so that the gospel might really be gospel, the worship services might be marked by a certain style, the exercise of the Christian life by humility, and our interaction with others by respect. A theology of the law places Christians who live in an uprooted culture in the freedom of the commandments, offers them protection from the aggression of destructive powers, makes them resistant in a culture marked by pride and self-realisation, teaches them that there are greater interests than their own, points them to God’s order as it is displayed in creation, fosters recognition of the good and the beautiful, determines us so that we turn to God, gives room for the notion of self-denial, is an antidote to the libertinism and hedonism of our society, and thereby gives life both a purpose and a perspective. The close relationship between nihilism and libertinism has been depicted in a masterful way by Katie Roiphe in Last Night in Paradise: Sex and Morals at the Century’s End. After asking what is actually wrong with freedom, she responds: ‘It’s not the absence of rules exactly, the dizzying sense that we can do whatever we want, but the sudden realization that nothing matters.’180 Rophie’s assessment reminds the church of its responsibility to the law. By its esteem for God’s law, the church can be a seasoning salt for the whole of society. Given its awareness that the corruption of the best is the worst imaginable thing, the Christian faith becomes increasingly aware of the great responsibility it bears. If the notion of Christian freedom becomes unbalanced, the church will lead society in developing libertinism and feeding nihilism. If God’s commandments and admonitions are not kept alive in the church, where will they be able to function then?

180 Roiphe 1997:188. Ad Verbrugge 2004:50 similarly observes: ‘Als eenmaal de moraal van de vrijheid en de autonomie van het individu centraal wordt gesteld, kan de overheid niet verder moraliseren (…) Deze negatieve begrenzing van de liberale vrijheid wordt vervolgens positief ingevuld met de gedachte dat iedereen zoveel mogelijk moet doen waar hij of zij ‘zin’ in heeft of ‘gelukkig’ van wordt.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

9.

‘Their works follow them’

In chapter two it emerged that our personal (and cosmological) renewal is closely related to the eschatological work of Christ. This relationship has been mentioned regularly in the course of the following chapters, because it represented one of the starting points for our theological reflection. As a result, it seems fitting in this final chapter to consider the believer’s relationship to the future eschaton. We will not only treat this relationship itself, but also examine the biblical notion of reward for the works of believers and the consequences which this notion has. In a separate section we will also reflect on the significance of our possessions in the context of the future revelation of the eschaton.

9.1. The now and the eschaton The relationship between the now and the eschaton forms an intriguing topic for theology. On the whole, Reformed theology has shown itself somewhat hesitant to devote attention to it – an observation which is all the more remarkable given the tradition’s strong eschatological consciousness. This consciousness was what led Calvin to refer explicitly to our existence as an alien existence, to emphasise our calling in the here and now, and at the same time to relativise our life on earth when it is compared to the real, future life. Reformed theology also shows itself to be very aware of the notion of future judgment.1 Reformed theologians were firmly convinced that there will be a physical resurrection. And while they in their works did indeed deal with this topic, they for the rest offered little if any reflection on what the eschatological life will actually look like. A number of reasons can be adduced for this trepidation. A first is the theological awareness that the future eschaton is not inner-worldly, and that it cannot be described in terms of the here and now. Various biblical conceptions 1 Cf. the Apostles’ Creed or BC art. 37.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

294

‘Their works follow them’

indicate to us the limits of our knowledge concerning the eschaton.2 Theological reflection on the eschaton was thus impeded by a fear to cross the boundaries of these limits and to give in to our curiosity and speculation.3 A second reason is theological in nature. Believers are not so much interested in the form of the future eschaton as they are in the presence of God. Since they consider heaven to be the place where we will receive and enjoy full communion with God, they perceive our reflection on what the eschaton will really look like as an eventual threat that will distract us from the essence of this bliss. In our own theological reflection on the relationship between present and future these reasons for the historical diffidence of Reformed theology may not be ignored. At the same time, we observe that several important changes have taken place in both culture and theology. Our culture has undergone so many developments over the course of time that we could no longer escape the question of their purpose. Slavery was abolished, social relationships were radically altered, and the world has become a global village. At the same time, we observe with horror how the spiral of senseless violence and injustice continues unimpeded. Finally, as world citizens we find ourselves confronted with our limitations in many different ways. These developments produce in Christians a realisation that there will be an end, and justify our current theological reflection on the relationship between present and future. In theology there has also been an increasing awareness of the eschatological character of the New Testament, and of its cosmological ramifications. The results of New Testament scholarship thus offer us the tools to offer some theological reflections on the relationship of the present Christian life to the eschaton.

9.2. Reward according to works 9.2.1. The perspective of reward Protestants may be somewhat surprised to read of works in the Bible’s descriptions of the final judgment and of our participation in God’s future.4 In their mind, every notion of merit must be withheld from good works so that the gracecharacter of salvation might not be compromised in any way. However, we 2 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 5:7; Heb 11:1; 1 John 3:2. 3 Cf. the resistance to such speculation in BC art. 13. 4 Matt 25:31 – 46; Luke 6:23, 35, 14:14, 19:11 – 27; 1 Cor 4:2 – 4; 2 Cor 5:10; Heb 10:34 – 36; Jas 2:21; Rev 14:13. For the reward, see Matt 5:12, 46, 6:2, 5, 16, 10:41; Luke 6:23, 35; Rom 4:4; 1 Cor 3:8, 14, 9:17 – 18; Col 3:24; Heb 11:26; 2 John 8; Rev 11:18, 22:11. A connection between the Christian life now and in the eschaton is also drawn in Matt 25:21, 23; 1 Tim 4:8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Reward according to works

295

cannot ignore the biblical data that mention good works and a crown for the battle of the Christian, and that speak explicitly about a reward.5 The Reformed tradition has argued that a distinction between justification and sanctification must be observed in this regard. While good works have no place in justification, they are necessary with respect to sanctification. As we have seen, even Calvin acknowledged a ‘justification by works’ in his dialogue with Rome.6 With this term he meant the eschatological justification of our works. James Buchanan (1804 – 1870) spoke in this context of a ‘declarative justification,’ distinct from the actual, imputative justification.7 According to this theory, James thus addressed the declarative justification by works, while Paul spoke about our actual justification by the righteousness of Christ. Declarative justification concerns the pronouncement that we are indeed justified on account of our good works. This will take place in the public judgment to be rendered on the last day. Buchanan’s distinction allows us indeed to safeguard the grace-character of imputative justification, while it also leaves room for a justification by works. In the end, however, this distinction remains somewhat unsatisfactory. For, whether consciously or unconsciously, imputative justification ends up being the ‘real’ justification, while ‘declarative justification’ is acknowledged for no other reason than that Scripture gives a significant place to our good works. Accordingly, in Protestant theology, preaching, and spirituality, declarative justification has come to occupy a place of secondary importance. I suggest that this issue can be placed in a different perspective if we choose to theologise out of the eschatological reality fulfilled in Christ. Participation in Christ is participation in the fulfilled salvation. A key moment in this salvation is participation in the righteousness of Christ and acquittal for Jesus’ sake. At the same time, we must insist that unio cum Christo does not only make us share in Christ’s righteousness, but also in his victory over the powers, in his life, his heavenly position, his glory, and his wisdom. We would reduce the fullness of the eschatological salvation if we were to limit it to justification alone. As Bavinck has rightly observed, sanctification is the beginning of our glorification.8 Theologising out of the eschatological salvation fulfilled in Christ has distinct advantages over theologising out of a justification-sanctification dichotomy. In the first place, the eschatological framework offers a much broader context in which there is a place for every aspect of salvation, thereby enriching Christian 5 1 Cor 9:25; 2 Tim 4:7 – 8; Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4; Rev 2:10, 4:4. 6 Calvin writes on Gen 7:1: ‘We do not deny that our works are not noticed by God. He crowns them, as Augustine says, as his own gifts.’ 7 Buchanan 1984:233 – 249. Cf. Van de Beek 2008:289. 8 RD IV:253, 261.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

296

‘Their works follow them’

theology and spirituality. In the second place, the concept of eschatological salvation safeguards the sola gratia, which is and remains an important motif in the doctrine of justification. Salvation in Christ is not effected by people, nor does it follow from creaturely efforts; similarly, the renewal of believers does not add anything to the salvation which has already been accomplished, but is of a divine origin and quality. The concept of eschatological salvation also immediately points us to the grace- character of good works. If we separate the gifts of justification and sanctification, we will constantly feel the urge to emphasise that both good works as well as the reward for these good works are of grace.9 If we begin with the notion of the eschatological salvation, however, there is hardly any need to explain that the Christian life is a gift. For, the Christian life is the life of the eschatological life, a life in which we walk by the Spirit as the firstfruit of the eschatological salvation. Within such a perspective, it is less remarkable that good works will be taken into account at the final judgment. The presence of good works in someone’s life clearly indicates that he or she lives the eschatological salvation in union with Christ. Admittedly the notion of reward does remain somewhat problematic even here, especially because our understanding of ‘reward’ emphasises merit and has a forward orientation. When we think about a ‘reward’, we think about things we do in the present and look ahead to payment for them in the future. The notion of eschatological salvation reverses this direction, however: we do not live toward the future, but live out of it. The notion of reward thus seems to undermine this eschatological orientation. Our discussion of the notion of reward can benefit from the Reformed tradition and its consciousness of the metaphorical character of reward. In the strict sense of the word there is no such thing as an accomplishment or merit in which the inherent value of the works is matched by the recompense.10 This discrepancy in the level of the reward can also be applied to the orientation of our perspective: the reward for good works does not come to us at a later time, but we receive it within the same eschatological reality in which these works are now performed. Within this gracious and eschatological reality, there is such a thing as ‘earlier’ and ‘later.’ Scripture expresses this in its notion of the Spirit as the firstfruit of 9 Cf. HC question 63. In his polemics with the Pelagians, Augustine referred to eternal life as both a reward and a gift of grace, De Gratia et Liber Arbitrio 19.8. In the next chapter he distinguished between the grace of good works and the grace of the reward. He saw this double grace reflected in the expression ‘grace for grace’ in John 1:16 (21.9). Turrettini drew a fine distinction between a reward on the basis of works, and a reward according to works, ITEII.xvii.v.xxvi. 10 Cf. Luke 17:10. Not a meritum de condigno, but a meritum de congruo.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Reward according to works

297

the full harvest. In the end, the notion of reward expresses this same correlation between the two phases of the firstfruit and the full harvest. Our eschatological works in the present are followed by a reward in the eschatological future. Given the eschatological context of good works, the notion of reward is an excellent tool for inciting people to do good works. As Calvin observes, we only obey if we know that we are not serving God in vain.11 The Puritans too had the custom to connect salvation and godliness.12 These notions offer a perspective to the Christian life. There are any number of factors that may discourage Christians so that they abandon their persistence in good works. At times it seems so senseless to be careful in our service of God. The awareness of this senselessness can overwhelm us when we receive no recognition in our daily life or when we experience setbacks in our kingdom work, or when results fail to manifest themselves publicly. Matters are even worse when the adversities Christians encounter assume the form of disobedience against God’s commandments. The eschatological perspective of the Christian life shows concretely that the end of our life does not mean a new page has been turned in history as if we had never lived, but that the Christian life is transported into the eschaton. This perspective places the apparent senselessness of a life according to God’s commandments within a wider perspective. This perspective does not include great achievements and sacrifices alone, but also includes our simple fidelity and steadfastness in marriage and family, work and school, office and church. Alms, prayers, and fasting will be publicly rewarded.13 We therefore ought not to measure good works by the norm of visible success, but according to the persistence of our faithfulness: those who were faithful over a few things will be made rulers over many things.14 This means that the reward for good works can differ radically from our expectations: those who are ‘great’ in God’s kingdom may well have been ‘small’ by the standards of the earth, and vice versa. In any case, the expectation of reward offers a concrete and realistic perspective to the Christian life in the here and now. This perspective can function as an admonition for sluggish Christians, as encouragement for Christians discouraged by the setbacks they experience, as comfort for those who now doubt the sense of the Christian life, and as encouragement to all Christians to remain faithful in even the smallest matters of the Christian life. A cup of cold water given to one of the little ones in the kingdom of God has the significance of 11 CO XXIII,124 (comm. Gen 6:18). Cf. Gal 6:9 – 10; Eph 6:7 – 8. Even Jesus was motivated by the prospect of reward, Heb 12:2. 12 Cf. J.R. Beeke & M. Jones 2012:789 – 802; Sibbes 2001 4:170. 13 Matt 6:2, 4, 5 – 6, 16, 18. Bunyan 1861 II:101 remarks that no sigh or tear will remain without reward. 14 Matt 25:21, 23.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

298

‘Their works follow them’

eternal life bound up within it, since it already represents a beginning of the eschatological life.15 In just the same way, a visit to an Alzheimer’s patient who forgets the visit only 30 seconds later is of great value.16 A businessman who has devoted 30 years of his life to the success of his business can disappear entirely from the scene after an illness of three weeks. But in the kingdom of God things are the other way around: those who have served God unnoticed for as little as three weeks will receive an eternal and public reward.

9.2.2. The fulfilment of joy in works The eschatological character of good works serves to emphasise their gracecharacter, and dispels the improper associations of a contractual relationship which they seem to imply. Works are not an achievement, but they are themselves grace. It is a gift of grace to participate in the eschatological life along the road of good works. With this, we can draw on certain notions from the last chapter that served to indicate that we perform good works voluntarily. To serve God through good works is not a matter of slavery, but a ministry of love. God’s children find no greater joy than in God’s commandments. In the Old Testament this joy in God’s law was expressed powerfully at times, and it has found its fulfilment in the New Testament.17 Joy or delight in his commandments can be seen as a participation by faith in God’s joy over (daily) conversion to good works.18 There are good reasons to connect the ‘beginning of eternal joy’ with ‘a small beginning of this [new] obedience.’19 Believers share in a small part of the joy of salvation when they walk in good works. Through their union with Christ by faith, believers are not terrified as to whether or not their harsh task master will be sufficiently pleased with their achievements, but they participate in the mind of Christ. Because the mind of Christ is to serve, they find greater joy in serving than in being served.20 This is the secret of the love that does not seek its own but gives.21 This also allows us to explain how the righteous at the judgment will ask in astonishment when they ever fed him or gave him drink.22 Legalism means 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Matt 10:42; Mark 9:41. Cf. Jas 1:27 on visiting the widows. Cf. Ps 119:47 – 48; Rom 7:22. Luke 15:7, 10, 24, 32. HC question 58 and question 114. Cf. Matt 20:28; Acts 20:35. 1 Cor 13:5. Matt 25:37 – 39.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Reward according to works

299

keeping a careful record of our achievements, but we keep no balance of the works we do in selfless love. This latter element appears to be out of line with what Paul does when he writes that he has laboured more abundantly than the other apostles.23 Although Paul admittedly does recognise the power of God’s grace in his labours, he also seems to be very conscious of the many adversities he faced, the long journeys he made, and the many churches he established. Paul’s words therefore appear to reflect the mind of a proud man, especially because he compares himself to his colleagues in the early church.24 The problem we have raised here demands some nuance to come to a solution. Selfless devotion does not imply an unconscious mind. Christians dedicate themselves most consciously to the cause of God’s kingdom, are conscious of the good cause they serve, and are also conscious of the progress of God’s kingdom.25 This Christian consciousness can also be extended to their dedication to a public cause or to some personal endeavour. If Paul had spoken about his life before God (coram Deo) alone, it would have been easier for us to place his words. Yet it is somewhat surprising that he compares himself to the other apostles. On the whole we would be right to suspect that such comparisons betray a legalistic mind-set, devoid of the freedom of the Spirit, which makes us either arrogant or self-effacing. Did a remnant of the Pharisaic leaven then still manifest itself in Paul when he wrote this verse? Paul himself seems to have been aware that his words could be understood to be arrogant. What should strike us, however, is the way he emphatically distances himself from such arrogance. In the original Greek, the text places the emphasis on Paul’s denial that he is seeking to obtain recognition for his achievements by these words. All of the accomplishments he lists stand emphatically within the context of God’s grace. The immediate context confirms that the apostle to the Gentiles is seeking recognition for God’s grace. The orientation of Paul’s intentions finds confirmation in what Calvin writes, when he observes that Paul is seeking to extol God’s grace against those who mock his labours.26 In short, believers are conscious of their significance in the kingdom of God, and of their position vis-—-vis others in that kingdom. Yet there is a subtle difference between boasting in God in this awareness, and boasting of ourselves. Spiritual joy in good works is characterised by the former. An extroverted orientation to God and to the salvation he has accomplished therefore implies the presence of joy in nobis. 23 24 25 26

1 Cor 15:10. Cf. 2 Cor 11:16 – 33. M. Hengel 2002:533 argues that James distanced himself from Paul’s self-conscious style. Cf. 2 Tim 4:7. Cf. my remarks in 8.4.4. above. CO XLIX,540 – 541 (comm. 1 Cor 15:10).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

300

‘Their works follow them’

This eschatological joy is experienced in the here and now through union with Christ by faith.27 Certain biblical data reflect that this joy is both profound and of power.28 This joy can counterbalance suffering, and is the secret of persistence in suffering.29 In the fulfilment of the eschatological hope all tears will be wiped away so as to leave room for eternal joy.30 The fulfilment of this eschatological joy differs from the joy of faith is gradual in nature, not essential. It is the fulfilment of the same joy in God and of service to him.

9.2.3. The fulfilment of ‘a small beginning’ of obedience The continuity between the present and the future of the eschatological reality also demonstrates something of the nature of the eschatological life. If the firstfruit of the Spirit causes to serve God in joy, we are justified in expecting that the full harvest will represent the fulfilment of this joyful service. This insight confirms that the concept of reward is highly metaphoric in regard to eternal life. Since in human terms the wages paid are of another nature than the service rendered, the future eschatological reward is remarkable because its character is the same as that of the service rendered. In other words, doing good works is grace, and grace’s reward for good works implies that these good works will multiply : good works are rewarded with good works. The eschatological rest for God’s people therefore cannot be described as a pale quietism, a hedonistic paradise, or a life of uninterrupted contemplation. The eschatological life is instead marked by our active devotion to God.31 Our eternal rest is a rest from kopos, from labours.32 The Greek word for rest (anapauoo) further has the connotation of being refreshed. In Hebrews 4 we also find the Scriptures using the notion of sabbatismos.33 This rest is not a passive rest, but the rest of Sabbath-service. God does not rest of his works, but he rests in his 27 Cf. Luke 19:6, 24:52; John 15:11, 16:20 – 24, 17:13; Acts 13:52; Rom 14:17, 15:13; 2 Cor 1:24; Gal 5:22; Phlm 1:4, 25; Col 1:11; 1 Thess 1:6, 2:19; 1 John 1:4. 28 Cf. 1 Pet 1:8. 29 Cf. Acts 16:25. 30 Rev 7:17, 21:4. Cf. Matt 25:21, 23. Remarkably, in Matt 25:46 pain is contrasted to life; it thus seems that joy is inherent to life. 31 Cf. Rev 7:15: ‘That principle of holiness that is in its perfection in the saints in heaven, is a most active principle; so that though they enjoy perfect rest, yet they are a great deal more active than they were when in this world. In this world, they were exceedingly dull and heavy, and inactive, but now they are a flame of fire. They saints in heaven are not merely passive in their happiness. They do not merely enjoy God passively, but in an active manner. They are not only acted upon by God, but they mutually act towards him, and in this action and reaction consists the heavenly happiness’, WJE 49:307. 32 Rev 14:13. 33 Heb 4:9.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Reward according to works

301

works, because his goal is reached. Believers participate in God’s rest. Scripture depicts this Sabbath in terms of ruling with Christ on his throne, where ruling demands intense concentration and devotion. The same principle applies to the notion of the eschaton as life in the heavenly city ; it makes us think of a rich and varied social life. Finally, not even the wedding metaphor can be taken as indicative of a state of sluggishness for the Christian in the future eschaton. In short, life in the future eschaton will not mean an end to our active devotion; rather, our present active devotion only shrinks when compared to our future surrender in service to God. The active import of the eternal rest is an implicit part of the legacy of the Reformed tradition. The Heidelberg Catechism confesses that even the holiest have only a small beginning of the new obedience.34 Given the context of this phrase in the catechism, Ursinus and Olevianus seem to have wanted to do justice to the indwelling of sin. At the same time, their use of the phrase ‘as long as they are in this life’ (‘so lang sie in diesem leben sind’) is highly significant. For, as brief as it may be, this phrase hides an important motif. The authors formulated their confession of this ‘small beginning’ in such a way that it also implies the converse, namely, that the small beginning of our obedience will reach its perfection in the second phase of the eschatological life. This perspective casts a different light on the catechism’s confession. After all, the phrase ‘a small beginning of this obedience’ has frequently aroused criticism and suspicions against the Heidelberg Catechism, as if it were diminishing God’s grace. Yet in light of the above it rather appears that the authors of the catechism wanted to place this ‘small beginning’ within an eschatological perspective. And in this perspective, the faith of Christians has overcome the world. The history of God’s revelation and of the church gives us impressive examples of the courage of faith. Hebrews 11 witnesses of this courage, as do the lives of the martyrs. The credit of the eschatological salvation is enormous. The sacrifice of Abraham, the choice of Moses, and the steadfastness of Daniel’s three friends on the plain of Dura shrink in comparison to the power of God’s grace as it will come to be revealed in the eschaton. The Heidelberg Catechism therefore did not want to minimise God’s grace, but sought rather to maximise it. The grace of new obedience in Christ is too great for life in the present aeon, and will only be fully deployed in the age to come. This conclusion poses new questions for us. Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice Isaac, Moses’ choice, and the steadfastness of Daniel’s three friends cannot simply be transferred to the eschaton. After all, it is unimaginable that sacrifices will still have to be made in the eschaton, or that we will find ourselves facing the pressure of tyrants there. Similarly, we will no longer have to make a choice 34 HC question 114.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

302

‘Their works follow them’

between God and world. In other words, if the eschaton can be qualified by the non posse peccare, the power of the new obedience cannot be demonstrated in a context of temptation. But how, then, can the obedience of the eschaton be greater? Jonathan Edwards reflected on this question at length. In his doctrine of grace he used the notion of ‘disposition.’35 This notion can help us to distinguish between the exercise of grace in the present and the future. In God’s future there will no longer be any enemies to whom we can show love, nor any cares to which we can respond in compassion. Love for enemies and compassion over the cares of neighbours are actualisations of the disposition of love. In re-creation the disposition of love will no longer be actualised in a broken context, but in communion with Christ and the saints. This is how we must imagine the eschatological fulfilment to be full of the dynamic of love. There is yet another point to make. There will no longer be any need for courage in the eschaton, and yet the disposition we now exercise will reach its full development there.36 This realisation offers us a starting point for our further reflection. Given a context in which the ‘small beginning’ of obedience will be rewarded with the full harvest of eschatological obedience, the Christian life in the here and now finds itself in an awesome perspective. The current training in the battle against the old nature will later on bring the great reward of a new obedience. While it may seem pointless in the here and now to persist in the intense struggle against indwelling evil, the eschatological perspective offers the horizon in order to persist. We gain greater insight into this when we pause to reflect on the opposite situation. If there also is continuity between the sinful character of unbelievers in the present and how they will live in the eschaton, we can well imagine that greed, jealousy, anger, and resentment will grow to terrifying proportions in hell.37 This negative side shows even more concretely that there is much sense in struggles against indwelling sin. Even with this, we have not been able to answer all questions, however. If we depart from the assumption of continuity between holy acts in the present and in the future of the eschatological life, it might seem reasonable to conclude that we can speak about faith, hope, and love both now as well as in the future eschatological phase. Christian theology, however, has commonly held that we can indeed speak about love in the eschaton, but that there will no longer be faith and hope.38 The place of faith, hope, and love will thus be addressed in the course of the following section. 35 36 37 38

Cf. S.H. Lee 2003:84. Irenaeus AH V.35.1 applies this growth to the millennium. C.S. Lewis 1952:64. Cf. C.S. Lewis 1952:59. 1 Cor 13:13.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Reward according to works

303

9.2.4. Levels of perfection Heaven is not something static in the thought of Jonathan Edwards; he speaks plainly about a growth that must take place.39 He identifies the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension of Christ as the high points in the heavenly history.40 Every sinner’s repentance, and the continuing expansion of the worldwide church, brings joy to the saints. They grow in their knowledge of God, their bliss, their holiness, and the intensity of their love for God and each other. For Edwards this spiritual growth is therefore also an object of the heavenly hope.41 Edwards sees this notion supported in the souls under the altar who look ahead to the day when God will exercise his judgment.42 An important question to consider is whether this growth will also continue after the return of Christ. Edwards does not address this question explicitly, but there is reason to suggest that he did indeed think this to be the case. Growth in our spiritual knowledge and our love will continue infinitely because God is infinite and never stops communicating himself.43 Edwards writes that lovers on earth may reach an end in their discovery of beauty in the other, but that this does not apply to our life of communion with God.44 Accordingly, in the eschatological fulfilment there remain things for which we can hope. This hope is not a hope for new events, but a hope for growth in perfection. Hope believes that a greater participation in glory awaits us, although it does not yet see this greater participation. In Edwards’s theology of the eschatological life we therefore find a way to insist that faith, hope, and love all continue to function.45 This is an interesting notion, and one that emphasises that God’s future will continue to be dynamic. It furthermore shows concretely that there are different levels to the eschatological glory. Believers experience different phases and levels in the heavenly perfection. For Edwards, as for other Puritans, there was no question that the differences in gradation also apply among believers.46 This is an idea we encounter in a theologian as early as Irenaeus, who drew the conclusion

39 WJE 8:352; 13: 275 – 276, 336 – 337, 442 – 445; 18: 427 – 434, 497 – 498; 20: 210 – 222; 49:308; Ramsey 1989:706 – 738 wrote an appendix on this theme. 40 WJE 13:444 – 445. 41 WJE 13: 442 – 444. 42 Rev 6:10. 43 Ramsey 1989:727, 731. Ramsey identifies a theosis here, 727. He further demonstrates that the vision of God is Christological in Edwards: we see the resurrected Christ. On this point Edwards thus departs from medieval scholasticism, 719. 44 WJE 13:336 – 337. 45 This leads Edwards WJE 25:287 subtly to remark: ‘Faith and hope don’t abide in heaven in the sense in which this Apostle commonly uses these terms.’ 46 J.R. Beeke & M. Jones 2012:825 – 826; Bunyan 1861 II:102; WJE 13: 822.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

304

‘Their works follow them’

of different levels in glory on the basis of the different rooms that are in the Father’s house.47 The notion of different levels of glory raises two questions for us. The first is biblical-theological in nature: how we can reconcile these levels with the parable of the vineyard, where the workers receive the same reward in spite of the different hours they worked?48 The parable of the workers in the vineyard has a number of facets to it.49 It teaches us that participation in the kingdom of heaven is brought about by the call to the kingdom. It also draws our attention to the owner’s good heart in that he was willing to have the dregs of the labour market work for him. Yet in the end the point of the parable concerns the wages: the reward in God’s kingdom is not according to our accomplishments, but out of grace. If this can be identified as the central message of the parable, we ought not to expect it to address the idea of different levels in the kingdom of God as well – especially if that notion is expressed more clearly in other passages in Scripture. A second difficulty involved in the idea of levels in God’s kingdom is metaphysical in nature: how can there be differences if every believer participates in the perfect and infinite justice and holiness of Christ? The Christian tradition commonly distinguishes between Christ’s infinite glory and the measures of perfection. Since we will not be deified in an absolute sense, we remain finite beings. And if there is a finite measure of participation in the glory of Christ, both logically as well as a theologically we have a warrant to speak about gradual differences in the eschaton with respect to perfection as it comes to be actualised in different people. Edwards illustrates his point using the image of vessels. The saints triumphant are all full vessels, and yet the sizes of these vessels differ.50 Significantly, this notion finds support in various scriptural data.51 For the different measures of perfection in glory, Edwards sees a correlation between the Christian life in the present and the eschatological fulfilment in the future. The most humble Christians in the present will also be the most humble later on.52 As he sees it, the reward for good works implies that the measure of sanctification will be determinative for the measure of glorification.53 For this idea too we find sufficient biblical-theological evidence.54 As such, the call to sanctification gains a new level of urgency. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Irenaeus AH V.36.1 – 2 applies the different levels to the millennium. Matt 20:1 – 16. Cf. Van Bruggen 1990:369 – 373. WJE 13:437 – 439, 467 – 468. Dan. 12:2 – 3; 1 Cor 15:41 – 42; Rev 11:18, 14:13. WJE18:242 – 243. For the same notion, cf. Brooks 1980 IV:368; John Bunyan 1861 II:101 – 103; Van Lodensteyn 1980:145; Smijtegelt 1978:52. 54 Cf. Matt 16:27, 19:29, 25:14 – 30; Luke 19:11 – 19; Rom 2:6 – 7, 10; 1 Cor 3:12 – 15; 2 Cor 4:17, 5:10; Eph 6:8; 1 Tim 4:8; Rev 2:23, 22:12.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Investing for the eschaton

305

9.3. Investing for the eschaton Augustine related the eschatological mind of Christians to their mind-set and their acts of charity : ‘Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven. The heavens proclaim the glory of God (Ps 19:1). Perhaps when you give something to a just person, you are giving it to heaven. If though you give it to an unjust person – because if your enemy is hungry, give him food (Rom 12:20, Prv 25:21) – even in that case you are not going wrong; in fact you are obeying the one who made heaven and earth. So look sharp about moving on your goods. Is it a great deal that you have amassed. Move it on all the more smartly. I would not like loyalty to lose what has been amassed by vanity? You have got just what’s required to provide plenty for Christ’s poor.’55 What strikes us is Augustine’s notion that the giving of gifts does not mean that we lose our possessions, but that it is the best guarantee that we will not lose them.56 Through our gift-giving we transport our possessions to the safest storage place, namely, to heaven. While it may be tempting to understand Augustine’s words as a metaphor which he used rhetorically to encourage charitable giving, this does not seem to do justice to his intentions. A striking thing about the way the Bible speaks about the eschatological life is its concrete mention of finances. We see this reflected in Jesus’ great interest in gift-giving, and in Scripture’s attention to the mind-set with which believers give.57 Consequently, gifts appear not to be so private that it is unimportant in his kingdom how people give, and how much. Scripture’s words that God loves a cheerful giver are expressive of his great interest in human gifts.58 Furthermore, it is suggestive of a participation in God’s joy in these gifts.59 The apostle Paul provides a Christological motive for this joy : Christ became poor for our sakes, that we through his poverty might become rich.60 A gift-giving disposition stands out sharply against its negative background, namely, the fact that we are easily inclined to serve Mammon.61 Mammon has a great power of attraction over us, by which we can be prevented from entering God’s kingdom. On top of that, Scripture insists that earthly treasures are perishable in nature.62 Notions such as these were what often produced a negative 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Translation Augustine 1991:III/3, 137 (sermo 60). Cf. De Kruijf 2008:71, 74, 79. Mark 12:41 – 44. Cf. 2 Cor 9:7. 2 Cor 9:7. Cf. Acts 20:35. 2 Cor 8:9. Matt 13:22, 19:23 – 24; Mark 4:19, 10:23 – 25; Luke 6:24, 8:14, 12:13 – 21, 16: 13, 16:19 – 31, 18:24 – 25; 1 Tim 6:9 – 10; Jas 5:1 – 6. 62 We can think of the judgment of fire in 2 Pet 3:10.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

306

‘Their works follow them’

and ascetic attitude toward earthly possessions in the Christian tradition. Yet it should strike us that the exhortations in God’s kingdom are not just negative, moralistic rejections of riches. In the kingdom of God the use of Mammon must not be abolished, but money must positively be made to serve us.63 A good example of this can be found in the parable of the unjust steward.64 Because of his dishonesty, the steward was to be removed from his position. In the time awaiting his removal, the steward shrewdly lowered the amounts in the contracts. His master commended him – not for his dishonesty in lowering the figures, but for his proactivity with a view to his future. In this respect, children of the light can learn from the children of the world. There is no sense in keeping the money for ourselves, for we too will only be relieved from our job in a matter of time. For that reason we must use the money to help others and to make them our friends. Those who give what they cannot keep, receive what they cannot lose.65 In this way, Christians lay up for themselves treasures in heaven.66 They are to be motivated to gather treasure; the way they invest is closely related to their vision, to their eye as the lamp for their body. While unbelievers look no further than the temporal dispensation, the investment horizon for believers extends to eternal life because they look upon the present life as a preface to the actual book of the eschaton. When believers donate to a charitable institution, it is as if they invest in a heavenly savings account. Their gifts are deposits on an account that God keeps in their name.67 This conscious attention for the giving of gifts can raise questions, since such human intuition – especially in a financial perspective – tells us that we do not lay up treasures for ourselves when we donate to charities.68 After all, such a perspective would appear to make it sound as if salvation can be bought with money, which is the very sin of Simon the sorcerer.69 This perspective furthermore conflicts with the notion of a selfless thankfulness and love toward God.70 In response we can point out that this selflessness is no doubt what motivates the Christian in his heart. Yet this motive is not exclusive. In the letter to Timothy the rich are called by their charity to be rich in good works.71 This 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Alcorn 2003a:78. Luke 16:1 – 13. So R. Alcorn 2003a and 2003b. Matt 6:19 – 24. The whole context is about the eschatological reward, Matt 6:2, 4, 5 – 6, 16, 18; see, for example, the mention of alms, verse 4. Phlm 4:17. In Luke 6:35 selflessness and the reward for selflessness as comfort for believers are mentioned together in a single verse. Acts 8:20. Heb 12:28; 2 Cor 5:9. 1 Tim 6:17 – 19. Cf. Phlm 4:17.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Investing for the eschaton

307

attitude of charity is not only depicted as a fruit of our mystical union, but the epistle also draws a direct link to the eschaton: by giving alms we store up for ourselves a future treasure.72 The motivation of future interest appears therefore to constitute a lawful motivation in the kingdom of God.73 We can also turn it around: if Scripture speaks about future earnings, the only way to deny this motive is an unspiritual super-spirituality! The fact that we are creatures means that we are allowed to be motivated by future gains. Scripture also draws a relationship between the size of the investment and the interest. Those who sow sparingly will also reap sparingly.74 Anyone who is forced to abandon his house, brothers, sisters, father, mother, wife, children, or fields for the sake of Christ will receive one hundredfold and inherit eternal life in God’s future.75 This realisation must also guide our reflection when we think in greater detail about the nature of the future glory in terms of a reward, crown, throne, treasure, city, wedding, feast, or paradise. These concepts raise the question whether eschatological future is determined by the activities connected to them, how they relate to the fact that God will be all in all, and how they relate to this earthly reality. We can also establish that the false manifestation of these concepts in the present world are hedonism, materialism, and egotism.76 These corrupted forms can be recognised in their denial of the eschatological nature of pleasure, possession, and rulership. The Christian life is marked by an eschatological consciousness by virtue of which we deny ourselves certain pleasures by sobriety and fasting, certain possessions by an attitude of sacrifice, and the desire for power by recognising God’s power in prayer.77 In light of the above, we can present several considerations. In the first place, eschatological fulfilment means also a fulfilment of our deepest creaturely needs and wants. Secondly, it is unlikely that the concepts used to depict the eschaton are simply metaphors and bear no relationship to our sensual and visible conceptions. In the third place, we conversely may not deny the metaphorical aspect from these concepts, since we understand God’s future to be a transformation of how we as creatures conceive of them. Fourthly, the concreteness of re-creation does not compete with God; if God is all in all, it must really be ‘all.’ His glory is present in every concrete manifestation of re-creation. 72 This emerges even more clearly in the story of the rich young man in Matt 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22. In Luke 12:33 it is formulated as a wider principle. Cf. Ps 37:25 – 26; Prov 19:17, 21:13, 28:27. 73 Heb 10:30 – 31 shows that in the Christian life God not only functions as Father, but also as Judge. Cf. Alcorn 2003b:131. 74 2 Cor 9:6. 75 Matt 19:29; Mark 10:29 – 30; Luke 18:29 – 30. See 3.4.4. above for a discussion of the hundredfold reward in this life. 76 Cf. Alcorn 2003a:111 – 113. 77 A parallel can be drawn to 1 John 2:16, cf. Alcorn 2003a:114.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

308

‘Their works follow them’

Finally, I would like to add several remarks concerning the relationship between selfless love and the eschatological perspective. In the first place, love acts selflessly. Once Christians begin to perform their good works in a calculated fashion with a view to the future eschaton, the root of love will be lost from their works. If love is going to characterise the eschaton, the mind of love may now already be characteristic of believers. We can also put it this way : the reward is not for the calculating investor, but for the selfless lover. Secondly, a parallel can be drawn to the joy in our service to God. Christianity cannot be preached as an alternative hedonism, and yet Christians can indeed declare that they are happy in God. The difference here is the difference between a primary and a secondary motive. Accordingly, in Christian theology the future reward may never be allowed to usurp the place of selfless love. But as long as love is primary, a secondary place may indeed be attributed to the prospect of future blessing. In the third place, we can observe that there is room to express appreciation for the gifts of love within a relationship of love. The love of a wife for her husband can be stimulated when he ‘rewards’ her efforts with his appreciation, and vice versa. There is a certain reciprocal movement that occurs between love and reward. As a fourth point, we may observe that the eschatological life in the present and in the future are united in a certain way. This implies that a mind-set of selflessness will be a constant in both present and future. Christians do not give because they can expect nothing but rewards for their giving in the future, but they give so that they can give even more in the future. The life of selfless giving in the present is a small-scale manifestation of the life of giving which will soon flourish fully in eternity. Finally, we must point out that the present contains a pledge of the eschatological reward of selfless love. In love we experience that it is better to give than to receive.78 This joy of selfless giving can be described as a ‘reward’ in the service of God, which convinces us and makes us testify that our service of him is a service of love. If the reward for selfless giving is already so great in the present, how great that reward must be in the future!

9.4. Evaluation In Scripture we read very little about the nature of eternal life, but the concrete depictions it provides still give us an impression of what it will be like. There will no longer be marriage. We will be like the angels. The wolf and the bear will graze together. A weaned child will put his hand in the viper’s den. There will be a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, and in which there will be no illness. 78 Acts 20:35.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

309

Evaluation

These indicators suffice to teach us that the future eschatological order will be altogether different from the present one. If there will no longer be marriage or sexual relations, there will no longer be any maternity care, diaper factories, midwifery, research for baby-formula, child-rearing, or pedagogy either. And what does it mean that we will be like the angels – will we be freed from many of our physical restrictions? Will we still need to eat? What does our existence as the angels, without intercourse or reproduction, mean for our masculinity and femininity? Will the future see a kind of androgynous being who surpasses all notions of gender? What will the impact be of the fact that there will no longer be injustice, and so no need for police, for courts, lawyers, and insurance companies? How different our world will be when sickness has been overcome, when there is no need for doctors, hospitals, pharmacies or alternative medicine, and no death, and therefore no cemeteries or undertakers! It is altogether understandable that every pastor will be asked over and over again in catechism classes or adult education whether we will recognise each other in heaven. On the one hand this question betrays a basic intuition concerning God’s future as being entirely different from the present reality, while it on the other hand betrays a deeply rooted awareness in our soul that we cannot conceive of ourselves in isolation from others, and that at least in terms of personality there must be continuity between the present and the eschaton. Given also our genderless future, our identity will be transformed and perhaps more. Amidst all these questions, we can assume that our present life will somehow be taken up into the future life, and that it will not undergo an absolute transformation. The future will be filled with the present, because the present is an eschatologically determined present. When the Lamb takes his place in the centre, the history of sin and guilt will not be erased, but it will manifest salvation in a transformed way. This offers our life an amazing perspective. What is sinful will be lost, but for the rest nothing will be taken away from our life in God. All prayers offered in faith will show themselves to have been heard beyond the expectations of our prayers and thoughts. Of all the struggles and sacrifices, and even our shortest prayers, which we have made for the Christian faith it will become clear that they have a place in God’s great plan. This viewpoint offers a perspective for the Christian life in the present: the smallest of things become great because of what they mean for eternity.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

10. Balance

Now that we have reached the end of our study, it is time to survey the ground we have covered. We have travelled a lengthy road, in which we faced numerous questions and confronted all kinds of tensions. Over the course of the centuries, in different cultures, against a variety of fronts, and within changing ecclesiastical contexts, Christians have struggled to follow the way of the Word along the path of the Christian life. Our awareness that we are follow in the footsteps of so many generations of Christians who have walked on this path before us makes us thankful for their efforts to come to a clear understanding of Scripture, fills us with a sense of the valuable treasure we must protect, makes us modest about the possibility of adding new insights of our own, and penetrates us with the awareness that we, in communion with fellow Christians in the present and out of a sense of responsibility for the coming generations, must seek the right road in order to understand what the Word of God teaches us about the Christian life in our present time and context. Guided by this awareness, we can and must say the following. In the first place, Luther has taught us that we must conceive of our salvation beginning with the person of the Christ. From Calvin we learned that our mystical union with Christ (unio mystica cum Christo) offers us an excellent way to do justice to this personal relationship with Christ, while we continue to be able to speak about our salvation in two ways – i. e. as justification and as renewal – so as to give the theme of personal renewal the attention it deserves, and to do justice to its gracecharacter, to the ascended Christ as its subject, and to the pneumatological/ Trinitarian structure as its background. The analysis of the second chapter offered us the key insight that the theological concept of the unio mystica is admirably suited to do full justice to our participation by faith in the soteriological aspects of the eschatologically fulfilled salvation which is in Christ, and to the certain hope we have of participating in the cosmological aspects of this eschatological salvation which still awaits revelation following the final judgment and the return of Christ. This second chapter also made it clear to us that there are implications to the unio

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

312

Balance

mystica, namely, the personal character of our participation in salvation, our inextricable bond with Christ and Christians such that they cannot be isolated from each other, the divine plan of salvation which surpasses both the history of salvation and the order of salvation, and the faith-spiritual character of our union with Christ by virtue of which the reality of the eschatological salvation is marked by hiddenness and is accompanied by trials. In chapter three we investigated the contours of the effects of our union with Christ in our relationship with God, our neighbour, our self, and the world. From this investigation it emerged that our union with Christ through his Spirit is effective for each of these relationships, both in regard to our inner disposition as well as our concrete acts. It further became apparent that these effects must be viewed as the firstfruit of the full eschatological harvest. Chapter four was devoted to the measure of our renewal at the hand of a comparison between the Reformed tradition, as represented by the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession, and the holiness movements, represented by Wesley and the Keswick Movement. This comparative study exposed different structures, according to which the qualitative and quantitative aspects of renewal were treated in differing ways. It also became clear that the quantitative aspects cannot be treated before we have examined the Christian’s qualification as a sinner. In order to come to a deeper understanding of this sinful existence of the believer, chapter five engaged in dialogue with different representatives from a variety of traditions. On both exegetical and biblical-theological grounds, we concluded that there was good reason to maintain the traditional interpretation of Romans 7:14 – 26, although it also emerged that greater attention ought to be given to the salvation-historical context of these notions – yet without downplaying the salvation-historical notions. We further established that the believer’s identity is determined by Christ and Spirit, while his qualification as a sinner reflects the reality of indwelling sin. This awareness delivered the insight that it is of fundamental importance to hold on to the notion of mortification in a theology of personal renewal as an aspect that is proper to it. This means in turn that we may never quantify the process of renewal in such a way that the believer’s qualification as a sinner is downplayed or relativised. Mortificatio thus shows itself to be a key notion by which we can distance ourselves from all optimistic concepts of personal renewal, and to provide a fitting description of the continuing dynamic in the Christian life. In light of the insights gained in these first chapters, it proved relevant to reflect on how one’s position in Christ relates to the process of renewal. In chapter six we concluded that it is essential to begin our reflection with the notion of spiritual position, so that the pneumatological factor of the process of renewal can thereafter also receive its deserving place. The outcome of the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

313

Balance

previous chapter further brought us to insight that mortification and vivification both deserve an equal place within a balanced theological concept of personal renewal. We also concluded that the theological structure of the Heidelberg Catechism deserves in this respect to be preferred over the Puritan Westminster Confession. Theologically the Heidelberg Catechism, by virtue of its structure organised according to the unio mystica as well as its corresponding concentration on the qualitative elements of sin and grace, offers us the outlines for a theology of personal renewal whose contents are nevertheless determined in greater measure by the Puritan attention for the spiritual process. It is further worth pointing out that the catechism placed mortificatio in a fully parallel relationship to the notion of vivificatio, and yet failed to work out the practical consequences of the parallel it had itself established. Chapter seven focused more closely on the spiritual process, and in particular on the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the human spirit, which at once also offered us insight into the believer’s activity or passivity. Here it became clear that the activity of the Spirit was directly related to the activity of the human soul. Our being filled with the Holy Spirit is at once the source of our spiritual acts, and also forms the theological context we need in order to examine them. It also emerged that the believer’s acts are intensive, and that they are qualified by the principle of the Spirit’s eschatological freedom. Given the eschatological character of personal renewal, it also proved necessary to reflect on the relationship between Christ and law, or creation and recreation. We concluded that the law reaches its fulfilment in re-creation, and therefore assumes a positive place in the believer’s participation in the salvation which has been fulfilled in Christ. As such, we distanced ourselves from each and every theology of renewal that has no place for the law at all, or that reduces renewal to faith. This means that, from the perspective of the fulfilment of the law in love, one must speak of concrete obedience to the commandments, and, furthermore, that the contrast of the old man and the old world is sharper than ever when it is set against the background of fulfilment. By speaking about the fulfilled law we at once prevent the work of Christ from fading away and paling, and also emphasise that our walk in good works has an eschatological dimension to it. In the ninth and final chapter we turned our attention to the relationship between our participation by faith in the eschatologically fulfilled salvation in the present, and our participation in the revealed eschatological salvation in the hereafter. By framing our discussion within the continuity between present and future, we discovered that the revealed eschatological life is marked by the greatest freedom in the loftiest acts performed by believers who, in a transformed creation, will serve the same God they now serve in love. The reality of

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

314

Balance

hope impresses itself upon our life in the here and now, and directs our gaze ahead to the full revelation of the salvation which God has prepared for us.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Abbreviations

AH ANF BB

Ante Haeresis (Irenaeus) Ante Nicene Fathers J.N. Bakhuizen van den Brink 1976, De Nederlandse Belijdenisgeschriften in authentieke teksten met inleiding en tekstvergelijkingen, Amsterdam 1976 (2e druk). BC Belgic Confession BDR Blass, F; Debrunner, A; Rehkopf, F. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1984 CA Confessio Augustana CD Church Dogmatics (K. Barth) CDDCT Canones et Decreta Dogmatica Concilii Tridentini CG Catechismus van GenÀve CNT Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament (1e, 2e of 3e serie) CO Calvini Opera CoD Canons of Dordt Conf. Confessiones (Augustinus) COT Commentaar op het Oude Testament CD De Civitate Dei (Augustinus) HC Heidelberg Catechism ITE Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (Turretini) JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JRT Journal of Reformed Theology LC Loci Communes (Melanchthon, 1521) LSJ Liddell, H.G.; Scott, R.; Jones, H.S. A Greek-English Lexicon LW Luther’s Works (ed. J. Pelikan) LXX Septuaginta NBV Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling NICNT The New International Commentary on the New Testament NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers NTT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift PL Patrologia Latrina POT Prediking Oude Testament RD Reformed Dogmatics (H. Bavinck)

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

316 SA SB SV TDNT TR TW TWAT VW WA WC WLC WJE WJO WSC WTJ

Abbreviations

Schmalkaldisch Articles H.L. Strack en P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch Statenvertaling Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel) Theologia Reformata Theologisch Werk (Van Ruler) Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Verzameld Werk (Van Ruler) Weimarer Ausgabe: D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Herman Böhlau, Weimar, 1883 – 1997 Westminster Confession of Faith Larger Catechism (Westminster) The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Yale editie) The Works of John Owen Shorter Catechism (Westminster) Westminster Theological Journal

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

Bibliography

Aalders, W. z.j. De grote ontsporing. Over de verhouding van de Reformatie en de moderne theologie, Den Haag: Voorhoeve. – 1985. Correctie op de tijd, Den Haag: Voorhoeve. Alcorn, R.C. 2003a. The Law of Rewards, Carol Stream: Tyndale. – 2003b. Money, Possessions and Eternity, Carol Stream: Tyndale. Althaus, P. 1962. Die Theologie Martin Luthers, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Arminius, J. 1629. Opera Theologica, Leiden: Godefridum Basson. – 1986. The Works of James Arminius, London: Longman, 3 vols. Ashton, J. 2000. The Religion of Paul the Apostle, New Haven: Yale University Press. Augustinus, Confessiones, PL 32. – De Libero Arbitrio, PL 32. – Retractationum, PL 32. – Epistola 118, PL 33. – De Doctrina Christiana, PL 34. – Joann. Ev. Tr. 25, PL 35. – Sermo 58, 60, 142, 188, PL 38. – De Sancta Virginitate, PL 40. – De Civitate Dei, PL 41. – De Trinitate, PL 42. – De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, PL 44. – De Correptione et Gratia, PL 44. – De Spiritu et Littera, PL 44. – Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, PL 44. – 1991 (ed. J.E. Rotelle and B. Ramsey), The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st century, New York: New City Press. – 1997 (Trans. E. Hill, ed. A. Fitzgerald). Homilies on the Gospel of John, New York: New City Press. Balke, W. 1993. ‘De spiritualiteit van Isaäc da Costa en dr. H.F. Kohlbrugge’, in: W. van ’t Spijker e.a. (red.), Spiritualiteit, Kampen: Kok, 231 – 252. Banning, W. 1974. Karl Marx, Utrecht/Antwerpen: Het Spectrum. Barabas, S. 1952. So Great Salvation. The History and Message of the Keswick Convention, Londen: Marshall, Morgen & Scott/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bartelink, G.J.M. 1999. ‘Heiligheid van persoon en plaats in christelijke teksten uit de

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

318

Bibliography

eerste eeuwen. Continuteit en cesuur ten opzichte van de bijbelse en joodse opvattingen’, in: C.J. van den Boogert en G.C. den Hertog (red.), Hedendaags zoektocht naar heiligheid. Aspecten van heiligheid in de bijbel en in de joodse en christelijke traditie, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum, 111 – 130. Barth, K. 1933 (transl. E.C. Hoskyns). Epistle to the Romans, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Battis, E. 1962. Saints and Sectaries. Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian Controversy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Battles, F.L. 1984. ‘True Piety According to Calvin’, in: D.K. McKim (ed.), Readings in Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Baxter, R. 1830. The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, Milton Keynes: Paternoster. Bayly, L. 1642. De practycke ofte oeffeninge der Godtsaligheydt, leerende een Christen Mensche, hoe hy in sijn wandel in sijn gantsche leven Gode behagen mach, Amsterdam: Van der Putte. Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 2009. Beale, P.J. 1981. ‘Sanctifying the outer life’, in: Aspects of Sanctification. Westminster Conference 1981, Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 72 – 77. Beaton, D. 1926. ‘The ‘Marrow of Modern Divinity’ and the Marrow Controversy.’ in: Records of Scottish Church History I,3, 112 – 134. Beek, A. v. d. 1998. Jezus Kurios. De Christologie als hart van de theologie, Kampen: Kok. – 2002, De kring om de Messias. IsraÚl als volk van de lijdende Heer, Zoetermeer : Meinema. – 2005. Hier beneden is het niet. Christelijke toekomstverwachting, Zoetermeer : Meinema. – 2008. God doet recht. Eschatologie als christologie, Zoetermeer : Meinema. Beeke, J.R. & Jones, M. 2012. A Puritan Theology. Doctrine for Life, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books. Belt, H. v. d. 2009. Bloeien, groeien, snoeien. Over de ontwikkeling van het geloofsleven, Heerenveen: Groen. Berg, M.A. v. d. 1996, ‘Op weg naar het vaderland. De eschatologie bij Calvijn’, TR 39/4, 265 – 287. – 2008. Het rijk van Christus als historische realiteit. Calvijns anti-apocalyptische uitleg van het boek DaniÚl, Apeldoorn: De Banier. Berkhof, H. 1979 (transl. S. Woudstra), Christian Faith. An Introduction to the Study of the Faith, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berkouwer, G.C. 1952a (transl. J. Vriend). Faith and Sanctification, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – 1952b (transl. L.B. Smedes), The Providence of God, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berkowitz, A. en D. 1999. De Tora, Hoornaar : Gideon. Bernhardi, J.L. z.j. De parel van groote waarde, of de leer der heiligmaking gevonden in de Heilige Schrift, Utrecht: J.J.H. Kemmer. Beutel, A. 2005. Luther Handbuch, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Bierma, L.D. 2005. ‘The Sources and Theological Orientation of the Heidelberg Catechism’, in: L.D. Bierma e.a., An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 75 – 102.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

319

Bibliography

– 2006. ‘The Theological Distinctiveness of the Heidelberg Catechism’, in: TR 49/4, 331 – 341. Billings, J. Todd. 2005, ‘United to God through Christ: Assessing Calvin on the Question of Deification’, Harvard Theological Journal 98, no. 3, 315 – 334. – 2008. Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Binning, H. 1735. The Works of Hugh Binning, Edinburgh: Fleming. Boardman, H.A. 1996. The ‘Higher Life’ Doctrine of Sanctification, tried by the Word of God, Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications. Boer, E.A. de. 1997, ‘The Book of Revelation in Calvin’s Geneva’, in: W.H. Neuser, e.a., Calvin’s Books. Festschrift for Peter De Klerk, Heerenveen: Groen, 23 – 62. Boer, W.A. den. (trans. A. Gootjes). 2010. God’s Twofold Love: The Theology of Jacob Arminius (1559 – 1609), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Boersma, H. 1993. Hot pepper corn. Richard Baxter’s doctrine of justification in its seventeenth-century context of controversy, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Böhl, E. 1887. Dogmatik. Darstellung der Christliche Glaubenslehre auf Reformirt-Kirchlicher Grundlage, Amsterdam: Verlag Von Scheffer & Co. Bolton, R. 1991. Some General Directions for a Comfortable Walking with God, Ligonier : Soli Deo Gloria (repr. London 1630). Bonar. A. A. 2006. ‘Sketch of his Life’, in: Letters of Samuel Rutherford, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1 – 32. Bonhoeffer, D. 2001 (eds. G.B. Kelly and J.D. Godsey). Discipleship (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 4), Minneapolis: Fortress. Book of Praise: Anglo-Genevan Psalter. 1993. Winnipeg: Premier Printing Ltd. Boston, T. 1988. Memoirs, etc, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. – 2002. The Complete Works of the Late Rev. Thomas Boston, Ettrick (originally published 1853, reprint 1980), Stoke-on-Trent:Tentmaker Publications, 12 vol. Brakel, W. — 1685. Leere en Leydinge der Labadisten ontdeckt en wederleijt in een antwoort op P. Yvons examens over onze Trouwhertige Waerschouwinge, Rotterdam: Van Doesburg. – 1979. Redelijke Godsdienst, Utrecht: De Banier, 2 delen. Bridges, J. 2006. The Discipline of Grace. God’s Role and Our role in the Pursuit of Holiness, Colorado Springs: NavPress. Brienen, T. 1983. ‘Doopleer en dooppraktijk in de 17e en 18e eeuw bij de gereformeerden in de Nederlanden’, in: W. van ’t Spijker e.a., Rondom de doopvont. Leer en gebruik van de heilige doop in het Nieuwe Testament en in de geschiedenis van de westerse kerk, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 352 – 387. Brink, G.A. van den. 2008. Herman Witsius en het antinomianisme. Met tekst en vertaling van de Animadversiones Irenicae, Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek. Brook, B. 1994. The Lives of the Puritans (1813), Pittsburg: Soli Deo Gloria, 3 vol. Brooks, T. 1980. The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 6 vol. Bruggen, J. v. 1988. Marcus. Het evangelie volgens Petrus, 3e serie CNT, Kampen: Kok. – 1990. Matteüs: het evangelie voor IsraÚl, 3e serie CNT, Kampen: Kok. – 2006. Romeinen. Christenen tussen stad en synagoge, 3e serie CNT, Kampen: Kok.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

320

Bibliography

Bruggen, W. van. 1983. Futurum en eschaton. Over de verhouding van het handelen van God en van de mens in de geschiedenis met het oog op de toekomst, Nijkerk: Callenbach. Bruner, F.D. 1976. A Theology of the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Buchanan, J. 1984. The doctrine of Justification. An Outline of its History in the Church and of its Exposition from the Scripture (oorspronkelijke uitgave 1867), Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Bultmann, R. 1947. ‘Glossen im Römerbrief ’, in: Theologische Literaturzeitung 72, 197 – 202. Bunyan, J. 1795. The Holy War, etc., London: Proprietors. 1861. The Works of John Bunyan, Glasgow: Blackie and Son, 3 vol. Buren, P. van. 1957. Christ in our Place: The Substitutionary Character of Calvin’s Doctrine of Reconciliation, Londen: Oliver and Boyd. Burger, J.M. 2008. Being in Christ. A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective, Eugene: Wipf & Stock. Burnaby, J. (ed. and trans.). 1955. Augustine: Later Works, London, S.C.M. Press. Calvin, John (ed. John T McMeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles). 1960. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 2 vols. Campbell, K.M. 1974. ‘The Antinomian Controversies of the 17th Century’, in: Living the Christian Life- The Westminster Conference Papers, 61 – 81. Cantillon, J.E. 1925, ‘Willem de Clercq en het Nederlandse R¦veil’, in: Stemmen des Tijds, jaargang 14 III, 255 – 283. Catherhole, S. 2006. ‘The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond: Some Proposals’, in: B.L. McCormack (ed.), Justification in Perspective. Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 219 – 241. Chang, H.K. 2007. ‘The Christian Life in a Dialectical Tension? Romans 7:7 – 25 Reconsidered’, in: Novum Testamentum 49, Leiden: Brill, 257 – 280. Chantepie de la Saussaye, D. 2003. Verzameld Werk, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Chapell, B. 2001. Holiness by Grace. Delighting in the Joy That Is Our Strength, Wheaton: Crossway Books. Cherry, C. 1966. The Theology of Jonathan Edwards. A Reappraisal, New York: Anchor Books. Chrysostomus, Homilies on Romans, NPNF (eerste serie) XI:331 – 566. – Homilies on Colossians, NPNF (eerste serie) XIII:257 – 321. Clark, A.B.R. 1993. Delight for a Wretched Man. Romans 7 and the doctrine of sanctification, Darlington: Evangelical Press. Collins, K.J. 1997. The Scripture Way of Salvation. The Heart of John Wesley’s Theology, Nashville: Abingdon Press. Cottrell, J. 2000. Romans. NIV Commentary, Joplin: College Press. Crisp, T. 1791. Christ Alone Exalted, etc, London: J. Murgatroyd. Cullmann, O. 1975. (transl. F.V. Filson) Christ and Time. The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Cunningham, W. 1960. Historical Theology, Carlisle/Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. Dawkins, R. 2008. The God Delusion, Boston/New York: Mariner Books. Dekker, E. 1993. Rijker dan Midas. Vrijheid, genade en predestinatie in de theologie van Jacobus Arminius (1559 – 1609), Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

321

Bibliography

Delling, G. 1982. ‘teleios’ in TDNT VIII:67 – 87. Dieter, M.E. 1987. ‘The Wesleyan Perspective’ in: S.N. Gundry, Five Views on Sanctification, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 9 – 57. Dubbink, J. 2007. ‘Heiligheid als grens of als mogelijkheid. Een pleidooi voor bijbels en communicatief spreken over wat heilig is’, Amsterdam: oratie VU University. Dubois, O.W. 1997, Een vriendschap in R¦veilkring. De omgang tussen Isaäc da Costa en Willem de Clercq (1820 – 1844, Heerenveen: Groen. Dulk, M. den. 1987. Als twee die spreken. Een manier om de heiligingsleer van Karl Barth te lezen, ’s Gravenhage: Boekencentrum. Dunn, J.D.G. 1998. The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Dussen, A. van der. 2008. ‘Het licht zien. Over opwekking en zondebesef,’ in: A. Baars e.a. (red.), Charis. Theologische opstellen, aangeboden aan prof. dr. J.W. Maris, Groen: Heerenveen, 67 – 78. Eaton, M. 1994. Living under Grace. Preaching through Romans. Romans 6:1 – 7:25, Milton Keynes: Word. Eck, J. van. 1992. God, mens, medemens. Humanitas in de theologie van Calvijn, Franeker : Van Wijnen. Erasmus, D. 1969. Ausgewählten Schriften. Ausgabe in acht Bänden, Lateinisch und Deutsch, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft IV,1 – 195. Erskine, R. 1815. Sermons by the late reverend and learned Mr. Ralph Erskine, Pittsburg: R. Patterson. Es, T. van. 2009. ‘Kohlbrugges ontdekking van de komma’, in: H.F. Kohlbrugge, De Wet bevestigd. Romeinen 7 toegelicht, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 11 – 63. Exalto, K. 1979. De dood ontmaskerd. De voorbereiding op de dood in de late middeleeuwen, in de reformatie en in de gereformeerde theologie in de 17e en begin 18e eeuw, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. – 1988, ‘Walter Marshall: een reformatorisch puritein,’ in: De Waarheidsvriend, jrg 76, no 7 – 11. – 1994. ‘De heiliging’ in: P.R. Meinders, Volharden tot het einde, In de serie Kom en Zie, Leiden: Groen, deel IV,11 – 75. Ferguson, S.B. 1982. ‘The Teaching of the Confession’, in: A.I.C Heron (ed.), The Westminster Confession in the Church Today, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 28 – 39. – 1987. John Owen on the Christian Life, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. – 1988. ‘The Reformed View’, in: D.L. Alexander (ed.), Christian Spirituality. Five Views of Sanctification, Downers Grove: IVP, 47 – 76. Fesko, J.V. 2012. Beyond Calvin. Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517 – 1700), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Finlan, S. & Kharlamov, V. 2006. Theúsis: Deification in Christian Theology, Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Fisher, E. 2002. The Marrow of Modern Divinity, in: The Complete Works of Thomas Boston, Stoke on Trent: Tentmaker Publications, VII, 146 – 387. Flavel, J. 1982. The Works of John Flavel, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 6 vol. Flogaus, R. 1997. Theosis bei Palamas und Luther. Ein Beitrag zum ökumenischen Gespräch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Floor, L. 1998. EfeziÚrs. E¦n in Christus, Kampen: Kok, CNT 3e serie.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

322

Bibliography

Forde, G.O. 1988. ‘The Lutheran View’, in: D.L. Alexander (ed.), Christian Spirituality. Five Views of Sanctification, Downers Grove: InverVarsity,13 – 32. – 2005. The Captivation of the Will. Luther vs. Erasmus on Freedom and Bondage, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fraser, J. 1992. A Treatise on Sanctification. An Explanation Of Romans Chapters 6, 7 & 8: 1 – 4, Audubon: Old Paths Publications (first published 1774). Furnish, V.P. 1968. Theology and Ethics in Paul, Nashville: Abingdon Press. Gadsby, W. 1974. A Selection of Hymns for Public Worship by William Gadsby, Harpenden: The Gospel Standard Societies. – 1996a. The Gospel. The Believer’s Rule of Conduct. An Answer to Andrew Fuller, Ossett: Christian Bookshop. – 1996b. The Perfect Law of Liberty, Ossett: Christian Bookshop, 2 vol. Gaffin, R.B. 2006. ‘Union with Christ: some Biblical and Theological Reflections’ in: A.T.B. McGowan, Always Reforming. Explorations in systematic theology, Leicester : InterVarsity Press, 271 – 288. – 2008. ‘Justification and Union with Christ’, in: D. Hall en P. Lillback, Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes; Essays and Analyses, Phillipsburg: P& R, 248 – 269. Garcia, M. 2008. Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology, Milton Keynes: Paternoster. Garlington, D. 1994. Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Geest, P. van. 2007. Stellig maar onzeker. Augustinus’ benadering van God, Budel: Damon. Genderen, J. van. 1986. ‘Herman Witsius (1636 – 1708)’, in: T. Brienen (e.a.), De Nadere Reformatie. Beschrijving van haar voornaamste vertegenwoordigers, ’s Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 193 – 218. – 1991. Het getuigenis van de Heilige Geest. Rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Theologische Hogeschool te Apeldoorn, Alphen aan de Rijn. Gennep. F.O. 1989. De terugkeer van de verloren Vader. Een theologisch essay over vaderschap en macht in cultuur en christendom, Baarn: Ten Have. Gent, W. van. 1978. ‘Koelman’s kommentaar op enkele Engelse schrijvers’ in DNR 2/1, 29 – 32. Gerretson, C. 1974. Verzamelde Werken, Baarn: Bosch & Keuning. Geuze, M.D. 1971. ‘Sola Gratia, een theologische strijd in Schotland in het begin van de achttiende eeuw’, in: Theologia Reformata XII, 312 – 337. Gill, J. 1995. A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity : or a System of Evangelical Truths, Paris, Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer (repr. 1809). Gispen, W.H. 1959. Het boek Numeri (COT), Kampen: Kok, 2 vol. Gleason, R.C. 1995. John Calvin and John Owen on Mortification. A Comparative Study in Reformed Spirituality, New York e.a: Peter Lang. Göhler, A. 1934. Calvins Lehre von der Heiligung, München: Kaiser. Graafland, C. 1982, ‘Luthers leer van Woord en Geest in relatie tot het gereformeerd protestantisme’, in: W. Balke e.a., Luther en het gereformeerd protestantisme, ’s Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 207 – 248. – 1987. Van Calvijn tot Barth. Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer der verkiezing in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme, ’s Gravenhage: Boekencentrum.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

323

Bibliography

– 1989. ‘De Nadere Reformatie en het Labadisme’ in T. Brienen e.a., De Nadere Reformatie en het Gereformeerde PiÚtisme, ’s Gravenhage: Boekencentrum. Gräbe, P.J. 2000. The Power of God in Paul’s Letters, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Gray, A. 1839. The Works of the Reverend and pious Andrew Gray, Aberdeen: George King. Green, J.B. 2008. Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker. Gregorius van Nazianze, Oraties, NPNF (tweede serie), 7. Grosheide, F.W. 1954. Het heilig evangelie volgens Mattheüs (serie CNT), Kampen: Kok. Gründler, O. 1976. ‘John Calvin: Ingrafting in Christ’, in: E. Rozanne Elder (ed.), The Spirituality of Western Christendom, Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 169 – 187. Gunning, J.H. jr. 2008. Het Kruis des Verlossers (1861); De Prediking van de Toekomst des Heeren (1888), Barneveld: Nederlands Dagblad. Gurnall, W. 1964. The Christian in complete Armour ; A Treatise of the Saints’ War against the Devil, Carlisle/Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. Guthrie, D. 1970. New Testament Introduction, Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press. Hall, D.D. 1968. The Antinomian Controversy 1636 – 1638. A Documentary History, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press. Harrison, S. 2006. Augustine’s Way into the Will. The theological and philosophical significance of De Libero Arbitrio, Oxford: University Press. Haykin, M.A.G. (ed.) 1997. The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697 – 1771); ATercentennial Appreciation, Leiden: Brill. Hendriksen, W. 1982. The Gospel of Matthew, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Hengel, M. 2002. Paulus und Jakobus. Kleine Schriften III, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Heppe, H. 1958. Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierte Kirche, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Hertog, G.C. den. 2007. De passie van de hoop. Over de verhouding van eschatologie en ethiek, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. – 2008. ‘’Aan Mij is uw vrucht te danken’ (Hosea 14:9). Het reformatorische ‘praktisch syllogisme’ en de ethiek’, in: A. Baars e.a. (red.), Charis. Theologische opstellen, aangeboden aan prof. dr. J.W. Maris, Heerenveen: Groen, 79 – 89. Hesselink, I.J. 1967. ‘Calvin und Heilsgeschichte’, in: F. Christ (ed.), Oikonomia. Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie, Hamburg: Herbert Reich Evang., 163 – 170. Hof, W.J. (e.a. red.). 2009. De praktijk der godzaligheid. De auteur, de vertaler, de inhoud, de bibliografie, de editiegeschiedenis, de invloed en de internationale context van ‘De practycke ofte oeffeninghe der godtzalitgheydt’(1620), Amstelveen: EON Press. – 2011. De theologische opvattingen van Willem Teellinck, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan. Hofius, O. 2002. ‘Der Mensch im Schatten Adams: Römer 7:7 – 25a’, in: Paulusstudien II, WUNT, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 104 – 154. Holwerda, D.E. 1984.‘Eschatology and History. A Look at Calvin’s Eschatological Vision’, in: D.K. McKim (ed.), Readings in Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 311 – 342. Horton, M. 2007. Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ, Louisville: Westminster John Knox. – 2011. The Christian Faith. A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, Grand Rapids: Zondervan. – 2012. ‘Calvin’s Theology of Union with Christ and the Double Grace. Modern Reception

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

324

Bibliography

and Contemporary Possibilities’, in J.T. Billings & I.J. Hesselink (eds.), Calvin’s Theology and Its Reception. Disputes, Developments, and New Possibilities, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 72 – 94. Houwelingen, P.H.R. van. 1991. 1 Petrus. Rondzendbrief uit Babylon, CNT 3e serie, Kampen: Kok. – 1993. 2 Petrus en Judas. Testament in tweevoud, CNT 3e serie, Kampen: Kok. – 1997. Johannes, CNT 3e serie, Kampen: Kok. Howard, J.M. 2007. Paul, the Community, and Progressive Sanctification. An Exploration into Community-Based Transformation within Pauline Theology, New York: Peter Lang. Huijgen, A. 2008. ‘Wees jezelf. Heiliging volgens Rick Warren’, in: A. Baars e.a. (red.), Charis. Theologische opstellen, aangeboden aan prof. dr. J.W. Maris, Heerenveen: Groen, 113 – 124. Hulse, E. 1981. ‘Sanctifying the Lord’s Day’, in: Aspects of Sanctification. Westminster Conference 1981, Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 78 – 102. Huntemann, G. 1981. Die Zerstörung der Person. Bad Liebenzell: VLM. Immink, F.G. 2003. In God geloven. Een praktisch-theologische reconstructie, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Ireneaus, Epideixis. Jeon, J.K. 1999. Covenant Theology : John Murray’s and Meredith G. Kline’s response to the historical development of federal theology in reformed thought, Lanham: University Press of America. Jeremias, J. 1971. Neutestamentliche Theologie. Erster Teil. Die Verkündigung Jesu, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn Jocz, J. 1979. The Jewish People and Jesus Christ. The relationship between church and synagogue, Grand Rapids: Baker. Joest, W. 1967. ‘Dat heiligungsproblem nach Luthers Schrift ‘Wider die himmlischen Propheten’, in: I. Asheim (ed.), Kirche, Mystik, Heiligung und das Natürliche bei Luther. Vorträge des Dritten Internationalen Kongresses für Lutherforschung Järvenpää, Finnland 11 – 16 August 1966, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 189 – 193. Johnson, M. 2008. ‘New or nuanced perspective on Calvin? A reply to Thomas Wenger’, in: JETS 51/3, 543 – 558. Jones, M. 2010. Why Heaven Kissed Earth. The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox theologian Thomas Goodwin (1600 – 1680), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Jüngel, E. 2006. Das Evangelium von der Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen als Zentrum des christlichen Glaubens (herdruk uit 1998), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Justinus de Martelaar, Dialoog met Trypho, ANF I:194 – 270. Kargel, I.W. 1978. Christus onze heiligmaking, Amsterdam: Moria. Karlberg, M.W. 2000. ‘Covenant Theology and the Westminster Tradition’, WTJ 54 (1992), 135 – 152, ook in: M.W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective. Collected essays and book reviews in historical, biblical, and systematic theology, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 111 – 128. Käsemann, E. 1974. An die Römer. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 8a.3, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kater, M.J. 2011. Kom en Zie. De pre-existentie van de Zoon belicht vanuit de existentie van Jezus, de Christus, Apeldoorn: Theologische Universiteit.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

325

Bibliography

Kay, B. 2007. Trinitarian Spirituality. John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion, Milton Keynes: Paternoster. Keener, C.S. 2003. The Gospel of John. A Commentary, Peabody : Hendrickson Publishers, 2 vol. Kempen, T. van. De Imitatione Christi. Kevan, E.F. 1993. The Grace of Law. A Study in Puritan Theology, Ligonier : Soli Deo Gloria. Kierkegaard, S. 2006. Fear and Trembling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirchenordnung Pfalz, Heidelberg, 15 november 1563, in: E. Sehling (ed.), De Evangelische Kirchenordnungen (Bd XIV), Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1969. Klaassen, M. 2013. In Christus rechtvaardig. Reformatorische perspectieven op rechtvaardiging en eenheid met Christus, Apeldoorn: De Banier. Kleist, J.A. (ed. and trans.). 1948. The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistles and The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias, The Epistle to Diognetus, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Kluit, M.E. 1961. ‘Reveil en arminianisme’, in: NTT 15e jaargang, 338 – 352. Knijff, H.W. de. 1999. ‘Heiliging’, in: C.J. van de Boogert en G.C. den Hertog (red.), Hedendaagse zoektocht naar heiligheid. Aspecten van heiligheid in de bijbel en in de joodse en christelijke traditie, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum, 131 – 150. Koeijer, R.W. de. 2010. Geestelijke strijd bij de puriteinen. Een spiritualiteit-historisch onderzoek naarEngelse puriteinse geschriften in de periode 1587 – 1684, Apeldoorn: De Banier. Koelman, J. 1770. Historisch verhaal nopens der labadisten scheuring en veelerley dwalingen, met de wederlegginge derzelver, Leeuwarden: Tresling en Brandsma 1988. ‘Voorrede aan de lezer’ in: T. Hooker, De ware zielsvernedering en heilzame wanhoop, Houten; Den Hertog (oorspronkelijke Nederlandse uitgave Amsterdam 1678), 11 – 50. Kohlbrugge, H.F. 1884. De tabernakel en zijn gereedschappen, Franeker : Wever (2e druk). – 1890. Amsterdams Zondagsblad, no. 14. – 1892. Hoogst belangrijke briefwisseling tusschen Dr. H.F. Kohlbrügge en een van de meest beroemde zijner tijdgenooten over de leer der heiligmaking naar aanleiding van en vermeerderd met eene leerrede van Dr. Kohlbrügge over Rom. 7:14, Amsterdam: Scheffer & Co. – 1967. Twaalf twaalftallen leerredenen, Franeker : Wever, 6 vol. – 1974. Schriftverklaringen, Berkel: Protestants Periodieke Pers, 24 vol. – z.j. De eenvoudige Heidelberger. Catechismuspreken, Franeker : Wever. – 1982. Brieven van dr. H.F. Kohlbrugge, E. Böhl (red.), Veenendaal: Kool (herdruk Utrecht 1877). – 1989. De profeet Jona. Zeven preken, Houten: Den Hertog. – 2005. In Zijn Beeld, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan. – 2009. De Wet bevestigd. Romeinen 7 toegelicht, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan. – 2009. Romans 7: A Paraphrase, and ‘I believe in the Holy Spirit’, Minneapolis: By Faith Alone Publishing. Kolb, R. and T.J. Wengert (eds.). 2000. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. Kolfhaus, W. 1939. Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin, Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins K. Moers. Kommers, J. 2005. Ontwaakt gij die slaapt! Het reformatorisch getuigenis van Gottfried

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

326

Bibliography

Daniel Krummacher, Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrügge en Paul Geyser tijdes de Erweckung in het Wuppertal van de negentiende eeuw, Heerenveen: Groen. Kooi, C. v. d. 2008. ‘The Appeal to the Inner Testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck’, in: JRT 2, 103 – 112. Kooiman, W.J. 1954. Luther, zijn weg en werk, Amsterdam: Ten Have, 1954, 4e druk. – 1977. Luther en de bijbel, Baarn: Ten Have, 3e druk. Koopmans, J. 1949. De Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis, Amsterdam: Holland, 3e druk, Kooten, G.H. van. 2008. Paul’s Anthropology in Context. The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kreck, W. 1936. Die Lehre der Heiligung bei H.F. Kohlbrügge, München: Kaiser. Krusche, W. 1957. Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck. Kruijf, G.G. de. 1997. ‘Uti et Frui. A Still Useful Distinction in Christian Ethics’, in: A. van Egmond en D. van Keulen (eds.), Studies in Reformed Theology, Baarn: Callenbach, 81 – 94. – 2008. Ethiek onderweg. Acht adviezen, Zoetermeer : Meinema. Kruijf, T. de. 1978. ‘The Perspective of Romans 7’ in: T. Baarda, A.J.F. Klijn, W.C. van Unnik (eds.), Miscellanae Neotestamentica NovTSup 48, Leiden: Brill. Kruijf, Th.C. de. 1986. De brief van Paulus aan de Romeinen, Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting. Kümmel, W.G. 1929. Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus, Leipzig: Hinrich (repr. 1974). Kuss, O. 1963. Der Römerbrief überzetzt und Erklärt von Otto Kuss, Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 2 vol. Kuula, K. 2003. Paul’s Treatment of the Law and IsraÚl in Romans, in de serie: The Law, the Covenant and God’s Plan (vol. 2), Helskinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society. Kuyper, A. 1927. Het werk van den Heilige Geest voor de kerk in haar geheel, Kampen: Kok. Labooy, G.H. 2004. ‘Freedom and Neurobiology : A Scotistic Account’, in: Zygon, vol. 39, no. 4 (December 2004), 919 – 932 – 2007. Waar geest is, is vrijheid. Filosofie van de psychiatrie voorbij Descartes, – Amsterdam: Boom. Lachman, D.C. 1988. The Marrow Controversy 1718 – 1723, An Historical and Theological Analysis, Edinburgh: Rutherford House. Ladd, G.E., 1994. A Theology of the New Testament, Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press (first printing 1974). Lambrecht, J. 1992. The wretched ‘I’ and Its Liberation: Paul in Romans 7 and 8, Louvain: Peeters Press/Eerdmans. Lamme, V. 2010. De vrije wil bestaat niet. Over wie er echt de baas is in het brein, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Lane, A.N.S. 1993. ‘Justification in Sixteenth-Century Patristic Anthologies’, in: L. Grane, A. Schindler, M. Wriedt, Auctoritas Patrum: Contributions on the Reception of the Church Fathers in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century, Mainze: Philipp von Zabern, 69 – 95. – 2002. Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue. An Evangelical Assessment, London/New York: T& T Clark. – 2004a. ‘Twofold Righteousness: A Key to the Doctrine of Justification’, in: M. Husbands

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

327

Bibliography

en D.J. Treier (eds.), Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates, Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 205 – 224. – 2004b. ‘Calvin and the Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy’, in: H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Preacepter Ecclesiae, Geneva: Droz, 231 – 261. – 2006. ‘A Tale of Two Imperial Cities. Justification at Regensburg (1541) and Trent (1546 – 1547)’, in B.L. McCormack (ed.), Justification in Perspective. Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 119 – 145. Latzel, T. 2004. Theologische Grundzüge des Heidelberger Katechismus: eine fundamentaltheologische Untersuchung seines Ansatzes zur Glaubenskommunikation, Marburg : Elwert. Lee, S.H. 2003. ‘Editor’s Introduction’, in: The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith (vol. 21), New Haven en London: Yale University Press, 1 – 106. Leeuwen, C. van. 1985. Amos (POT), Nijkerk: Callenbach. Lehmkühler, K. 2004. Inhabitatio. Die Einwohnung Gottes im Menschen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Leiter, C., 2009. Rechtvaardiging en wedergeboorte, z.p.: Heartcry. Leith, J.H. 1973. Assembly at Westminster. Reformed Theology in the Making, Richmond: John Knox Press. Lewis, C.S. 1952. Mere Christianity, London: G. Bless. Lewis, P. 1981. ‘John Welsh: the Sanctified Heart’, in: G. Harrison (ed.), Aspects of Sanctification. Westminster Conference 1981, Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 103 – 119. Lichtenberger, H. 1997. ‘Der Beginn der Auslegungsgeschichte van Romer 7: Röm 7:25b’, in: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 88, 284 – 296. – 2004. Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit: Studien zum Menschenbild in Römer 7, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lillback, P.A. 2007. ‘Calvin’s Development of the Doctrine of Forensic Justification: Calvin and the early Lutherans on the Relationship of Justification and Renewal’, in: K. Scott Oliphint (ed.), Justified in Christ. God’s Plan for us in Justification, Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 51 – 80. Linde, S. van der. 1943. De leer van den Heiligen Geest bij Calvijn. Bijdrage tot de kennis der reformatorische theologie, Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen. – 1976. Opgang en voortgang der reformatie. Een keuze uit lezingen en artikelen van prof. dr. S. van der Linde, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Lloyd-Jones, D.M. 1973. Romans. An Exposition of Chapters 7.1 – 8.4, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. – 1976. The Christian Warfare. An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10 to 13, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. – 1977. The Christian Soldier. An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10 to 20, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Lodensteyn, J. van. 1980. De weegschaal der onvolmaaktheden der heiligen, Utrecht: De Banier. Lohse, B. 1995. Luthers Theologie in ihrer historischen Entwicklung und in ihrem systematischen Zusammenhang, Göttingen: VandenHoeck & Ruprecht. Lonkhuijzen, J. van. 1905. Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge en zijn prediking in de lijst van zijn tijd, Wageningen: Vale. Loos, J. 1948, De theologie van Kohlbrugge, Amsterdam: Holland.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

328

Bibliography

Lorenzen, S. 2008. Das paulinische Eikon-Konzept. Semantische Analyse zur Sapientia Salomonis zu Philo und den Paulusbriefen, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lovelace, R.F. 1992. Dynamics of Spiritual Life. An Evangelical Theology of Renewal, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press. – 2002. Renewal as a Way of Life, Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Luther, M. 1978. De Grote Catechismus in de vertaling van P. Boendermaker, Kampen: Kok. Mannermaa, T. 2005. Christ Present in Faith. Luther’s View of Justification, Minneapolis: Fortress. Manton, T. 1979. The Works of Thomas Manton, Gainesville: Maranatha Publications, 22 vol. Maris, J.W. 1992. Geloof en ervaring. Van Wesley tot de pinksterbeweging, Leiden: Groen. Marius, R. 1999. Martin Luther. The Christian between God and death, Cambridge/London: Marsden, G.M., 1980. Fundamentalism and American Culture. The Shaping of the Twentieth-Centure Evangelism 1870 – 1925, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marshall, J.E. 1981. ‘Walter Marshall and the Origins of Sanctification’, in: Aspects of Sanctification. Westminster Conference 1981, Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 17 – 40. Marshall, W. 1811. The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification opened, etc., New York: Southwick and Pelsum (original 1628). Martin, R.P. 1997. A Guide to the Puritans, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Mather, I. 1972. ‘Aan de lezer’ in: S. Stoddard, Een leidsman tot Christus of hoe men zielen moet besturen, die werkzaam zijn tot bekering, Dordrecht: Van den Tol. Mathetes, Brief aan Diognetus, ANF I:23 – 30. McCheyne, R.M. 1864. Christus ons alles. Woorden van raad en bestuur in dagen van godsdienstige opwekking, Amsterdam: Weytingh & Brave. – 1982. De Bron van zaligheid (vertaald uit Engels), Utrecht: Den Hertog. McCormack, B.L. 2006. ‘Justitia aliena: Karl Barth in Conversation with the Evangelical Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness’, in: B.L. McCormack (ed.), Justification in Perspective. Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 167 – 196. McGowan, A.T.B. 2006, ‘Justification and the orde salutis’, in: B.L. McCormack (ed.), Justification in Perspective. Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 147 – 163. McIntyre, D.M. 1938. ‘First Strictures on ‘the Marrow of Modern Divinity’‘, in: The Evangelical Quarterly X, 61 – 70. McKay, W.D.J. 2008, ‘The Puritan View of Sanctification’ in: A. Baars e.a., Charis. Opstellen aangeboden aan prof. dr. J.W. Maris, Heerenveen: Groen, 168 – 177. McLelland, J. 1987. ‘Renaissance in Theology : Calvin’s 1536 Institutio – Fresh Start or False?’, in: Papers from the 1986 International Calvin Symposium, Montreal: McGill University Press, 154 – 174. McQuilkin, J.R. 1987. ‘The Keswick Perspective’, in: S.N. Gundry (ed.), Five Views on Sanctification, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 149 – 183. M’Crie, Th. 1831 – 1832. ‘Account of the Controversy respecting the Marrow of Modern Divinity’, in: The Edinburgh Christian Instructor. Mechie, S. 1950. ‘The Marrow Controversy reviewed’, in: The Evangelical Quarterly XXII, 20 – 31.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

329

Bibliography

Meer, F. van der. 1949. Augustinus als zielzorger. Een studie over de praktijk van een Kerkvader, Utrecht/Brussel: Het Spectrum. Meeter, H.H. 1960. The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, Grand Rapids: Kregel. Meijering, E.P. 2001. Irenaeus, Amsterdam: Balans. – 2003. Als de uitleg maar goed is. Hoe vroege christenen de bijbel gebruikten, Zoetermeer : Meinema. – 2008. Klassieke gestalten van christelijk geloven en denken. Van Irenaeus tot Barth, Amsterdam: Gieben. Michel, O. 1967, ‘miseoo’ in TDNT IV,683 – 694. Middendorf, M.P. 1997. The ‘I’ in the Storm: A Study of Romans 7, Saint Louis: Concordia Academic Press. Miskotte, K.H. 1969. Kennis en bevinding, Haarlem: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland. Mitton, C.L. 1954. ‘Romans 7 Reconsidered’, in: Expository Times, no. 65. Moltmann, J. 1967 (transl. J.W. Leitch). Theology of Hope. On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, London: SCM Press. – 1993. The Trinity and the Kingdom. The Doctrine of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Moo, D.J. 1996. The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Morimoto, A. 1995. Jonathan Edwards and the Catholic Vision of Salvation, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. Morris, E.D. 1900. Theology of the Westminster Symbols. A Commentary historical, doctrinal, practical the confession of Faith and Catechismus and the related formularies of the Presbyterian Churches, Columbus: The Champlin Press. Morris, L. 1995, The Gospel according to John (serie: NICNT), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Motyer, J.A. 1993. The Prophecy of Isaiah. An Introduction & Commentary, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press. Muller, R.A. 1999. ‘Ordo Docendi: Melanchthon and the Organization of Calvin’s Institutes, 1536 – 1543’, in: K. Maag ed.), Melanchthon in Europe: His Work and Influence Beyond Wittenberg, Grand Rapids, Baker, 123 – 140. – 2000. The Unaccomodated Calvin. Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Murray, A. 1984. The Full Blessing of Pentecost, Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. – 1988. Absolute Surrender, Grand Rapids: Zondervan. – 1888. The Spirit of Christ. Thoughts on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer and the church, New York: Anson D.F. Randolph & Company. Murray, J. 1982. Collected Writings of John Murray, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 4 vol. Murray, J. 1990. The Epistle to the Romans NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Murray, J.T. 2007. Beyond Amazing Grace. Timeless pastoral wisdom from the letters, hymns and sermons of John Newton, Darlington: Evangelical Press. Nee, W. 1994. Het normale christelijke leven, Hoenderloo: Novapres. Needham, N. 2006, ‘Justification in the Early Church Fathers’, in: B.L. McCormack (ed.), Justification in Perspective. Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 25 – 53. Niesel, W. 1938. Die Theologie Calvins, München: Kaiser Verlag. Niftrik, G.C. van. 1953. ‘De verborgen zin der Schrift’ in: A.J. Visser e.a., Schrift en Kerk.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

330

Bibliography

Een bundel opstellen van vrienden en leerlingen aangeboden aan prof. dr. Th. L. Haitjema op 10 november 1953, Nijkerk: Callenbach, 41 – 59. Nijenhuis, W. 1959. Calvinus Oecumenicus. Calvijn en de eenheid der kerk in het licht van zijn briefwisseling, ’s Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Noordegraaf, A. 1984. Creatura Verbi. De groei van de gemeente volgens de Handelingen der Apostelen, ’s Gravenhage: Boekencentrum (2e druk). Noordmans, O. 1978-. Verzamelde Werken, Kampen: Kok, 9 vol. Oberman, H.A. 1974. Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era: Papers for the Fourth International Congress for Luther Research, Leiden: Brill. – 1989. Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, New Haven, Yale University Press. O’Donovan, O. 1980. The Problem of Self-Love in St. Augustine, New Haven/London: Yale University Press. – 1986. Resurrection and Moral Order. An Outline for Evangelical Ethics, Grand – Rapids: Eerdmans. Oepke, A. 1982. ‘apokaluptoo’, in TDNT III,563 – 592. Olin, John C. (ed. and trans.). 1966. A Reformation Debate: John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto, New York: Harper & Row. Oliphint, K.S. (ed.), 2007. Justified in Christ. God’s plan for us in Justification, Fearn: Christian Focus Publication. Oliver, R.W. 2006. History of the English Calvinistic Baptists 1771 – 1892. From John Gill to C.H. Spurgeon, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Oorthuys, G. 1990. Kruispunten op de weg der kerk. Zwingli, De Labadie, Kohlbrugge, Leiden: Groen (oorspronkelijke uitgave 1935). Otten, W. 1992, Uit het levensboek van dr. H.F. Kohlbrugge, Houten: Den Hertog. Ouweneel, W.J. 2007. De Geest van God. Ontwerp van een pneumatologie, Vaassen: Medema. – 2010. Het heil van God. Ontwerp van een soteriologie, Heerenveen: Medema. Packer, J.I. 1954. The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter, Oxford: University of Oxford (diss). – 1955. ‘’Keswick’ and the Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification’, in: Evangelical Quarterly, vol. 27, juli 1955, no. 3. – 1984. Keep in Step with the Spirit, Leicester : Inter-Varsity Press. – 1992. A Passion for Holiness, Nottingham: Crossway Books. Pannenberg, W. 1998 (trans. Geoffrey Bromiley). Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans vol 3. Partee, C. 1987. ‘Calvin’s Central Dogma Again’, Sixteenth Century Journal 18, 2 (1987), 191 – 199. Pascal, B. 1909 (ed. C. W. Eliot; trans. W.F. Trotter). Thoughts New York, P.F. Collier & Son. Paulsen, H. 1974. Überlieferung und Auslegung in Römer 8, in de serie: Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 43, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Payne, J.B. e.a. 1984. ‘The Paraphrases of Erasmus. Origin and Character’, in: Paraphrases on Romans and Galatians, in: Collected Works of Erasmus vol. 42, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, xi-xx. Peels, H.G.L. 1999. ‘Heiligheid en heiliging in de oudtestamentische eschatologie’, in: C.J. van den Boogert en G.C. den Hertog (red.), Hedendaags zoektocht naar heiligheid.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

331

Bibliography

Aspecten van heiligheid in de bijbel en in de joodse en christelijke traditie, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum, 35 – 52. Pelt, J.W. van. 1999. Pastoraat in trinitarisch perspectief; de samenhang van trinitarische en antropologische aspecten in het pastoraat, Heerenveen: Groen. Pesch, O.H. 1967. Theologie der Rechtfertigung bei Martin Luther und Thomas van Aquin. Versuch eines systematisch-theologischen Dialog, Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag. Peterson, D. 1995. Possessed by God. A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness, Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press. Philpot, J.C. 2011. Meditations on the Preceptive Part of the Word of God, Memphis: Bottom of the Hill Publishing. Pierson, A. 1888. Oudere tijdgenoten, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Pink, A.W. 1998. The Doctrine of Sanctification. Discerning real and false notions of Holiness, Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications. Piper, J. 1995. The purifying power of living by faith in Future Grace, Leicester : Inter Varsity Press. Pol, F. van der. 1993. ‘Spiritualiteit in de Middeleeuwen’, in: W. van ’t Spijker e.a. (red.), Spiritualiteit, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 99 – 148. Pollock, J.C. The Keswick Story, London: Hodder and Stoughton. Preston, J. 1990. The Golden Sceptre, Ligonier : Soli Deo Gloria Publications. Ramsbottom, B.A. 2005. William Gadsby, Houten: Den Hertog. Ramsey, P. 1989. ‘Editor’s Introduction’, in: The Works Of Jonathan Edwards, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, vol. 8,1 – 121. Reasoner, M. 2005. Romans in full circle. A History of Interpretation, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Reitsma, B.J.G. 1997. Geest en schepping. Een bijbels theologische bijdrage aan de systematische doordenking van de verhouding van de Geest van God tot de geschapen werkelijkheid, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. – 2006. Wie is onze God? Arabische christenen, IsraÚl en de aard van God. Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Reuver, A. de. 1992. ‘Bedelen bij de Bron.’ Kohlbrugge’s geloofsopvatting vergeleken met Reformatie en Nadere Reformatie, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. – 1995. Calvijn, breuk of brug? Over de spiritualiteit van Thomas a Kempis en Johannes Calvijn, Utrecht: Factulteit der Godgeleerdheid, Universiteit Utrecht (Utrechtse Theologische Reeks; 28). – 2007 (trans. James A. De Jong). Sweet Communion: Trajectories of Spirituality from the Middle Ages to the Further Reformation, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. – 2009. Verlangen naar het Vaderland, Heerenveen: Groen. Reynolds, E. 1826. The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Edwards Reynolds, London: Holdsworth, 6 vol. Ridderbos, H. 1962 (ed. Raymond O. Zorn; trans. H. de Jongste). The Coming of the Kingdom. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed. – 1959. Aan de Romeinen (serie: CNT), Kampen: Kok. – 1975 (trans. John Richard DeWitt). Paul: An Outline of his Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Ridderus, Fr. 1671. De Beschaemde Christen, door het Geloof en Leven van Heydenen en andere Natuerlijcke Menschen, Rotterdam: Ioannes Borstius.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

332

Bibliography

Roberts, M.J. 1981.‘Visible Saints: the Puritans as a Godly People’, in: G. Harrison (ed.), Aspects of Sanctification. Westminster Conference 1981, Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1 – 16. Roiphe, K. 1997. Last Night in Paradise. Sex and Morals at the Century’s End, Boston: Little Browns & Co. Rolston. H. 1972. John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession, Richmond: John Knox Press. Rothuizen, G.Th. 1962. Primus usus legis. Studie over het burgerlijk gebruik van de wet, Kampen: Kok. Rouwendal, P.L. 2004, ‘Historische inleiding’, in: A. Fuller, Aller aanneming waardig. Over de oproep tot geloof, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 9 – 48. Ru, G. de. 1966. De rechtvaardiging bij Augustinus, vergeleken met de leer der iustificatio bij Luther en Calvijn, Wageningen: Veenman. Ruler, A. A. van. 1947. De vervulling van de wet. Een dogmatische studie over de verhouding van openbaring en existentie, Nijkerk: Callenbach. Rutherford, S. 2006. Letters of Samuel Rutherford, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust (oorspronkelijke uitgave 1664). Ryle, J.C. 1981. Holiness. Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Sangster, W.E. 1984. The Path to Perfection. An Examination and Restatement of John Wesley’s Doctrine of Christian Perfection, London: Epworth Press (reprint). Schaff, P. 1996. The Creeds of Christendom. With a History and Critical Notes, Grand Rapids: Baker Books (repr. 1931), 3 vol. Scheers, G. Ph. 1976. ‘Calvijn en Kohlbrugge’, in W. Aalders en D. van Heyst (red.), Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge (1803 – 1875). Zijn leven, zijn prediking, zijn geschriften, Den Haag: Voorhoeve, 123 – 141. Schegget, G.H. ter. 1970. Het beroep op de stad der toekomst. Ethiek van de revolutie, Haarlem: De ervan F. Bohn. Schelven, A. A. van. 1951. Het Calvinisme in zijn bloeitijd. Zijn uitbreiding en cultuurhistorische betekenis, Amsterdam: Ten Have. Scholten, J.H. 1870. De leer der Hervormde kerk in hare grondbeginselen voorgesteld en beoordeeld, Leiden: P. Engels, 2 vol. Schreiner, T.R. 1998. Romans, Grand Rapids: Baker. – 2008. New Testament Theology. Magnifying God in Christ, Nottingham: Apollos. Schulze, M. 1971. Meditatio futurae vitae. Ihr Begriff und ihre herrschende Stellung im System Calvins. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von dessen Institutio, Aalen: Scientia Verlag. Selderhuis, H.J. 2007. Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. – 2002. Morgen doe ik het beter. Gids voor gewone christenen, Barneveld: De Vuurbaak (12e druk). Shaw, R. 1980. An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, (oorspronkelijk 1845), Lochcarron: Christian Focus Publications. Sibbes, R. 2001. Works of Richard Sibbes, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 7 vol. Skevington Wood, A. 1967, The Burning Heart. John Wesley, Evangelist, Exeter : The Paternoster Press.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

333

Bibliography

Smijtegelt, B. 1978. De weg der heiligmaking. Utrecht: Den Hertog. Smith, H.W. 1952. The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell (division of Baker Book House). Smail, T. 2001. ‘The Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity’ in C.R. Seitz, Nicene Christianity. The Future for a New Ecumenism, Grand Rapids: Baker, 149 – 165. Spijker, W. v. ’t. 1983. Luther. Belofte en ervaring, Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre. – 1986. De Heilige Geest als Trooster, Kampen: Kok. – 1991. ‘’Extra nos’ en ‘in nobis’ bij Calvijn in pneumatologisch licht’, in TR XXXI/4, december 1988, 271 – 291; Geest, Woord en kerk. Opstellen over de geschiedenis van het gereformeerd protestantisme, Kampen: Kok 1991, 114 – 132. – 1993a. De toeÚigening van het heil, Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn. – 1993b. ‘Spiritualiteit en Spiritus Sanctus’, in: W. van ’t Spijker (red.), Spiritualiteit, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 435 – 452. – e.a. 2001. Het puritanisme. Geschiedenis, theologie en invloed, Zoetermeer 2001: Boekencentrum. – 2002. ‘De theologie van de Geloofsbelijdenis van Westminster’, in: W. van ’t Spijker e.a., De Synode van Westminster 1643 – 1649, Houten: Den Hertog, 117 – 142. – 2006. ‘Een vergelijking tussen de theologische kernen van de Heidelbergse Catechismus en de Westminster Confessie’, in: TR 49/4, 362 – 376. Spurgeon, C.H. 1997. All of Grace, Albany : Ages Software. Stadtland, Tj. 1972. Rechtfertigung und Heiligung bei Calvin, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Stanglin, K.D. 2007. Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation. The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603 – 1609, Leiden: Brill. Starreveld, J.C.L. 1997. ‘Enkele opmerkingen over het ‘ik’ in Romeinen 7:14 – 25’, in: J.W. Maris en H.G.L. Peels (red.), Onthullende Woorden. Opstellen aangeboden aan prof. Dr. J. de Vuyst, Leiden: Groen, 154 – 163. Steinmetz, D.C. 1995. ‘Calvin and the Divided Self of Romans 7’, in: D.C. Steinmetz, Calvin in Context, Oxford University Press, 110 – 121. Stern, D.H. 1992. Jewish New Testament Commentary. A Companion volume to the Jewish New Testament, Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications. – 1988. Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel. A Message for Christians Condensed from Messianic Judaism, Clarksville: Messianic Jewish Publishers. Stiasny, Th. 1935. Die Theologie Kohlbrügges, Düsseldorf: E.W. Bronger. Stolk, J.M., 2004, Calvijn en de godsdienstgesprekken, Kampen: Kok. Swaab, D. 2010. Wij zijn ons brein. Van baarmoeder tot alzheimer, Amsterdam: Contact. Tamburello, D.E. 1994. Union with Christ. John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Teellinck, W. 1650. De worstelinge eenes bekeerden sondaers, ofte Grondige Verklaringe van den rechten zin des VII Capittels tot den Romeijnen, enz., Vlissingen: Samuel Versterre (2e druk). TeSelle, E. 2002. ‘Exploring the Inner Conflict: Augustine’s Sermons on Romans 7 and 8’ in: D. Patte en E. TeSelle (eds.), Enganging Augustine on Romans: Self. Context, and Theology in Interpretation, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 111 – 146. Telford, J. (ed.). 1931. The Letters of John Wesley, Londen: Epworth Press.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

334

Bibliography

Thielman, F. 1989. From Plight to Solution. A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans, Leiden: Brill. Thiselton, A.C. 2007. The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Torrance, J.B. 1982. ‘Strength and Weaknesses of the Westminster Theology’, in: A.I.C. Heron (ed.), The Westminster Confession in the Church Today, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 40 – 54. Torrance, T.F. 1996. Scottish Theology. From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell, Edinburgh: T& T Clark. – 1997. ‘Justification’ in: E. Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. Garland. Traill, R. 1810. Works, Edinburgh: Ogle, 4 vol. Trueman, C.R. 2006. ‘Simul peccator et justus: Martin Luther and Justification’, in: B.L. McCormack (ed.), Justification in Perspective. Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 73 – 97. Tyson, J.R. 1986. Charles Wesley on Sanctification. A Biographical and Theological Study, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Press. Ursinus, Z. 1607. Explicatuonvm Catecheticarvm D. Zachariae Vrsini (…) Davidis Parei D, Heidelberg: Johannis Halbey 1852 (trans. G.W. Williard). The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, Philipsburg: P& R. Valen, L.J. van. 2008. Geworteld in Zijn liefde. Leven en werk van Andrew Murray, Apeldoorn: De Banier. Veenhof, J. 2005. Vrij gereformeerd. Verzamelde artikelen bezorgd door Dirk van Keulen, Kees van der Kooi, Aad van Egmond en Martien Brinkman, Kampen: Kok. Velema, W.H. 1987. Wet en Evangelie, Kampen: Kok. Venema, C.P. 2007. Accepted and Renewed in Christ. The Twofold Grace of God and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology, Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Verboom, W. 1999. Kostbaar belijden. De theologie van de Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis. Met preekschetsen, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Verbrugge, A. 2004. Tijd van onbehagen. Filosofische essays over een cultuur op drift, Amsterdam: SUN/Boom. Verkuyl, J. 1976. Voorbereiding voor de dialoog over het evangelie en de ideologie van het marxistisch leninisme, Kampen: Kok. Versteeg, J.P. 1980. Christus en de Geest. Een exegetisch onderzoek naar de verhouding van de opgestane Christus en de Geest van God volgens de brieven van Paulus, Kampen: Kok Vlastuin, W. van. 2002. De Geest van opwekking. Een onderzoek naar de leer van de Heilige Geest in de opwekkingstheologie van Jonathan Edwards (1703 – 1758), Heerenveen: Groen. – 2006. Profetie en tongentaal. De gaven van de Geest en de gereformeerde traditie, Houten: Den Hertog. – 2009. Wordt vervuld. Over het werk van de Heilige Geest, Apeldoorn: De Banier. – 2011. ‘Personal renewal between Heidelberg and Westminster’, in: JRT 2011/1, 49 – 67. Vos, A. 1981. Kennis en noodzakelijkheid. Een kritische analyse van het absoluut evidentialisme in wijsbegeerte en theologie, Kampen: Kok. Vries, P. de. 1999. Die mij heeft liefgehad. De betekenis van de gemeenschap met Christus in de theologie van John Owen (1616 – 1683), Heerenveen: Groen. – 2003. Vreugde in God. Over de leer van de Drie-eenheid, Heerenveen: Groen.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619

335

Bibliography

Vriezen, Th.C. 1977. Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament, Wageningen: H. Veenman & Zonen (5e druk). Ward, K. 2008. Why there almost certainly is a God. Doubting Dawkins, Oxford: Lion Hudson. Warfield, B.B. 2003. The Works of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 10 vol. (reprint 1932). Watson, T. 1675. The Duty of Self-Denial briefly opened and urged, London: Tho. Parkhurst. Webber, D. 1981. ‘Sanctifying the inner Life’, in: G. Harrison (ed.), Aspects of Sanctification. Westminster Conference 1981, Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 41 – 61. Webster, J. 2003. Holiness, London: SCM Press. Weinandy, T.G. 2000. Does God suffer? Edinburgh: T& T Clark. Wendel, F. 1997. Calvin. Origins and Developments of His Religious Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House (repr. 1963, oorspronkelijke uitgave in het Frans 1950). Wenger, T.L. 2007, ‘The new perspective on Calvin: responding to recent Calvin interpretations’, in: JETS 50/2, 311 – 328. Wesley, J. 1952. A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, London: Epworth Press. 1991. The Works of John Wesley (Third Edition), Peabody : Hendrickson, 7 vol. Willis-Watkins, D. 1991. ‘The Unio Mystica and the Assurance of Faith According to Calvin’, in: W. van ‘t Spijker (ed.), Calvin Erbe und Auftrag: Festschrift für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65. Geburtstag, Kampen: Kok, 77 – 84. Williams, D.H. 2005. Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influence of the Early Church, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Winslow, O. 1991. No Condemnation in Christ Jesus. As Unfolded in the Eigth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Carlisle/Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth (repr. 1853). Wisse, G. z.j. De droefheid naar God, Rotterdam: Lindenberg. Wood, L.W. 1988. ‘The Wesleyan View’ in: D.L. Alexander, Christian Spirituality. Five Views of Sanctification, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 95 – 131. Wright, N.T. 1992. New Tasks for a Renewed Church, Londen: Hoddon and Stoughton. – 2003. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3: The Resurrection of the Son of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Wübbenhorst, K. 2006. ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification: Variations on a Lutheran Theme’, in: B.L. McCormack (ed.), Justification in Perspective. Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 99 – 118. Wumkes, G.A. 1994. Het Friese Reveil in portretten, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan. Yoo, H.M. 2008. ‘Theosis as Work of the Triune God’, in: A. Baars e.a., Charis. Opstellen aangeboden aan prof. dr. J.W. Maris, Heerenveen: Groen, 267 – 275. Zwaag, W. van der 2001. De Reformatie der Puriteinen. Kerkhistorie van Engeland tussen Reformatie en Revolutie, Barneveld: Koster.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550618 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550619