Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy

By Willem A. VanGemeren

Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi 39209

C. Graafland, Het Vaste Verbond. Israel en het Oude Testament bij Calvijn en het Gereformeerd Protestantisme (Amsterdam: Uitgevery Ton Boland, 1978).

The existence of the State of Israel as well as its prominence in the Middle East has provoked a mixed reaction from the Christian community. Some consider the reemergence of Israel and its subsequent life in the Middle East only as a political issue. From this perspective Israel is simply a nation striving to preserve its independence and to maintain internal harmony. However, for the Christian community, Israel is also a theological issue. The theological questions are many: Who are the Jews? What is the relationship of Church and Synagogue? Does the existence of the State of Israel mark the return of our Lord? A little over ten years ago (1971) evangelical Christians met to consider these issues at the Jerusalem Conference. Among the evangelical viewpoints, Edmund P. Clowney and H. N. Ridderbos represented the Reformed community. Professor Ridderbos expressed well the question which has recently risen in Reformed thought:

…the existence of Israel once again becomes a bone of contention, this time in a theoretical and theological sense. Do the misery and suffering of Israel in the past and in the present prove that God’s doom has rested and will rest upon her, as has been alleged time and again in so-called Christian theology? Or is Israel’s lasting existence and, in a way, her invincibility, God’s finger in history, that Israel is the object of His special providence (providentia specialissima) and the proof of her glorious future, the future that has been beheld and foretold by Israel’s own seers and prophets?[1]

Where does the Reformed community stand regarding the State of Israel and the Jewish people? In vain one turns to the Reformed symbols for an answer. The Westminster Confession is silent on the future of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. One’s answer to the theological question of the Jews and Israel depends on how he reads the Scriptures. Essentially, it is also an exegetical issue. At this point the Westminster Confession gives “general” guidelines on the relationship between the testaments. If the Reformed community is going to respond to the modern questions, it must develop a hermeneutic which does not erode the confessional perimeters of the unity of the testaments to the exclusion of the OT or the NT. All Scripture should have a bearing on the questions at hand. Then and only then can Reformed theology develop a response. The attempt to bring both hermeneutical and theological concerns together is found in an important study entitled, Het Vaste Verbond. Israel en het Oude Testament by Calvijn en het Gereformeerd Protestantisme.[2] The author is Dr. C. Graafland, professor of theology at the University of Utrecht and a member of De Gereformeerde Bond (The Reformed Covenant Fellowship, a solid confessional movement in the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk). In this review article we shall carefully consider Graafland’s dogmatic-historical contribution to the question of Israel.

In the first chapter Graafland considers the confessional position with regard to Israel. Having concluded that the Belgic Confession is silent on the matter, he probes further by asking whether the confession gives any guidelines on how to read the Bible. Only one article (25) directly deals with the mode of how the OT is to be read:

We believe that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished among Christians: yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty to the glory of God, according to his will.

He observes that this article is not without ambiguity. What is meant by: “In the meantime we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets”? This affirmation does not tell us how the OT should be read. The problem becomes even more urgent when he looks at the issues being raised by modern OT scholars and liberation theologians regarding the relationship of the two testaments.[3] The existence of Israel as a state together with the issues raised by modern theologians make the place and use of the OT a burning issue to which Reformed theologians must respond. Graafland writes to the occasion and masterfully sets forth the heritage of the Reformers on the relationship between the testaments.

How did Calvin develop his view on the place of the OT in the church? Graafland contends that the Reformed view of the OT was crystallized by a twofold confrontation with Rome and with the Anabaptists. First, in its confrontation against Rome, Calvin thought that the relationship of the OT and NT is one of shadow and reality, promise and fulfillment. The OT system of law, as it relates to Israel as a nation, and its ceremonial regulations have been abrogated since the coming of Jesus Christ. Hence, the Reformed confessions emphasize the aspect of “completion” and “fulfillment” introduced by Jesus Christ over against the Catholic practices of common law, penance, the priesthood, and the mass. Second, the Reformation witnessed a radical break from the OT. The Lutherans juxtaposed law and gospel. The Anabaptists were even more extreme in that they had little use for the OT. They judged it to be inferior to the gospel. The Christian life demanded spiritual guidance, in which the OT was of little help because of its geographical ethnicity. In confrontation with Anabaptists’ dualism, Calvin insisted that the OT is Scripture, and as such it is authoritative for the faith and practice of God’s people.

Calvin’s doctrine of the unity of the covenant is the result of a distinctive hermeneutic.[4] Graafland’s treatment of the underlying hermeneutic and the implications of the doctrine is sympathetic to Calvin. In his analysis he depends largely on the significant study by H. H. Wolf who independently demonstrated the paramount importance of the unity of the covenant in Reformed theology.[5]

Graafland’s own contribution to the study of Calvin lies in his ability to synthesize both Calvin’s theology and the interpretations which followed Calvin. He views Calvin not only as a sixteenth-century theologian but also as one who spoke to issues with which the twentieth-century Christian is still concerned, such as the relationship of law and gospel (chap. 3), of promise and fulfillment (chap. 5), of token and reality (chap. 6), and the theologically charged issue of the place of the law in the church (chap. 4). Graafland argues persuasively that the unity of the two testaments is more important than their diversity. Later theologians have been divided on this issue. Systematic theologians emphasized the static approach to the unity of the covenant. Since God is unchangeable, his actions in Old and New were expressions of his eternal decree. The differences are merely temporal. The name of Voetius is associated with this development. The followers of Voetius spoke not only of the eternal decree of the election of the church, but also about eternal salvation and eternal justification. The practical outcome of this process was a theologically oriented preaching in which a text of the OT could equally well teach what is found in the NT. Theology tended to obscure the historical and epochal differences. On the other hand, Cocceius and his followers approached the covenant historically and tended to deemphasize the unity. The two approaches have continued to develop. Reformed theology has polarized because eternity and history have not been held in tension. Graafland presents Calvin’s theology as exegetically oriented in which the “static” and “dynamic” are held in balance. It is this balance which permits the OT to speak as Scripture. The tension between the static and the dynamic is best illustrated in Calvin’s attempt to relate the OT and NT as law and gospel.

In chapter 3 (“Law and Gospel”) Graafland puts forward the thesis that Calvin’s concept of law should be related to gospel in such a manner that it is part and parcel of the evangel. The word “law,” as a designation of the OT covenant, does not simply denote the period of preparation before the gospel. Indeed, Calvin saw the OT revelation as gracious and redemptive. The word “law” may also designate God’s expectations and demands in a narrower sense, namely, the moral, ceremonial, and civil laws. The law is a guardian to Christ. A wrong use of the law is deadly, as Calvin explains in his commentary on 2 Corinthians 3, whereas the proper use of the law is spiritually quickening. Graafland agrees here with K. Schilder[6] that Calvin’s use of the law has the appearance of a paradox: the law is at once deadly and spiritual. The tension arises out of Calvin’s theology of law. The law is to be preached in order to bring conviction of sin and to evoke a grateful response for the grace of God in Jesus Christ. The law is not an end in itself, because then preaching becomes legalistic and moralistic. The law relates to Christ, as Graafland observes, “Where the law is not preached, the gospel cannot be proclaimed” (p. 50). Truly Reformed preaching, Graafland maintains, preaches both law and gospel in a balanced way. Sometimes the emphasis may fall on law, at other times on gospel, but at all times the two must be related to a proclamation of Jesus Christ, the redeemer who calls upon us to express our gratitude by lives of obedience to him.

Following the discussion of law and gospel, Graafland addresses the issue of the significance of the law in chapter 4. The question is how the OT laws are to be used. The threefold distinction of law: (1) moral; (2) ceremonial; and (3) civil derives from Calvin himself. The moral laws are rooted in the law of love. The ceremonial laws are fulfilled in the high-priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. The civil laws form a separate category and raise significant practical and theological issues. Graafland asserts that while Calvin did not consider the civil laws as being on the same level as the moral law, he saw in them a reflection and application of the moral law. Two words help to explain Calvin’s view of the civil law: constitutio and aequitas. By constitutio Calvin thought of the concrete application of the law given to a particular people in a particular time and culture. As such it is difficult to apply the civil laws directly to our culture. However, the aequitas assumes that a relation exists between the moral law and the civil laws. The aequitas of the law is that principle which permits the application of the moral law to other historical periods and cultures. The Westminster Confession of Faith (9.4) explains the use of the civil laws on the basis of the principle of aequitas (“equity”) :

To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

The Belgic Confession (art. 25) deals with the same principle by reference to the word “use” (L. usus):

In the meantime we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty to the glory of God, according to his will.

The exact nature of the “equity” or “use” is never clarified. The tension exists between the necessity to live in accordance with the law of God and with the freedom of the Christian. There is some flexibility in the use and application of the civil laws to each society, culture, and situation. One group of Christians may make minimal use of these laws, whereas another group will use them extensively.

Graafland continues his discussion on the differences between Old and New in chapters 5 and 6, “Promise and Fulfillment” and “Token and Reality.” He begins by looking at the OT as containing the promise of salvation and anticipating the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. In relation to the NT, the OT is not as clear on the nature of salvation. The NT contains a “better,” “greater,” and “fuller” revelation of God. The temptation is now to set the OT aside as containing a mere “shadow” of the substance of the hope, which is Christ Jesus. Calvin again manifests a remarkable balance. On the one hand, the OT anticipates the NT revelation. By itself it is not complete. It is a shadow of the “image” revealed in the NT. On the other hand, Calvin appreciates the beauty of the salvation experience of OT saints. It was salvation by grace. To appreciate the nature of OT salvation one needs a proper view of promise. In the OT the promise was concealed. In the NT it is revealed. But in each case it remains promise and it will continue to be promise until the final consummation:

Although, therefore, Christ offers us in the gospel a present fulness of spiritual benefits, the enjoyment thereof ever lies hidden under the guardianship of hope, until having put off corruptible flesh, we can be transfigured in the glory of him who goes before us.[7]

In other words, “the gospel points out with the finger what the law foreshadowed under types.”[8] The whole nature of biblical revelation is in one sense the proclamation of promise and the experience of redemption in the present and the anticipation of a greater fulfillment. This is true even in the imagery of shadow or figure, i.e., the absence of the reality, in the OT and the reality of the NT. However, the reality is again dwarfed by a consideration of the greater experience of the reality of redemption awaiting the children of God at their glorification. There are several stages in the development of the theme “promise and fulfillment.” The OT contains promise and fulfillment. The fulfillment was a real fulfillment, and at the same time awaited confirmation in Christ: “Let us then set forth the covenant that he once established as eternal and never-perishing. Its fulfillment, by which it is finally confirmed and ratified, is Christ. While such confirmation was awaited, the Lord appointed, through Moses, ceremonies that were, so to speak, solemn symbols of that confirmation.”9

The NT reveals the Christ and the confirmation of the OT expectation by types, shadows, and figures. Yet, Jesus taught his church to anticipate the greater realization of the redemption accomplished during his stay on earth at his Second Coming. Thus, we find the triad in Calvin: OT—NT—Completion; shadow—reality—full reality.

The above analysis explains why Calvin frequently used the word “promise,” particularly in Book 3 of the Institutes (“The way in which we receive the Grace of Christ: What benefits come to us from it; and what effects follow”). The promise of God is the foundation of faith for both the OT and NT saints:

We make the freely given promise of God the foundation of faith because upon it faith properly rests. Faith is certain that God is true in all things whether he command or forbid, whether he promise or threaten; and it also obediently receives his commandments, observes his prohibitions, heeds his threats. Nevertheless, faith seeks life: a life that is not found in commandments or declarations of penalties, but in the promise of mercy, and only in the freely given promise.[10]

In this brief analysis of Calvin’s emphasis on promise, we must observe that his thoughts are permeated with and driven by a strong, eschatological sense of the completion of the history of redemption at the consummation. The tension of the present and the future enjoyment of redemption, is unresolved in Calvin. In fact, he charged Servetus with abolishing the promises in order to emphasize the “greatness of Christ’s grace” and pretending that “by faith in the gospel we share in the fulfillment of all the promises. As if there were no difference between us and Christ!”[11] Over against this Calvin taught that although “Christ offers us in the gospel a present fullness of spiritual benefits, the enjoyment thereof ever lies hidden under the guardianship of hope, until, having put off corruptible flesh, we be transfigured in the glory of him who goes before us.”[12]

Another problem arises when “promise” is conceived of in a narrow way. Graafland asserts that the word “promise” in Reformed theology contains a fourfold significance. Unless all four nuances are acknowledged a significant limitation is placed on the enjoyment of faith. Faith and hope go together. When the one is limited, the development of the other is likewise limited. For Graafland the four nuances of “promise” are (pp. 76-77):

1. The redemptive revelation of God given in the Old Testament, in distinction from the New Testament, shows us the fulfillment of the promise.
2. he Word-character of redemptive revelation. The whole Scripture is “promise” in that it teaches us to anticipate the moment of the consummation. Promise is tied to Word and faith.
3. The stage of the personal experience of faith, before one has the assurance of salvation.
4. The encouragement and assurance received by a particular word of Scripture as applied by the Holy Spirit.

The conception of promise also relates to our understanding of revelation and history. In the biblical teaching of the promise of God the stress is placed on the self-authenticating nature of God. He initiates, he elects, he promises, and he keeps his promises. Each revelation of God in Genesis and Exodus brings out the above characteristics of promise. God spoke to Abraham and each time he clarified the promise. He reaffirmed, clarified, and developed the promise to the descendants of Abraham until the moment of fulfillment began to take place. The emphasis in Deuteronomy lies on the “new” moment in Israel’s experience as God through Moses affirms to them:

1. his election of Israel;
2. his promises to the Patriarch;
3. his revelation at Mt. Sinai;
4. his care for Israel in the wilderness;
5. the fulfillment of the promises of: (a) the multiplication of Abraham’s seed; (b) the blessed position of Israel; (c) the conquest of the Land (Transjordan).

The view of revelation set forth in the concept of promise runs counter to modern conceptions of revelation. Graafland insists that the concept of revelation must include the following characteristics:

1. Revelation is initiated by God. God comes to man. It is not just a confrontation between God and man, in which both parties agree to meet together. The biblical view of revelation excludes the dual movement of man’s moving toward God, and God’s moving toward man.
2. Revelation is Word-revelation in which God comes toward man with authority.
3. Revelation is inscripturated, and as such God’s Word still must come to us with power, overtaking and subduing us by the Spirit of the living God.
4. Revelation is applied by the Spirit of God through the proclamation of the Word. Revelation is thus actualized in proclamation and in the life of faith of the Christian community.

In chapter 6 (“Token and Reality”) we face perhaps the most important hermeneutical issue. An improper characterization of the OT as material and the NT as spiritual may lead, and in fact has led, to dualism. In the OT we find an emphasis on the material: the temple, the material experience of the blessings of God, the land of Canaan, and a material conception of the restoration. Over against it is the spiritual emphasis of the NT: Jesus is the temple of God; the new heaven and earth (the New Jerusalem)are representations of the spiritual hope of its OT counterpart (Canaan); and God is to be worshipped “in spirit and in truth.” Israel lived and enjoyed God’s benefit in the land of Canaan. The church receives the spiritual blessings of God in Christ wherever she is assembled.

Simple as this construction is, it is not true to Calvin’s formulation. He posited the experience of Israel as the childhood of the church:

The same church existed among them, but as yet in its childhood. Therefore, keeping them under this tutelage, the Lord gave, not spiritual promises unadorned and open, but once foreshadowed, in a measure, by earthly promises. When, therefore, he adopted Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants into the hope of immortality, he promised them the Land of Canaan as an inheritance. It was not to be the final goal of their hopes, but was to exercise and confirm them, as they contemplated it, in hope of their true inheritance, an inheritance not yet manifested to them.[13]

There is then a spiritual nature attached to the earthly blessings. The OT believer received God’s benefits as a token of his shalom with God and as a signal of his spiritual relationship with God: “Then he adds the promise of the land, solely as a symbol of his benevolence and a type of the heavenly inheritance.” This explains the prophetic language with its pictures and representation of the earthly blessedness in the state of completion:

Yet the prophets more often represent the blessedness of the age to come through the type that they had received from the Lord…. We see that all these things cannot properly apply to the Land of our pilgrimage, or to the earthly Jerusalem, but to the true homeland of believers, that heavenly city wherein “the Lord has ordained blessing and life forevermore.”[14]

Graafland’s response to the charge of dualism is thorough. First, a dualistic interpretation of Calvin might lead to a dualistic interpretation of the NT. The material aspect is not absent from the promise (cf. Luke 1:69–74, 77; 2:14). Secondly, he points out that one cannot limit the redemption of Jesus Christ to the spiritual renewal of people. Paul extended the doctrine of reconciliation to include the earth as well. Since Jesus is the Creator of the earth, his atoning death also affects his created world (Col 1). Thirdly, though it is true that Calvin may be read as putting the NT revelation in Christ in contradiction to God’s revelation to Israel, the interpreter of Calvin must be sympathetic to Calvin’s concerns. He could not anticipate later issues and problems. The Reformed theologian is here at liberty to work out what Calvin did not make explicit. As Graafland observes (p. 96):

If we see Calvin’s interpretation of Scripture in this light (i.e., God’s kingdom extends to all facets both material [earthly] and spiritual, heaven as well as earth), then we must observe that he (Calvin) had all this in view, but did not express himself explicitly in so many words.

Calvin speaks about the statio (‘station’) at which the Christian is placed. The Christian must anticipate the return of Christ[15] while he fulfills his calling in this world.[16] Graafland rightly concludes the chapter with these words: “Therefore we are convinced that we move in Calvin’s direction and therefore fully in the Reformed tradition, when we point to the call of the Christian in this world, and especially because of the promise of God for the world, which he will one time completely fulfill” (p. 101).

The foundations having been laid, Graafland returns now to his central concerns: how do we understand the Old Testament? and how do we as a Reformed community confess our view on Israel (the people and the land)? The next five chapters develop these questions biblically, historically, theologically, and practically:

7 Calvin’s Vision on Israel 

8 Israel and Reformed Protestantism 

9 The Position of Israel in the Bible 

10 Israel and the Confession of the Church 

11 The Place of Israel in Preaching.

Graafland argues convincingly that the whole Calvin must be read. Some have seen the utter rejection of Israel in Calvin’s writing, whereas others have also viewed the hope for national Israel. After an extensive discussion Graafland (pp. 110-11) gives us the following ten conclusions drawn from a unified reading of Calvin:

1. Calvin confesses the unbreakable nature of God’s covenant with his people.
2. Calvin views faith as the criterion by which Israel remains or ceases to be in covenant with God.
3. Calvin takes very seriously God’s rejection of Israel.
4. Calvin, however, sees the possibility of a return, when Israel repents. Therefore the rejection is for a time.
5. Calvin acknowledges that there is always a remnant of Israel which by faith continued to be in a covenantal relation with God throughout Israel’s history.
6. Calvin sees in this continuity that the nature of the covenant reflects the character of God: he is firm and unrepentant to the subjects of the covenant.
7. Calvin expects the restoration of Israel in the future. The expectation is grounded in God’s promise and will be realized when Israel comes to faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
8. Calvin is strongly convinced that the concrete fulfillment of God’s promises must be based on the Word of God.
9. Calvin is convinced that ultimately church and Israel will share in God’s salvation. He presupposes the unity of the covenant and of redemption.
10. Calvin does not resolve the meaning of “the salvation of Israel.” On the one hand he sees in it the election of the individual and on the other hand he emphasizes that the nation of Israel, as a nation, nevertheless is God’s elect people.

Calvin does not connect the restoration of Israel with the promise of the land. The land promise remains a type of the spiritual patria (heaven). It is at this point that Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711) objected to Calvin.[17] Brakel was a systematic thinker and tried to walk the middle road between Voetius and Cocceius. His influence extended well into the eighteenth century through his work. Brakel held that the Church could not be identified with the New Israel. When Paul wrote about “all Israel” (Rom 11:25) he was referring to the nation, and not the totality of the church and national Israel. This rejection of Calvin was also found in Brakel’s contemporaries. Brakel expected all twelve tribes to repent and express faith in Jesus as the Messiah. He also held that the Jews would be privileged to return to their land. The promise of the land is not just a type of the eternal rest or of heaven, rather it is part and parcel with the covenant of grace which God made to and affirmed with Israel. Brakel kept Israel and church together. There is one covenant, one covenant people, one salvation, and one Savior.

In chapter 9 Graafland focuses on the position of Israel in Scripture. He recognizes that the basic issues involve hermeneutical concerns. Graafland works with the Scriptures as a theologian, and, while the thrust of his argumentation is good, his overall treatment of the biblical material lacks depth and perception. He calls for a reevaluation of the Reformed position on Israel and he demonstrates his insights into the problem by identifying the need for a distinctively Reformed hermeneutic. However, his argument is weakened by his limited exegesis of OT passages. Despite this weakness, Graafland is to be appreciated for reintroducing hope as a vital aspect of faith. The hope of the church focuses on a full appreciation of God’s promises, and this includes a hope that God’s promises to Israel will be realized, while at the same time the manner of the fulfillment remains hidden from us.

In chapter 10 Graafland considers the possible implications for Reformed theology of a positive confessional statement regarding Israel. He rejects the assumption that a positive confession pertaining to Israel necessarily results in millennial speculations. He also rejects an eschatological hope which spiritualizes OT promises and transfers them to the spiritual Israel, the church. Graafland praises Calvin for keeping the tensions in his theology, for rejecting the Anabaptist, earthly type of chiliasm and at the same time anticipating a future restoration of this earth. The Christian hope must include a yearning for the fullness of the Day of the Lord in which Israel together with the nations will confess the name of Jesus the Messiah forever.

A positive confessional statement regarding Israel would affect the manner in which the church proclaims the OT as Scripture. The promise of the OT gives a new dimension to the faith of the church. The inclusion of Israel in the confessions would prevent the immediate application of OT texts to the NT church. The pastor should consider OT passages in their historical context. This treatment of the OT would allow him to share the feelings of the Apostle Paul, who was moved to weep over Israel’s loss of God’s blessing. An historical reading of the prophetic words also leads to an enriched proclamation of that portion of the OT. Two hermeneutical perspectives arise when one treats the prophets in their historical context. First, the ultimate fulfillment of the prophetic word is realized in Christ. Thus, the individual Christian can relate to the prophetic word as God’s Word to him. As heir of the covenant in Christ, the Christian is a spiritual descendant of Abraham, and as such shares in the OT promises. Second, the fulfillment is not as yet complete. The fulfillment of the prophetic word takes place between the first and the second comings of Jesus Christ. A separation of the two advents may lead to a wrong perspective on the OT, the present and the future, as well as on Israel. The OT prophets were given a glimpse of the future and witnessed to this in the prophetic word. Since they could not separate between the two comings of Christ, the student of the prophetic word must focus his attention on the final fulfillment.

The fulfillment is a hope, and hope is no longer hope when we know in detail how everything fits together. An exclusion of Israel from this hope is presumptuous, because it assumes to know exactly what God’s plan for Israel is. “The character of the promise of salvation has meaning in understanding the Old Testament, when it pertains to the future expectation of and for Israel” (p. 177).

The reviewer of this work owes a great debt to Graafland’s perceptive study of Calvin’s exegetical and theological reflections on the relationship between Old and New. To a large extent it affects one’s view of the Jews and Israel. Graafland’s thesis is very relevant and if properly considered it, in turn, will create an overdue change on the church’s present attitude to and use of the OT as Scripture. In a subsequent article we shall follow up this review article in order to present a case for “openness” on all eschatological matters especially with respect to the future of Israel. For now we pose these questions:

1. How have the “tensions” in Calvin been transformed into eschatological positions?
2. Are the present eschatological options the resultants of polemics instead of exegesis, a desire for consistency rather than tension, and an attempt of closure rather than openness?
3. Why has the place of the OT and particularly the OT prophets been practically reduced to the level of historical “documents”?
4. Is the contemporary approach (hermeneutic) to the OT prophets consistent with a Reformed hermeneutic of Scripture?

Notes

1. Herman N. Ridderbos, “The Future of Israel,” in Prophecy in the Making (ed. C. F. H. Henry; Carol Stream: Creation House, 1971) 315–41, p. 316.
2. The Firm Covenant: Israel and the Old Testament in Calvin and Reformed Thought.
3. For example, J. S. Croatto, Exodus: A Hermeneutics of Freedom (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1981). J. M. Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). Rosemary Ruether, Liberation Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1972).
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (2 vols.; ed. J. T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960) 2.9-11.
5. Hans Heinrich Wolf, Die Einheit des Bundes. Das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin (Neukirchen: Neukirchen Kreis Moers, 1958).
6. K. Schilder, Zur Begriffsgeschichte des Paradoxon (Kampen: Kok, 1935).
7. Calvin, Institutes, 2.9.3.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid., 2.11.4.
10. Ibid., 3.2.29.
11. Ibid., 2.9.3.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., 2.9.2.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., 3.9.4.
16. Ibid., 3.10.6.
17. Wilhelmus à Brakel, Redelijke Godsdienst (Reasonable Faith].