The Differences between the Old and New Covenants

 

The terms "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant" can be taken in two sense: either broadly or strictly.

When the Old Covenant is taken in a broad sense, this denotes the entire history of time from Adam until Christ. When taken strictly, it refers to the Mosaic covenant and the ceremonies, taken apart from the promise of grace and deliverance through the Messiah. 

The New Covenant is also taken in this twofold sense. When taken broadly, the New Covenant refers to the general covenant of grace made throughout redemptive history, both before and after the coming of Christ. When taken strictly, it refers to the covenant of grace as administered after the time of Christ, which shall continue to the end of the world. 

You will see some Reformed theologians (such as Robert Rollock and Lucas Trelcatius) speaking of two covenants as though they were diverse in substance and completely separate (and sometimes use this sort of terminology). However, they took the old and new covenants in the strict sense, referring to their separate administrations, and not in the broad sense (in the way that the credobaptists do). These men are not in conflict with other Reformed divines (such as Calvin, Martyr, and Ursinus) who speak one covenant of grace under diverse administrations (when the term "covenant" is taken in the broader sense). This is an important distinction that helps us preserve unity in our doctrine of covenant. 

The Differences Between the Two Covenants

[1]. As to time - This is an obvious difference and clear to all. The old covenant was before Christ, while the new covenant is after Christ. The old covenant referred to Christ as the one to come in the future, the new covenant takes place after Christ was already manifested (cf. Luke 10:23-24). 

[2]. As to clarity - The promises of the gospel and the essential aspects of the covenant of grace are more clearly set forth in the New Covenant, while the Old Covenant had them under the veil of the types and shadows. "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away....But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Corinthians 3:7, 18)

[3]. As to easiness - The administration of the covenant of grace under the Old Testament is more burdensome and complex than it is under the New Covenant. Saint Augustine said "Thus the sacraments of the Old Testament, which were celebrated in obedience to the law, were types of Christ who was to come; and when Christ fulfilled them by His advent they were done away, and were done away because they were fulfilled. For Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill. And now that the righteousness of faith is revealed, and the children of God are called into liberty, and the yoke of bondage which was required for a carnal and stiffnecked people is taken away, other sacraments are instituted, greater in efficacy, more beneficial in their use, easier in performance, and fewer in number." (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XIX, Chapter 13)

[4]. As to sweetness - In the Old Covenant, the condition of perfect obedience was much more emphasized and urged, not to exclude the promises of the gospel, but to drive people (which is why the law is called a "schoolmaster") to Christ, seeing their need for His righteousness. On the other hand, the burden and yoke of the New Covenant is easier and lighter (Matthew 11:30), since we have the fuller manifestation and power of the Holy Spirit to empower us in the same. 

[5]. As to perfection - The Old Covenant administered the covenant of grace under the types and shadows, and in an obscure way.

[6]. As to freedom. The spirit of bondage (Romans 8:15) prevailed under the Old Covenant. Though it was a covenant of grace and the promises were administered then (albeit, obscurely, as said above), the people under that dispensation nonetheless had the threatenings and terrors of Mount Sinai constantly ringing in their ears, so to speak 

[7]. As to amplitude - The Old Covenant was primarily for the people of Israel (though Gentiles could still enter into that nation, Ex. 12:48; Lev. 19:34). However, the New Covenant takes place when the Gentiles are ingrafted into the people of God (both internally and externally); Acts 10:34-35; Col. 3:11. 

Deuteronomy 5 and the Unity of the Covenant

 

Many credobaptists cite the following passage to show that there is not a continuity in substance between the biblical covenants, and that therefore their unity cannot be alleged as a grounds for infant baptism. 

"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." (Deuteronomy 5:2-3)

A few things may be said in response to this argument:

[1]. Many times in Scripture, something is said to be "made" in the sense of being renewed or made more clear. Paul says "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 16:25-26). Yet he also says that the gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8), and that those under the Mosaic covenant also heard this same gospel (Heb. 4:2). Therefore, as Witsius says, "what God says here [Deut. 5:3] may be taken in the same sense; that he did not make this covenant with their fathers, namely, in the same manner and form, by speaking to them from the midst of thunderings and lightnings, giving them the law of the covenant written with his own hand, with an addition of so many ceremonies." (The Economy of the Covenants, 1:323)

[2]. The Mosaic covenant is founded on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant in terms of its essential substance and promises. This is shown clearly by passages such as Exodus 2:24, 3:6; Deuteronomy 7:12, 29:13. 

Is the Covenant of Grace Conditional?

 

A question that has confused and intrigued some divines is whether or not we ought to speak of the covenant of grace as conditional or not. Turretin explains a few distinction to help resolve this controversy. 

[1]. A condition is either viewed a priori (when the performance of the condition gives man a right to the reward) or a posteriori (when the condition is used as a means or disposition in the covenant). 

[2]. Conditions are either natural or supernatural, the latter of which depends upon and is given by divine grace.

[3]. The covenant promises are twofold: concerning the end (salvation) and the means (faith and repentance).

If by "condition", we mean an a priori condition (meritorious and impulsive), then in that sense the covenant of grace is not conditional. 

But if by "condition", we mean it in the a posteriori sense, where "condition" refers to the instrumental cause and the disposition of the subject, then in that sense the covenant of grace is conditional. 

Some have thought that if conditions in any sense are to ascribed to the covenant of grace, that it would then be confounded with the covenant of works and the law. However, the promises of these two different covenants remain distinct in a number of ways: (1) The legal condition is perfect obedience to the law, but the "evangelical condition", so to speak, is faith. (2) The legal condition depends upon nature, while the evangelical conditions depend upon grace. (3) The legal condition has the relation of a meritorious cause, while the evangelical conditions (faith and repentance) are the gifts of God's free grace. The conditions of the covenant of grace are produced by the efficacy of grace. 

How Faith is a Condition

Faith is a condition of the covenant of grace in an instrumental sense, in that it apprehends and applies Christ and His righteousness. Faith is opposed to righteousness and obedience, not that they do not subsist with each another (since true faith wills always be followed by good works and evangelical righteousness), but they do not stand together causally in the same way. Righteousness is meritorious and principle, whereas faith is instrumental.

"Second, the condition is either antecedent to the acceptance of the covenant (which holds the relation of the cause why we are received into it) or subsequent (holding relation of means and the way by which we go forward to its consummation). In the former sense, faith is the sole condition of the covenant because it alone embraces Christ with his benefits. But in the latter sense, holiness and obedience can have the relation of a condition because they are the mean and the way by which we arrive at the full possession of the blessings of the covenant." (Francis Turretin)

The Cessation of Prophecy in Ancient Judaism [Part 1]

 

Thus, the question is proposed: were there any prophets between Malachi and John the Baptist? This intertestamental period was when these apocryphal books were written. Therefore, did the Jews believe that prophecy had ceased during that time? If so, they did not consider the Apocryphal books to be canonical. We will consider a number of texts from the Old Testament itself and other important Jewish literature to determine the answer to this question. The view that will be defended here is that there was indeed a temporary cessation of prophecy between Malachi and John the Baptist, but not a permanent one, since Christ (our great Prophet) came, and before John the Baptist appeared as His forerunner. 

[1]. Psalm 74:9 says “We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.” However, this was most likely in reference to the Babylonian exile, rather than the Maccabean period. Therefore, we should not cite this as evidence against the Romanist view of prophets during the Second Temple period. It is inconclusive and not relevant to that particular question.

[2]. Zechariah 13:2-6 says “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land. And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive: But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth. And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.”

In my opinion, the key to understanding the background for this passage is this phrase “in that day”, which is used in this passage to designate the time periods in which there will not be prophets in the land of Israel. This phrase “in that day” is used more than a dozen times in Zechariah chapters 12-14. These chapters are unified in discussing the same time period in Israel’s history, using the phrase “in that day” to refer to the aforementioned time period. The time period in Zechariah 13:2-6 (designated by “in that day”) is described in Zech. 12:2-10 - “2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. 4 In that day, saith the Lord, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness. 5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the Lord of hosts their God. 6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. 7 The Lord also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. 8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”

Is this time period a description of the wickedness of Antiochus IV Epiphanes when he oppressed the Jewish people? Some Protestants have viewed it that way, but it is likely not a reference to that time period. This is especially because verse 10 contains a well-known prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion (cf. John 19:37), which, as everyone knows, took place a century or two after the time of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans. Therefore, one would have to reject this as not being a real prophecy of the Messiah in order to interpret Zechariah 12-13 as speaking of the Maccabean period. In his biblical commentary, John Gill says “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about,.... The Targum renders it, "a vessel full of inebriating liquor;'' which intoxicates and makes giddy, and causes to tremble, stagger, and fall like a drunken man. The phrase denotes the punishment inflicted by the Lord upon the enemies of his church and people; (Isaiah 51:22), when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem; not by Antiochus Epiphanes; nor by Titus Vespasian; nor by Gog and Magog, as Kimchi; but by the antichristian powers, especially the Mahometan nations, the Turks, which shall come against Jerusalem, when the Jews are returned thither, and resettled in their own land; (Ezekiel 38:5). The words should be rendered, "and upon Judah shall it be" , i.e. the cup of trembling, "in the siege against Jerusalem"; according to the Targum, and the Jewish commentators, the nations of the earth shall bring the men of Judah by force to join with them in the siege of Jerusalem; as, in the times of Antiochus, many of the Jews were drawn in to fight against their brethren; but the meaning is, that not only the wrath of God will come upon the Mahometan nations that shall besiege Jerusalem; but also on those who bear the Christian name, who are Jews outwardly, but not inwardly; and shall join with the Turks in distressing the people of the Jews upon their return to their own land: to besiege Judah, or a country, is not proper and pertinent: Jerusalem, when again in the hands of the Jews, according to this prophecy, only is to be besieged, as it will, by the Turks; and it should be observed, that it never was besieged by Antiochus, and therefore the prophecy can not be applied to his times, as it is by many.” 

Therefore, Protestants should not bring forth this argument to prove that prophecy ceased in Judaism. 

[3]. 1 Maccabees 4:46 says “So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them.” This text is quite clear in saying that prophets did not exist during this time period. 

Gary G. Michuta responds to this passage by the following reasoning: “Consider if some official were to decree that a certain pile of bricks could not be removed until after a policeman should arrive, would those who heard the decree immediately assume that policemen no longer exist?—or only that no policeman is currently available? Would not the hearers assume, rather, that policemen do still exist and that one will eventually make his appearance? Likewise, the writer of 1 Maccabees should not be construed to make any sweeping generalization about the continued existence of the prophetic office—any more than the several Protocanonical writers who make similar statements intended such a generalization.” (Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, online ebook edition)

I respond by noting that because I do not know of any learned divines in the Reformed church who have ever claimed that there was a permanent cessation of prophecy after Malachi, so Michuta is attacking a strawman argument of our positions. Rather, we would believe what the writer of 1 Maccabees taught, namely that there was a temporary cessation of prophecy after Malachi. As Benjamin D. Sommer said, “The notion of the end of prophecy was known and widespread in antiquity. The sense of a decline had appeared already in 1 Maccabees, whose author (writing in the late second century BCE) presumes that prophecy is a thing of the past and perhaps of the future but not of the present.” (Sommer, “Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 [1996], pg. 32)

[4]. 1 Maccabees 9:27 says “There was great tribulation in Israel, the like of which had not been since the time prophets ceased to appear among them.” 

John R. Levison (“Did the Spirit Withdraw from Israel? An Evaluation of the Earliest Jewish Data.” NTS 43 [1997], pgs. 35-57) has contended that the Greek expression here which is translated as “since the time” (ἀφ' οὗ), expresses the idea (from the writer of 1 Maccabees’ perspective) to refer to particular past events, in distinction from the present, thereby opening up the possibility that prophets existed during the Maccabean period. 

However, as Cook notes, Levison makes too big a deal out of this particular Greek construction. He is also not consistent in his interpretation of it. He does not list its usage in 1 Macc. 1:11, which reads “In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since [ἀφ' ἧς] we separated from them many evils have come upon us’”. Nobody would argue that, during the time of the Maccabees, the separation from the Gentiles was only a past event which did not continue to their times. 

Cook further states that it is debated whether or not the term hemeras in 9:27 refers to a 24-hour day or a period of time in general. This also would impact Levinson’s interpretation of the text. Furthermore, it is not likely that a time of national distress would last only one day. Since the distress in 9:27 concerning the death of Judas Maccabeus lasted longer than a single day, it would make more sense that the parallel distress (and hence the time of the cessation of prophecy) also lasted longer. 

Cook concludes: “The few references which do appear in the book (including the one in 9:54) all indicate that prophets were not thought to be present in Jerusalem in the late second century BCE. In all probability, then, the reference in 9:27 is also intended to suggest a continuity between the author’s own day and the prophet-less period in the past.” (On the Question of the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism, pg. 70)

[5]. 1 Maccabees 14:41 says “And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise”.

Cook rightly notes the clarity of this passage text: “Scholars generally agree that the author of 1 Maccabees implies here that no trustworthy or credible prophets existed in Jerusalem in Simon’s time….Taken together, the above three passages seem to present a picture of a second century B.C.E. Israel in which it was believed that a period of prophetic absence had persisted for a considerable period of time.” (On the Question, pgs. 70, 73)

The one last objection I will address here is from Charles Grondin, who says the following: “The problem with this argument is that the Book of Maccabees is talking about events that occurred in the past  The author is saying that at the time the events took place there were no prophets, the author does not state that at the time of his writing that there are no prophets.  The fact that the passages in question seem to indicate that the people were actually expecting a prophet to arise would not rule out that at the time of writing there were prophets in Israel.” (https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-first-maccabees-deny-being-inspired)

In response, I would note that First Maccabees was written in the second century BC, a few decades after the events that are recorded. This is also the conclusion of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, though without giving an exact dating (it approximates the date of 1 Maccabees writing to some time during the reign of John Hyrcanus. Therefore, if Grondin wishes to assert that while there were no prophets during the Maccabean revolt itself, that this doesn’t rule out the possibility of there being prophets at the time of 1 Maccabees being written (which, as noted above, is only shortly after the events it records), then Grondin must show evidence for the arrival of new prophets and/or prophecy between the Maccabean revolt and the writing of 1 Maccabees. 

[6]. Prayer of Azariah 15 (‘Dan. 3:38’) says “In our day we have no ruler, or prophet, or leader, no burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, no place to make an offering before you and to find mercy.” Though this prayer is written from the perspective of Azariah (Abednego) in the time of the exile, some have thought that this was added during the Maccabean period to describe the state of the Israelites under the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes. This is the opinion of scholars such as John J. Collins (who is known for being quite liberal in many of his views, so I take him with a grain of salt), George J. Brooke, and J.C. Dancey, to name a few examples. Some have viewed the description here of Israel as “without prophet, leader, burnt offerings, sacrifice, temples [‘no place to make an offering before you’] as a clear-cut description of the Maccabean period of the 2nd century BC. 

All of these claims presuppose, of course, that this was added during the Maccabean period. Whether or not that can be proven is up for considerable debate. Therefore, I see this as an uncertain testimony and thus not conclusive for determining what the Second Temple Jews believed about the status of prophets and prophecy in their day. 

[7]. The book of Sirach (considered separately from the Greek preface, which was addressed earlier in this chapter) does not give us any very explicit information as to whether or not prophets existed during the time of its writing, but there are hints that Ben Sira believed that the spirit of prophecy was past, due to the tone he uses when speaking of the prophets of the protocanonical books:

“May the bones of the twelve prophets revive from where they lie, for they comforted the people of Jacob and delivered them with confident hope.” (Sirach 49:10)

Other translations render this verse as “May the bones of the twelve prophets sprout new life from where they lie.” As Cook says, “Ben Sira mentions the Twelve [prophets] here as though they are a distinct, closed group from the past….This conclusion [that Ben Sira did not believe prophecy existed in his day] is supported by his plea that the bones of the Twelve bring forth ‘new life’, a petition which he would not likely make if he viewed the prophetic spirit as alive and well in his time.” (Cook, On the Question of the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism, pg. 76).

It is also strange to note that if prophets did exist in Ben Sira’s day, why did he never mention them? He mentions figures from the Old Testament period such as Joshua the High Priest, Nehemiah, and Zerubbabel. The only figure from the Hellenistic period that is mentioned is Simon II (219-196 BC). 

However, some scholars have objected that Ben Sira did view himself as giving divine revelation in the form of wisdom based on Sirach 24:30-34:

“I also came out as a brook from a river, and as a conduit into a garden. I said, I will water my best garden, and will water abundantly my garden bed: and, lo, my brook became a river, and my river became a sea. I will yet make doctrine to shine as the morning, and will send forth her light afar off. I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy, and leave it to all ages for ever. Behold that I have not labored for myself only, but for all them that seek wisdom.”

Many point to verse 33 in particular, which says “I will yet pour doctrine as prophecy.” However, it is clear from the context that Ben Sira viewed the Torah of Moses as the primary source of wisdom. He views himself as a means of giving forth the Law, rather than giving new teachings. Matthias Henze argues forcefully for this conclusion in his paper on this subject (“Invoking the Prophets in Zechariah and Ben Sira”. Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak, pgs. 120-34). 

Cook notes that this interpretation is supported by the juxtaposition between verses 32 and 33, so that the emphasis is more on Ben Sira as a conduit of the Mosaic teachings:

32a - “I will again make instruction shine forth like the dawn [shines forth]...”

33a - “I will again pour out teaching like prophecy [has been poured out]...”

Lastly, some have also pointed to Sirach 39:1-5 in which Ben Sira describes the ideal scribe of Torah as one who “seeks out the wisdom of the ancients, and are concerned with prophecies…” However, nothing here describes these scribes as being prophets themselves, but rather as passing on the teachings of the “ancients”.

The Necessity of Christ's Atonement and Satisfaction

 

Many have often asked the question "Why did Jesus have to die?", or "Since God is omnipotent, then why could He not just simply forgive us? Why did Christ have to make satisfaction?"

First of all, the question is not about the absolute power of God,

There are three common opinions amongst theologians as to this question of the necessity of the atonement of Christ:

[1]. There are some, such as the Socinians, who have denied the necessity of the atonement altogether.

[2]. There are some, such as Augustine (De Trinitate, 13.10) who have supposed the idea of a hypothetical necessity. They affirm that the atonement was necessary because God decreed it and that it was the most fitting way for man's redemption. However, they would not confess an absolute necessity, as the Reformed have traditionally done.

[3]. The opinion of the Reformed (which will here be defended) is that the atonement was of an absolute necessity, on account of the justice and holiness of God, which requires that satisfaction be made in order to remit sin.

Argument #1 - Justice is an essential attribute of God. On the supposition of man's sin, God's exercise of His justice is of a moral and rational necessity, since the act of justice consists in giving each person what he is due. Since this justice demands that sinner must be punished, either the sinner of substitute in his place must undergo the said punishment, in order that the justice of God may be properly fulfilled and satisfied.

Objection: This violates the freedom and liberty of God and His will.

Answer: The freedom and liberty of God is exercised in matters of positive right, but not of natural right. God can do anything, that is, anything which is consistent with His holy nature.

Argument #2 - God's holiness is such that He cannot admit a sinful creature into communion with Himself, unless satisfaction be made to His justice. 2 Corinthians 6:14 says "for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?". See also Habakkuk 1:13 says "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity."

Argument #3 - If God were not to punish sin, He would become like the sinner. This is expressly taught in the Scripture: "Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes." (Psalm 50:20-21). Therefore, it is necessary that satisfaction be first made to God's justice, in order for a sinner to receive redemption and salvation. 

Argument #4 - The sanction of the law threatens death as the punishment of sin:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17)

"Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." (Deuteronomy 27:26)

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." (Romans 1:32)

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

These divine threatenings and sanctions must be executed either on the sinner, or upon a Surety in his place. 

The Synod of Elvira and Iconography

 

In regards to whether or not physical images are permitted in the liturgy of the church, the witness of the early church in Spain is quite clear upon the subject. Here is what canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira states in unambiguous terms:

"Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration." 

Latin Text: Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur

This is a very key testimony in showing the testimony of the early church in its condemnation of the use of images in churches, in step with the teaching of the second commandment. However, the iconophiles (among both the Romanists as well as the Eastern "Orthodox") have made desperate attempts to escape the force of this canon, knowing it demolishes their views regarding the early attitudes of the church towards images and icons. I will respond to a few of these attempts here. 

First, it is fitting that we should understand the background of this particular synod. The dating of this council is uncertain and has been debated amongst church historians, but most generally agree that it was in the early 4th century, most likely prior to the Council of Nicaea (as Karl Joseph von Hefele [as mentioned elsewhere in this book, Hefele was a Roman Catholic church historian and a bishop present at Vatican I in the 1870. His reputation is high] states). The exact year is irrelevant for our purposes here, but it is important to know that some scholars have speculated that this synod was held during the term of the Diocletian persecution, which has been fostered by some as a means of evading the clear meaning of canon 36, as we will see here in a moment.

It would also be proper for us here to write briefly concerning the exact location of this synod, in accordance with the information we do possess concerning it. Pliny the Elder (Natural History, Book III, Chapter 5) speaks of two towns called "Illiberis", one which was located in Gallia Narbonensis, the other of which was in the southern Spanish province of Baetica (now called Andalusia). Hefele rightly notes that "as it is a Spanish council, there can be no question but that it was the latter town, as Illiberis in Narbonne had been demolished long before the time of Constantine the Great." (A History of the Councils of the Church, 1:131)

The number of the bishops present at the council has also been disputed to a fair degree. Numbers have ranged from 19 bishops, all the way up to 43 bishops. Hefele mentions a certain "Codex Pithianus" which lists the names of the following bishops who were present at this synod:

"Hosius of Corduba, afterwards so famous in the Arian controversy as Bishop of Cordova ; Sabinus of Hispalis (Seville), Camerismus of Tucci, Sinaginis of Epagra (or Bigerra ), Secundinus of Castulo, Pardus of Mentesa, Flavian of Eliberis, Cantonius of Urci, Liberius of Emerita, Valerius of Cæsaraugusta (Saragossa ), Decentius of Legio ( Leon ), Melantius of Toledo, Januarius of Fibularia ( perhaps Salaria in Hispania Tarraconensis), Vincent of Ossonoba, Quintianus of Elbora , Suceessus of Eliocroca, Eutychian of Basti ( Baza ), and Patricius of Malacca. There were therefore bishops from the most different parts of Spain ; so that we may consider this assembly as a synod representing the whole of Spain." (Karl Josef von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 1:132)

A couple important things ought to be noted here:

[1]. Probably the most famous of the bishops mentioned in this list is Hossius of Cordoba, who as Hefele said, was well-known in the Arian controversy. He was also present at the Council of Nicaea in 325. St. Athanasius said concerning the following concerning this great man of God: "Of the great Hosius , who answers to his name, that confessor of a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to speak, for I suppose it is known unto all men that they caused him also to be banished; for he is not an obscure person, but of all men the most illustrious, and more than this. When was there a Council held, in which he did not take the lead, and by right counsel convince every one?" (St. Athanasius, Apologia de Fuga, §5).

[2]. As Hefele noted, the bishops in attendance at this council were from all parts of Spain. Thus, this synod (and thus, canon 36) was not merely addressing one small or particular group of churches in Spain, but rather the "whole of Spain", as Hefele says.

First, we have the attempts of the Papist apologist William Albrecht, who wishes to escape this canon. In order to do this, he proposed the idea that only the first 20 canons or so were actually authentic, and that the other canons were added on later. There were times within this YouTube livestream in which he got off-topic a few times in order to boast of the fact that he speaks multiple languages, or for his partner to talk about how Syriac churches ban angel-worship, in an attempt to somehow connect this to the topic of the Elvira council. But back to the point (lest we imitate Albrecht in his sophistry and evasions!).

First, we consider whether or not the canons of Elvira (and canon 36 in particular) are authentic. Hefele (who, as mentioned earlier, is a Roman Catholic historian, and hence an iconophile also) is of the firm opinion that all of the canons are genuine. He writes that the genuineness of the acts of the council "could only be doubted by hypercriticism." (A History of the Councils of the Church, 1:132). It is reasonable to view these canons as authentic in light of their inclusion in Giovanni Mansi's collection of the acts of the ecumenical councils and local synods of the early church (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 31 vols).  

As for Albrecht, he mentions and reviews over an interview he had with a scholar by the name of Jesús Galisteo Leiva, who written an entire book on the subject of the Elvira council. The interview was done in Spanish, and Albrecht notes that Leiva considers the canons of Elvira to be completely genuine (which would include canon 36). Albrecht, however, chooses to disregard this and dismiss all the canons except for the first 20 or so as inauthentic. He provides no evidence whatsoever for his position, and throws both the very scholar he interviewed as well as all of the Roman Catholic church historians who disagree with him under the bus. 

At another point, Albrecht mentions the fact that we have a list of the bishops who were present at Elvira (which I gave above, quoting Hefele). Albrecht then says that since we don't know if any of the individual bishops were anti-imagery, therefore this is "a real blow against Elvira" (these were Albrecht's exact words; see the 1:00:53 mark in the video). 

"Given such strong manifestations of this apologetic tradition in the era of the Council of Elvira, given also the preoccupation it reflects with the admissibility specifically of images of the gods of the Supreme Divinity, it is not unreasonable to suggest, as Edwyn Bevan does, that it found expression in Canon 36: this tradition seems to provide the only fully adequate explanation of the literal sense of the canon. Evidently, what the Spanish fathers feared was the act of depicting God. They did not simply fear that images of God might be worshipped by Christians, as if one could distinguish between a proper and improper use of images. Rather, their fear was based upon a more fundamental consideration: the mere existence of such images was an insult to God. God has no need of lifeless images. His true image is the sentient man. It would dishonor God to have craftsmen represent Him in base, corruptible matter. Not only would this implicitly liken Him to things which are dead, these representations, like pagan idols, would be open to various kinds of natural disfigurement and, perhaps, even to deliberate desecration. If this fairly represents what the Spanish fathers felt, then, as one who subscribed to the canons, Ossius probably shared their opinion. At the very least, he knew that this was the opinion of other bishops and that it had normative force." (Robert Grigg, "Constantine the Great and the Cult without Images", Viator, Vol. 8 (1977), pg. 28)

The other attempt that has been made in order to explain canon 36 of Elvira is from an Eastern Orthodox apologist from the Ancient Faith website on the internet. 

The writer here posits the following objections against our argument from canon 36:

[1]. "We don’t know what motivated the bishops in this region of Spain to issue this particular canon. Was it to prevent the defacing of icons during the Diocletian persecution? Was it to prevent icons in temporary church buildings (such as a house) from being desecrated at a later point in time? Was it in response to abuse or superstition?" - This same objection is also given by Michael Pomazansky in his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition. 

I respond: As said above, the exact dating of this council is unknown. However, it is more likely this council was held shortly after that persecution ended, since the bishops (listed above) could most likely not have traveled and gathered together at once from many different Spanish provinces within the Roman Empire during a time of widespread persecution against the Church. 

[2]. "No church in Spain, either before or after this synod, obeyed the canon — if indeed it was a wholesale condemnation or ban on religious and liturgical images of any kind. There was never any iconoclastic controversy in the Church of Spain, and the implications of this highly-localized, disciplinary canon to the icon debate were completely ignored for centuries."

I respond: the reason why there was not an iconoclastic controversy in Spain (as there was in the 8th century, when images began to be defended and uses on a wholesale level in many Christian provinces) is because the church (with a few exceptions) generally recognized the reality of the second commandment. They knew that we no longer know Christ after the flesh, as Eusebius said, and that therefore we should not put up pictures of Christ in the liturgy. 

[3]. The EO writer on this website further objects that the text of the canon should be translated as "It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls.". Thus, they claim, the canon was only forbidding certain types of images, but not images in a general way. 

I respond with the words of Hefele: "These canons are easy to understand : we have elsewhere explained why the ancient Church did not tolerate images? Binterim and Aubespine do not believe in a complete exclusion : they think that the Church in general, and the Synod of Elvira in particular, wished to proscribe only a certain kind of images. Binterim believes that this Synod forbade only one thing,—namely, that any one might hang images in the Church according to his fancy, and often therefore inadmissible ones. Aubespine thinks that our canon forbids only images representing God ( because it says adoratur), and not other pictures, especially those of saints. But the canon also says colitur, and the prohibition is conceived in very general terms." (A History of the Councils of the Church, 1:151)

[4]. "While one might ignore all of the above, and still lay hold to Elvira as a code of theological law that is ever-binding on the consciences of Christians, one cannot help but point out the inconsistency of claiming to do so. Why? Because no one actually follows the rest of these canons." 

I respond: Neither we nor the iconophiles consider all of the canons of Elvira to be binding, therefore we accept that which the Scripture agrees with, and reject that which does not agree with that same regula fidei. We have brought forth canon 36 merely as an example to show what it was that the Spanish churches believed during their time. 

Zacharias Ursinus on the Necessity of Good Works

 

“…Good works are necessary to salvation, not as a cause to an effect, or as if they merited a reward, but as a part of salvation itself, or as an antecedent to a consequent, or as a means without which we cannot obtain the end. In the same way we may also say, that good works are necessary to righteousness or justification, or in them that are to be justified, viz.: as a consequence of justification, with which regeneration is inseparably connected….We may more safely and correctly say, That good works are necessary in them that are justified, and that are to be saved….  Augustine has correctly said:  Good works do not precede them that are to be justified, but follow them that are justified. We may, therefore, easily return an answer to the following objection:  That is necessary to salvation without which no one can be saved.  But no one who is destitute of good works can be saved, as it is said in the 87th Question [of the Heidelberg Catechism].  Therefore, good works are necessary to salvation, viz: as a part of salvation, or as a certain antecedent necessary to salvation, in which sense we admit the conclusion; but not as a cause, or as a merit of salvation.” (Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism [Cincinnati, 1851], Q. 91, sec. 5, pg. 485)