The Anatomy of Repentance

Psalm 51 is one of my favorite Scripture passages, more out of necessity than anything else. In it we see David, a man who was endowed which such divine favor and honor, broken into a heap of guilt-ridden humanity, seeking to be refashioned by God into a vessel of integrity and uprightness once more. An integral aspect of the heinousness of David's sin does not come so much from the desecration of the stately position upon which he was placed by divine mandate as king of Israel (though that is certainly an important part of it), but from his intimate knowledge of God's character and will as expressed in his affection for the law—a knowledge that did not prove a deterrent. Calvin writes, "He acknowledges that it was not a mere superficial acquaintance with divine truth which he had enjoyed, but that it had been closely brought home to his heart. This rendered his offense the more inexcusable. Though privileged so highly with the saving knowledge of the truth, he had plunged into the commission of brutish sin, and by various acts of iniquity had almost ruined his soul" [1].

But what I would like to seek out is an understanding of the seeming peculiarity of the vehement nature by which David appealed for God's pardon and restoration of favor, as expressed in this psalm, even though the prophet Nathan had already assured him of such graces. Was it unbelief on David's part? An appendage to his already glaring list of sins?

Two things emerge from Calvin's ruminations on the matter:

1.) It is within the province of piety to implore God for forgiveness and spiritual restoration through the employment of the totality of the faculties of our souls even when His covenant promises assure us of such benefits, as this is a recognition of the utter deplorability of our sin and His holiness.

2.) As human beings, we are creatures of our physical senses, and are naturally of the disposition to waver in faith. Therefore, God has mercifully and graciously provided us with physical signs and seals of His favor and fatherly love, communicated through the Sacraments.

"But here it may be asked why David needed to pray so earnestly for the joy of remission, when he had already received assurance from the lips of Nathan that his sin was pardoned? (2 Samuel 12:13.) Why did he not embrace this absolution? and was he not chargeable with dishonoring God by disbelieving the word of his prophet? We cannot expect that God will send us angels in order to announce the pardon which we require. Was it not said by Christ, that whatever his disciples remitted on earth would be remitted in heaven? (John 20:23.) And does not the apostle declare that ministers of the gospel are ambassadors to reconcile men to God? (2 Corinthians 5:20.) From this it might appear to have argued unbelief in David, that, notwithstanding the announcement of Nathan, he should evince a remaining perplexity or uncertainty regarding his forgiveness. There is a twofold explanation which may be given of the difficulty. We may hold that Nathan did not immediately make him aware of the fact that God was willing to be reconciled to him. In Scripture, it is well known, things are not always stated according to the strict order of time in which they occurred. It is quite conceivable that, having thrown him into this situation of distress, God might keep him in it for a considerable interval, for his deeper humiliation; and that David expresses in these verses the dreadful anguish which he endured when challenged with his crime, and not yet informed of the divine determination to pardon it. Let us take the other supposition, however, and it by no means follows that a person may not be assured of the favor of God, and yet show great earnestness and importunity in praying for pardon. David might be much relieved by the announcement of the prophet, and yet be visited occasionally with fresh convictions, influencing him to have recourse to the throne of grace. However rich and liberal the offers of mercy may be which God extends to us, it is highly proper on our part that we should reflect upon the grievous dishonor which we have done to his name, and be filled with due sorrow on account of it. Then our faith is weak, and we cannot at once apprehend the full extent of the divine mercy; so that there is no reason to be surprised that David should have once and again renewed his prayers for pardon, the more to confirm his belief in it. The truth is, that we cannot properly pray for the pardon of sin until we have come to a persuasion that God will be reconciled to us. Who can venture to open his mouth in God’s presence unless he be assured of his fatherly favor? And pardon being the first thing we should pray for, it is plain that there is no inconsistency in having a persuasion of the grace of God, and yet proceeding to supplicate his forgiveness. In proof of this, I might refer to the Lord’s Prayer, in which we are taught to begin by addressing God as our Father, and yet afterwards to pray for the remission of our sins. God’s pardon is full and complete; but our faith cannot take in his overflowing goodness, and it is necessary that it should distil to us drop by drop. It is owing to this infirmity of our faith, that we are often found repeating and repeating again the same petition, not with the view surely of gradually softening the heart of God to compassion, but because we advance by slow and difficult steps to the requisite fullness of assurance. The mention which is here made of purging with hyssop, and of washing or sprinkling, teaches us, in all our prayers for the pardon of sin, to have our thoughts directed to the great sacrifice by which Christ has reconciled us to God. “Without shedding of blood,” says Paul, “is no remissions” (Hebrews 9:22;) and this, which was intimated by God to the ancient Church under figures, has been fully made known by the coming of Christ. The sinner, if he would find mercy, must look to the sacrifice of Christ, which expiated the sins of the world, glancing, at the same time, for the confirmation of his faith, to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; for it were vain to imagine that God, the Judge of the world, would receive us again into his favor in any other way than through a satisfaction made to his justice" [2].

Footnotes:
[1]  John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms — Volume 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classic Ethereal Library, 1991), Psalm 51:3—6).
[2]  ibid., Psalm 51:7—9, italics original).

The Inseparability of Covenant-Renewal with Covenant-Ratification

When the Word of God (Law and Gospel) is preached during the weekly Sabbath assembly, it is actually a declaration of the terms and stipulations of the Covenant of Grace. We hear of the demands of God in the Law, and we also hear of Christ as having fulfilled all the requirements of the Law on our behalf, which is the Gospel. God's pledge of faithfulness to this covenant is brought to the fore and we are comforted and motivated to grateful obedience.

However, if it ended there, the "covenant formula," if I may so speak, would be incomplete. Where is the ratification of this renewing of the covenant between God and His redeemed? In the Old Covenant, this would take the form of the blood sacrifice of bulls and goats, but in the New, Christ paid the price of His blood for our redemption from the curse of the Old Covenant, therefore, no blood sacrifice is left nor required. What the Lord Himself left us is the sacrament of Holy Communion, or the Lord's Supper. In the Supper is the visible, material, and tangible sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace—the physical Gospel. Through it, the Spirit affords us the assurance that God is faithful, that we are justified in His sight through Christ's atoning sacrifice, and that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us—then our faith is invigorated. As Article 35 of the Belgic Confession affirms:

To represent to us this spiritual and heavenly bread Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as the sacrament of his body and wine as the sacrament of his blood. He did this to testify to us that just as truly as we take and hold the sacraments in our hands and eat and drink it in our mouths, by which our life is then sustained, so truly we receive into our souls, for our spiritual life, the true body and true blood of Christ, our only Savior. We receive these by faith, which is the hand and mouth of our souls.

Now it is certain that Jesus Christ did not prescribe his sacraments for us in vain, since he works in us all he represents by these holy signs, although the manner in which he does it goes beyond our understanding and is uncomprehensible to us, just as the operation of God's Spirit is hidden and incomprehensible.

Yet we do not go wrong when we say that what is eaten is Christ's own natural body and what is drunk is his own blood—but the manner in which we eat it is not by the mouth but by the Spirit, through faith.

So the case is made that the preaching of the Word, as it is the renewing of the Covenant of Grace, must always have with it the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as it is the ratification, the sign, and the seal of the just renewed covenant.

The following are Calvin's thoughts on the frequency of the Lord's Supper:

"What we have hitherto said of the sacrament, abundantly shows that it was not instituted to be received once a-year and that perfunctorily (as is now commonly the custom); but that all Christians might have it in frequent use, and frequently call to mind the sufferings of Christ, thereby sustaining and confirming their faith: stirring themselves up to sing the praises of God, and proclaim his goodness; cherishing and testifying towards each other that mutual charity, the bond of which they see in the unity of the body of Christ. As often as we communicate in the symbol of our Saviour’s body, as if a pledge were given and received, we mutually bind ourselves to all the offices of love, that none of us may do anything to offend his brother, or omit anything by which he can assist him when necessity demands, and opportunity occurs. That such was the practice of the Apostolic Church, we are informed by Luke in the Acts, when he says, that 'they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers' (Acts 2:42). Thus we ought always to provide that no meeting of the Church is held without the word, prayer, the dispensation of the Supper, and [offerings]. We may gather from Paul that this was the order observed by the Corinthians, and it is certain that this was the practice many ages after. Hence, by the ancient canons, which are attributed to Anacletus and Calixtus, after the consecration was made, all were to communicate who did not wish to be without the pale of the Church. And in those ancient canons, which bear the name of Apostolical, it is said that those who continue not to the end, and partake not of the sacred communion, are to be corrected, as causing disquiet to the Church. In the Council of Antioch it was decreed, that those who enter the Church, hear the Scriptures, and abstain from communion, are to be removed from the Church until they amend their fault. And although, in the first Council of Tholouse, this was mitigated, or at least stated in milder terms, yet there also it was decreed, that those who after hearing the sermon, never communicated, were to be admonished, and if they still abstained after admonition, were to be excluded" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (IV, xvii, 44); translated by Henry Beveridge).