Calvin’s «Theodicy»and the Hiddenness of God: Calvin’s «Sermons on the Book of Job» (Europäische Hochschulschriften / European University Studies / Publications Universitaires Européennes) [New ed.] 9783034310956, 9783035104271, 3034310951

Table of contents :
Contents 11
Introduction 1
Chapter I Calvin’s Theodicy and his Sermons on Job: The State of the Research 7
1.1 Introduction: The terms of the Theodicy problem 7
1.2 The current state of interpretation on Calvin’s Theodicy 13
1.3 The current state of interpretation concerning the Sermons on Job 38
Chapter II The Origin and Development of Calvin’s Thought 51
2.1 De Clementia (1532) 51
2.2 Calvin’s conversion (1532-1534) 55
2.3 Psychopannychia (1534) 63
2.4 The Institutes of Christian Religion of 1536 67
2.5 Instruction in Faith of 1537 77
2.6 The Institutes of Christian Religion of 1539 80
2.7 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 91
2.8 Defense for Guillaume de Fürstenberg and Défense de Guillaume Farel et de ses collègues contre les calomnies du théologastre Pierre Caroli par Nicolas Des Gallars 93
2.9 Bondage and Liberation of the Will 93
2.10 Against the fantastic and furious Sect of the Libertines 95
2.11 Calvin in the Valley of the Shadow of Death 99
2.12 Congrégation sur l’Election Éternelle 106
2.13 De Aeterna Dei Praedestinatione (1552) 108
2.14 The 159 Sermons on the Book of Job 114
2.15 Predestination consequence of Providence or Providence consequence of Predestination? 119
Chapter IIIThe juridical framework of Calvin’s Theodicy 125
3.1 Defence or Theodicy? 125
3.2 The metaphor of lawsuit 133
3.3 Calvin’s dilemma in the lawsuit between God and man 138
3.4 Calvin’s empathy with Job 158
3.5 Lawsuit against God? 167
Chapter IV Landmarks of Calvin’s Theodicy 175
4.1 God is Omnipotent and rules universe and history 175
4.2 Evil is not out of God’s control 198
4.3 God not only permits, but also ordains evil 201
4.4. Evil does not have a hypostasis 206
4.5. Suffering is real 214
4.6 God is good 221
Chapter V The “first line of Defence” of God’s Justice 225
5.1 God is not the author of evil: the distinction between the remote cause and the proximate cause 226
5.2 God is not indictable, since His intentions are always pure and holy 241
5.3 Suffering has a purpose 248
5.3.1 Suffering as punishment and sanction 248
5.3.2 Suffering as correction and admonition 257
5.3.3 Suffering as a test 263
5.3.4 Suffering as medicine 265
5.4 God converts evil to good 267
5.5 General evaluation of Calvin’s Defense of God 281
5.6 The excluded lines of Defense 284
Chapter VI The “second line of Defence” of God’s Justice:The Deus Absconditus 297
6.1 The Deus Absconditus 297
6.2 The Hiddenness of God 302
6.3 The Loci, where the Hiddenness of God can be perceived 315
6.4 Causes resulting in the Hiddenness of God 324
6.5 The double justice and the double wisdom 335
6.6 The eschatological hope 343
Bibliography 351

Citation preview

Paolo de Petris worked as a Lawyer and Honorary Judge in Italy for 15 years. After studying Theology at the Waldenser Faculty in Rome, in 2008 he obtained a Ph.D at McGill University in Montreal. He is currently Minister in a Reformed church in Switzerland.

ISBN 978-3-0343-1095-6

Paolo de Petris

Paolo de Petris · Calvin’s Theodicy and the Hiddenness of God

Calvin’s Theodicy has been substantially ignored or simply negated until now on the assumption that the issues raised by the modern problem of evil and Calvin’s discussion of providence and evil would be different. The unspoken premise underlying this conviction is that theodicy is a modern problem, since earlier formulations in no way attempted to justify God’s actions. This book goes decisively in the opposite direction. It aims to understand the core of Calvin’s Theodicy and to demonstrate that one of the most important reasons that prompted Calvin to preach for almost 2 years 159 Sermons on the Book of Job was to “vindicate” God’s justice by demonstrating the meaningfulness of God’s activity in human life. After examining the status of the recent research on Calvin’s Theodicy, this work studies the steps that led the French reformer to his insights and the drafting of the Sermons. Further, it studies the juridical framework of Calvin’s defence of the justice of God. Finally, the author analyses the answers given by Calvin to the problem of human anguish: Why do innocent people suffer? In what way one can still believe in an Omnipotent God?

XXIII/926

European University Studies

Calvin’s Theodicy and the Hiddenness of God Calvin’s Sermons on the Book of Job

www.peterlang.com

Peter Lang

Paolo de Petris worked as a Lawyer and Honorary Judge in Italy for 15 years. After studying Theology at the Waldenser Faculty in Rome, in 2008 he obtained a Ph.D at McGill University in Montreal. He is currently Minister in a Reformed church in Switzerland.

Paolo de Petris

Paolo de Petris · Calvin’s Theodicy and the Hiddenness of God

Calvin’s Theodicy has been substantially ignored or simply negated until now on the assumption that the issues raised by the modern problem of evil and Calvin’s discussion of providence and evil would be different. The unspoken premise underlying this conviction is that theodicy is a modern problem, since earlier formulations in no way attempted to justify God’s actions. This book goes decisively in the opposite direction. It aims to understand the core of Calvin’s Theodicy and to demonstrate that one of the most important reasons that prompted Calvin to preach for almost 2 years 159 Sermons on the Book of Job was to “vindicate” God’s justice by demonstrating the meaningfulness of God’s activity in human life. After examining the status of the recent research on Calvin’s Theodicy, this work studies the steps that led the French reformer to his insights and the drafting of the Sermons. Further, it studies the juridical framework of Calvin’s defence of the justice of God. Finally, the author analyses the answers given by Calvin to the problem of human anguish: Why do innocent people suffer? In what way one can still believe in an Omnipotent God?

XXIII/926

European University Studies

Calvin’s Theodicy and the Hiddenness of God Calvin’s Sermons on the Book of Job

www.peterlang.com

Peter Lang

Calvin’s Theodicy and the Hiddenness of God

European University Studies Europäische Hochschulschriften Publications Universitaires Européennes

Series XXIII Theology Reihe XXIII Série XXIII Theologie Théologie Vol./Band 926

PETER LANG Bern · Berlin · Bruxelles · Frankfurt am Main · New York · Oxford · Wien

Paolo de Petris

Calvin’s Theodicy and the Hiddenness of God Calvin’s Sermons on the Book of Job

PETER LANG Bern · Berlin · Bruxelles · Frankfurt am Main · New York · Oxford · Wien

Bibliographic information published by die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at ‹http://dnb.d-nb.de›. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this book is available from The British Library, Great Britain Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data De Petris, Paolo Calvin’s theodicy and the hiddenness of God: Calvin’s sermons on the book of Job / Paolo de Petris. p. cm. – (European university studies. Series XXIII, Theology, ISSN 0721-3409; v. 926 = Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII, Theologie; Bd. 926) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-3-0343-1095-6 1. Calvin, Jean, 1509-1564. 2. Theodicy. 3. Hidden God. 4. Bible. O.T. Job–Sermons. I. Title. BX9418.D385 2012 231'.8092–dc23 2012014920

ISSN 0721-3409 ISBN 978-3-0343-1095-6 (paperback) ISBN 978-3-0351-0427-1 (eBook) © Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2012 Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland [email protected], www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. Printed in Switzerland

VXORI DILECTISSIMÆ

Acknowledgments

I owe a primary debt of gratitude to all the professors of McGill University who, over the years, have enabled me to improve my theological skills and knowledge. This research would not have been possible without the precious advice of my supervisor Dr. Torrance Kirby, to whom I wish to express my deepest thanks and appreciation for his continuous and generous support. I would like to thank also Dr. Hermann Selderhuis, Director of the Institute for Reformation Research (Apeldoorn) and President-secretary of the International Calvin congress, for having edited “Calvini Opera Database,” which collects the complete works of John Calvin in the edition of the “Corpus Reformatorum.” This database has represented for me an extraordinary and indispensable help. Yet I would not be able to end up this research without the sustaining love and deep insights of my dear wife Rossana. Since I knew her, and prompted by her, I felt compelled, first as a lay preacher and then as Minister, to attempt to draft an answer to theodicy’s questions: Why is there so much evil in the world? Why have innocent people to suffer? Why does an Omnipotent and just God tolerate so much suffering? Far from being only a detached and academic research, the present dissertation has represented for me an occasion to clarify my “cogitationes” on one of the most important problems of Christian theology. Finally, I am deeply grateful to the dear friend Rev. Daniele Campoli who has worked on the final layout of the document.

VII

List of Abbreviations

CO

Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by Wilhelm Baum, Edward Cunitz, and Edward Reuss. 59 vols. Brunsvigae, Schwetschke, 1863-1900.

ICR Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill, translated by Ford L. Battles. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics, vols. 20-21. Philadelphia, 1960. IRC Institution de la Religion Chréstienne. Edited by Jacques Panier. Paris: Société d’Edition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1961. OS

Ioannis Calvini Opera Selecta. Edited by Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niesel. 5 vols. Münich: Kaiser Verlag, 1926-74.

IX

Contents

Introduction...............................................................................................1 Chapter I Calvin’s Theodicy and his Sermons on Job: The State of the Research .........................................................................7 1.1 Introduction: The terms of the Theodicy problem..........................7 1.2 The current state of interpretation on Calvin’s Theodicy .............13 1.3 The current state of interpretation concerning the Sermons on Job ...........................................................................38 Chapter II The Origin and Development of Calvin’s Thought ...............................51 2.1 De Clementia (1532) ...................................................................51 2.2 Calvin’s conversion (1532-1534) ................................................55 2.3 Psychopannychia (1534) .............................................................63 2.4 The Institutes of Christian Religion of 1536 ...............................67 2.5 Instruction in Faith of 1537 ........................................................77 2.6 The Institutes of Christian Religion of 1539 ...............................80 2.7 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans ..................................91 2.8 Defense for Guillaume de Fürstenberg and Défense de Guillaume Farel et de ses collègues contre les calomnies du théologastre Pierre Caroli par Nicolas Des Gallars ..............93 2.9 Bondage and Liberation of the Will ............................................93 2.10 Against the fantastic and furious Sect of the Libertines ..............95 2.11 Calvin in the Valley of the Shadow of Death ...............................99 2.12 Congrégation sur l’Election Éternelle ......................................106 2.13 De Aeterna Dei Praedestinatione (1552) ..................................108 2.14 The 159 Sermons on the Book of Job .........................................114 2.15 Predestination consequence of Providence or Providence consequence of Predestination? .................................................119 Chapter III The juridical framework of Calvin’s Theodicy ....................................125 3.1 Defence or Theodicy? ................................................................125 XI

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

The metaphor of lawsuit ............................................................133 Calvin’s dilemma in the lawsuit between God and man ...........138 Calvin’s empathy with Job ........................................................158 Lawsuit against God? ................................................................167

Chapter IV Landmarks of Calvin’s Theodicy .........................................................175 4.1 God is Omnipotent and rules universe and history ....................175 4.2 Evil is not out of God’s control .................................................198 4.3 God not only permits, but also ordains evil ...............................201 4.4. Evil does not have a hypostasis .................................................206 4.5. Suffering is real .........................................................................214 4.6 God is good ...............................................................................221 Chapter V The “first line of Defence” of God’s Justice ........................................225 5.1 God is not the author of evil: the distinction between the remote cause and the proximate cause ...................................................226 5.2 God is not indictable, since His intentions are always pure and holy .............................................................................241 5.3 Suffering has a purpose .............................................................248 5.3.1 Suffering as punishment and sanction .......................................248 5.3.2 Suffering as correction and admonition .....................................257 5.3.3 Suffering as a test ......................................................................263 5.3.4 Suffering as medicine ................................................................265 5.4 God converts evil to good ..........................................................267 5.5 General evaluation of Calvin’s Defense of God ........................281 5.6 The excluded lines of Defense ..................................................284 Chapter VI The “second line of Defence” of God’s Justice: The Deus Absconditus .........................................................................297 6.1 The Deus Absconditus ...............................................................297 6.2 The Hiddenness of God .............................................................302 6.3 The Loci, where the Hiddenness of God can be perceived ........315 6.4 Causes resulting in the Hiddenness of God ...............................324 6.5 The double justice and the double wisdom ...............................335 6.6 The eschatological hope ............................................................343 Bibliography ........................................................................................351 XII

Introduction

Calvin’s Theodicy has been substantially ignored or simply negated until now on the assumption that the issues raised by the modern problem of evil and Calvin’s discussion of providence and evil would be different. The unspoken premise underlying this conviction is that theodicy is a modern problem, since earlier formulations in no way attempted to justify God’s actions. The goal of the present essay goes decisively in the opposite direction. It aims to demonstrate that one of the most important reasons that prompted Calvin to preach for almost 2 years 159 Sermons on the Book of Job was nothing other than to “vindicate” God’s justice by demonstrating the meaningfulness of God’s activity in human life. The theologian, the minister, and the jurist were merging within Calvin’s person to the extent that it is often not easy to understand who wrote: the theologian equipped with the instruments of law, or the jurist armed with the instruments of biblical exegesis. Calvin was prompted to develop his defence of God’s justice in a more systematic fashion between 1552 and 1555 when he passed a time of deep crisis in Geneva. This difficult context inevitably led him to deal with the ticklish questions of evil, suffering and injustice. Calvin was fully aware that any discussion on the problem of evil has to take into account the theoretical and the existential questions involved. Whilst the former tries to formulate rational solutions to the problem of evil by demonstrating that the existence of an omnipotent and loving God is not necessarily conflicting with the existence of evil, the latter is focused upon how believers can deal with the anguishing reality of pain and suffering. Why do innocent people suffer? In what way one can still believe in an omnipotent God? These were far from being abstract and theoretical questions; they had to do with the deep concern the French Reformer felt for the suffering church and the unjustifiable punishment of Job. As Richard Stauffer points out, “Calvin était extrêmement

1

sensible au scandale de l´impunité des méchants et de la souffrance des bons.”1 In order to answer these questions and to defend God’s justice, Calvin, after having resorted to a first line defence, was forced to reformulate the traditional theological perspective by appealing to God’s inscrutability. In such a way, the Hiddenness of God became the hermeneutical key of a Theodicy which, in Max Weber’s opinion, constitutes one of the most rationally satisfying in the history of Christian thought.2 In this attempt to serve as God’s lawyer,3 Calvin was facilitated by his previous juridical background. It is as if he were installed in a tribunal and with the enthusiasm of a lawyer that Calvin made recourse to all possible formal exceptions and substantive arguments, trying to persuade, convince, and exhort his contemporaries that God, in spite of all the charges made against Him, was not only blameless, but also just. It is certainly true, the French Reformer argued, that when God punishes evildoers, this derives from His revealed justice but, does the same hold true when bad things happen to good people? In response to this anguishing question, Calvin held that the suffering of innocent people had to do with God’s hidden justice, and concurred with Augustine’s statement that “what is done against God’s will is not done without God’s will.”4 1 2

3

4

2

R. Stauffer, Dieu la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin (Bern: Peter Lang, 1978), p. 122. Weber thought there had been in history only three rationally satisfying theodicies: The Indian doctrine of Karma, Zoroastrian dualism and the predestination decree of the Deus Absconditus, the hidden God of Calvinism. M. Weber, The Social Psychology of the World Religion, eds H.H. Gerth and C. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 271. Davide Monda, La Carne, lo Spirito e l’Amore (Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 2005), p. 27 and Olivier Millet, Calvin et la Dynamique de la Parole. Etude de rhétorique reformée (Paris: Champion, 1992), p. 123. “ Let that sentiment of Augustine be ever present to our minds, Wherefore, by the mighty and marvellous working of God that in a wonderful and ineffable way, is not done, without His will, which is even done contrary to His will; because, it could not have been done, had He not permitted it to be done; and yet, he did not permit it without his will, but according to His will.“ “The Secret Providence of God,” in Calvin’s Calvinism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1996), p. 33.

The relationship between Calvin as lawyer and Calvin as theologian has been often neglected. John Hesselink points out: The popular image of Calvin, which continues to persist is that of a cold, logical systematician who stressed the sovereignty of God and taught a deterministic doctrine of double predestination. This grim caricature is then often concluded by noting that with Calvin the Bible became a literalistically interpreted lawbook. He is hence dismissed as a “law teacher”(Gesetzlehrer) who knew little of the love and grace of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.5

I will demonstrate that this image based on prejudices is groundless, since Calvin used his legal skills only in view of a very precise goal: to vindicate God’s justice. Working from this perspective, the first chapter will be dedicated to an examination of the status of recent research on Calvin’s Theodicy, as well as on his Sermons on Job. In the second chapter I will scrutinize the key steps which enabled the French Reformer to develop his insights, starting with his conversion, and continuing on until the drafting of his Sermons on Job. In the third chapter I will analyze the juridical framework of Calvin’s vindication of the justice of God and his continuous use of a legal jargon. In the fourth chapter I will focus my analysis on the premises that Calvin had assumed. His defence of God’s justice would be incomprehensible without taking into account the basic tenets of his theology that can be summed up in the following five statements: 1) God is Omnipotent and rules universe and history through His Providence. 2) God wills and does not merely permit evil. 3) Evil does not have a hypostasis. 4) The experience of suffering is real. 5) God is good. In the fifth chapter my analysis will focus on Calvin’s attempt to defend God’s justice by using the traditional arguments presented by Job’s friends. In the sixth chapter I will examine the theological presuppositions of the Hiddenness of God, trying to demonstrate that Calvin made use of this concept, not because he was interested in sheer 5

J. Hesselink, Calvin Concept of the Law (Allison Park, Pennsylvania: Pickwick Publications, 1992), p. 1.

3

speculation about the true essence of God, but because he was convinced that only the notion of the hidden God could give a final and definitive answer to the problem of human suffering. Only from this perspective is it possible to understand the core of Calvin’s Theodicy which is represented by the concept of “double justice”— a concept that he used extensively for the first time in his Sermons on Job as well as that of God's “double wisdom.” Accepting then the challenge formulated by Brian Gerrish,6 the goal of the present essay will be “to assemble the relevant sources and shape the ‘problematic’ for an adequate, comprehensive analysis” of Calvin’s Theodicy. It is certainly true, as P. Helm claims, that “unlike his hero Augustine, Calvin published no retractions.”7 Yet, contrary to the interpretation given by R. Stauffer,8 Calvin’s theological insights underwent a constant evolution: one needs only to think of the increasing role that the doctrine of providence acquired with the passing of time. Calvin was not merely an academic teacher, devoted to metaphysical investigation, but a theologian, who wanted to be a minister. His powerful personality influenced history and was influenced by history. The structure of Calvin’s thought was greatly marked by his juridical background. Was Calvin a theologian who became a lawyer or a lawyer who turned theologian? In the third chapter, after analyzing the juridical background of the French Reformer, I will investigate the “lawsuit” metaphor he used to characterize the relationship between God and man. During the course of the “court case,” Calvin provided a defence for God and Job respectively, depending upon the circumstances. He showed empathy with Job, but at the same time sharply refused to place God in the defendant’s box, bringing Him to trial. His Sermons on Job became a passionate plea in favour of God's rights against those who wanted to lay charges against Him.

6 7 8

4

B.A. Gerrish, “To the unknown God: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God,” Journal of Religion 53 (1973) p. 278. P. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 6. In Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 304, he wrote: "un trait de la prédication calvinienne sur Dieu, la création et la Providence est son invariance théologique, c’est à dire le fait qu’en dépit des circonstances diverses ou elle a été prononcée, elle ne révèle aucun évolution doctrinale.”

The present essay represents the completion of ongoing research on a problem that, echoing the words of my former professor at McGill University, Dr. Douglas John Hall, “has been disturbing my peace of mind”9 over the last thirty years, which is to say, how is it possible to justify the belief in an Omnipotent, Just and Loving God in the presence of the anguishing reality of human suffering. There is one last consideration before entering in medias res. When one analyzes the larger spectrum of the latest theological production on the question of Christian Theodicy, one has the impression that the only viable path is considered to be that of the suffering of God to such a point that, as Ronald Goetz aptly points out, ”the ancient theopaschite heresy that God suffers has, in fact, become the new orthodoxy.”10 Although the reasons which have lead to this situation are various and not always reducible into a common denominator, the consequences of this trend are disastrous and at the same time preoccupying: essential Christian doctrines, like the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the nature and the extent of the atonement, which were formulated in the first ecumenical councils on the basis of complete different presuppositions, turn out to be in deep contrast with this so called new orthodoxy, whose main representative figure are the majority of protestant theologians from J. Moltmann to the exponents of the Process Theology. In such a tendency the supreme insight of all the protestant confessions of faith starting from The 39 Articles of Religion11 to The French Confession12 and to The Westminster Confession of Faith,13 is lost and there is a 9 10

11 12

13

J. D. Hall, God and Human Suffering, an Exercise in the Theology of the Cross (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), p. 13. “The Suffering God: The Rise of a New Orthodoxy,” in Christian Century, April 16,1986, p. 385. The same author adds: “A list of modern theopaschite thinkers would include Barth, Berdyaev, Bonhoeffer, Brunner, Cobb, Cone and liberation theologians generally, Küng, Moltmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, Pannenberg, Ruether and feminist theologians generally, Temple, Teilhard and Unamuno.” The Article I states: “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions.” The Article I states: “We believe and confess that there is but one God, Who is one sole and simple essence, spiritual, eternal, invisible, immutable, infinite, incomprehensible, ineffable, omnipotent; Who is all-wise, all-good, all-just and allmerciful.” The Article II states: “There is but one only, living, and true God, Who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions;

5

relapse to the conception of a God, which betrays a monophisitic and modalistic perspective. In order to strengthen the new comprehension, it has been said that the concept of an apathetic God would be conflicting with the teaching of the Bible itself. And yet the anthropomorphic expressions that it is possible to find in the Bible are very far from justifying the conclusions of the new Patripassianist and Theopaschist point of view. The considerations Calvin made concerning the principle of accommodation might be helpful in explaining God’s revelation to our limited understanding: For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to “lisp” in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.14

It is because I have been deeply convinced that the insights of the French Reformer could situate the problem of Theodicy in the right biblical perspective that I decided to start the present investigation which is far from being over.

14

6

immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and Who will by no means clear the guilty.” ICR I.13.1

Chapter I Calvin’s Theodicy and his Sermons on Job: The State of the Research

It is strange, to human reason, that the children of God should be so surfeited with afflictions, while the wicked disport themselves in delights; but even more so, that the slaves of Satan should tread us under foot, as we say, and triumph over us, however, we have wherewith to comfort ourselves in all our miseries, looking for that happy issue which is promised to us, that he will not only deliver us by his angels, but will himself wipe away the tears from our eyes. John Calvin “Letter to the Prisoner of Lyons” in Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 413.

1.1 Introduction: The terms of the Theodicy problem The term theodicy (in French Théodicée) “is derived from the two Greek words meaning ‘deity’ and ‘justice’ and refers to the attempts to justify the Goodness of God in the face of the manifold evil present in the world.”1 It was coined by Gottfried Leibniz in the late seventeenth century.2 From his youth Leibniz had used the phrase the Justice of God when discussing the problem of evil. The term Theodicy did not appear until the late 1690s. Having been trained in law, Leibniz regarded theology itself as the highest form of jurisprudence and, consequently, treated the problem of God’s relation to the evils of the world analogously to a court case. It was the widespread popularity of his Essais de Théodicée which brought the term into general use. As J. L. Mackie remarks, the underlying problem implied by the term Theodicy can be summed up in the following statements: 1 2

Van A. Harvey, A Handbook of Theological Terms (New York: MacMillan, 1964), p. 236. G. Leibniz, Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil (Yale: University Press, 1952).

7

God is Omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet Evil exists. There are contradictions between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false. But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian, it seems, at once must adhere and cannot consistently adhere to all three.3

The horns of trilemma were firstly formulated by Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)4 and repeated by Hume’s incredulous Philo: Epicurus’ old questions are yet unanswered. Is He [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is He impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then is He malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?5

Another way of presenting the problem is mentioned by Boethius (480525): “If there be a God, from whence proceed so many evils? And if there be no God, from whence cometh any good?”6 Theodicy, then, becomes an attempt to reconcile this dilemma and to justify God’s ways. Boethius (c. 480 to c. 524) struggled with this “greatest of all mysteries, one which can hardly be fully explained,” and provides a classic formulation of the problem: Here, though, is the greatest cause of my sadness: since there is a good governor of all things, how can there be evil, and how can it go unpunished? Think how astonishing this is. But it is even more amazing that with wickedness in full control, virtue not only goes unrewarded, but is trampled underfoot by the wicked and is

3 4

5 6

8

J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence” in God and the problem of Evil, ed. by William L. Rowe (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), p. 78. “Either God wishes to take away evils and is unable to do so, or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; If He is neither able nor willing, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils or why does He not remove them?” This text is quoted by Lactantius (260- 340) The Writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol.VII, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Edinburgh Edition, 1951), p. 145. D. Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Richard H. Popkin (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1980), p. 63. The Consolation of Philosophy, in H.F. Stewart, E.K. Rand and S.J. Tester (eds) Boethius: The Theological Tractates and The Consolation of Philosophy, London: Heinemann, and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 150-1.

punished instead of vice. That this can happen in the realm of an all-knowing and all-powerful God who desires only good must be a cause of surprise and sorrow to everyone.7

More recently, the question of theodicy has been formulated in a not dissimilar way. C.S Lewis writes: If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy and if God were almighty He would be able to do what He wishes. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness or power, or both.8

Another way to put the argument into syllogistic form is as follows: 1. If God were all-powerful, He could destroy evil. 2. If God were all-good, He would destroy evil. 3. But evil has not been destroyed. 4. Therefore, God does not exist or He is limited. 5. But there is evidence that God exists. 6. Therefore, God must not be all-powerful.9 In this formulation theodicy turns out to be a logical problem first of all for those who believe in one God who is All-powerful and All-loving. Although the existence of evil does not constitute a problem for Christians, it does raise special challenges for them. In these last 20 centuries almost all traditional Christian theodicies have tried to solve the contradiction among the Omnipotence of God, His Goodness, and the real existence of evil by negating or qualifying one or another of them. Traditional theism, holding that God is the creator of heaven and earth and that all that occurs in the universe takes place under His sovereign guidance and control has been challenged by the atrocities of the past centuries. Dorothee Sölle expresses the uneasiness of the modern mentality towards the traditional conception of Providence. She writes:

7 8 9

Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1981), p. 91. C.S Lewis, The Problem of Pain (London: Collins, 1940), p.14. In his best selling book, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Avon Books, 1981), p. 134, Harold Kushner writes: “I recognize His limitations. He is limited in what He can do by the laws of nature and by the evolution of human nature and human moral freedom.”

9

It simply went beyond my powers to conceive of a powerful God who could look at Auschwitz, tolerate it, participate in it, observe it, or whatever. If He is all powerful, then He is devoid of love. Such was my conclusion.10

To these criticisms one would be tempted to answer: When in the past did human beings experience less horror? In what sense has the situation changed in these last two centuries? For what reasons would the acknowledgement of God’s Providence, fatherhood and government be ascribed only to a naive and old-fashioned perspective? Does this perspective not underlie a naive vision of the past? Against all the laudatores temporis acti, would it not be necessary to be reminded that there is no historical proof that our time has become worse than times past? And yet many prejudices die hard. Nowadays the question of defending God’s Justice seems to have become the Achilles heel of Augustinian, Thomistic and Calvinistic Theodicy, whose doctrine of Providence has been accused of leaving no space for human freedom. In one of his important works, through a series of attentive interpretations of some biblical passages, Jacques Ellul questions the divine Omnipotence and argues that the conception that God controls every detail of universe and history would be “inaccurate biblically and false theologically.”11 On the other hand, while attempting to summarize Calvin’s point of view, some scholars have suggested differing interpretations that are not always reducible under a common denominator. Theodore Plantinga, a theologian belonging to the Reformed tradition, openly confesses: I do not believe that those who seek a theodicy or a theoretical solution to the problem of evil will find it in Calvinism, or anywhere else for that matter. What Calvinism offers instead is a perspective which does not dispel the mystery of evil but does indeed assist us in learning to cope with evil. That perspective on evil cannot be divorced from an awareness of the coming Kingdom of God. The victory and full establishment of that Kingdom will spell the end for evil. Thus Calvinism responds to the problem of evil with an eschatology rather than a theodicy.12

10 11 12

10

D. Sölle, The Strength of the Weak: Toward a Christian Feminist Identity (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984), p. 98. J. Ellul, Ce que Je crois (Paris: Grasset, 198), p. 208. T. Plantinga, Learning to live with Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 135.

Hans Küng comments: Indeed, atheists and sceptics are right: none of the great spirits of humanity, whether Augustine or Thomas or Calvin, Leibniz or Hegel has solved the basic problem (of theodicy). Kant wrote his On the Failure of all Philosophical Attempts at a Theodicy in 1791, when in Paris people were thinking of doing away with God and replacing Him with the goddess Reason. 13

In particular Calvin’s vindication of God’s Justice has been substantially ignored or simply negated on the assumption that theodicy is a modern problem, since earlier formulations in no way attempted to justify God’s actions. An example of the above mentioned tendency can be found in the work Christian Theology: An Introduction14 where the prolific British theologian Alister E. McGrath lists the various answers given by Irenaeus, Augustine, Karl Barth and by some other modern theologians without mentioning even incidenter tantum the contribution of any of the Protestant Reformers. The reasons for the omission were explained by the same author in a former work, entitled Modern Christian Thought.15 Having postulated that “theodicy is a creature of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thought” and stating “how questionable is the suggestion that St. Augustine was dealing with essentially the same problem as Richard Swinburne,” A. E. McGrath writes: Thus even a cursory reading of Augustine’s texts indicates that he viewed the problem of evil in the context of the saving transformation of the human soul by God, in which case it would be implausible to maintain that (for him) these problems are concerned necessarily with the existence or the goodness of God (as they are for the contemporary theodicist): to be the author of our salvation, God has to be God, that is, divinity has constitutively to be and to be supremely good.16

13 14 15 16

H. Küng, Credo, The Apostles’ Creed explained for Today (London: SCM Press, Ltd, 1992), p. 90. A. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994), pp. 228-232. A. McGrath, Modern Christian Thought (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1993). McGrath, Modern Christian Thought, p. 192.

11

The same opinion is shared by Stanley Hauerwas17 and Wendy Farley.18 A further example of the tendency to set aside sic et simpliciter Calvin’s contribution, on the basis of the aprioristic assumption that the French Reformer “was inimical to the very notion of theodicy,” can be found in Jeffrey Shoulson. He writes: Although both Christian Reformers insisted on the human capacity to interpret the Scriptures without being subject to the dictates of a central authority like Rome, both also acknowledged the profound epistemological shortcomings inherent in any human attempt to understand the nature and the ways of God. Calvin insisted that to “be ignorant of things which it is neither possible nor lawful to know is to be learned,” and he recommended a kind of learned ignorance on matters involving divine reason and the nature of God. Calvin did insist upon God’s rationality, but he placed it beyond the reach of human understanding, effectively denying the possibility of a theodicy. 19

Thomas Steinmetz comes to the same conclusion, stating: When the question of God’s Justice is raised by Paul, Calvin responds by adopting a severely antiapologetic stance. Whereas Thomas offers a limited theodicy and Bucer appeals to God’s goodness, Calvin takes the position that to mount a spirited defence of God’s Justice is to detract from God’s honour.20

Jan Sperna Weiland after having pointed out that “l’idée même d’une défense de Dieu contre les reproches d’une raison scandalisée leur parait

17

18

19 20

12

In Naming the Silences: God, Medicine, and the Problem of Suffering (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990) chap. 2, he writes: “There is no problem of evil in Christian faith,” since its creation is a correlative of the creation of a god, that it was presumed, could be known separate from a community of people at worship.” I owe this quotation to Tyron L. Inbody, The Transforming God, An interpretation of Suffering and Evil (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1997), p. 32. In Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: A Contemporary Theodicy (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), p. 22, he writes: ”The phenomenon of undeserved, destructive suffering is not acknowledged by most classical theologians; its recognition poses problems for theodicy that apparently did not exist for Augustine, Thomas Aquinas or Calvin.” J. Shoulson, Milton and the Rabbis, Hebraism, Hellenism and Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), p. 41. T. Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 151.

absurde,“ goes so far as to state that “pour les auteurs reformés du XVIème siècle la théodicée aurait été identique à l’athéisme.”21 In the light of the above mentioned considerations, it is no wonder that only a limited number of works have decided to take into account a Theodicy that, as Max Weber aptly pointed out, constitutes one of the most rationally satisfying in the history of Christian thought.22 On these works I will dwell before analysing Calvin’s Sermons on Job.

1.2 The current state of interpretation on Calvin’s Theodicy A.M. Hunter: The Teaching of Calvin. A Modern Interpretation As stated in the introduction, the principal intention of this masterpiece, on whose sulcus I would like to continue, is “to provide a discussion of the distinctive features of the doctrinal ecclesiastical and legislative system identified with Calvin, a man to whom religion was the very breath of life.” 23 Although the term Theodicy never occurs, the issue does lie at the center of discussion of this solid and comprehensive analysis. All the problems which have to do with theodicy and more particularly with the question of whether Calvin deemed God to be responsible for moral evil are taken in account exhaustively.24 Of particular interest are chapters VI and VII on Predestination and on Providence in which the author, trying to solve the vexata quaestio of the relationship between the two doctrines, points out that the latter was 21

22

23 24

“La theodicee, c’est l’atheisme,” in M. Olivetti, La Teodicea ( Cedam, Milano, 1989), p. 39. In Gott im Leid (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder Verlag, 1997), p. 55, Armin Kreimer sharply criticizes this point of view by terming it as “Eine Höchsleitung in semantischer Akrobatik.“ Weber thought there had been in history only three rationally satisfying theodicies: The Indian doctrine of Karma, the Zoroastrian dualism and the Predestination decree of the Deus Absconditus. In “The Hidden God of Calvinism” in The social psychology of the World Religion, eds H.H. Gerth and C. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 271. Hunter A.M.: The Teaching of Calvin ( London: James Clark & Co., 1950), pp.1-4. Hunter, The Teaching of Calvin, pp. 137-141.

13

an “immediate corollary”25 of the former and not vice versa, as many have suggested. Starting from the assumption that for Calvin God does not merely allow sin, since it happens actually by His will, Hunter explains how the French Reformer puts forward various considerations calculated to provide qualifications which, “while leaving God with the ultimate responsibility, yet absolve Him from being chargeable with anything like guilt.”26 The core of Calvin arguments lays in the assumption that moral evil is used by God in the execution of holy and righteous purposes. Not entirely comfortable with this line of defense, Calvin was forced to “recourse to a desperate piece of juggling worthy of a scholastic in extremity.”27 One of these argumentations was to state that: God, simultaneously in diverse manners, wills and does not will that a thing should happen. Because he wills after one manner and does not will after another, the contradiction must be only apparent. If we cannot comprehend how that can be, it is due to our want of sense. What the murderer does is against God s will and yet not without His will.28

Hunter concludes the discussion on this crucial point by suggesting that the only final defensible position held by the French Reformer was to quote “a saying of Augustine according to whom He who is good would not permit evil to be done, were He not Omnipotent to bring good out of evil.”29 John Hick: Evil and the God of Love John Hick’s book30 represents one of the most exhaustive essays on the general problem of theodicy. It aims to seek a satisfactory answer to the question asking, how can “the presence of evil in the world be reconciled with the existence of a God who is unlimited both in goodness and 25 26 27 28 29 30

14

Hunter, The Teaching of Calvin, p. 130. Hunter, The Teaching of Calvin, p. 138. Hunter, The Teaching of Calvin, p. 140. Hunter, The Teaching of Calvin, p. 140. Hunter, The Teaching of Calvin, p. 140. J. Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Harper & Row, 1968).

power?”31 In the first part of his essay the author analyzes two forms of theodicy: the Irenaean which conceives of man’s fall as a primitive failure to make the leap from innocence to righteousness at the point at which such a step is necessitated by the process of their evolution and the Augustinian which regards evil as privatio boni stemming from man’s abuse of his freedom. John Hick reaches the conclusion that the Reformers “had no general theory of the nature of evil such as Augustine offered in his privative analysis,”32 and “shared to the full, and even carry further, Augustine’s strong doctrine of the fall of man and its paradoxical counterpoise in an equally strong doctrine of Predestination.”33 He adds: The Reformers’ lack of interest in a general philosophical theodicy is presumably due, negatively, to the absence of any contemporary heresy on the subject to be combated such as had confronted Augustine in Manichaeism; and positively to their passionate adherence to Scripture as the normative source of Christian truth.34

The outcome of having elevated the doctrine of Predestination to the centre of theodicy would bring about the effect of not only losing “the supreme insight and faith of New Testament monotheism, that God loves all his human children with an infinite and irrevocable love,” but would also cause a revival “of the conception of God as the Lord of a chosen in-group whom He loves, who are surrounded by an alien out-group whom He hates.”35 A deep misunderstanding underlies Hick’s analysis. The doctrine of Predestination is related to the doctrine of salvation effected by Jesus Christ rather than to the attempt to justify God’s way. It is certainly true that in the first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion the doctrine of Predestination was treated together with Providence, but already in the second edition it was transferred from the section dealing with God, the Creator, to the section dealing with human redemption. Undoubtedly at

31 32 33 34 35

Hick, Evil and the God of Love, p. 3. Hick, Evil and the God of Love, p. 115. Hick, Evil and the God of Love, p. 116. Hick, Evil and the God of Love, p. 116. Hick, Evil and the God of Love, p. 125.

15

the basis of this choice was Calvin’s desire to interpret this doctrine in a wider soteriologic context. Rebus sic stantibus this doctrine is irrelevant for the theodicy, since it answers a question, which strictly speaking, concerns only or chiefly the Christian faith, namely why God has elected some to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation rather than addressing the difficult problem of human suffering. Every day we see that the innocent suffer and die young, while the wicked live long and prosper. Why does it happen? How can God’s Justice be maintained in view of the fact that guiltless people suffer? What is at stake here is not the mere existence of human suffering, but the fact that it hits innocent people. The anguish of people who have deserved it has been rarely questioned, whereas the suffering of innocent people has always been perceived as scandalous. Paraphrasing the title of Rabbi Harold Kushner’s36 well-known bestseller, the analysis of Hick would be relevant if “bad things would happen only to bad people,” that is to say, to people who are wicked and consequently predestined to eternal damnation. But why do bad things happen to good people? Starting from the assumption that God deliberately wills or permits sin, evil, and suffering so that free, rational human beings through various challenges can learn to love God and neighbour, Hick seems incapable of locating the core of Calvin’s Theodicy. Other perplexities arise in relation to the alleged absence of any contemporary heresy on the theodicy. It needs only to be reminded that at the time of the Reformers there was a revival of the epicurean and Stoic philosophy, which with different accents tended to give an explanation to the problem. David Ray Griffin: God, Power, & Evil In the 1976 edition of God, Power, & Evil, a Process Theology 37 D. R. Griffin tries to answer to the question of how an All-powerful, Allknowing, All-good God can allow evil to exist in the world. At the outset 36 37

16

H. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Avon Books, 1981). Griffin, God’s Power and Evil (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976).

Griffin is eager to stress the deep illogicality of the concept of an Omnipotent God who could “unilaterally bring about states of affairs in the world.”38 In his opinion God’s power over the world could not be understood as coercive, but at the most, merely “persuasive.”39 Entities within the world could resist divine power, so God, finally, is not responsible for all the evil in the world. Even an All-powerful God could not control such evil. Thus, the reality of evil is not, in itself, a proof against belief in the existence of God. In chapter ten, entitled Omnipotence without Obfuscation, Griffin examines Calvin’s perspective in detail. Starting from the assumption that in Calvin’s opinion God “really needs no defence,”40 he highlights that the French Reformer: 1) Believed God causes all good and all evil and that human beings are not free. 2) Had no answer except an appeal to faith that God acts for a good reason. 3) Denied that evil is genuine, since all is caused by God for supposedly good reasons, known only to God. 4) Denied God’s goodness, since God causes so much evil. 5) Was inconsistent in espousing free will and at the same time in holding that God causes everything to happen that is going to happen. The text upon which Griffin bases his assumption “that God really needs no defence,”41 is contained in the last version of the Institutes, where the French Reformer, at the end of a long analysis of the doctrine of Providence, wrote: It will do us no good to proceed farther, for neither will it satisfy their petulance nor does the Lord need any other defence than what he used through his Spirit, who

38 39 40 41

Griffin, God’s Power and Evil, p. 2. Griffin, God’s Power and Evil, pp. 8-9. Griffin, God’s Power and Evil, p. 121. Griffin, God’s Power and Evil, p. 121.

17

spoke through Paul’s mouth; and we forget to speak well when we cease to speak with God.42

From this text it is not given to single out any particular aversion that Calvin felt regarding the need to come to God’s defence. In fact, as we will see further, he did not reject every defence of God, but only those defences which were based upon human consideration or, what is worse, upon cavilling.43 He sharply criticised those who would seemed to have been the most earnest defenders of God’s glory, though indeed they condemned Him carelessly. Coming to the heart of the above-mentioned conclusions, it is worthwhile to point out that: 1) In an analysis of Calvin’s theology one would have expected a more careful scrutiny of the entire corpus of Calvin’s works, whereas the quotations are taken quite entirely from The Institutes. 2) The criticism that “Calvin’s God is not perfect,”44 is in sharp contrast to Griffin’s assertion that in Calvin’s perspective God’s will “is the highest rule of perfection, and even the law of all laws.”45

42

43

44 45

18

ICR III.23.5.: CO 2:702-703: “Ulterius procedendo nihil proficiemus: nam nec satisfiet eorum petulantiae, nec alia eget defensione Dominus, quam qua per spiritum suum usus est qui per os Pauli loquebatur; et ipsi dediscimus bene loqui ubi cum Deo loqui desinimus.” An exhaustive example can be found in the ICR III.23.7: “Why should they in cavilling lose their labor? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” CO 2:704: “Quid enim tergiversando luderent operam? Cunctos mortales in unius hominis persona morti aeternae mancipatos fuisse scriptura clamat. Hoc quum naturae adscribi nequeat, ab admirabili Dei consilio profectum esse minime obscurum est. Bonos istos iustitiae Dei patronos perplexos haerere in festuca, altas vero trabes superare, nimis absurdum est.” Griffin, God’s Power and Evil, p. 129. Griffin, God’s Power and Evil, p. 124.

It is noteworthy that throughout all his works the French Reformer tried to defend the righteousness of God,46 and he took comfort in quoting the apostle Paul “who did not look for loopholes of escape as if he were embarrassed in his argument but showed that the reason of divine righteousness is higher than man’s standard can measure, or than man’s slender wit can comprehend.”47 Anna Case Winters: God’s Power: Traditional Understandings and Contemporary Challenges Employing the title The Classical Model Anna Case Winters starts from the assumption that Calvin’s Theodicy, based on the concept of God’s Omnipotence, conceived as power in the mode of domination and control, could be summed up in two main points: 1) God uses evil in the execution of good purposes. 2) The guilt for evil is to be attributed to the evil motives and intentions of human beings. The outcome of such a position, in Case Winter’s opinion, would be disastrous inasmuch as it would entail:48 1) The severe curtailment, if not the complete denial of human freedom; 2) An accompanying aggravation of the theodicy problem, making a credible freewill defence untenable; 3) The promotion of oppression in the human community through the divinizing of power of this sort.

46

47

48

ICR III.23.4.: “They will say that God’s righteousness is not truly defended thus but that we are attempting a subterfuge such as those who lack a just excuse are wont to have.” CO 2:701: ”Negabunt ita vere defendi Dei iustitiam, sed subterfugium captari, quale habere solent qui iusta excusatione destituuntur.” ICR III.23.4.: “Proinde non, quasi deprehensus foret, apostolus ad cuniculos respectavit; sed indicavit altiorem esse iustitiae divinae rationem quam ut vel humano modo metienda sit, vel ingenii humani tenuitate possit comprehendi. Fatetur quidem apostolus, eam subesse divinis iudiciis profunditatem, a qua mentes omnes hominum absorbendae sint si conentur eo penetrare.” CO 02:701. Case Winters, God’s Power (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster-J. Knox Press,1990), pp. 63-64.

19

Calvin’s theological production is very far from representing the main focus of Winter’s analysis. One needs only to remark that among the more than seventy-six footnotes of chapter two, only twenty-eight refer to the texts. In the light of this unsatisfactory analysis, the criticisms directed towards Calvin’s position are often generic and even contradictory. Quoting a text taken from The Institutes Case Winters stated that Calvin upheld “that the will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness, so that everything which He wills must be held to be right by the mere fact of his willing it.”49 If this is true, it is not clear why, some pages before, the same author had drawn the opposite conclusion, stating that Calvin would not have concurred with the opinion shared by Duns Scotus and William of Ockham who held that “nothing is of itself good or evil, the free will of God being the sovereign arbiter of what is so.”50 Even the assertion that Calvin attempted to establish an unsuccessful freewill defence, because he severely curtailed, if he did not in fact deny, human freedom, is weak. In fact, the French Reformer was not interested, either generally or theologically, in defending the notion of free will. For Calvin the simple possibility that man could, with his will, ratify or hinder the decisions of God was always regarded as unacceptable.51 He refused to hold that human beings were simply puppets in the hands of God and thought that human will could be free only when it was turned, by grace, to the good. The seeming contradiction of this last statement in relation to the firm negation of free will was overcome through the distinction between necessitas and coactio. Man, in committing sins, acts necessarily, inasmuch as he is under the impulse of his sinful instincts, but at the same time voluntarily 49 50 51

20

Winters, God’s Power, p. 74. Winters, God’s Power, p. 44. See ICR III.24.3., where Calvin wrote: “But here we must beware of two errors: for some make man God’s co-worker, to ratify election by his consent. Thus, according to them, man’s will is superior to God’s plan. As if Scripture taught that we are merely given the ability to believe, and not, rather, faith itself! Others, although they do not so weaken the grace of the Holy Spirit yet led by some reason or other, make election depend upon faith, as if it were doubtful and also ineffectual until confirmed by faith. Indeed, that it is confirmed, with respect to us, is utterly plain; we have also already seen that the secret plan of God, which lay hidden, is brought to light, provided you understand by this language merely that what was unknown is now verified sealed, as it were, with a seal.”

and not under coercion. The freedom that Calvin had in mind was not the liberum arbitrium indifferentiae, namely the possibility to choose indifferently among a quite indefinite number of possibilities, but simply the possibility of doing the will of God in obedient service. To the question how then is it possible to evaluate Calvin’s arguments, Anna Case Winters answers negatively stating that “Calvin’s theodicy runs aground.”52 Her basic assumption is that in order to be successful Calvin’s defense should imply that God does not determine the motivations and the intentions of the human, whereas Calvin assumed just the opposite principle. She observes: If God determines both human acting and human willing. It is difficult to see where any room is left for freedom (that entails any degree of independence) or the culpability that accompanies freedom.53

This interpretation of Calvin’s Theodicy is not consistent with previous statements of the same author. In fact, just at the beginning of her essay, A. Case Winters had stated to consider groundless “but not totally without foundation the caricature of Calvin’s position as being deterministic, projecting an absolute power, and leaving no room for human freedom,”54 and had pointed out that the difference between the Stoics and Calvin was that the former held “determinism,” whereas Calvin spoke of “divine determination.”55 Unquestionably, in many occasions Calvin stressed his intention to distance himself from the Stoics: “We are not Stoics, who dream up a fate based on continuous connections of events.”56 The assumption that Calvin’s theology would have contributed to “the promotion of oppression in the human community through the divinizing of power of this sort,”57 is apodictic and historically inaccurate. Oppression and political absolutism existed long before Calvin attempted to realize “the most perfect school of Christ that ever 52 53 54 55 56

57

Winters, God’s Power (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster-J. Knox Press,1990), p.76. Winters, God’s Power, p. 77. Winters, God’s Power, p. 40. Winters, God’s Power, p. 40. Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books, 1996), p. 38. CO 6:257: “qui fatum somniemus ex perpetua rerum connexione.” Winters, God’s Power, p. 34.

21

was since the days of the Apostles”58 in Geneva. If the stereotype of Calvin, as precursor of democratic values, is certainly hazardous, contradicted as it is from his “forma mentis” that was substantially aristocratic,59 the more eccentric turns out to be the opposite thesis which looks at him as a sullen and intolerant defender of a ferocious and obscurantist system.60 It is difficult to avoid the impression that, contrary to the intentions expressed at the beginning of her essay, the author seems to remain prisoner of the old and unfounded idea that continues to caricature Calvin’s position as being deterministic. Jürgen Moltmann: The Crucified God The Theodicy of John Calvin has been attacked in these last decades from different perspectives including Feminist theologians such as Sallie McFague and Latin American Liberation theologians such as Leonardo Boff, as well as Protestant theologians such as Douglas John Hall61 and Jürgen Moltmann. The common denominator of all these different trends lays in the conviction that Calvin made God responsible for evil and all the bad things that happen in our individual lives and in the world around us. A representative of the above-mentioned point of view is J. Moltmann, who in 1972 came into international limelight with the 58

59 60 61

22

This sentence is attributed to John Knox, who wrote from Geneva to friends in his native Scotland in 1556: “Here [in Geneva] exists the most perfect school of Christ which has been since the days of the apostles on earth. Christ is preached elsewhere too; yet nowhere did I find that morals and faith have been improved more sincerely than here.” I owe this quotation to Emanuel Stickelberger, Calvin (Cambridge: the Lutterworth Press, 2002), p. 142. See A.M. Hunter: The Teaching of Calvin, p. 3. See S. Zweig, Calvino contro Castellio (Milano: Mondadori, 1962), p. 862. In his thoughtful book God and Human Suffering, An exercise in the Theology of the Cross (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), p. 136, after having expressed his strong criticisms against the theory sponsored by Job’s friends, (but not by Calvin) that suffering is punishment for sin inflicted by God whose judgement or purgation begins already in this life, Hall points out that “the Anselmic-Calvinistic soteriologic response to human suffering is highly theoretical and probably even more remote than the ransom theory.”

publication of The Crucified God,62 in which were developed Trinitarian and Christological implications stemming from an hermeneutic of the cross. Differing from his former work The Theology of Hope, in The Crucified God Moltmann changes perspective and raises the cross of Christ to the level of the most important hermeneutic principle of Christian understanding thereby offering a complete and radical revision of Calvin’s atonement doctrine.63 Although J. Moltmann never cites John Calvin, nevertheless much of his criticisms against the apathetic God have the theology of the French Reformer explicitly in mind, especially when he emphasizes that there cannot be any other Christian answer to the question of human suffering without the Theologia Crucis, which is represented by the rabbinic theology of God’s humiliation. In reality “to speak here of an absolute God would make God an annihilating nothingness.”64 From Moltmann’s perspective, the cross performs an essential function since it makes us understand who God is. Without the cross of Christ there cannot be any Christology65 and “the understanding of the crucified Jesus must be the origin of all Christology.”66 Therefore, since the Theologia Crucis is not only “a single chapter in theology, but the key signature,67 the centre and the entry of all Christian theology,” it 62 63

64 65 66 67

J. Moltmann, The Crucified God (New York: Harper & Row, 1974). Even though Moltmann has not dedicated a systematic treatise to the theodicy issue, the major outlines of his approach are clear. He acknowledges that “human suffering is the central problem in most religions” and that “today it is recognized that Christian theology has its broadest and most controversial relationship to the world within the horizon of the question of theodicy. Deeply convinced that in the experience of suffering there is the rock of atheism, Moltmann draws the conclusion that Christian theology becomes relevant only when it takes the theodicy question as an “absolute presupposition,” only “when it accepts this solidarity with the present suffering” Otherwise it is the issue of theodicy which lays at the heart of the Christian faith itself, in the crucifixion of Jesus His dying cry resounded: “My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” For this reason all Christian theology and all Christian life ought to be basically “an answer to the question which Jesus asked as he died.” In Moltmann, The Crucified God, p. 4. ”Only in this way can the Christian faith be true to its own identity and relevant in the contemporary world.” In Moltmann, The Crucified God, pp. 7-31. Moltmann, The Crucified God, p. 278. Moltmann, The Crucified God, p. 114. Moltmann, The Crucified God, p. 124. Moltmann, The Crucified God, p. 72.

23

follows that “all Christian statements about God, about creation, about sin and death have their focal point in the crucified Christ.”68 In light of this essential hermeneutical function, Moltmann assigns to the cross two basic tasks, one critical and one positive: to subject to rigorous criticism all that the Christian church has done in theology and in practice and to review all aspects of theology, including among others, ecclesiology, anthropology, eschatology and liturgy. However, Moltmann’s area of interest, at least in The Crucified God, deals with the implications of the traditional Trinitarian and Christological doctrines as they were formulated in the first Ecumenical Councils. In particular, the basic question he aims to answer is: What did the cross of Christ mean for God Himself? What was the God, who raised Jesus, doing in and during the crucifixion of Jesus? Why did He keep silent over the cross of Jesus and His dying cry? The legitimacy of these questions stems from the fact that, beginning in the first centuries, the idea of God had been deeply influenced by Greek philosophy and by a conception for which the event of the cross was completely foreign to the reality of God conceived as a Being who could not suffer. The adoption of this mentality, Moltmann argues, has had disastrous consequences for Christian theology because: A God who cannot suffer is poorer than any other man. For, a God who is incapable of suffering is a being who cannot be involved. Suffering and injustice do not affect him. And because He is so completely insensitive, He cannot be affected or shaken by anything. He cannot weep, for He has no tears. But the one who cannot suffer cannot love either. So He is a loveless being. Aristotle’s God cannot love; He can only be loved by all non-divine beings by virtue of His perfection and beauty and in this way draw them to Him. The unmoved Mover is a loveless beloved.69

On the contrary, the only way for Christian theology to avoid surrendering itself and losing its identity is to develop a Trinitarian understanding of God that would affirm God’s presence in the suffering, dying, and death of Jesus. In line with this hermeneutical principle of the cross, Moltmann’s answer to the above-mentioned questions sounds unequivocal: “When Jesus was dying on the cross God was not absent but working and not simply passively allowing it to happen, but actively 68 69

24

Moltmann, The Crucified God, p. 20. Moltmann, The Crucified God, p. 222.

involved Himself.”70 To support this thesis Moltmann appeals to II Cor. 5:19 in which Paul says: that “God was in Christ” and then sums up his point of view by saying: Logically this means that God Himself suffered in Jesus, God Himself died in Jesus for us. God is on the cross of Jesus for us, and through that becomes God and Father of the godless and the godforsaken. Taken to its final consequence, this means that God died that we might live. God became the crucified God so that we might become free sons of God. In the passion of the Son, the Father Himself suffers the pains of abandonment. In the death of the Son, death comes upon God Himself, and the Father suffers the death of His Son in His love for forsaken man.71

Without any doubt Moltmann, by raising the cross to the level of a supreme hermeneutic principle, has emphasized an important aspect of Christian faith, even though it should not be regarded as the exclusive principle. Nevertheless, one has the impression that, despite the best of intentions, the insight leading to the notion of a suffering God has left unchanged the terms of the theodicy. An initial question arises with reference to the features of this suffering. Namely, even admitting that God suffered in the death of Christ and is still suffering for the innumerable tragedies of human history, is His suffering voluntary, in the sense that God freely has decided to accept it, or is it forced? In the first case the principle of the omnipotence of God is safeguarded but a basic and essential question remains: is there no other way to eliminate suffering? In the second case everything becomes incomprehensible: Why is God compelled to suffer? Certainly the image of a despotic God fades and the human beings seem to acquire their freedom once again. Nevertheless, with the collapse of the traditional image of God, comes the collapse of any notion of a God who is worthy to be praised and honoured. Since God is not able to eliminate suffering how is it possible to pray “Thy Kingdom come” and hope for a better world? A second question can be raised in relation to the importance of God’s suffering in the widest context of the theodicy problem: Does it help if God has suffered?

70 71

Moltmann, The Crucified God, p. 190. Moltmann, The Crucified God, p. 192.

25

The answer is negative. Suffering remains unbearable even if God has suffered and is still suffering. Paul Tillich attempted to explain the reasons of the success of so-called Patripassianism in the III century. He wrote: “The popular mind wanted to have God Himself present on earth, a God who is with us, who participates in our fate, and whom we can see and hear when we see and hear Jesus.”72 The Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner remarks: Um, einmal primitiv gesagt, aus meinem Dreck und Schlamassel und meiner Verzweiflung herauszukommen, nützt es mir doch nichts, wenn es Gott - um es einmal grob zu sagen- genauso dreckig geht.73

The same argument is shared by F. Varillon, who writes: “L’idée d’un Dieu qui souffre n’aggrave-t-elle pas le scandale en l’amplifiant jusqu’à l’infini?”74 What happens when we try to alleviate our suffering by saying that God has suffered with us? R. Goetz tries to give an answer. After having stated that “this is not much better that the idea of a sentimental butcher who weeps after every slaughter,”75 he comments: The doctrine that God is limited in power solves the problem by sacrificing God’s omnipotence. However to my mind, any concept of a limited deity finally entails a denial of the capacity of God to redeem the world and this, ironically, raises the question of whether God is in the last analysis even love, at least love in the Christian sense of the term.76

It seems utterly reductive to criticize traditional theodicy by harping upon the apathy of God. In such a way one forgets that the basic task of any theodicy is to justify the righteousness of God, who by definition should be Omnipotent when confronted by the existence of evil. This is the reason why criticism against classical theodicy, whose main advocate was Calvin, does not appear to be decisive. Impassibility was not in itself 72 73 74 75 76

26

P. Tillich, A History of Christian Thought (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1967), p. 66. K. Rahner, in P. Imhof/H. Biallowons, (Hg.), Im Gespräch, Bd. 1, (München 1982), p. 245. F. Varillon, La souffrance de Dieu (Paris: Centurion, 1975), p. 23. Goetz, “The Suffering God: The Rise of a New Orthodoxy,” The Christian Century 103.13 (1986), p. 387. Goetz, “The Suffering God,” p. 388.

an important issue in the sixteenth century and did not play any importance in Calvin’s attempt to vindicate God’ Justice, since the French Reformer dealt with it only tangentially in the widest contexts of the most important attributes of God. Dorothee Sölle: Suffering One of the most provocative books written on suffering is that of D. Sölle and it is simply entitled Suffering.77 Growing up in Germany of the 1930s, Sölle’s theology was deeply marked by the tragic events of World War II and its implications for the Christian faith. Her thought can be understood only in the widest context of a trend of theology, which, especially in these last decades, has become “a new form of orthodoxy.”78 Sölle states that the most relevant reality is that of suffering. Theology, as the “reflective description of certain experiences,” “originates in pain,”79 and its “locus is suffering or the disregard for life that we experience all the time.”80 In the book Suffering Sölle devotes a few pages to Calvin, but unfortunately her attempt to reconstruct the basic tenets of his Theodicy becomes a caricature of it. According to Sölle, Calvin’s Theodicy could be summed up in three sentences that are the common denominator of all the sadistic theologies: 1) God is the almighty ruler of the world, and He sends all suffering; 2) God acts justly, not capriciously; 3) All suffering is punishment for sin.81 Sölle writes: There is little doubt that the Reformation strengthened theology’s sadistic accents. The existential experience developed in later medieval mysticism that God is with those who suffer is replaced by a theological system preoccupied with judgement 77 78 79 80 81

D. Sölle, Suffering (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). Goetz, “The Suffering God,” p. 385. Sölle, The Strength of the Weak: Toward a Christian Feminist Identity, p. 91. Sölle, Suffering, p. 91. Sölle, Suffering, p. 24.

27

day. The situation is not viewed from the standpoint of the sufferer; rather it is through God’s eyes that things are seen and, above all, judged.82

Therefore, adds Sölle, “all suffering is attributed to God’s chastisement.”83 From one text, in which the French Reformer responded to the question “why the wicked are so happy?” with Quia Dominus eos instar pecorum saginat in diem occisionis, Sölle draws the conclusion that for Calvin as for others, “this hatred for the impious has [its] origin in a deep hatred for themselves.”84 Sölle’s line of argumentation lacks convincing support. In the first place, the assertion that medieval mysticism would have upheld God’s participation in human suffering should have been demonstrated. The doctrine of the suffering God, if one leaves aside its naissance with the “Patripassianist” heresy in the third century and its re-emergence with the “Theopaschism” of the sixth century, remained, at least up to the time of Martin Luther, absolutely circumscribed and limited.85 The assertion that the problem of suffering in Calvin’s works could be concentrated, experienced, and unravelled only from God’s point of view is openly contradicted by his Sermons on Job, which show exactly the contrary, namely that the issue at stake is not so much the righteousness of Job (that is taken for granted right from the beginning) but the Justice of God, who before the tribunal of history becomes the One, and truly accused. Regarding the assertion that this hatred for the ungodly would have had its origin in a profound self-hatred, it is certainly true that 82 83

84 85

28

Sölle, Suffering, p. 22. Sölle, Suffering, p. 23. Sölle’s interpretation is also shared by Franco Giampiccoli in his Sofferenza, viverla o subirla? (Claudiana, Torino, 1975), pp. 67-70. After having enumerated the various effects which could stem from suffering, Giampiccoli seems to agree with Sölle who termed Calvin’s statements as “theological sadism.” Sölle, Suffering, p. 25. R. Goetz noted: “Even Luther, who in his theology of the cross affirmed the suffering of God even unto death, seemed to take back much of what he said in his equally foundational doctrines of Predestination and the Deus Absconditus. When contemplating the purposes of the hidden God, Luther portrayed an inscrutably impassible, divine sovereignty, a portrayal which was even more severe than Calvin’s.” “The Suffering God: The Rise of a New Orthodoxy,” The Christian Century 103. 13 (1986), p. 387.

Calvin expressed on many occasions his loathing for the ungodly. It is, however, also true that he interpreted the letter and the spirit of numerous biblical texts in such a way as to reveal a yearning to obtain justice which a superficial reading might confuse with a desire of revenge. Calvin was far from having that naïve vision of existence that seems to countersign some modern theologians so profoundly, who often on specific themes prefer to take refuge in silence. On the contrary, Calvin reflected all the tensions and the contradictions of a time in which the watershed between truth and error, between faithfulness and unfaithfulness was much more clear than today. All the Reformers, without exception, were extremely adamant in believing that with regards to some issues the existence of the church itself was at stake. They were not only theologians, but also men of action. They preached not only to the church-goers, but also to those outside, inciting, persuading, and in any case indicating the way which was meant to be followed. Their commitment decided the destiny of the church. It was inevitable, then, that their sermons were not only for the edification of the pious souls, but also for the condemnation and reprobation of all those who showed themselves to be indifferent to the Reformers’ predications. To affirm apolitically that this hatred for the ungodly would take its origin from a profound self-hatred, signifies the taking for granted of the id demonstrandum, and also shows that the few texts cited could be better understood within the general context of the Reformation theology. Walter Gross & Karl Josef Kuschel: Ich schaffe Finsternis und Unheil: Ist Gott verantwortlich für das Übel? In this very interesting book,86 which critics have unfortunately overlooked, Walter Gross and Karl Josef Kuschel sum up the theodicies of some of the most significant theologians like Augustine, Thomas, Calvin, Leibniz, and Kant. The common denominator of these theodicies would be represented by the assertion that evil has no substance and 86

Gross & Kuschel, Ich schaffe Finsternis und Unheil: Ist Gott verantwortlich für das Übel? (Matthias Grünewald-Verlag, Mainz,1992).

29

consequently no ontological reality. In order to solve the consequent problems the classical tradition has maintained that Evil: 1) is due to human free will corrupted by the fall 2) is tolerated by God in view of His hidden purposes 3) is an element inside the larger context of universe. The authors draw the conclusion that, in spite of all the efforts directed to an ontological depotentiation of the reality of evil, “God, who is the author and director, cannot be left out of the play.” Particularly noteworthy is the analysis of the theology of the French Reformer, whose Theodicy is singled out accurately as follows: 1) God is the Sustainer of everything good or evil.87 2) The devil works as God’s minister.88 3) Men sin for necessity and not for coercion.89 4) God bears responsibility for the evil which occurs not negatively but positively in the sense that evil has the goal to punish or to educate.90 Likewise appealing is the scrutiny of the “contemporary theological perspectives,” whose main representatives are Hans Jonas, Jürgen Moltmann and Gisbert Greshake. The objections raised can be reducible to the following: 1) From a theological point of view: Does not the assertion of the suffering God lead to a perpetuation of suffering? 2) From a psychological point of view: Is the assertion of the suffering God really helpful? 3) From a biblical point of view: Are not passages such as Isaiah 63:9, Psalm 91:15, John 3:16, Romans 5:8 and II Corinthians 13:4 misunderstood when they are interpreted in the sense that God suffers or is weak? 87 88 89 90

30

Gross & Kuschel, Ich schaffe Finsternis und Unheil: Ist Gott verantwortlich für das Übel?, p. 87. Gross & Kuschel, Ich schaffe Finsternis und Unheil: Ist Gott verantwortlich für das Übel, p. 88. Gross & Kuschel, Ich schaffe Finsternis und Unheil: Ist Gott verantwortlich für das Übe., p. 89. Gross & Kuschel, Ich schaffe Finsternis und Unheil: Ist Gott verantwortlich für das Übel, p. 90.

Worth mentioning and at the same time meaningful is what the authors write at the end, namely that it was really an irony of history that the Protestant and the Roman Catholic churches were confronted in 17th and in 18th century with philosophies that were not interested in deepening the problem of whether God wills or simply permits evil.91 Horton Davies: The Vigilant God In this thoughtful, but surely non-academic book,92 the author explores the various answers that have been given by some eminent theologians to the problem of defending the Justice of God in the face of a variety of evils, whether of nature or of human nature. The author starts from the assumption that the theologies of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Karl Barth can be regarded as true attempts “of justifying the way of God to man.” He wrote: Calvin was a quiet French scholar, who was browbeaten into leading Geneva through the troubles of the Reformation, was always in the thick of controversy, and was forced to seek asylum for three years in Strasbourg, and whose only child died, knew the full meaning of adversity. Yet he wrote the finest Biblical systematic theology up to his day only perhaps to be equalled by Barth in our day. And Calvin’s Institutes was itself, as also Barth’s Kirchliche Dogmatik, a theodicy.93

Although the work does not have any pretension of being exhaustive, the main features of the above-mentioned theologians are summarily drafted. Among his negative criticisms, the author shares the opinion of John Wesley on the indefensibility of the doctrine of Predestination which is regarded as the cornerstone of Calvin’s theology.94 Among his positive criticisms the author recognized that the doctrine of Election “not only 91

92 93 94

The German version sounds: “Ironie der Geschichte freilich: Im folgenden 17. und 18. Jahrhundert sahen sich beide Kirchen mit einer Herausforderung konfrontiert, welche den Konflikt um Wollen oder Zulassen des Übels durch Gott wie ein kleiner Scharmützel erscheinen liess: der Herausforderung der religionskritischen, schliesslich atheistischen Moderne.” W. Gross & K. J. Kuschel, Ich schaffe Finsternis und Unheil: Ist Gott verantwortlich für das Übel, p. 90. H. Davies, The Vigilant God (New York: Peter Lang, 1992). Davies, The Vigilant God, p. 6. Davies, The Vigilant God , p. 116.

31

inspired unflinching courage but also endurance. The consciousness of being chosen soldiers of Christ enabled innumerable generations of believers to accomplish things almost supernatural.”95 Armin Kreiner: Gott im Leid In his exhaustive essay devoted to the general problem of theodicy,96 Armin Kreiner diligently takes into consideration the various answers to the anguishing problem of human suffering, given throughout the course of history, and summarised as follows: The reductio in mysterium. The mythological dualism. The dualism of the Process Theology. Evil as privatio boni. Evil as a consequence of sin. The theology of the suffering God. The free will defence. The author deals with Calvin´s theology only incidenter tantum, while discussing the first of these answers, namely that of reductio in mysterium. In Kreiner’s opinion: unter der Bezeichnung reductio in mysterium werden all jene Positionen verstanden, die zumindest die vorläufige theoretische Unlösbarkeit des TheodizeeProblems und damit auch das Scheitern aller bisherigen Theodizee-Versuche behaupten.97

In particular, Calvin’s perspective could be fully understood as “a variant of the afore-mentioned answer, signifying that the concepts we use for God lose their usual meaning,” as the author points out: Wenn wir demnach von Gott behaupten, Er sei vollkommen gut und gerecht, so bedeuten die Ausdrücke gut und gerecht im Hinblick auf Gott etwas anderes als im

95 96 97

32

Davies, The Vigilant God, pp. 117-118. A. Kreiner, Gott im Leid (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder Verlag, 1997). Kreiner, Gott im Leid, p. 49.

Hinblick auf menschliche Handlungen. Derartige Begriffe sind ungeeignet, die unendliche Transzendenz Gottes zu beschreiben.98

To support his point of view A. Kreiner quotes the entire paragraph III, 23, 17 of The Institutes in which John Calvin dealt with the question of Predestination. Even though it is not stated explicitly why Calvin’s statement in particular would support his basic opinion, very likely one finds it where the French Reformer wrote: “Truly does Augustine maintain that it is perverse to measure divine [Justice] by the standard of human justice.”99 This isolated statement of Calvin’s in itself is not a substantial support for the thesis of the reductio in mysterium, although one cannot help but recognize that this motive is no doubt present. As a matter of fact, the French Reformer was able to go far beyond a mere affirmation of the human person’s incapability to judge God. It is a pity that Kreimer did not explore more deeply the theme of “double justice” that played a significant role in the theology of the French Reformer. Paul Helm: John Calvin’s Ideas In this book,100 Paul Helm, a leading Calvin’s scholar, tries to unify the field of the philosophy of religion with that of the history of early Protestant thought. In the last two centuries, especially, Calvin’s scholars have tended to exaggerate the distance between Calvin and his medieval background, by portraying him as an anti-scholastic thinker, or as an anti-philosophical Biblicist. In contrast to this trend Helm’s essay is “concerned with Calvin as a receiver, user, and transmitter of theological ideas, and particularly of those theological ideas that have philosophical aspects and histories to them.”101 It is especially the fourth chapter, entitled Providence and Evil, that is worth analysing. Helm, having explained the reasons why Calvin would not have recognized the problem of evil, as it is usually discussed today, writes: 98 99

Kreiner, Gott im Leid, p. 56. CO 2:728:“Vere enim Augustinus perverse facere contendit qui iustitiae humanae modo divinam metiuntur.” 100 P. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). 101 Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, p. 1.

33

A further important difference is that the modern debate is sparked by considering that the triad of propositions: 1) God is all-powerful, 2) God is all-good, and 3) There is evil, has as one of its unspoken premises the belief that no one ought to suffer from evil, or that everyone has a right to receive the good that an allpowerful, all-good God is able to provide. But Calvin, along with the mainstream Christian tradition, emphatically denied this premise. He held that the race is under a divine curse, and that much evil, perhaps most evil, although not all evil, owes it existence to the sinful actions of a cursed race or to divine retribution on such evil or to divine chastisement for it.102

It seems that the same misunderstanding which affects other works also affects Helm’s analysis: that is to say, the conviction that theodicy would be a consequence of the Enlightenment. Undoubtedly, the fact that we live, as it is repeatedly stated, in a “global village” has aggravated the perception of the problem not only emotionally, but also in practical ways. Nowadays people do not appear to be worried about Luther’s question “How can I find a gracious God?” People’s anguish is not over their eternal salvation, but rather over the existence of God. “Where are You God? Are You hearing our calls for help or our prayers are doomed to be scattered in the vastness of universe?”103 Undoubtedly the point of departure has changed: instead of asking: “why do the righteous suffer?,” the question raised today sounds differently: “how could a good God allow evil?” But is it correct to infer that the point of departure has changed or rather is it not true that the underlying question has remained the same: How is it possible to believe in a loving God in the face of the massive sufferings of innocent people, who, like Job, are upright and honest? Hermann J. Selderhuis: Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms The conviction that “Calvin’s theology is not Christocentric (let alone anthropocentric!), but it is utterly Theocentric,”104 is the basic 102 Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, p. 93. 103 See A. Peters, “Das Ringen um die Rechtfertigungsbotschaft in der gegenwärtigen lutherischen Theologie,” in Theologische Strömungen der Gegenwart (Göttingen: Göttingen Verlag, 1965), p. 24. 104 H. J. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms (Baker Academy, Grand Rapids, 2007), p. 285.

34

assumption of this valuable essay. Its main purpose is to investigate the theology of the French Reformer in the light of the Commentaries on the Psalms, which, in Selderhuis’s opinion, constitute a pastoral variation of Calvin’s Institutes. In regard to the more specific time of Calvin’s Theodicy, the author reaches some conclusions which can be summed up as follows: 1) “God is not the author of evil, but He navigates and directs evil since it came into the world on account of man’s sin.”105 2) “God makes use of Satan and the impious to execute His judgments and He utilizes sin to the good.”106 3) “All the afflictions we endure proceed from our transgressions and are the scourges of an irate God.”107 4) “God may have different reasons to impose afflictions upon believers¸ namely to exercise their patience, to bring them to humility or to inspire them to ponder the heavenly life.”108 5) “God trains the believers through the cross, by exercising them with tears and lamentations.”109 6) God can achieve His goals sub contraria specie.110 Selderhuis hits the mark when he sums up the question saying that through all these explanations Calvin did not end up with a complete explanation, but only leads his listeners to direct their attention to God’s mysteria. Sung Wook Chung: John Calvin and Evangelical Theology The goal of the present essay,111 distinguished by the diversity of its contributors coming from different theological traditions, is to examine 105 106 107 108 109 110

Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms, p. 103. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms, p. 103. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms, p. 104. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms, p. 105. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms, p. 105. Selderhuis points out also that sometimes Calvin made frequent use of the motive of the Theologia crucis. In Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms, p. 103. 111 Sung Wook Chung, John Calvin and Evangelical Theology (Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).

35

the influence that John Calvin has exercised and continues to exercise today in the wider context of the evangelical movement. Larnier Burns, one of the contributors and Professor at Texas theological Seminary, starts from the assumption that Calvin’s explanation of theodicy “is not going to be popular or acceptable for many contemporary audiences”112 for at least the two following reasons: 1) God has no explanatory value in a thoroughly naturalistic and secularized environment: 2) Contemporary theology has distanced itself from the ancient account of the Fall in a mythological Bible. After pointing out that “explanations of evil should not be popularity contests,” the author raises the questions: Whether Calvin has given us a plausible explanation of the perpetual pervasiveness of evil and whether his explanation stands on his grounds on God, Word, traditions and the realities of human history.

The answer sounds clear: Calvin’s thought has been “enduring blessing for those in the church who share his foundational assumptions. The issue is not that believers are perfect arbiters of earthly tragedies. It is that as citizens of this depraved world, they are driven to contemplate God, which was Calvin’s intent.113

The author singles out the core of Calvin’s theological enterprise in his “doctrine of sin”114 and in his correlative emphasis on the need to place “all of life under God’s Providence.”115 Miscellanea Under the present section are taken into account various essays not expressly dealing with Calvin’s Theodicy. In the work Where Was God:

112 113 114 115

36

Sung, John Calvin and Evangelical Theology, p. 102. Sung, John Calvin and Evangelical Theology, p. 104. Sung, John Calvin and Evangelical Theology, p. 105. Sung, John Calvin and Evangelical Theology, p. 105.

Evil, Theodicy, and Modern Science116 which has been recently published, Gary A. Stilwell tries to pursue an undoubtedly ambitious goal. Starting from the assumption that “with the advent of modern science, we may have found a new place to look in order to develop new justification for the problem of Evil,” he writes: Here I examine and refute many historical attempts to justify Evil in a good God’s world using insight provided by some modern sciences and at the same time to propose a solution to this theological conundrum with a rational, albeit unorthodox theodicy that may withstand objective critical scrutiny.

On the basis of such hermeneutical approach, the author deals with the theology of Calvin but unfortunately restricts his analysis only to the doctrine of Predestination. At the end of the book, which takes up again the old assumption of “the aversion of the reformed Churches to theodicy,”117 one is left with the impression that, in spite of the intention, the terms of the theodicy’s problem have remained substantially unaltered. The same considerations can be made towards two other essays that deal with Calvin’s Theodicy only incidenter tantum. In the former, I Filosofi e il Male, Storia della Teodicea da Platone ad Auschwitz,118 Stefano Brogi singles out the core of Luther and Calvin’s Theodicy in the doctrine of Predestination. In the latter, Il Dolore innocente, Vito Mancuso119 goes so far as to say that it was a dark page in the history of Christian thought when such prestigious theologians as Augustine and Calvin asserted that some men were ab origine predestinated to eternal damnation.

116 G.A. Stilwell, Where Was God: Evil Theodicy, and Modern Science (London, Outskirt Press, 2009). 117 Stilwell, Where Was God: Evil Theodicy, and Modern Science, p. 188. 118 S. Brogi, I Filosofi e il Male, Storia della Teodicea da Platone ad Auschwitz (Milano, Franco Angeli, 2006). 119 V. Mancuso, Il Dolore innocente (Mondadori, Milano, 2008).

37

1.3 The current state of interpretation concerning the Sermons on Job Strange as this might seem, the homiletic production of the French Reformer has not been the direct object of particular attention in recent years. Very likely the reason for the lack of careful and exhaustive essays on this literature lays in the conviction that the sermons contain nothing really original in relation to the Opus magnum: The Institutes.120 Even though the thesis of Emil Doumergue, that it is in the sermons that one finds the essential Calvin,121 seems to be too radical, I believe that it was just in his homiletic production that the French Reformer took the opportunity to concentrate his pastoral concerns in a completely different way than in his theological treatises. In the pages that follow I will take into account the most recent works which have dealt not only tangentially but also thematically with the Sermons on Job. Richard Stauffer: Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin Right from the beginning of this valuable essay122 the extensive analysis and selection of the texts is evident. The Sermons on Job constitute an essential part of this work whose goal is to highlight Calvin’s perspective on God, Creation and Providence. Having examined the three modes into which the revelation of God is divided, Stauffer devotes part of his investigation to the singling out of the attributes of God which consistently reoccur in the homiletic works of Calvin. Among the attributes, two are worth mentioning: the concept of “double justice” and that of “double wisdom,” which are found throughout The Sermons on 120 Karl Barth, followed by John Murray, held this interpretation. See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G.W. Bromiley and R. J. Ehrlich (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961), III/3 and John Murray, Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 191. 121 E. Doumergue, Jean Calvin, Les Hommes et les Choses de Son Temps (Lausanne: G. Bridel & Co., 1917). 122 R. Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin (Bern: Peter Lang, 1978).

38

Job. The discovery of these reoccurring attributes, which turn out to be of central importance in the vindication of God’s Justice, leads the author to deal with the scandal “de l’injustice constate,” which the French Reformer attempted to explain be making recourse to the following arguments: 1) God permits the existence of evil in order that Satan’s supporters condemn themselves to death. 2) Evil is willed by God as a just chastisement towards human beings for their sins. 3) Evil is part of the redemptive plan of God, that is to say a means he uses in order to bring salvations to the elect.123 Calvin was fully aware that these three answers are very far from exhausting the problem of evil. Even convinced that the suffering of innocents constitutes an offense to human reason and a proper scandal, he deemed that the believers ought to recognize their incapacity to investigate the divine secrets and ought to confess anyway that God is just. Stauffer concludes by stating that Calvin’s reflections on Providence and on the problem of evil culminate in a doxology.124 The author deals also with the concept of God’s incomprehensibility, noting that it ”n’est pas expressément nommé par Calvin, mais qui apparait en filigrane dans certain passages.”125 As exhaustive as Stauffer’s analysis is, the occurrence of God’s incomprehensibility is much greater, as T. Derek cautions,126 since the word “incomprehensible” recurs 144 times in various contexts. Independent of this oversight, Stauffer’s essay is one of the most trustworthy contributions to research on the homiletic production of the French Reformer and has played a significant role in my research.

123 Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, pp. 278280. 124 “Comme on le voit, la réflexion de Calvin sur la Providence et le problème du mal culmine dans une doxologie.” in Stauffer, op.cit., p. 280. 125 Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 109. 126 Calvin’s Teaching on Job, Proclaiming the Incomprehensible God (London: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), p. 11.

39

Susan Schreiner: Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Calvin’s Exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives Even before the drafting of this book,127 Susan Schreiner had concentrated her attention on Calvin’s Sermons on Job.128 In an article entitled “Through a Mirror Dimly” she had summed up her opinion in the following statement: Calvin stands within the Thomistic tradition which sees the book of Job as a debate about Providence. Central to his exegesis is the recognition of the noetic or perceptual limitations of the human mind. Confronted with the disorder of history, the mind’s eye squints and strains to see divine justice but cannot penetrate or transcend the present confusion that hides Providence from its limited and fallen view. Caught within the turmoil of earthly events the believer now sees God’s Providence only as through a mirror dimly but not yet face to face. When his friends arrive, Job becomes involved in a debate about the visibility of Providence.129

Schreiner tries to demonstrate how Calvin’s Sermons on Job, intended for the broader audience of laymen within the church, were deeply influenced by three previous writers on Job, particularly Aquinas with his emphasis upon the importance of Providence in the story. She shows how Calvin, in a time of religious, social and political upheaval, focused his analysis not on human suffering but rather on divine Providence,” which turns out to be the key message of the book of Job. For Calvin, Job’s story demonstrated the spiritual temptation, anguish and faith evident during such times when history appears disordered and God’s rule cannot be discerned. Schreiner contends that Calvin’s emphasis on the timeless nature of the Job story – rather than the interpretations of Gregory, Maimonides and Aquinas -- has deeply influenced interpretations of Job up to the present day. Indeed, she argues that many current religious commentators do not know how indebted they are to Calvin, and revealing this debt was one of the purposes of the book, given the increased interest in, and use of, the figure of Job. 127 S. Schreiner, Where shall Wisdom be found? (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,1994). 128 S. Schreiner, The Theatre of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991). 129 In Calvin Theological Journal 21 (1986), p. 175.

40

A flaw seems to affect Schreiner’s analysis. What is at stake in Job is not the Providence of God, but His Justice. Job did not think that the universe and history were floating about randomly; he was doubtful about God’s Justice. He feared that God was unjust because God was exercising an unregulated, cruel, tyrannical and absolute power over him. He did not dare question the Providence of God. In the course of the story, Job went through three different phases. Before his trial he was convinced that: 1) God was Omnipotent; 2) God was Just; 3) Evil was the right consequence of God’s punishment. In the middle of his suffering, for which he could see no reason, Job began to question the Justice of God. At the end, in chapter 42, after the whirlwind speech, Job recognized that: 1) God is Omnipotent. 2) God is Just, although His Justice cannot be recognized in this life. 3) Suffering is not always the consequences of bad actions. Though remarkable for offering a systematic interpretation of Calvin’s theology in the Sermons on Job, Susan Schreiner’s work fails to address adequately the fundamental reasons that prompted the French Reformer to choose the book of Job as the starting point for his sermons from February 1554 through March 1555. William Bouwsma: John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait In order to fully understand this book130 it is essential to start from the author’s distinction between a biography and a portrait. Far from being a narrative biography Bouwsma’s work is intended to be a reflection on Calvin’s psychology in the widest context of the basic tenets of his theology. This is organized into topical chapters: Being, Knowing, Society, Polity, et cetera and its value is the extensive set of quotations.

130 W. Bouwsma, John Calvin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

41

The more than one hundred and fifty references to The Sermons on Job, which the author inexplicably defines as “powerful, but murky,”131 are precise, and denote an excellent knowledge of Calvin’s entire theological corpus. Bouwsma underlines the role played by Calvin as God’s defender. He writes: It needed rare wisdom, nevertheless, to believe the God of the Old Testament just in all his actions and those episodes in which the Old Testament God seemed impulsive and barbaric made Calvin uncomfortable. He repeatedly apologized for this God and tried to demonstrate that his apparent savagery was, properly considered, true justice.132

In spite of the value of this work which, as John Hesselink aptly stressed, “is a brilliant tour de force, quite unmatched in Calvin’s literature,”133 Bouwsma’s interpretation of Calvin appears unconvincing. Central to and absolutely original in this work is the psychological analysis by which the author portrays the image of two Calvin’s who coexist uncomfortably within the same historical personage: The first Calvin was a philosopher, a rationalist and a schoolman and a conservative, the second was a rhetorician and humanist, a sceptical fideist, in the manner of the followers of William of Ockham, flexible to the point of opportunism and a revolutionary in spite of himself.134

Strong criticisms have been raised against this analysis that depicts Calvin as a schizophrenic personality, full of paradoxes. Brian Armstrong wrote: If Bouwsma has discovered two Calvins, the reader also finds many Bouwsmas: The psychohistorian who believes he can get inside Calvin’s mind; the iconoclast who gleefully destroys all theological images erected of Calvin; the scholar of humanism who opens new vistas for Calvin studies; the Lucien Febvre disciple writing to characterize an age as much as an individual; and , as always, the poet whose masterful pen always delights. His portrait of Calvin is a pastiche of 131 Bouwsma, John Calvin, p. 42. 132 Bouwsma, John Calvin, p. 106. 133 “Reactions to Bouwsma’s portrait of John Calvin,” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripture Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 209. 134 Bouwsma, John Calvin, p. 231.

42

quotations and observation which create a veritable work of art: it will occasion varied response. 135

Other criticisms could be raised against Bouwsma’s analysis of Calvin’s psychology. Calvin emerges here as depressed, anxious, and neurotic. This analysis is unilateral and not adequately substantiated. Calvin was a hugely influential theologian whose work contributed to the development of modernity, but to read Bouwsma, one might think that he was merely an obscure pastor obsessed with his own anxieties. Bouwsma also states that Calvin tended to presuppose God’s intelligibility, not only in regard to His Justice, but also in regard to His Providence.136 Even this assumption is not substantiated. The tendency of the French Reformer to over-rationalise Christian faith was ever counterbalanced by his insistence upon God’s transcendence and by his insistence upon the notion of the Hiddenness of God. Differing from Thomas Aquinas, who built up a series of rational proofs in order to demonstrate God’s existence, one finds no equivalent in Calvin. On the contrary, one uncovers in his theology a deep awareness of the otherness of God, and at the same time, the awareness that human comprehension will always remain limited. In any case, the strongest criticism against Bouwsma’s work has to do with his evaluation of Calvin’s attitude towards Job. He repeatedly states that Calvin’s “almost deliberate insensivity is nowhere more in evidence than in his reading of the book of Job.”137 “Calvin’s moralism thus all but prevented him from understanding this poetic and paradoxical work. He was blind to its ironies.”138 These statements are in open contradiction, as we will see in the following chapters, with the deep empathy of the French Reformer towards Job, as well as with what Bouwsma writes in the same chapter, when he points out that “Calvin emphasized Job’s uprighteousness and sincerity, his resistance to temptation, his perseverance in obedience and his fear of the Lord.”139

135 136 137 138 139

Church History 58, March 1989, 106. Bouwsma, John Calvin, pp. 106-107. Bouwsma, John Calvin, p. 94. Bouwsma, John Calvin, p. 95. Bouwsma, John Calvin, p. 92.

43

Peter Miln: Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the Book of Job Unfortunately this doctoral dissertation140 has thus far remained unpublished. Its central thesis could be summed up as follows: 1) Since anguish and suffering have existed forever, Calvin’s Sermons on Job could be understood to have a timeless dimension, and would be “a work for all men in all ages.”141 Starting from the assumption that “Job stands as the symbol, yet the person vividly presented is Calvin,” Miln writes: In these sermons we are privileged to hear the authentic voice of the suffering reformer. And nowhere is that voice so authentic, nowhere is that suffering so apparent, as in the sermons on Job. These are words from the heart. It is undoubtedly for this reason that they so rapidly became so popular. When finally printed, the persecuted faithful everywhere were able to hear through the pages the exhortation of one who not only suffered, but who suffered with Job and with them. Here in the hundred and fifty-nine sermons they were able to find anew in their distress a source of courage and consolation.142

Miln insists on the fact “that the sermons are not intellectual exercises on why the righteous suffer, but have an intensely practical thrust143 and points out that, “as one reads them, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that in Job Calvin saw himself or at least a pattern for himself.”144 In order to justify the assumption “that Calvin was Job,”145 Miln tries to locate the sermons in the widest context of the vicissitudes of Calvin’s life. 2) The Sermons on Job have an intensely Christocentric nature. “Whilst dealing with an Old Testament theme, Calvin is still able to proclaim the centrality of Jesus Christ….. A Christian life must be centred upon the person and the life of Christ.”146 140 P. Miln, Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job (Ph.D Diss., University of Nottingham, 1989). 141 Miln, Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job, p. 17. 142 Miln, Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job, p. 5. 143 Miln, Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job, p. 7. 144 Miln, Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job, p. 7. 145 Miln, Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job, p. 97. 146 Miln, Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job, p. 98.

44

3) The common denominator of the sermons would be “the incomprehensibility and the majesty of God.”147 Undoubtedly Miln hits the mark when he recognizes the timeless dimension of Sermons on Job, which deals with the basic question of the reason for human suffering. In this way he dissociates himself from all attempts to read the book of Job independently from the “theodicy” question. Nevertheless, the author fails to recognize that, although the starting point of Calvin’s reflections is constituted by the vicissitudes of human existence, the French Reformer does not dwell on them. His person is not at the centre of his concerns as much as the person of Job. The ups and downs of human existence stay in background; they do not represent the main subject of his preaching, as is demonstrated by the fact that the references to concrete events are occasional and few. His perspective, far from being anthropocentric, is theocentric. What is at stake is not the suffering of Job, but the Justice and Righteousness of God. Miln in recognizing that the problem of theodicy stands at the centre of the sermons writes: In dealing with such a book of the Old Testament not only is Calvin able to demonstrate how a supratemporal Christ is able to work through a natural revelation, but he is also able to come to grips with the problem of theodicy which also arises.148 Unfortunately, despite this observation, Miln does not delve into it, not even in the fourth chapter which, given its title (Christians in the Image of God: Job the exemplar of a True Natural Theology: Calvin’s theodicy), should have been dedicated to this argument. A further criticism could be addressed toward the affirmation, lacking in careful analysis, “that the sermons would have an intensely Christocentric nature.” This assertion is openly contradicted by the author himself, when he writes: One of the most noticeable theological accents (of the sermons) and one which looms large throughout the Sermons, is his utter Theocentricity. This concept is constantly expressed in the form of the Trinity. We note here a sharp contrast with Luther’s practice where every sermon concentrated on a Christ centred approach to 147 Miln, Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job, p. 256. 148 Miln, Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job, p. 154.

45

whatever topic was in hand. This was so even when dealing with passages from the Old Testament. But whilst Luther was concerned to point to Christ, Calvin was concerned to point to God in His triune fullness.149

Finally one has to point out that the theme of the incomprehensibility and the majesty of God is not only central to the Sermons on Job but is the common denominator of all the works of the French Reformer. Thomas Derek: Calvin’s Teaching on Job: Proclaiming the Incomprehensible God In reading this book,150 which has the advantage of being one of the latest written on this theme, one first has the impression that the author intends to establish Sermons on Job in the broadest context, not only with the incomprehensibility of God, but also more specifically with the subject of theodicy. At the beginning of the introduction to his work Thomas Derek states his ambitious intention and the development of his research: In chapter 2, we shall show that in Calvin’s attempt to provide a comprehensive and logically consistent theodicy, addressing the tension between God’s Justice and power, the Reformer fails to completely absolve himself from the charge of nominalism.151

In the light of this intention one cannot help being disappointed, when before the second chapter one reads: Calvin had not turned to Job because of its obvious themes of suffering and trial and did not believe the book of Job contained solutions to these great moral dilemmas of universe. Rather, he sought to turn the congregation in Geneva and his own soul, to the reality of God’s sovereignty and power in the contingencies of

149 Miln, Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job, p. 142. 150 T. Derek, Calvin’s Teaching on Job (London: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), p. 20. 151 Derek, Calvin’s Teaching on Job, p. 16.

46

seemingly disordered life.152 More than an explanation of theodicy, Job is an uncovering of the very character of God himself.153

Given this apriorism, there is no wonder then at the end of his essay Derek reiterates his opinion “that Calvin understood the argument of the book of Job to be essentially about the nature and character of God, particularly His incomprehensibility, rather than an elaborate explanation of the problem of pain.”154 It is certainly true that the doctrine of God’s incomprehensibility turns out to be one of the most important interpretative keys in the understanding of the book of Job. But, one could ask, what is the context within which this attribute is faced and discussed? In the work of Derek the incomprehensibility of God is often discussed in isolation, without any reference to the primary concern that prompted the French Reformer to write one hundred and fifty-nine sermons on the book of Job. Instead of recognizing that the incomprehensibility of God played an essential role and deeply affected Calvin’s understanding of divine Justice, and consequently shaped his Theodicy, Derek uncritically accepts the thesis that only the incomprehensibility of God informs Calvin’s understanding of Divine Providence. Consequently, the essential element of the book of Job, as he himself recognizes, sinks into oblivion; “the issue at stake is summed up this way: how can God’s righteousness be maintained in view of the fact that Job suffers as a righteous man?”155 Joseph Hill: John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God The purpose of this careful book,156 which consists mainly of selections from Calvin’s writings on the topic of suffering interwoven by notes and stories from the author’s pastoral experience, is to demonstrate the close connection between Calvin as a theologian and Calvin as preacher and minister of Word. 152 153 154 155 156

Derek, Calvin’s Teaching on Job, p. 33. Derek, Calvin’s Teaching on Job, p. 44. Derek, Calvin’s Teaching on Job, p. 373. Derek, Calvin’s Teaching on Job, p. 93. J. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God (Evangelical Press, New York, 2005).

47

Coherently with these intentions in the first chapter, entitled "Living under the cross,” the author tries to sum up the various purposes that suffering could have according to Calvin: to stimulate prayer,157 to arouse trust in God’s power,158 to teach patience, hope and obedience,159 to further salvation,160 to purify,161 to lead men to live on a higher plan,162 to humble them,163 to lead them to be conformed to His Son,164 to train them to seek God’s help,165 to bid them to pity for those who suffer,166 to prepare them for eternal glory.167 The common denominator of all of these purposes is that God ordains suffering of his people for their good. Under this point of view the volume represents an useful tool not only for all the ministers who are trying to contextualize the insights of the French Reformer nowadays, but also for all those who wrestle with the problem of suffering. Unfortunately all these meaningful considerations are contradicted just at the end of the book, when Joseph Hill apodictically states: John Calvin’s sermons on the book of Job do not attempt to solve the riddle of evil and suffering as they relate to God’s eternal purpose. Calvin does not attempt to solve the problem raised by Job’s suffering- why God permits Satan to inflict devastating loss and pain on his servant Job- but rather to point to the incomprehensibility of the divine purposes.168

If this were the case, one could not understand why during his life and even in the Sermons on Job, the French Reformer devoted his best energies to defend God by making recourse to all the arguments that Hill has carefully summarized in his anthology. 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168

48

Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 18. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 20. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 20. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 23. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 26. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 34. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 36. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 28. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 39. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 41. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, p. 42. Hill, John Calvin: Suffering: Understanding the Love of God, pp. 318-319.

The foregoing review of previous research dealing with Calvin’s Theodicy and his Sermons on Job has prepared us to tackle the basic question of this essay, the vindication of God’s Justice. Before entering into this argument a preliminary question has to be raised: What mysterious path led Calvin to change his life and to become the Lawyer of God? It is impossible to answer these questions without considering the starting point of Calvin’s theological enterprise, namely his conversion and the most significant works which led up to the drafting of his Sermons on Job. The development of his theology would be inconceivable without the life-changing experience which overcame Calvin’s reluctance to embrace and fight on behalf of the Word of God.

49

Chapter II The Origin and Development of Calvin’s Thought

Yet know this much; that though the church is everywhere variously agitated, at Geneva it is tossed about by as many opposing currents as Noah’s ark was during the deluge. It is well for us, however, that we have a pilot to guide us, under whom we shall be safe from shipwreck — and then that we are at no great distance from the harbor. John Calvin “Letter to Heinrich Bullinger” on 23. February 1554 in Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 413

In the twenty years that passed between his inaugural work on Seneca’s de Clementia and his arrangement of the 159 Sermons on Job Calvin witnessed some of the most remarkable and sorrowful events of his time, enduring much personal suffering as well. When comparing the fine, youthful author of an erudite commentary on the famous Stoic thinker with the emaciated theologian in Geneva during the early 1550s, there seems to be two completely different men. How did the young and brilliant jurist, author of a commentary on De Clementia of Seneca become a Reformer? In this chapter we will try to shed light on the most significant steps of the development of Calvin’s thought.

2.1 De Clementia (1532) When reading Calvin’s commentary on this book of Seneca, one notices the absolute heterogeneity of style and content, which contrasts with all his following works. However strange as it may seem that Calvin concentrated his attention on this book, one has to consider that Stoic philosophy enjoyed a good reputation in the 16th century. Some years

51

earlier Zwingli had quoted Seneca among his preferred pagan writers1 and his Sermon on the Providence of God seemed to echo the Stoic perspective. There are four noteworthy aspects in this early work: The reference to Providence Examining the respective theories propounded by the Epicureans and the Stoics, Calvin pointed out the similarity between the Stoic and Christian perspectives and the absolute incompatibility of Epicurean philosophy with the Christian faith. The difference between the two philosophies was singled out as follows: The Stoics, who attribute the superintendence of human affairs to the gods, assert Providence, and leave nothing to mere chance. The Epicureans, although they do not deny the existence of the gods, do the closest thing to it: they imagine the gods to be pleasure-loving, idle, not caring for mortals, lest anything detract from their pleasures; they deride Stoic Providence as a prophesying old woman.2

The reference to Providence was not casual, since this concept was central to Stoic philosophy, which held that history was directed by a universal good (fatum). And yet the relevance of this reference must not be overstated, as F. Wendel assumed.3 The theme of Providence was far from representing the exclusive concern of the French Reformer; otherwise, instead of the De Clementia he would have concentrated his attention on De Providentia. 1

2

3

52

In his Sermon on the Providence of God Zwingli had written: “There may be and are elect persons among the heathen; and the fate of Socrates and Seneca is no doubt better than that of many popes. “I owe this quotation to Philipp Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1983),Volume I. p. 370. Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, ed. and trans. by F.L. Battles and A.M. Hugo (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969). CO 5:18: “Haec autem oration ex opinione Stoicorum pendet, qui diis rerum humanarum procurationem tribuunt, providentiam asserunt, nihil fortunae temeritati relinquunt. Epicurei tametsi deos non negant, at, quod proximum est, voluptarios nescio quos somniant, otiosos, mortalia non curantes, ne quid voluptatibus suis decedat, pronoean Stoicorum rident, quasi anum fatidicam.” Calvin, The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (London: Collins, 1963), p. 29.

The ethical attitude that Calvin inherited from the Stoics It is certainly true that the French Reformer expressed strong criticism of the notion of apatheia and believed that it is proper for human beings to be affected by grief. He also disliked the isolation of the Stoics which, in his opinion, was contrary to the Lord’s commandment to love God and love neighbour as one’s self. Nevertheless, even rejecting passive resignation, he was not far from a Stoic mentality.4 He wrote: For this is what tranquillity means to us as can be readily grasped from Cicero’s words [T.D., 4.5.10]: “In explaining these [passions] I shall follow the ancient distinction first made by Pythagoras, then by Plato; they divided the soul into two parts, one participating in reason, the other without it.” As partner with reason they posit tranquillity that is a peaceful and quiet constancy: in the other part they place turbulent emotions—now of wrath, now of desire contrary and inimical to reason. Therefore a tranquil soul is composed, and subject to no emotions which the Greeks call pathia, that is, passions. Tranquillity itself, moderation of mind, and so to speak equanimity: which our Seneca sometimes calls “security,” sometimes “peace.” The theologians almost always call it “peace.” And this is none other than that very well-known euthymia of Democritus, a so called “joyousness” of which Cicero [Fin., 5.8.23] and Diogenes Laertius [9.45] speak.5

4

5

The interpretations of Calvin’s relationship with the Stoics continue to occupy the attention of the scholars. For a resume of the underlying debate see In Honour of John Calvin Papers from the 1986 Symposium McGill University (E. J. Furcha, Editor, McGill University, Montreal), p. 31. F.L. Battles and A.M. Hugo, Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, p. 29: CO 5:22: “Hoc enim significat nobis tranquillitas, ut facile intelligitur ex verbis Ciceronis Tuscul. IV. In his, inquit, explicandis veterem illam equidem Pythagorae primum, deinde Platonis descriptionem sequar: qui animum in duas partes dividunt: alteram rationis participem faciunt, alteram expertem. In participe rationis ponunt tranquillitatem, id est placidam quietamque constantiam: in illa altera motus turbidos, tum irae, tum cupiditatis, contrarios inimicosque rationi. Est igitur tranquillum pectus, bene compositum, nec ullis affectibus obnoxium, quos Graeci paqjjjvh, id est passiones, appellant. Tranquillitas ipsa, animi moderatio, et quasi aequanimitas; quam alibi securitatem,alibi pacem vocat Seneca noster. Theologi semper fere pacem. Haec etiam ipsa ost insignis illa saeviet Democriti, dicta quasi animi alacritas: de qua Cicero in V. de Finibus et Diogenes Laertius.” The charge to be a Stoic has been lodged against Calvin already from the XVI century, as Charles Partee recognized. See: Calvin and Determinism, Christian Scholar Review 5 (1975): p. 123.

53

Undoubtedly, the Stoic mentality furnished the French Reformer some important ideas that he developed further. If every event is governed by Providence and not by blind fate, then the Christian response ought to be marked by patience and acquiescence to God’s will.6 And yet, even in this case the reference to the Stoic concept of apatheia should not be overemphasized, since, in the years to follow, Calvin repudiated this notion.7 A deep juridical influence The Commentary on Seneca’s book, rather than being evaluated theologically, ought to be interpreted as an anticipation of the judicial activity that absorbed Calvin’s mind during the years that followed. In this work, as E. Doumergue aptly pointed out,8 the young humanist, proudly demonstrating his legal background, decided to defend his preferred author against Erasmus’ judgement, employing wording which reveals a deep knowledge of legal proceedings.9

6

7 8 9

54

CO 5:154: “Hominis est enim affici dolore, sentire, resistere tamen, et solatia admittere, non solatiis non egere.” This attitude found expression innumerable times. See, for example, Institutes III.7.10., where Calvin wrote: “Soit qu’il endure affliction de maladie, si ne sera-il point abbatu par la douleur pour s’en desborder en impatience, et se pleindre de Dieu: mais plustost en considerant la iustice et bonté du Pere celeste, en ce qu’il le chastie, il se duira par cela à, patience. Bref, quelque chose qu’il advienne, sachant que tout procede de la main du Seigneur, il le recevra d’un coeur paisible et non ingrat: afin de ne resister au commandement de celuy auquel il s’est une fois permis.” CO 4:197. See P.H. Reardon, “Calvin on Providence: The Development of an Insight.” Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (1975): pp. 517-534. E. Doumergue, J. Calvin, Les hommes et le choses de son temps (Lausanne: Bridel, puis Neuilly, 1899-1917), I, p. 211. Aestimare litem, p. 378- 379; arbiter, arbitrium, p. 32; damnare crimen, p. 328; stylus decretorius, pp. 235-236; formula, p. 378 and 380; indicere, p. 310; interrogare, p. 114; manus injection, p. 115; pronunciare, p. 22; quaestor, pp. 124125. I owe these quotations to Olivier Millet, Calvin et la dynamique de la parole, Etude de rhétorique reformée (Genève: Edition Slatkine, 1992), p. 92.

The absence of any interest in theological matters This commentary was the work of a philosophizing humanist, who tried to reflect the Erasmian principles, as opposed to theological ones. At that time Calvin was not interested in religion and even his most famous biographer, Teodore von Beza, abstained from presenting it as such. If one compares this work with the forcible defence of the evangelical truth in the preface to the first edition of The Institutes of 1536, we can measure the distance between these two works: Cicero and Seneca more than Moses and the apostle Paul occupied his attention, as it may be demonstrated statistically: there are seventy-seven quotations from Greek and Latin authors, whereas there are only three from the Bible. As Williston Walker points out, “the Bible was still a closed book for Calvin, for as yet the Bible had not stirred his heart.”10 In the light of these elements, it seems unlikely that this work was intended for use in defence of the Protestants who were being persecuted in France. Given the incidental reference to the Neronian persecution, it is also unlikely that this text was directed to the French King. “Unfortunately,” as Serene Jones comments, “the published work never received the degree of critical acclaim Calvin had anticipated.”11

2.2 Calvin’s conversion (1532-1534) Between the spring of 1532 and the spring of 1534, Calvin experienced what he later called a subita conversio.12 While the exact timing of

10 11 12

W. Walker, John Calvin, The Organizer of Reformation Protestantism, 1509-1564 (New York: Schocken Books, 1996), p. 86. S. Jones, Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Nashville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), p. 16. Among the scholars there is disagreement about the date of Calvin’s conversion. Since this question is apart from our main theme, see for an exhaustive analysis of the different points of view T.H.L. Parker, The Oracles of God (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2002) p. 24.

55

Calvin’s conversion13 is unknown to us because he was reticent in speaking of himself, the changes in his life point to Calvin’s conviction that God, in “His secret Providence,” had turned his life course in a new direction, and was teaching his hardened heart. An autobiographical fragment in his preface to his Commentary on the Psalms, dated July 22, 1557, written about thirty years after his conversion, explains what happened. David’s struggles induced Calvin to compare his own trials with the author of the Psalms. This text is worth quoting in its entirety: [Just] as he [King David] was taken from the sheepfold and elevated to the rank of supreme authority, so God having taken me from my originally obscure and humble condition has reckoned me worthy of being invested with the honourable office of a preacher and minister of the gospel. When I was as yet a very little boy, my father had destined me for the study of theology. But afterwards, when he considered that the legal profession commonly raised those who followed it to wealth, this prospect induced him suddenly to change his purpose. Thus it came to pass that I was withdrawn from the study of philosophy and was put to the study of law. To this pursuit I endeavoured faithfully to apply myself, in obedience to the will of my father; but God, by the secret guidance of His Providence, at length gave a different direction to my course. And first, since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life. Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness, I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress therein, that although I did not altogether leave off other studies, I yet pursued them with less ardour. I was quite surprised to find that before a year had elapsed, all who had any desire after purer doctrine were continually coming to me to learn, although I myself was as yet but a mere novice and tyro. Being of a disposition somewhat unpolished and bashful, which led me always to love the shade and retirement, I then began to seek some secluded corner where I might be withdrawn from the public view; but so far from being able to accomplish the object of my be desire, all my retreats were like public schools. In short, whilst my one great object was to live in seclusion without being known, God so led me about through different turnings and changes, that he never permitted me to rest in any place, until, in spite of my natural disposition, he brought me forth to public notice. Leaving my native country, France, I in fact retired into Germany, expressly for the 13

56

On the interpretation of Calvin’s conversion, see P. Sprenger, Das Rätsel um die Bekehrung Calvins (Neukirchen: Erziehungsvereins, 1960) and J. Le Maire, De l’influence de L’Université d’Orléans sur la conversion de Calvin (Bulletin, Société archéologique et historique de l’Orléanais, 1959-60), pp. 328-332.

purpose of being able there to enjoy in some obscure corner the repose which I had always desired, and which had been so long denied me.14

The interpretation of this text is not easy. In exploring the basic account of his conversion, B. Cottret asks: Is Calvin speaking of himself personally or describing an experience in common to every believer? Finally, how much is rhetoric and how much living testimony? Should the historian then consider exactly when this conversion occurred?15

14

Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. IV (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1996), p. xli. CO 31:19: “Et quum inter eos praecipuus sit David, ut eius querimonias de intestinis ecclesiae malis plenius cognoscerem, mihi non parum profuit, eadem quae ipse deplorat aut similia perpessum esse a domesticis ecclesiae hostibus. Neque enim, quamvis ab eo longissime distem, imo ad multas quibus excelluit virtutes aegre lenteque adspirans contaríis vitiis adhuc laborem: si quid tamen mihi cum ipso commune est, conferre piget. Ergo quamvis inter legenda fidei, patientiae, ardoris, zeli, integritatis documenta merito innumeros mihi gemitus dissimilitudo expresserit: magnopere tamen profuit, quasi in speculo cernere tum vocationis meae exordia, tum continuum functionis cursum: ut quidquid praestantissimus ille rex ac propheta pertulit, mihi ad imitationem fuisse propositum certius agnoscerem. Conditio quidem mea quanto sit inferior, dicere nihil attinet. Verum, sicuti ille a caulis ovium ad summam imperii dignitatem evectus est, ita me Deus ab obscuris tenuibusque principiis extractum, hoc tam honorifico munere dignatus est, ut evangelii praeco essem ac minister. Theologiae me pater tenellum adhuc puerum destinaverat. Sed quum videret legum scientiam passim augere suos cultores opibus, spes illa repente eum impulit ad mutandum consilium. Ita factum est, ut revocatus a philosophiae studio, ad leges discendas traherer, quibus tametsi ut patris voluntati obsequerer fidelem operam impendere conatus sum, Deus tamen arcano providentiae suae fraeno cursum meum alio tandem reflexit. Ac primo quidem, quum superstitionibus papatus magis pertinaciter addictus essem, quam ut facile esset e tam profundo luto me extrahi, animum meum, qui pro aetate nimis obduruerat, subita conversione ad docilitatem subegit. Itaque aliquo verae pietatis gustu imbutus tanto proficiendi studio exarsi, ut reliqua studia, quamvis non abiicerem, frigidius tamen sectarer. Necdum elapsus erat annus quum omnis purioris doctrinae cupidi ad me novitium adhuc et tironem discendi causa ventitabant. Ego qui natura subrusticus umbram et otium semper amavi, tunc latebras captare: quae adeo concessae non sunt, ut mihi secessus omnes instar publicae scholae essent. Denique dum hoc mihi unum in animo est, ignobile otium colere, Deus ita per varios flexus me circumegit, ut nusquam tamen quiescere permitteret, donec repugnante ingenio in lucem pertractus sum. Eoque consilio relicta patria, in Germaniam concessi, ut in obscuro aliquo angulo abditu quiete diu negata fruire.”

57

In order to find answers to these questions, one should consider the phrasing used by Calvin in this autobiographical report. Not surprisingly, one finds verbs which have as a unique subject the person of God: “God has taken me, God has reckoned me worthy, God, by the secret guidance of His Providence, gave a different direction to my course and by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, God so led me .... and He brought me forth to public notice.” B. Cottret suggests interpreting Calvin’s phrase conversio subita in a different way: The sudden conversion takes on its true meaning in Latin. It must be understood as conversio subita, a conversion suffered (subie in French) by Calvin, and not an instantaneous conversion (conversion subite).16

This interpretation, even suggestive, lacks of convincing support. Although it is certainly true, as Bouwsma remarks, that “Calvin always emphasized the gradualness rather than the suddenness of conversion and the difficulty of making progress in the Christian life,”17 he never interpreted the phrase subita conversio in terms of suffered, but always as sudden and unexpected conversion.18 On the other hand, in his commentary on Seneca Calvin pointed out that the term subita does not only mean sudden, but also unpremeditated.19 The most likely interpretation of this problematic passage remains that of A. Ganoczy, who aptly highlights that the adjective subita was not introduced by a

15 16 17 18

19

58

B. Cottret, Calvin, a Biography (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 68. B. Cottret, Calvin, a Biography, p. 68. W.Bouwsma, John Calvin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 11. In the episode of Lukas 7:37, Calvin interpreted the conversion of the sinner woman as sudden and not suffered and the same happened when he commented the words “born prematurely” in the first Corinthians 15. He wrote: “For as infants do not come forth from the womb, until they have been there formed and matured during a regular course of time, so the Lord observed a regular period of time in creating, nourishing, and forming his Apostles. Paul, on the other hand, had been cast forth from the womb when he had scarcely received the vital spark.” Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. XVI, p. 136. F.L. Battles & A.M. Hugo, Commentary on de Clementia, p. 56.

chronicler’s care for precision, but by the desire of a theologian to emphasize the divine origin of the event.20 This interpretation is strengthened by the equestrian metaphor used by Calvin, as Olivier Millet notes: Signalons enfin, à propos de la conversion, qu’il s’agit d’une expression métaphorique empruntée à l’équitation (changement de direction) comme le montre le contexte: “arcano providentiae suae freno cursum meum Deus alio tandem reflexit. Calvin oppose alors “superstitiones papatus et docilitas” (au message biblique) de la “vera pietas.”21

Whatever the meaning of the word subita may be, the significance of this autobiographical report is incontrovertible: God and not Calvin was the initiator. Calvin did not decide for God, rather God decided for him. The secret Election of God was at the basis of a long spiritual evolution, which finally induced Calvin “to confess that he had all His life long been in ignorance and error.”22 It is worth mentioning that at the time of his conversion Calvin had not yet made a clear distinction between the doctrine of Providence, which is concerned with God’s works in universe and history, and the doctrine of Predestination, which is concerned with God’s work in redemption. This is the reason why his reference to the “secret guidance of the Providence of God” that he had inherited from Stoic philosophy is theologically speaking not accurate, since his conversion was more related with God’s Election. Very likely Calvin had in mind the doctrine of Predestination when speaking of Providence. However theologically incorrect it might be, this quotation proves unequivocally that, in questioning why the Almighty God had chosen him and had never permitted him to rest anywhere, Calvin perceived the drawing of the Holy Spirit of God was both the basis of his conversion 20

21

22

A. Ganoczy, Le Jeune Calvin. Genèse et Evolution de sa Vocation Réformatrice (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1966), p. 302. For this quotation see: B. Cottret, Calvin, a Biography, p. 69. O. Millet, Calvin et la Dynamique de la Parole, Etude de Rhétorique Réformée (Genève: Editions Slatkine, 1992), p. 522. H.A. Oberman stressed the same conviction in Initia Calvins: The matrix of Calvin’s Reformation (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie von Wetenschappen, 1991), p. 8. Tracts and Treatises, I, p. 62.

59

and his conviction to be the legitimate advocate of God.23 As Philip Schaff commented: Calvin was not an unbeliever, nor an immoral youth; on the contrary, he was a devout Catholic of unblemished character. His conversion, therefore, was a change from Romanism to Protestantism, from papal superstition to evangelical faith, from scholastic traditionalism to biblical simplicity. He mentions no human agency, not even Volmar or Olivetan or Lefèvre.”24

To use Jean Cadier’s appropriate phrase, Calvin “was the man that God mastered.”25 God Himself produced the unexpected change. Only God “subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame.”26 In these words there is not the slightest sign of self-complacency. Calvin was an extremely reserved man and was very uncomfortable with the frequent request that he rehearsed his conversion. Even Beza,27 his friend and biographer, who shared the same house with him in Bourges, was unable to tell us very much. It was only occasionally that Calvin went back to his conversion. In a letter to Cardinal Sadoleto he employed the voice of an anonymous convert to Reformed preaching, whilst speaking of his own story: That I might perceive these things, Thou, O Lord, didst shine upon me with the brightness of Thy Spirit; that I might comprehend how impious and noxious they

23 24 25 26 27

60

See G. Boine, Serveto e Calvino, Il peccato. Plausi e botte, Frantumi. Altri scritti (Milano: Garzanti, 1983), p. 362. P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888), Vol. 8, § 72. J. Cadier, Calvin: l’Homme que Dieu a dompté (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1958), p. 23. J. Cadier, Calvin: l’Homme que Dieu a dompté, p. 23. In his Selected Works of John Calvin, Tracts and Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), I, xxv: he wrote: “A few months’ residence here made him known to all who desired a reform in religion. Among others, I have heard him mention, with strong testimony to his piety Stephen Forge, a distinguished merchant, who afterwards suffered martyrdom in the cause of Christ, and to whose name Calvin gave celebrity in the work which he published against the Libertines. About this time, Calvin renouncing all other studies, devoted himself to God, to the great delight of all pious who were then holding secret meetings in Paris.”

were, Thou didst bear before me the torch of Thy Word; that I might abominate them as they deserved, thou didst stimulate my soul.28

Even in this report God remains the only subject. The experience of his subita conversio persuaded Calvin that his life and ministry had been guided, even at times, arrested, by God’s intervention.29 He reiterated this conviction repeatedly in the course of his life. In his treatise Psychopannychia written in 1534, very likely quite immediately after his conversion, he made some reflections on what life is like without a saving knowledge of the living God, which could be interpreted as a commentary on his own life prior to his conversion. Would you know what the death of the soul is? It is to be without God — to be abandoned by God, and left to itself: for if God is its life, it loses its life when it loses the presence of God. That which has been said in general may be shown in particular parts. If without God, there are no rays to illumine our night, surely the soul, buried in its own darkness, is blind. It is also dumb, not being able to confess unto salvation what it has believed unto righteousness. It is deaf, not hearing that living voice. It is lame, nay, unable to support itself, having none to whom it can say, “Thou hast held my right hand, and conducted me in thy will.” In short, it 30 performs no one of function of life. 28

29

30

Selected Works of John Calvin, Tracts and Letters, I. p. 58: CO 5:409: “Haec, Domine, ut animadverterem, tu mihi spiritus tui claritate affulsisti; ut deprehenderem quam impia noxiaque essent, tu mihi facem verbo tuo praetulisti; ut pro merito abominarer, animum meum pupugisti.” As William Bouwsma writes: “He viewed his own career in dramatic terms. ‘I am not ignorant, he wrote Melanchthon in 1552, ‘of the position in his theatre to which God has elevated me`; and a few years later, picking up Melanchthon’s own theatrical language, he emphasized the superiority of his role to that of the political superstars of the age. ‘Let this [church] be my theatre, he wrote,’ and, content with its approval, though the whole world should hiss me, my courage will never fail. I am far from envying silly and noisy declaimers when they enjoy their small laurel of glory in a dark corner for a little while. What is worthy of applause or odious to the world is not unknown to me.’ In 1534, when Calvin was but 25, d’Etaples told him: ‘You have been chosen as an instrument of the Lord. Through you, God will erect His Kingdom in our land!’ John Calvin, a Sixteenth Century Portrait (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 178. For a translation of Psychopannychia, see Tracts and Treatises, trans. H. Beveridge, Volume 3, pp. 413-490. For Beveridge’s rendering of the passage that Oberman has translated, see Tracts and Treatises, trans. H. Beveridge, 3:454-455. For the Latin behind this translation, see CO 5:204-205: “Vultis scire quae sit animae mors? Deo carere, a Deo desertam esse, sibi relictam esse. Si enim Deus

61

Referring to an overnight stop in Geneva, on his way from Paris to Strasbourg, Calvin wrote: I had resolved to continue in the same privacy and obscurity, until at length William Farel detained me at Geneva, not so much by counsel and exhortation, as by a dreadful imprecation, which I felt to be as if God had from heaven laid his mighty hand upon me to arrest me.31

The same thing happened some years later when Martin Bucer persuaded Calvin to get him to Strasbourg. Calvin wrote: By this means set at liberty and loosed from the tie of my vocational I resolved to live in a private station, free from the burden and cares of any public charge, when that most excellent servant of Christ, Martin Bucer, employing a similar kind of remonstrance and protestation as that to which Farel had recourse before, drew me back to a new station. Alarmed by the example of Jonas, which he set before me, I still continued in the work of teaching.32

“God overtook Calvin like a robber,” wrote Karl Barth.33 Nevertheless Calvin, describing his conversion, referred to David and not, as one could have expected, to the apostle Paul. Was not the conversion of Paul a subita conversio also? Maybe one can find a partial answer to this question by reading what Calvin wrote in his preface to Commentary on the Book of Psalms: As that holy King was harassed by the Philistines and other foreign enemies with continual wars, while he was much more grievously afflicted by the malice and

31

32 33

62

eius vita est, perdit vitam suam, quum perdit Dei praesentiam. Atque ut quod dictum est in universum, partibus ostendatur: si extra Deum lux non est, quae nocti nostrae luceat: ubi lux illa se subduxerit, anima certe in tenebris suis sepulta, caeca est. Tunc muta est, quae confiteri non potest ad salutem, quod crediderit ad iustitiam. Surda est,quae vivam illam vocem non audit. Clauda est, imose sustinere non potest, ubi non habet cui dicat: Tenuisti manum dexteram meam, et in voluntate tua deduxisti me. Nullo denique vitae officio fungitur.” CO 31:26: “Guillaume Farel me reteint à Geneve, non pas tant par conseil et exhortation, que par une adiuration espovantable, comme si Dieu eust d’enhaut estendu sa main sur moy pour m’arrester.” John Dillenberger, John Calvin, Selections from his writings (Scholars Press, 1975) p. 29. K. Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 1922), p. 117.

wickedness of some perfidious men amongst his own people, so I can say as to myself, that I have been assailed on all sides, and have scarcely been able to enjoy repose for a single moment, but have always had to sustain some conflict either from enemies without or within the Church.34

I dare suggest that the reason why Calvin consistently referred to David has not only to do with the experiences of suffering they held in common, but also with similar theological perceptions. It was neither the youth who had challenged Goliath nor the king with his political power, but the psalmist, who in the attempt to find the presence of the Lord in his contradictory life, discovered the Hiddenness of God. Undoubtedly, Calvin identified personally and theologically with David who, despite his suffering, was able to keep his faith, otherwise he would not have called the Psalter “an anatomy of all the parts of the soul.”35 For Calvin, his conversion implied a break with the perspective that had informed his life until that moment. Against the humanist’s optimistic vision of a human nature, capable of knowing truth and achieving knowledge of God independently of God’s revelation, Calvin posed the opposing conception of a humanity contaminated by sin and alienated from God.

2.3 Psychopannychia (1534) Strange as it may seem, Calvin did not start his theological production with The Institutes, but with a still quite unknown treatise, Psychopannychia. Written in 1534 and published in Latin only in 1542, in it he deeply criticized the Anabaptist doctrine that the soul “sleeps” after death instead of being with the Lord. This treatise has passed quite unnoticed until now with some remarkable exceptions. Olivier Millet advances the hypothesis that this work has been forgotten “parce qu’il est terriblement technique.”36 On 34 35 36

Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1996), Vol. IV, p. 26. CO 31:16: “une anatomie de toutes les parties de l’ame.” Olivier Millet, Calvin et la Dynamique de la Parole (Etude de Rhétorique Réformée, Genève: Editions Slatkine, 1992), p. 442.

63

the contrary, the reason why this work has fallen into oblivion is different, as Bruce Gordon remarks: Calvin’s strident prose, reflective of the polarizing religious world of France, was not welcome in Strasbourg and Basle, where delicate balances between opposing parties had to be maintained.37

This circumstance is strengthened by the letter that the Reformer Wolfgang Capito wrote to Calvin discouraging him to publish this work early to avoid both giving notoriety to the teaching of the Anabaptists and exacerbating certain “autores splendidi whom the Lord has allowed to fall into the same error.”38 In fact, the doctrine of the sleep of the souls had been warmly received not only by the Anabaptists, but also by Martin Luther. Various attempts have been made to single out the reason why the French Reformer, instead of devoting his attention towards the teaching of Roman Catholic Church, preferred to concentrate his analysis on the peripheral doctrine of soul sleep. In order to find an answer to this question, one has to consider that the theme of the immortality of the soul and its consequent destiny after death has been one of the most important issues in Christian theology. After all, the message of Jesus won the competition with other and maybe more appealing philosophies of first centuries not because of the Sermon on the Mount, but because the statement of Jesus: “I am the resurrection and the life.”39 Calvin thus could not help but deal with the question. He analyzed the various answers given in the course of the history of Christian thought about the state of the soul after death, namely: 1) The soul sleeps and is unconscious, as it awaits the resurrection of the dead at the end of time; 2) At death, both the soul and body die, but are brought back together at the resurrection;

37 38

39

64

Bruce Gordon, Calvin (Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2011), p. 43. CO 5:36: “Deinde sunt autores splendidi, quos deiecit Dominus a pertinacia istiusmodi erroris af formandi, quorum studia vereor ne incendantur, aut certe ne prorsus fidem quam hactenus coluerunt ‘despondeant.” John 11:25.

3) The soul lives in the presence of God and performs spiritual acts that do not require the presence of the body until its final resurrection. George Tavard has recently attempted to raise the issue of the soul awake to the rank of the starting point of Calvin’s theology.40 In all likelihood this treatise, characterized by a strong denunciation of Anabaptist arguments and by a faithful and precise reference to the biblical texts, ought to be interpreted in the first place as an attempt to distance the new evangelical faith from the Anabaptists, as Karl Barth pointed out: In Paris in the summer of 1534, and perhaps in other places, Calvin had run up against the people called Anabaptists. Like Luther and Zwingli he had first to deal with the question whether the opposition of this group to the church was not the same as his own, whether it might be not possible or even necessary to go along with circles of this kind…But the answer that he gave to the question, and that he wished to be loud and public, was a round flat NO.41

Having a burning desire to safeguard the basic tenets of the Christian faith and desiring to be “if not a very skillful, yet certainly a firm, and as I dare promise, by God’s grace, an invincible defender of the Truth,”42 Calvin assumed the role of defender of truth. For him, it was “no trivial matter to see God’s light extinguished by the devil’s darkness; and besides, this matter is of greater moment than many suppose.”43 Nevertheless, the importance of this treatise goes by far beyond the selfevident intensions, since in it he is given to single out that element of meditatio immortalitatis, which constituted one of the most significant cornerstones of his theological production. Deeply convinced of the profound continuity between the Israelite exodus and the experience of 40 41 42

43

See The Starting Point of Calvin’s Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000). Karl Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mi/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1922), p. 149. CO 5:174: “Cum quibus sic pugnam institui, ut si in posterum obluctentur, sensuri sint, si non valde peritum, certe constantem veritatis defensorem, et, ut mihi audeo de gratia Dei promittere, invictum.” Calvin, Tracts and Treatises (Ed. Henry Beveridge, Edinburgh: Calvin translation Society, 1851), Vol. 3, p. 418.

65

the God’s people, especially of the persecuted church, Calvin represented human life in terms of a proper journey towards immortality: Since it is more my purpose to instruct than to crush my opponents, let them lend me their ear for a little, while we extract the reality from a figure of the Old Testament, and that not without authority. As Paul, in speaking of the passage of the Israelites across the Red Sea, allegorically represents the drowning of Pharaoh as the mode of deliverance by water, (1 Corinthians 10:1,) so we may be permitted to say that in baptism our Pharaoh is drowned, our old man is crucified, our members are mortified, we are buried with Christ., and remove from the captivity of the devil and the power of death, but remove only into the desert, a land arid and poor, unless the Lord rain manna from heaven, and cause water to gush forth from the rock. For our soul, like that land without water, is in want of all things, till he, by the grace of his Spirit, rain upon it. We afterwards pass into the land of promise, under the guidance of Joshua the son of Nun, into a land flowing with milk and honey; that is, the grace of God frees us from the body of death, by our Lord Jesus Christ, not without sweat and blood, since the flesh is then most repugnant, and exerts its utmost force in warring against the Spirit. After we take up our residence in the land, we feed abundantly. White robes and rest are given us. But Jerusalem, the capital and seat of the kingdom, has not yet been erected; nor yet does Solomon, the Prince of Peace, hold the scepter and rule over all.44

44

66

Beveridge, Tracts and Treatises, 3, p. 418. CO 10:214: “Quemadmodum Paulus in transitu filiorum Israel tractat allegorice submersum Pharaonem, viam liberationis per aquam (1 Cor. 10, ] s.): permittant etiam nobis dicere, in baptismo submergi Pharaonem nostrum, crucifigi veterem hominem, mortificari membra nostra, nos sepeliri cum Christo, [fol. 35] migrare e captivitate diaboli ac imperio mortis: sed migrare duntaxat in desertum, terram aridam ac inopem, nisi Dominus pluat man e coelo, et aquam scaturire faciat e petra. Anima enim nostra, sicut terra sine aqua illi, 1) quae rerum omnium penuria premitur, donec ille pluit gratias spiritus sui. Transitur postea in terram promissionis, duce Iesu filio Nave, terram abundantem lacte et melle: hoc est, gratia Dei nos liberat e corpore mortis, per Iebiim Christum Dominum nostrum, non tamen sine sanguine et sudore. Si quidem caro tum maxime resilit, et vires suas ad pugnam exserit, ut confligat adversus spiritum. Postquam in terra residetur, tunc pascimur in abundantia. Dantur enim stolae albae, et requies. Sed nondum erecta est Ierusalem, caput ac sedes regni. Nondum Solomon rex pacis sceptra tenet, omniaque moderatur. Sunt ergo sanctorum animae post mortem in pace, quae extra manum hostis evolarunt. Sunt in opulentia, de quibus dictum est: Ibunt de abundantia in abundantiam. Ubi vero surrexerit in gloriam suam coelestis Ierusalem, et verus Solomon Christus, rex pacis, sublimis sederit in tribunali, regnabunt cum suo rege veri Israelitae.”

The suffering of the righteous as well as the defence of God’s Justice is in the background of this treatise, which is vivified by its profound appropriateness to the historical context. When people suffered persecution and were about to be imprisoned, and tortured, the only proper questions for them were: What is the end of my earthly pilgrimage? What does God intend by my suffering? In Calvin’s opinion, what these people needed to know was that: The souls of the saints, therefore, which have escaped the hands of the enemy, are after death in peace. They are amply supplied with all things, for it is said of them, "They shall go from abundance to abundance." But when the heavenly Jerusalem shall have risen up in its glory, and Christ, the true Solomon, the Prince of Peace, shall be seated aloft on his tribunal, the true Israelites will reign with their King. Or - if you choose to borrow a similitude from the affairs of men - we are fighting with the enemy, so long as we have our contest with flesh and blood; we conquer the enemy when we put off the body of sin, and become wholly God’s; we will celebrate our triumph, and enjoy the fruits of victory, when our head shall be raised above death in glow, that is, when death shall be swallowed up in victory. This is our aim, this our goal; and of this it has been written, "I shall be satisfied when I awake with beholding thy glory." (Psalm 17:15.) These things may be easily learned Scripture, by all who have learned to hear God and hearken to his voice.

2.4 The Institutes of Christian Religion of 1536 The first Opus magnum of the French Reformer appeared in 1536: The Institutes of Christian Religion.45 Calvin was just twenty-seven and the Reformation of M. Luther was at its beginning. Already the terms used in the title are noteworthy: Institutio Religionis Christianae. Instead of using the word summa in line with Thomistic tradition, Calvin preferred to use the word Institutio describing not only the pedagogical activity of

45

Institutes of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986) [cited herafter as IRC 1536].

67

those who educated the offspring of noble families, but also referring to the most common law manual of that time.46 Instead of speaking of theology, he used the word religion, the binding of the self to God. Although he was an intellectual, he was not interested in useless speculations, but rather in trying to devote his talents for the edification of the church of God. This goal was clearly stated, as he wrote in his preface to the King of France: When I first set my hand to this work, nothing was farther from my mind, most glorious King, than to write something that might afterward be offered to Your Majesty. My purpose was solely to transmit certain rudiments by which those who are touched with any zeal for religion might be shaped to true godliness. And I undertook this labour especially for our French countrymen, very many of whom I knew to be hungering and thirsting for Christ; but I saw very few who had been duly imbued with even a slight knowledge of him. The book itself witnesses that this was my intention, adapted as it is to a simple and, you may say, elementary form of teaching.47

This intellectual perspective emerges just in the opening sentence, when Calvin wrote: “Nearly the whole of sacred doctrine consists in these two parts: knowledge of God and of ourselves.” Here the similarities with Augustine are evident, although Calvin did not add what Augustine said further “nothing more.” The Institutes were constructed as a basic catechetical manual, in six chapters, that, as John Hesselink notices, “followed closely the ordering of Luther’s Small Catechism.”48 46

47

48

68

Luchesius Smits pointed out the lack of homogeneity in the 1536 edition due to the combined catechetical and apologetic purposes of the work. In Saint Augustin dans l’œuvre de Jean Calvin (Assen: Van Gorcum 1957), p. 28. ICR 1536, p. 1: CO 1:257: “Quum huic operi manum primum admoverem, nihil minus cogitabam, Rex clarissime, quam scribere quae maiestati tuae postea offerrentur. Tantum erat animus, rudimenta quaedam tradere, quibus formarentur ad veram pietatem qui aliquo religionis studio tanguntur. Atque hunc laborem Gallis nostris potissimum desudabam, quorum permultos esurire et sitire Christum videbam, paucissimos, 1) qui vel modica eius cognitione rite imbuti essent. Hanc mihi fuisse propositam rationem liber ipse loquitur, ad simplicem scilicet rudemque docendi formam appositus.” J. Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law (Allison Park, Pennsylvania: Pickwick Publications, 1992), p. 8. In the same perspective see also A. Ganoczy, Le jeune Calvin, p. 139.

Yet the events in Paris on October 1534,49 when posters attacking the mass50 were attached in every part of Paris and even to the doors of the royal place, put an end to Calvin’s plan to draft a simple catechism. The following gruesome persecution51 deeply affected Calvin, as Wilemann writes: We do not certainly know that Calvin saw the burning of James Pavanne or of the hermit of Livry; but whether so or not, he must have been conversant with the feeling of the people with regard to these and other martyrdoms, and must have formed an opinion as to the meaning of them.52

We are certain, however, that reports of torture, exile, and execution throughout different European countries reached him from the year 1535 onward. Calvin, who was first a pastor, and then a theologian, or rather, 49

50 51

52

Upon the affair of the Placards, cf. V. L. Bourrilly and N. Weiss, ‘Jean du Bellay: les Protestants et la Sorbonne’ in the Bulletin de l’Hist. du Protest. francais, Vol. LIII, 1904, pp. 106 ff. and Imbart De La Tour, Origines de la Réforme, vol. 111, pp. 552 ff. On the contents of the Placards, L. Febvre, ‘L’Origine des Placards de 1534’ in the Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, vol. vii, pp. 62 ff. True Articles on the horrible, great and important abuses of the papal mass, devised directly against the Lord’s supper of Jesus Christ. To purge the city from the defilement caused by this insult to the holy mass and the hierarchy, a most imposing procession was held from the Louvre to Notre Dame, on Jan. 29, 1535. The image of St. Geneviève, the patroness of Paris, was carried through the streets: the archbishop, with the host under a magnificent däis, and the king with his three sons, bare-headed, on foot, a burning taper in their hands, headed the procession, and were followed by the princes, cardinals, bishops, priests, ambassadors, and the great officers of the State and of the University, walking two and two abreast, in profound silence, with lighted torches. Solemn mass was performed in the cathedral. Then the king dined with the prelates and dignitaries, and declared that he would not hesitate to behead any one of his own children if found guilty of these new, accursed heresies, and to offer them as a sacrifice to divine justice. The gorgeous solemnities of the day wound up with a horrible autodafé of six Protestants: they were suspended by a rope to a machine, let down into burning flames, again drawn up, and at last precipitated into the fire. They died like heroes. The more educated among them had their tongues slit. Twenty-four innocent Protestants were burned alive in public places of the city from Nov. 10, 1534, till May 5, 1535. Among them was Etienne de la Forge (Stephanus Forgeus), an intimate friend of Calvin. Many more were fined, imprisoned, and tortured, and a considerable number, among them Calvin and Du Tillet, fled to Strasburg. W. Wilemann, John Calvin, His Life, His Teaching and His Influence, p. 16, in the CD The Comprehensive John Calvin.

69

a theologian in order to be a pastor, as Jean Daniel Benoit had emphasized,53 could not remain silent. The Institutes became a passionate and noble defence of those who were persecuted by assuring the King of France that they were not disloyal seditionists. Leaving my native country, France, I in fact retired to Germany expressly for the purpose of being able there to enjoy in some obscure corner the repose, which I had always desired, and which had been so long denied me. But lo! whilst I lay hidden at Basle and known only to a few people, many faithful and holy persons were burnt alive in France; and the report of these burnings having reached foreign nations, they excited the strongest disapprobation among a great part of the Germans, whose indignation was kindled against the authors of such tyranny. In order to allay this indignation, certain wicked and lying pamphlets were circulated, stating that none were treated with such cruelty but Anabaptists and seditious persons, who by their perverse ravings and false opinions were overthrowing not only religion but also civil order. Observing that the object which these instruments of the court aimed at by their disguises was not only that the disgrace of shedding so much innocent blood might remain buried under false charges and calumnies which they brought against the holy martyrs after their death, but also that afterwards they might be able to proceed to the utmost extremity in murdering the poor saints without exciting compassion towards them in the breasts of any, it appeared to me that unless I opposed them to the utmost of my ability, my silence could not be vindicated from the charge of cowardice and treachery. This was the consideration which induced me to publish my Institutes of the Christian Religion. My objects were, first, to prove that these reports were false and calumnious, and thus to vindicate my brethren, whose death was precious in the sight of the Lord;54 and next, that as the same cruelties might very soon after be exercised against many unhappy individuals, foreign nations might be touched with at least some compassion towards them and solicitude about them. When it was then published, it was not that copious and labored work which it now is, but only a small treatise containing a summary of the principal truths of the Christian religion; and it was published with no other design than that men might know what was the faith held by those whom I saw basely and wickedly defamed by those flagitious and perfidious flatterers.55

53 54

55

70

Daniel Benoit, Calvin Directeur d’Ames (Strasbourg: Editions Oberlin, 1944), p. 11. CO 31:23: “Haec mihi edendae Institutionis causa fuit: primum ut ab iniusta contumelia vindicarem fratres meos, quorum mors pretiosa erat in conspectu Domini.” CO 31:24: “premierement afin de respondre à ces meschans blasmes que les autres semoyent, et en purger mes freres, desquels la mort estoit precieuse en la presence du Seigneur.” Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. IV, XLI.

Within these words, prove and vindicate, borrowed from his juridical background, lays the heart of the matter. Calvin was neither a pacifistic, nor a person inclined toward compromise, but had the mentality of a lawyer. For him any viable vindication had to be substantiated by facts, according to the old Latin principle of justa alligata et probata, as Olivier Millet aptly recognizes.56 On the basis of his previously juridical studies he was able to apply the rhetorical instruments he learned to defend the oppressed. Instead of being merely a theoretical and impersonal exposition of the basic tenets of Christian faith, the first version of The Institutes turned out to be a noble defence of the persecuted church addressed to the King. Having pointed out that his purpose was not to prepare “his own personal defence,” but rather “to embrace the common cause of all believers, that of Christ himself a cause completely torn and trampled in your realm today,”57 Calvin wrote: The poor little church has either been wasted with cruel slaughter or banished into exile, or so overwhelmed by threats and fears that it dare not even open its mouth. And yet, with their usual rage and madness, the ungodly continue to batter a wall already toppling, and to complete the ruin toward which they have been striving.58 56

57

58

“La tonalité judiciaire de l’Institution semble l’emporter en raison de la convergence de plusieurs motifs, qui situent le discours doctrinal calvinien dans le cadre d’une cause conduite comme une véritable plaidoirie. Dans la confrontation de l’homme et de Dieu à laquelle Calvin se livre, c’est la dimension du procès, intenté contre l’homme par la révélation divine a travers les témoignages de la création, puis de la parole biblique, qui intéresse principalement le doctrinaire.” Olivier Millet, Calvin et la Dynamique de la Parole Etude de Rhétorique Réformée, (Genève: Editions Slatkine, 1992), p. 572. ICR 1536 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), p. 2. CO 1:11: “Neque hic me privatam defensionem meditari existimes qua salvum in patriam reditum mihi conficiam, quam tametsi, quo decet humanitatis affectu prosequor, ut nunc tamen res sunt, ea non moleste careo. Terum communem piorum omnium, adeoque ipsam Christi causam complector, quae modis omnibus hodie in regno tuo proscissa ac protrita, velut deplorata iacet; Pharisaeorum id quidem quorundam tyrannide magis, quam tua conscientia.” ICR 1536, p. 2. CO 1:11. “Sed qui id fiat, hic dicere nihil attinet, afflicta certe iacet. Hoc enim profecerunt impii, ut Christi veritas si non ut fugata ac dissipata periret, certe ut sepulta et ignobilis lateat, paupercula vero Ecclesia, aut crudeli bus caedibus absumpta sit, aut exsiliis abacta, aut minis ac terroribus perculsa, ne hiscere quidem audeat. Et instant etiam num, qua solent insania et ferocitate, fortiter in parietem iam inclinatum, et ruinam quam fecerunt incumbentes.”

71

Some of us are shackled with irons, some beaten with rods, some led about as laughingstocks, some proscribed, some most savagely tortured, some forced to flee. All of us are oppressed by poverty, cursed with execrations, wounded by slanders and treated in most shameful ways.59

The content of the letter to the King, which Williston Walker termed as “one of the few masterpieces of apologetic literature,”60 reveals a proud indignation against injustice and constitutes an outstanding example of courage in vindicating the oppressed. In Calvin’s opinion the King had to protect and restore the inviolability and dignity of God’s glory on earth, since in his office he is a servant of God’s glory or else, a robber.61 The last paragraph ends with a proper legal warning: let the King beware of acting on false charges, since the innocents await divine vindication: Suppose, however, the whisperings of the malevolent so fill your ears that the accused have no chance to speak for themselves, but those savage furies, while you connive at them, ever rage against us imprisoning, scourging, rackings, maimings, and burnings. Yet this will so happen that “in our patience we may possess our souls” (Luke 21:19 p.); and may await the strong hand of the Lord, which will surely appear in due season, coming forth armed to deliver the poor from their affliction and also to punish their depsisers.62

59

60 61

62

72

ICR 1536, p. 4. CO 1:13: “Propter hanc spem (1 Tim. 4) alii nostrum vinculis constringuntur, alii virgis caeduntur, alii in ludibrium circumducuntur, alii proscribuntur, alii saevissime torquentur, alii fuga elabuntur, omnes rerum angustia premimur, diris exsecrationibus devovemur, maledictis laceramur, indignissimis modis tractamur.” W. Walker, The Organizer of Reformation Protestantism, 1509-1564 (New York: Schocken Books, 1996), p. 109. Calvin wrote: “It will then be for you, most serene King, not to close your ears or your mind to such just defence, especially when a very great question is at stake: how God’s glory may be kept safe on earth, how God’s truth may retain its place of honour, how Christ’s Kingdom may be kept in good repair among us. Worthy indeed is this matter of your hearing, worthy of your cognizance, worthy of your royal throne! Indeed, this consideration makes a true king: to recognize himself a minister of God in governing his kingdom. Now, that king who in ruling over his realm does not serve God’s glory exercises not kingly rule but brigandage.” CO 1:66. ICR 1536, p. 14: CO 1:278: “Sin vero ita aures tuas occupant malevolorum susurri, ut nullus sit reis pro se dicendi locus, importunae vero illae furiae, te connivente, semper vinculis, flagris, equuleis, sectionibus, incendiis saeviunt: nos quidem, velut oves mactationi destinatae, ad extrema quaeque redigemur; sic tamen, ut in

It is also worth noting that using alternatively I and we Calvin presented himself not only as a lawyer, but also as the representative of the new church, as A. Ganoczy rightly pointed out: In this masterful plea, the lawyer fades before his cause. All his efforts are devoted to advocating the true program of the evangelical party for the monarch’s consideration, so that he will understand how slanderous are the accusations hurled against them. No, it is not correct to say that they are seditious. In reality, they attempt to reestablish the old order, not according to their own thinking, but according to the teaching of the holy books, as professed, explicated and understood by the Fathers.63

Together with the purpose to instruct and to vindicate the persecuted church Calvin had also in mind to answer the questions of the innumerable martyrs of the new faith, who asked themselves whether they were still belonging to the church. As Joseph Haroutunian writes: Excommunicated ex-Romanists, subject to enemy power, deprived of home and goods, in exile and at death’s door, these poor people who lived in anxiety and despair, subject to miseries from which even the dregs and criminals of society were exempt, had nothing to sustain them except the promises of God.64

Calvin invited these believers under the cross to turn their eyes to God’s Election, to His incomprehensible wisdom, rooted in His eternal purpose. Moreover, since the church is the people of God’s elect, it cannot happen that those who are truly its members will ultimately perish or come to a bad end. For their salvation rests on such a sure and solid bed, that, even if the whole fabric of the world were to fall, it itself could not tumble or fall. First it stands with God’s Election, nor can it change or fail, unless along with that eternal wisdom. Therefore they can totter and waver, even fall, but not contend against one another

63 64

patientia nostra possideamus animas nostras, et manum Domini fortem exspectemus; quae indubie tempore aderit, et sese armata exseret, tum ad pauperes ex afflictione eruendos, tum etiam ad vindicandos, qui tanta securitate nunc exsultant, contemptores.” The Young Calvin, translated by David Foxgrover and Wade Provo (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), p. 289. Calvin: Commentaries, The library of Christian Classics, Volume XXIII, Newly translated and edited by Joseph Haroutunian, McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

73

for the Lord supports their hand. Under such a good watchman they can wander and fall, but surely they cannot be lost.65

The core of his argumentations is clear: The elect are doomed to remain indissolubly united with Christ. Exile persecution and martyrdom are not meaningless, but are part of God’s will. Instead of being a matter of sheer theological speculation, Calvin’s approach is deeply pastoral. Identifying himself with those who were subjected to persecution, he exhorted them to hold for certain that we are part of the church and with the rest of God’s elect, with whom we have been called and already in part justified. We rest assured that God is never going to forsake us.... If we partake in Christ we are among God’s elect and of the church.66

This assurance, far from implying a knowledge of the incomprehensible wisdom of God, relies only in “God’s promise.”67 In a moving passage that is worth quoting in its integrity, the prose of Calvin reached levels of great significance: Lest they fail amidst these great tribulations, the Lord is with them, warning them to hold their heads higher, to direct their eyes farther so as to find in Him that blessedness which they do not see in the world. He calls this blessedness prize, reward, recompense, not weighing the merits of works, but signifying that is a 65

66

67

74

ICR 1536, p. 59: CO 1:73: “Cum autem ecclesia sit populus electorum Dei fieri non potest qui vere eius sunt membra tandem pereant, aut malo exitio perdantur. Nititur enimeorum salus tam certis solidisque fulcris ut, etiamsi totis orbis machina labefactur concidere ipsa et corruere non possit. rimum, stat cum Dei Electione, nec nisi cum aeterna illa sapientia, variare aut deficiere potest. Titubare ergo et fluctuari, cadere etiam possunt, sed non colliduntur, quia dominus supponit manum sua. Sub tam bono custode et errare et labi possunt, perdi certe non possunt.” ICR 1536, p. 60: CO 1:74: “Hoc enim cogitandum est, nihil penitus nobis defuturum, quod in salutem ac bonum nostrum conducere possit, si ille noster est; illum vero nostrum fieri et omnia quae illius sunt, si certa fide in ipsum recumbimus, si in ipso acquiescimus, si in ipso salutem, vitam, omnia denique nostra reponimus, si certo expectamus, nunquam futurum, ut nos deserat…. Cum enim Christus Dominus noster is sit, in quo pater ab aeterno elegit quos voluit esse suos, ac in ecclesiae suae gregem referri, satis clarum testimonium habemus,nos et inter Dei electos, et ex ecclesia esse, si Christo communicamus.” ICR 1536, p. 59: CO 1:74: “Comprehendere quidem non possumus incomprehensibilem Dei sapientiam, nec eam excutere nostrum est: ut nobis constet, qui aeterno eius consilio electi, qui reprobati sint.”

compensation for their miseries, tribulations slanders, etc. For this reason, nothing prevents us, with scriptural precedent, from calling eternal life a recompense, because in it the Lord receives his own people from toil into repose, from affliction into consolation, from sorrow into joy, from disgrace into glory. In brief, He changes into great goods all the evil things that they have suffered.68

The overwhelming importance of the doctrine of Election over that of Providence is confirmed by sheer analysis of the text. The word electio with all its variants (Electioni, Electionem, Electione, electi, electorum, electos, electis) recurs 22 times, whereas the word providentia with all its variants (providentiam, providentiae) only 9 times. As Charles Partee pertinently remarks: Calvin does not promulgate a philosophical doctrine of universal Providence to which God’s particular Providence is attached as an, albeit crucial and Christian addendum. This fact is especially evident in Calvin’s account of Predestination, which is an example of God’s Providence for the individual, but Calvin’s doctrine of God’s special care is also clearly adumbrated in his earlier discussions of Providence in the Institutes. That is to say, Calvin does not begin with universal Providence as a genus and move downward to particular Providence as a species, rather he begins with particular Providence and moves outward to the affirmation of universal Providence.69

At that time, Calvin had not yet developed a clear distinction between the two doctrines. This fact is confirmed by the confusion, which he fell into again, when he put the two concepts together by saying that the church is holy, because as many as have been chosen by God’s eternal Providence to be adopted as members of the church, all these are made holy by the Lord.70 Some of the motives that deeply influenced Calvin’s theology appear in nuce in this work. One of the most important is to explain how the Omnipotence of God could be reconciled with existence of evil. 68

69 70

ICR 1536, p. 41: CO 1:55: “In his tantis angustiis ne deficiant, adest illis Dominus qui monet ut altius caput exerant et longius oculos coniiciant, beatitudinem, quam in mundo non vident, apud se reperturos. Hanc beatitudinem, praemium, mercedem, retributionem, vocat; non operum meritum aestimans, sed compensationem esse significans eorum pressuris, passionibus, contumeliis etc.” C. Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), p. 95. ICR 1536, p. 58. CO 1:73: “Sancta etiam est, quia quotquot aeterna Dei providentia electi sunt, ut in ecclesiae membra cooptarentur, a Domino omnes sanctificantur.”

75

Commenting the first article of the Creed “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,” Calvin first defined God’s Omnipotence: When we call Him Almighty and Creator of all things, we must ponder such Omnipotence as his whereby He works all things in all, and such Providence whereby He regulates all things (I Cor. 12:6; Lam. 3:37-38)- not of the sort those Sophists fancy, empty, insensate, idle. By faith are we to be persuaded, that whatever happens to us, happy or sad, prosperous or adverse, comes to us from Him.71

Then, quoting the book of Job, he exhorted the persecuted church of his time to receive all adverse things with calm and peaceful hearts thinking that His Providence looks after us and our salvation, while it is afflicting and oppressing us (Job 2:10).72 Finally, he faced the objection stemming from the above-mentioned definition of Omnipotence by asking: “Is God the author of the sin? Is evil to be imputed to God?”73 Calvin limited himself to substantiate the assumption that “in the same act we are to discern the work of a perverse man and of a just God,”74 by making recourse to the criteria of the underlying motivations. Even admitting that “Job’s affliction was the work of God and of the devil,” he pointed out to the different purpose of their actions: whereas “the devil was trying to destroy, God was training. Therefore in the same work shines God’s righteousness and their iniquity.”75 71

72 73

74 75

76

ICR 1536, p. 49: CO 1:63: “Cum vero omnipotentem et rerum omnium creatorem appellamus, talem eius omnipotentiam, qua omnia operatur in omnibus, talemque providentiam qua omnia moderatur, cogitare oportet (1 Cor.12. Thren. 3), non qualem illi Sophistae affingunt, inanem, sopitam, otiosam, ut fide persuasum habeamus, quaecunque nobis accidunt, laeta iuxta ac tristia, prospera ac adversa, sive ad corpus illa, sive ad animam pertineant, ab eo nobis evenire.” ICR 1536, p. 49: CO 1:63: “Quasi ex eius manu suscipiamus, cogitantes eius providentiam sic quoque nobis ac saluti nostrae prospicere, dum affligit et tribulat.” ICR 1536, p. 46: CO 1:60: “Dicitur Deus in reprobis operari, quorum opera damnata sunt. Difficilis et involuta quaestio: an Deus autor sit peccati, an malum Deo sit imputandum, an iniustitia opus eius censeri debeat?” ICR 1536, p. 46: CO 1:60: “Subiiciamus: in eodem facto respiciendum perversi hominis, ac iusti Dei opus.” ICR 1536, p. 47: CO 1:61: “Sic afflictio Iob opus erat Dei et diaboli, et tamen diaboli iniustitiam a Dei iustitia distinguere convenit,quod ille perdere conabatur,

2.5 Instruction in Faith of 1537 In this short but meaningful book, written by the French Reformer on Farel’s suggestion, Calvin was forced to deal with some serious issues stemming from his previous work. One of them was the doctrine of Election. If the elect are such, inasmuch as they have been predestined by God, why are there people who do not believe? If the Election of God constitutes the cause of their salvation, is it not unavoidable to infer that the same Election is therefore the cause of the rejection of others? On the basis of these questions Calvin changed his approach. Instead of trying to give comfort to the persecuted church, he attempted to offer a brief summary of the basic tenets of Christian faith. The point of departure for his reflections was not constituted by existential questions, but the empirical circumstances of the different reactions of people to the preaching of the Gospel: It is true that the word of the Gospel calls all to participate in Christ, but a number, blinded and hardened by unbelief, despise such a unique grace. Hence, only believers enjoy Christ; they receive Him as sent to them; they do not reject Him when He is given, but follow Him when he calls them.76

Calvin did not hesitate to admit that the diversity of people’s reactions to the preaching of the Gospel, far from being fortuitous, depends ultimately on the great secret of God’s counsel: For, the seed of the word of God takes root and brings forth fruit only in those whom the Lord, by his eternal Election, has predestined to be children and heirs of the heavenly kingdom. To all the others (who by the same counsel of God are

76

Deus autem exercebat. En Deus et illi, eiusdem operis autores, sed in eodem opere elucet Dei iustitia, eorum iniquitas.” Calvin, Instruction in Faith (Louisville, KY: Westminster,/John Knox Press, 1949), p. 37: CO 5:332: “Quemadmodum filium suum evangelii verbo nobis offert misericors pater: ita fide ipsum amplectimur, ac quasi datum agnoscimus. Verbum quidem ipsum evangelii omnes in Christi participationem vocat: at plurimi incredulitate obcaecati et obdurati, tam singularem gratiani aspernantur. Soli ergo fideles Christo fruuntur, qui ad se missum recipiunt, qui sibi donatum non respuunt, qui vocantem sequuntur.”

77

rejected before the foundation of the world) the clear and evident preaching of truth can be nothing but an odor of death unto death.77

Election implies Predestination. Since God chooses his elect, He predestines them to eternal glory. And yet, in spite of this unequivocal answer, some difficult questions arose: Why does the Lord use his mercy toward some and exercise the rigor of his judgment on others? Is God therefore unjust? Even in this case Calvin was adamant: salvation is not a human right but relies only in a gracious act of God. It is willed by God, Who could have not willed it. Any attempt to deepen God’s decisions is doomed to fail, since salvation relies only in God’s Hiddenness. We have to leave the reason of this to be known by Him alone. For He with a certainly excellent intention, has willed to keep it hidden from us all. The crudity of our mind could not indeed bear such a great clarity, nor our smallness comprehend such a great wisdom. And in fact all those who will attempt to rise to such a height and will not repress the temerity of their spirit, shall experience the truth of Solomon’s saying (Prov. 25.27) that he who will investigate the majesty shall be oppressed by the glory. Only let us have this resolved in ourselves that the dispensation of the Lord, although hidden from us, is nevertheless holy and just. For, if he willed to ruin all mankind, he has the right to do it, and in those whom he rescues from perdition, one can contemplate nothing but his sovereign goodness. We acknowledge, therefore, the elect to be recipients of his mercy (as truly they are) and the rejected to be recipients of his wrath, a wrath, however, which is nothing but just.78 77

78

78

Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 38: CO 5:332-333: “In his enim solis demum verbi Dei semen radicem ducit, ac fructificat, quos Dominus sibi filios regnique coelestis haeredes, aeterna sua Electione, praedestinavit reliquis omnibus, qui eodem Dei consilio, ante mundi constitutionem, reprobati sunt, clarissima veritatis praedicatio nihil quam odor mortis in mortem esse potest.” Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 38: CO 5:333: “In hoc autem discrimine sublime divini consilii arcanum necessario considerandum est. In his enim solis demum verbi Dei semen radicem ducit, ac fructificat, quos Dominus sibi filios regnique coelestishaeredes, aeterna sua Electione, praedestinavit: reliquis omnibus, qui eodem Dei consilio, ante mundi constitutionem, reprobati sunt, clarissima veritatis praedicatio nihil quam odor mortis in mortem esse potest. Porro cur illos misericordia sua Dominus dignetur, in hos iudicii sui severitatem exerceat, rationem penes illum esse sinamus, quam nos omnes, nec sine optima ratione, celatos esse voluit. Non enim vel tantam lucem ingenii nostri hebetudo ferre, vel tantam sapientiae magnitudinem tenuta capere valeat. Ac omnino quicunque se hic attollere contendent, nec cohibere mentis suae temeritatem sustinebunt, verum esse

Calvin linked the doctrine of Predestination to “the great secret of God’s counsel,” adding a distinction which had to play a significant role in the 159 Sermons on Job: the reasons of the Hiddenness of God depend not only on His decision, but also on the noetic limitations of human mind to understand the divine modus operandi. In fact, no one is capable of comprehending “the heavenly secrets of God,”79 unless he is illuminated by faith, which is “a unique and precious gift of God.”80 “Our thought is blind” and “faith greatly surpasses all the power of our nature,”81 God is lofty, mighty, incomprehensible,”82 and “His marvelous majesty cannot be comprehended by our rudeness.”83 Concerning the doctrine of Providence, Calvin introduced a more precise definition of what signifies I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. He wrote: It is meant thereby God administers all things by His Providence, rules them by His will, and guides them by His virtue and might. When God is called creator of heaven and earth, it must be understood thereby that he perpetually upholds, maintains, and gives life to all that which He has once created.84

79 80 81

82 83

84

experientur quod ait Solomon: Scrutatorem maiestatis oppressum iri a gloria (Prov. 25:2). 1) Tantum id nobiscum statuamus, illam Domini dispensationem, tametsi occulta nobis est, iustam nihilominus et sanctam esse. Nam si universum hominum genus perderet, id faceret iure suo. In iis quos a perditione revocat, nil nisi summam eius bonitatem contemplari licet. Electos ergo vasa esse misericordiae ipsius, us sunt, agnoscamus:reprobos, vasa irae, sed non nisi iustae.” Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 40: CO 5: 334: “cœlestia Dei mysteria.” Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 41: CO 5:334: “Dei donum sit eximium ac singulare.” Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 40: CO 5:334: “Si recte nobiscum reputamus, et quantum ad coelestia Dei mysteria mens nostra caecutiat, et quanta diffidentia cor nostrum in omnibus laboret, nihil dubitabimus, quin fides vim omnem naturae nostrae longe superet.” Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 60: CO 5:346: “potens, sublimis, incomprehensibilis.” Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 59: CO 5:345: “Eius maiestas, quam aliter mens nostra, pro sua crassitate,concipere non potest, designata est, quia coelo nihil augustius.” Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 47: CO 5:338: “Tribuitur illi omnipotentia, qua significatur et providentia sua administrare omnia, et voluntate gubernare, et virtute manuque sua moderari.”

79

God is not only the creator, but also the governor and preserver of the universe. At that time Predestination and Providence were interlocking and not yet distinct doctrines. This fact is confirmed once again by the error he fell into when he wrote that ”the church is also holy, because all those who are elected by the eternal Providence of God to be adopted as members of the church are all sanctified by the Lord through spiritual generation.”85

2.6 The Institutes of Christian Religion of 1539 The motive of the logical priority of the doctrine of Predestination over that of Providence, already adumbrated in the first edition of the Institutes, was taken up again in the following edition of the year 1539,86 which tripled in length. Believing that he had not assigned sufficient importance to it, Calvin decided to proceed in an orderly way and in Chapter 8 he concentrated his attention first to the Predestination and then to the Providence of God. The starting point of his reflections was once again the verifiable fact that “the covenant of life is not preached equally among all men, and among those to whom it is preached, it does not gain the same acceptance either constantly or in equal degree.”87 Differently from the Catechism, Calvin decided to make recourse to the idea of Predestination, instead of appealing to the divine Hiddenness: If it is plain that it comes to pass by God’s bidding that salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it, at once great and difficult questions

85

86

87

80

Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 52: CO 5:341: “Sancta etiam est: quia quotquot aeterna Dei providentia electi sunt, ut in ecclesiae numerum cooptarentur, spirituali regeneratione omnesa Domino sanctificantur.” Œuvres Complètes de Calvin, Institution de la Religion Chrétienne (Paris: Société d’Edition Les Belles Lettres, 1961) [cited herafter as IRC 1539]. For the English version, when this was possible, I used the translation of Beveridge of The Institutes of 1559. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 57: CO 1:861.

spring up, explicable only when reverent minds regard as settled what they may suitably hold concerning Election and Predestination.88

After having enlightened the distinction between Prescience, Predestination, Election, and Providence, Calvin gave for the first time the following definition of Predestination, which remained unaltered until the final edition of 1559: We call Predestination God’s eternal decree, by which He compacted with Himself what He willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.89

These words read by themselves and independently from their theological and historical context are particularly problematic to modern sensibility, as Paul Helm rightly points out: Although Calvin and the classic Christian tradition are not universalistic, even if he were a Universalist, a doctrine of Election and Predestination would still be required. Salvation is not automatic. It is not a human right. It is willed by God, who need not have willed it. It is an utterly gracious act.90

There is nothing that a human being can do in order to win God’s favor and convince Him to make him one of the elect. Yet, although Calvin was convinced that the Scripture taught Predestination, no one was more

88

89

90

IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 57: CO 1:861: “Iam vero quod non apud omnes peraeque nomines foedus vitae praedicatur, et apud eos quibus praedicatur non eundem locum perpetuo reperit, in ea diversitate mirabilis divini iudicii altitudo se profert. Nec enim dubium, quin aeternae Dei "voluntatis arbitrio haec quoque varietas serviat. Quod si palam est Dei nutu fieri, ut aliis ultro offeratur salus, alii ab eius aditu arceantur,hic magnae et arduae protinus emergunt quaestiones, quae aliter explicari nequeunt, quam si de Electione ac praedestinatione constitutum habeant piae mentes, quod tenere convenit.” IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 62: CO 1:865: “Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio aeterna praeordinatur. Itaque prout m alterutrum finem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus.” Paul Helm, Calvin a Guide for the Perplexed (T & T Clark, New York, 2008) p. 86.

81

keenly aware than he of the unsolvable perplexities surrounding this doctrine. Starting from the above definition, Calvin took care to furnish an exhaustive confutation of all the possible objections against the Justice of God and, like a competent attorney, dealt with them in an orderly manner. The way in which this part of The Institutes was drawn up lets us imagine the scenario of a proper lawsuit: from one side those who accuse God of injustice because of Predestination and from the other side Calvin, the vindicator of God’s Justice. Argument I: Prescience is not the cause of Predestination According to some people God would adopt as sons, those whom He foreknows will not be unworthy of His Grace and He would appoint to the damnation of death those whose dispositions He discerns will be inclined to evil intention and ungodliness. Calvin opposed this point of view, stating, “God has chosen us in order we should be holy, and He did not choose us because he foresaw that we would be so.”91 As proof thereof, he quoted the episode of Jacob and Esau. If the apostle Paul had asserted the thesis of his opponents, to the objection: “Is there injustice with God?” instead of taking refuge in God’s judgments and mercy, it would be easier for him to answer that God had foreseen the merits of every man.92 Argument II: Election and reprobation do not take place because of works or intentions of men In Calvin’s opinion to the difficult question of why God had loved Jacob and hated Esau, the apostle “Paul could have settled this in one word, by proposing a regard for works.”93 “Why, “asked Calvin, “then, did he not do this but rather continued a discourse that is fraught with the same 91 92

93

82

IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 65. ICR 1539, Vol. 8, p. 69. Calvin repeated the same argument in The Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, in Homer C. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1996), p. 64. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 70.

difficulty? Why but because he ought not?”94 The answer sounded unequivocal: For the Holy Spirit, speaking through his mouth, did not suffer from the fault of forgetfulness. Therefore, he answers without circumlocutions: God shows favor to his elect because he so wills; he has mercy upon them because he so wills. Accordingly, that declaration prevails: “I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy, and I will take pity on whom I will take pity,” as if he said: “God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” Then that saying of Augustine remains true: “God’s grace does not find but makes those fit to be chosen.”95

The same can be said in reference to the evil intention. Even in this case, as Calvin sharply observed: The apostle Paul did not make use of what would have been the surest and clearest defense of his righteousness: that God recompensed Esau according to his own evil intention. Instead, he contented himself with a different solution, that the reprobate are raised up to the end that through them God’s glory may be revealed.96

Argument III: God’s Will is the highest rule of Righteousness According to Calvin some “foolish men contend with God in many ways,” and held Him liable to their accusation, asking: By what right the Lord becomes angry at His creatures who have not provoked him by any previous offense? For to devote to destruction whomever he pleases is more like the caprice of a tyrant than the lawful sentence of a judge.97

Calvin did not have the slightest hesitation to answer echoing the voluntaristic conception of Duns Scotus and William d’Ockam, as

94 95 96 97

IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 70. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 70. IRC 1539, vol. 3, pp. 71-72. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 72.

83

Francois Wendel highlighted.98 When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because He has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why He so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found.99 From the above text as well from innumerable other texts it is clear that Calvin never struggled with the question of whether the actions of God are right since he assumed that they are by definition just, even if we are not able to understand His Justice. Argument IV: God is, however, Just towards the reprobate. To the objection, “Why from the beginning did God predestine some to death who, since they did not yet exist, could not yet have deserved the judgment of death?” Calvin referred to the general state of sin and depravation of humanity: If all are drawn from a corrupt mass, no wonder they are subject to condemnation! Let them not accuse God of injustice if they are destined by his eternal judgment to death, to which they feel—whether they will or not—that they are led by their own nature of itself.100

Argument V: God cannot be charged of injustice To the objection: “Is God not, then, unjust who so cruelly deludes his creatures?”101 Calvin had several arguments in response. First, he appealed “to the sole decision of God’s will, the cause of which is hidden in Him.”102 Secondly, he quoted the famous dictum of the Apostle Paul:

98

Wendel, François. Calvin: Sources et évolution de sa pensée religieuse (Genève, Labor et Fides, 1985), p. 93. “The voluntaristic nuance of this passage can hardly be disputed.” 99 IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 73. 100 IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 74. 101 IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 74. 102 IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 74: “seul plaisir.”

84

Who are you, O man, to argue with God? Does the molded object say to its molder, ‘Why have you fashioned me thus? Or does the potter have no capacity to make from the same lump one vessel for honor, another for dishonor?103

Finally, to those who could claimed that in such a way “God’s righteousness is not truly defended thus but that we are attempting a subterfuge,” Calvin stressed that “the reason of divine righteousness is higher than man’s standard can measure, or than man’s slender wit can comprehend.”104 Assuming that there are mysteries, which cannot be understood, Calvin termed as monstrous any human attempt to subject the immeasurable Justice of God to the puny measure of their own reason and ended this defense with a peroration worthy of a skilled attorney: Who are you, miserable men, to make accusation against God?” Why do you, then, accuse him because he does not temper the greatness of his works to your ignorance? As if these things were wicked because they are hidden from flesh! It is known to you by clear evidence that the judgments of God are beyond measure. You know that they are called a “great deep” Now consider the narrowness of your mind, whether it can grasp what God has decreed with himself. What good will it do you in your mad search to plunge into the “deep,” which your own reason tells you will be your destruction? Why does not some fear at least restrain you because the history of Job as well as the prophetic books proclaim God’s incomprehensible wisdom and dreadful might?105

Argument VI: The cause and occasion of the perdition of the wicked has to be found in them Some, who Calvin referred to, raised the objection: Why should God impute those things to men as sin, the necessity of which he has imposed by his Predestination? What should they do? Should they fight against his decrees?106

103 104 105 106

IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 75. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 74. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 76. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 77.

85

Calvin was caught at the crossroad. Does God determine or simply permit evil? Being fully aware of the logical impossibility to reconcile the all-embracing activity of God and human responsibility, the reformer made recourse to a difficult paradox and attributed reprobation to two concomitant causes, the will of God and the sin of man: For if Predestination is nothing else than a dispensation of divine justice, secret indeed, but unblamable, because it is certain that those predestinated to that condition were not unworthy of it, it is equally certain, that the destruction consequent upon Predestination is also most just. Moreover, though their perdition depends on the Predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not. It is certain, however, that it was just, because he saw that his own glory would thereby be displayed. When you hear the glory of God mentioned, understand that his justice is included. For that which deserves praise must be just. Man therefore falls, divine Providence so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault.107

In other words, the remote cause of reprobation is God, whereas the proximate cause is the sin of men. Argument VII: God’s Justice remains hidden Being fully aware that this paradox was very far from exhausting the question, Calvin took refuge in the Hiddenness of God. He made a distinction between what God has revealed to us and what remains hidden and repeatedly warned against those who would “investigate what the Lord has left hidden in secret.”108Among the things that God will keep secret are the answers to the following questions: Why did He elect some to glory and other to eternal damnation. Why before the advent of Christ about four thousand years passed, during which God he hid the light of His saving doctrine from all the Gentiles?109 How does it happen that, when the same sermon is preached to hundred people, “twenty receive it with the ready obedience of faith, while the rest hold it valueless, or laugh, or hiss, or loathe it?”110 “Why, 107 108 109 110

86

IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 80. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 58. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 101. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 101.

then, does God bestow grace upon these but pass over the others?”111 Echoing Augustine, he answered: God could, turn the will of evil men to good because He is almighty. Obviously He could. Why, then, does He not? Because He wills otherwise. Why He wills otherwise rests with Him.112

From the above considerations emerges a certain asymmetry between Election and reprobation. Whereas at the basis of Election lays only a positive action of God, at the basis of the reprobation lays only an abstention: Instead of bestowing His grace, God abandons the wicked to the consequence of their own sin. Under this point of view, Calvin was right to reject the distinction between willing and permitting. Here they have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because He so wills. But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills?113

On the contrary, the Reformer held that the will of God is the ultimate cause of either Election or Predestination, although it operates in a different way. And yet, Calvin was fully aware of the risk of raising sterile discussions on this issue. This is the reason why he exhorted his listeners “to contemplate the corruption of human nature, rather than search out the causes of damnation in light of the doctrine of Predestination, since, ultimately, God’s will is secret and incomprehensible.”114 Calvin’s intention is clear: In order to be edifying, Predestination had to be discussed and understood in a soteriologic context, not abstractly. Otherwise, instead of being a relief of anxiety, it could become a labyrinth from which the mind of man can in no way extricate itself. It was while dealing with Predestination that Calvin was induced to direct further attention to the notion of Providence. Undoubtedly, as 111 112 113 114

IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 101. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 101: “Cela est caché en Lui.” IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 79. CO 1:874: “Quare in corrupta potius umani generis natura evidentem damnationis causam contemplemur, quam absconditam ac penitus incomprehensibilem inquiramus in Dei praedestinatione.”

87

Strohl pointed out, “the reflections on Predestination influenced Calvin’s teaching concerning Providence.”115 Here he made some steps further and held that: 1) “Providence is neither a bare foreknowledge nor general motion which revolves and drives the system of the universe but which does not specifically direct the action of individual creatures.”116 2) Contrary to the Stoics, who tended to identify God with natural processes, the divine Providence had nothing to do with nature but lay hidden in God’s counsel. God is working in nature and in history but is separate from them. 3) Although everything is ruled by God’s hands, it appear us to be fortuitous, “since the order, reason, end, and necessity of those things which happen for the most part lie hidden in God’s purpose.”117 4) The evildoers are the instruments of divine Providence.118 5) The fact that God is the primary cause of events does not rule the existence of secondary causes,119 as the story of Job clearly demonstrates.120 6) Men are responsible. Christian teaching on Providence should preserve two basic paradoxical elements: God is Omnipotent and humans are free. As Strong right pointed out: “Dieu fait tout; Il est le Souverain absolu, mai l’homme reste néanmoins responsable de ses actés.”121

115 H. Strohl, "La Pensée de Calvin sur la Providence divine au temps ou il était refugie a Strasbourg,” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, 22 (1942), p. 162 116 IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 107. 117 IRC 1539, Vol. 3, p. 110: CO 1:891: “Quondam tamen imbecillitas nostra providentia Dei altitudini succumbit, adibita distinctione, illam quoque sublevabo. Dicam igitur, uteunque Dei dispensatione omnia ordinentur, nobis tamen esse fortuita. Sed quondam eorum quae eveniunt ordo, ratio, finis, necessitas, ut plurimum in Dei consilio latet, et humana opinione non apprehenditur, quasi fortuita sunt, quae certum est ex Dei voluntate provenire.” 118 IRC 1539, Vol. 3, p. 116. 119 IRC 1539, Vol. 3, p. 117. 120 IRC 1539, Vol. 3, p. 120. 121 A. Strong, “La pensée de Calvin sur la Providence Divine au temps ou il était refuge à Strasbourg,” Revue d’Histoire et de philosophie 22 (1942), p. 159.

88

7) Evil is controlled by God and nothing can take place without God’s deliberation.122 In dealing with the doctrine of Providence Calvin fought not only the Stoics but also the Epicureans who held that everything happens only by chance. It was not for him an indifferent matter whether God is a mere observer or the governor of all events. The increasing importance of Providence in his theology can be explained only by having in mind his pastoral concerns to instruct and give consolation to the believers,123 as is demonstrated by the picture that often he sketched of human situation.124 Vice versa, he pointed out: When that light of divine Providence has once shone upon a godly man, he is then relieved and set free not only from the extreme anxiety and fear that were pressing him before, but from every care. For as he justly dreads fortune, so he fearlessly dares commit himself to God. His solace, I say, is to know that his Heavenly Father so holds all things in his power, so rules by his authority and will, so governs by his wisdom, that nothing can befall except he determine it. Moreover, it comforts him to know that he has been received into God’s safekeeping and entrusted to the care of his angels, and that neither water, nor fire, nor iron can harm him, except in so far as it pleases God as governor to give them occasion.125

This was exactly what the persecuted church of his time needed to know, that God is at the helm and conducts and governs all things. The heading of the II chapter on Providence is a further demonstration of the underlying pastoral intention of the Reformer. Calvin could not have developed such a perspective, without taking into account the gnosiological problems: under what conditions is it possible to know God; and what is the relationship between the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves? It is not fortuitous that The Institutes, from the first edition to that last, begin with the category of Knowledge and not with speculations about the essence of God: “Nearly

122 123 124 125

ICR 1539, vol. III, p. 126. IRC 1539, vol. III, p. 127. See for instance IRC 1539, vol. 3, p.124, quoted in the V chapter. IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 125.

89

all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.”126 Calvin’s most all-encompassing principle is that of knowledge that implies the possibility to understand the modus operandi of God, rather than apprehending His way of being or His essence. For Calvin the knowledge of God has nothing to do with intellectualism, but assumes a soteriologic character. According to this interpretation it is possible to understand why Calvin emphasized that the main goal of Christian religion is more practical than theoretical, that is to say, to teach us to attain wisdom rather than science. For the French Reformer the main goal of Christian life turns out to acquire a salvific rather than a theoretical knowledge of God, as it can be easily demonstrated by the fact that he termed his Institutes as a Summa of the Christian Religion and not a Summa of Christian theology. But how is it possible to reach a saving knowledge of God? In responding to this question, Calvin was adamant when referring to the Scriptures that, even they do not exhaust God’s mystery, but reveal to us what we must and can know about God. Whilst reflecting upon this hermeneutical key, Calvin resorted for the first time to a principle which represented the theological presupposition of Divine Hiddenness, namely the distinction between what God has revealed to us and what remains hidden in Him, between God, as He is in Himself and the God of revelation. The incomprehensibility of God is due not only to our “imbecillitas” and to the weakness of our understanding which is incapable of grasping how God in a dialectical way can both will and not will that a thing should happen, but also due to the incomplete character of His revelation. Therefore, since we cannot know God in His essence, it is pointless to ask Quis est Deus? Although the nature of God essence is so incomprehensible that His majesty is hidden, remote from all our senses,127 Calvin was fully 126 It is worth noting the different formulation given to this statement. The formula used in the Edition of 1536 the sum of the holy doctrine, was enlarged in the following editions of the Institutes with that of the sum of our wisdom. In such a way this statement became the hermeneutical principle of the knowledge of God and of ourselves. 127 IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 51.

90

convinced that God has revealed His perfection in the whole structure of the universe. Here is in nuce the notion of accommodation that was fully developed in his following works. And yet, the signs through which God reveals Himself also work as concealment, since they preserve the incomprehensibility of His deep essence, therefore Calvin repeatedly warned against the superstition of those who “do not conceive of Him in the character in which He is manifested, but imagine Him to be whatever their own rashness has devised.”128 Independently from the new approach to the doctrine of Election, this work, as Richard Müller has tried to demonstrate: departed from the catechetical model adopted by Calvin in his earlier compendia of Christian teaching, taking much of its substance not only from the first edition of the Institutes but also from the intervening catechetical exercises.129

2.7 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans In autumn of 1539, almost simultaneously with the appearance of the second edition of The Institutes, Calvin’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans130 was published. Conciseness and clarity were the main features of this work which is regarded by many as the first watershed of independence in Calvin’s reformation. In the light of the principle of justification by faith, the French Reformer had the opportunity to focus on the question that had been disturbing his peace of mind from the very beginning: “Is there unrighteousness with God?”131

128 IRC 1539, vol. 3, p. 47: “outrecuydance des hommes, que mesurent la grandeur de Dieu selon la rudesse de leurs sens e ne le comprenent point telqu’il se donne a cognoistre, mail l’imaginet comme ilz l’ont forge.” 129 Richard Müller, The Unaccomodated Calvin (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000) p. 120. 130 Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1996), p. 354 (cited herafter as CRomans]. 131 Calvin, CRomans, p. 354.

91

In order to answer this question, he first disdainfully ruled out the argument that “God is not unjust, because He is merciful to whom He pleases,”132 assuming that it is not with this “frigid defense” that God could be defended. Secondly, on the basis of the Apostle’s argument, he made a distinction between the elect and the reprobate, saying that with the former one has to contemplate the mercy of God and with the latter His righteous judgment. Echoing an argument of Augustine, he held that when God saves the elect and condemns the reprobates, He does not exercise justice, but mercy.133 In this work Calvin touched also on some points that were elaborated upon in the last version of The Institutes: 1) Predestination as established by God is a “labyrinth,”134 from which the human mind can by no means extricate itself. 2) The only way to explore the question of Predestination is through considering what “Scripture teaches us.”135 3) “The salvation or the perdition of men depends on God’s free Election.”136 4) At the basis of Predestination lie “the secret will of God”137 and His secret counsel.138 Finally Calvin offered this conclusion: It hence follows, that it is in vain to contend with him, as though he were bound to give a reason; for he of himself comes forth before us, and anticipates the objection,

132 Calvin, CRomans, p. 354. 133 Calvin, CRomans, p. 355: “With regard to the elect, God cannot be charged with any unrighteousness; for according to his good pleasure he favours them with mercy: and yet even in this case the flesh finds reasons for murmuring, for it cannot concede to God the right of showing favour to one and not to another, except the cause be made evident. As then it seems unreasonable that some should without merit be preferred to others, the petulancy of men quarrels with God, as though he deferred to persons more than what is right.” 134 Calvin, CRomans, p. 445. 135 Calvin, CRomans, p. 354. 136 Calvin, CRomans, p. 355. 137 Calvin, CRomans, p. 355. 138 Calvin, CRomans, p. 365.

92

by declaring, that the reprobate, through whom he designs his name to be made known, proceed from the hidden fountain of his Providence.139

In the light of the fact that this work is mainly interested to re-establish God’s Justice against any accusation, no wonder Calvin made an extensive recourse to adjectives that turn the reader’s attention toward God’s incomprehensibility.140

2.8 Defense for Guillaume de Fürstenberg and Défense de Guillaume Farel et de ses collègues contre les calomnies du théologastre Pierre Caroli par Nicolas Des Gallars These two books further demonstrate that Calvin, whilst performing the task of theologian, did not forget his previous juridical background. In the first, which until now has passed quite unknown, Calvin helped Guillaume de Fürstenberg write a defense to the emperor Charles I who intended to reduce his power. Whilst the style of this book is strictly juridical, the second treatise is strictly theological. Calvin dealt with some questions raised by Caroli, who had imperiled his teaching on Predestination.

2.9 Bondage and Liberation of the Will The insights of Calvin on Predestination were doomed to raise serious questions about the freedom of the human will and human choice. His rejection of the term “free choice,” was attacked by Albert Pighius, a 139 Calvin, CRomans, p. 361. 140 Hidden is for Calvin the Providence of God, His Counsel, His Purpose, His Election, His Favour. Secret His Providence, His Election, His Counsel, His Purpose, His Will, His Pleasure, His Impulse, His Judgement, and His Grace. Incomprehensible His Justice, His Judgements and His ways.

93

hollandaise monk, who assumed that, because Augustine and the Fathers affirmed free choice, Calvin was opposed to the Fathers. As he had done in the past, Calvin faced the question squarely. After having singled out seven central objections, he confuted them, demonstrating once again that he was able to combine his previous juridical background with theological knowledge. Let us examine briefly the content of all of these objections to Calvin’s statement. “If everything is in God’s control and happens necessarily in accordance with it,”141 the following objections can arise: Objection I: What kind of autonomy would have human activity? Answer: God’s decrees do not prevent us from taking care of our lives, since “He has equipped us with ways and means of preserving it.”142 Objection II: Why should crimes be punished by the law? Answer: the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin with willful and deliberate evil intent.143 Objection III: What would be the sense of having political authorities that reward good deeds and punish crimes? Answer: God employs the means and secondary causes in order to bring about the preservation of the world which he in His own counsel determined.”144

Objection IV: What would be the meaning of religion? Answer: Religion has no other purpose than to make believers rest, free from anxiety, in God’s Omnipotence.145

141 Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, A Defence of the orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996) p. 36. 142 Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 37. 143 Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 37. 144 Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 38. 145 Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 38.

94

Objection V: Should God not to be regarded as the author of all evil deeds? Answer: God cannot be considered the author of evil deeds, when He leads the ungodly where he wills, since He employs iniquity to a good end.146 Objection VI: Should God not to be blamed for the corruption of nature? Answer: Nature was established by God to be pure and perfect and only later was corrupted through man’s fall.147 Objection VII: If Calvin’s teaching were accepted, the whole doctrine of God would be exposed to ridicule. Answer: The fact that men cannot fulfill the law does not imply that they cannot be blamed. The function of the law is not to make sinners good, but only to convict them of guilt.148

2.10

Against the fantastic and furious Sect of the Libertines

In this treatise Calvin took a step further in his theological evolution concentrating his attention on some aspects of the Providence of God.149 One of them was the responsibility of the wicked in the widest context of God’s Providence. Undoubtedly, Calvin’s goal was to differentiate his point of view from the Libertines150 who asserted that “the eternal Spirit 146 147 148 149

Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 39. Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 40. Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 41. In Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, Benjamin Farley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1982), pp. 161-326. 150 Calvin regarded the sect of Libertines more pernicious than the Papists, by saying: “Since I can only edify the church of God by fighting against those who machinate to destroy it, I would be cheating myself if, to the best of my ability, I were to discredit the pope and his accomplices, but should pardon those who are by far the more serious enemies of God and the greatest spoilers of His truth. For even the pope retains some form of religion. He does not remove hope in eternal life. He teaches the fear of God. He observes some distinction between good and evil. He recognizes our Lord Jesus as true God and true man. He attributes authority to the

95

of God is the source and origin of everything“151 and “causes everything.”152 The apparent resemblance with what Calvin had stated in his previous tracts is noticeable and cannot be bypassed. In fact, the French Reformer had not only held that Providence is the order that God holds in governing and leading the world,153 but also that “God is the ruler and governor of all things.”154 Even the contradictory paradox, when Calvin had attributed reprobation to two concomitant causes, the will of God and the sin of man, could be regarded as a further demonstration of his theological embarrassment. Fully aware that some of his statements on Providence could be misunderstood and God’s Justice deeply put in question, Calvin decided to face the questions squarely and attacked the Libertines. He held that their pantheistic determinism entailed at least three deadly consequences: 1) To erase any difference between God and the devil. 2) To root out any moral conscience. 3) To destroy any criteria to evaluate good and evil.155 By way of contrast Calvin emphasized the goodness of God, arguing that His freedom can never be separated from His goodness, nor His goodness from His power. Although it may be difficult, or even impossible, for our limited human perception to understand what God is accomplishing in the works of the wicked, Calvin maintained that He rules over history despite, and even through, human wickedness. In the attempt to make clear, once and for all, the idea that the divine Providence of God does not exclude or limit human responsibility, for the first time, and in a very systematic way, Calvin articulated the following three essential ways in which divine Providence works.

151 152 153 154 155

96

Word of God. But the goal of Quintin and his gang is to turn heaven and earth upside down, to annihilate all religion, to efface all knowledge of human understanding, to deaden consciences, and to leave no distinction between men and beasts.” Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 204. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 231. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 240. CO 1:865: “Usus invaluit ut providentiam vocemus, quam in mundi rerumque omnium gubernatione oeconomiam Deus tenet.” IRC 1559, Vol. 1, p. 110. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 241.

1) The first aspect of providential activity is universal Providence “by which He guides all creatures according to the condition and propriety which He had given each when He made them.”156 According to Calvin God’s “universal operation does not prevent each creature, heavenly or earthly, from having and retaining its own quality and nature and from following its own inclination.”157 2) The second aspect divine activity is the special Providence by which God “operates in His creatures” in order that they “serve His goodness, righteousness, and judgment.”158 3) The third aspect of providential activity is evidenced by the fact that God governs His faithful, living and reigning in them by His Holy Spirit.159 The evil we do results from our natural corruption, while our will to do good is the outcome of the natural grace of His Spirit. Far from destroying human freedom, God forms and preserves it in spite of sin; God fulfils it in regeneration. This insight would play an important role in the subsequent development of his thought. On the basis of this distinction, Calvin faced the problem of how to differentiate God’s work from that of the evildoers. He brought up once again the intentional criteria. Whereas “the wicked man is motivated either by his avarice, or ambition, or envy, or cruelty to do what he does, and he disregards any other end,” God’s intention “is to exercise His Justice for the salvation and preservation of good, to pour out His goodness and grace on His faithful, and to chastise those who need it.”160 Calvin integrated this subjective and unverifiable criterion with another more pregnant and empirical argument:

156 157 158 159 160

Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 242. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 243. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 243. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 247. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 246.

97

God directs all the events toward a good end and turns evil into good, or at least he extracts good from what is evil according to His nature, that is, in accordance with justice and equity.161

Finally he criticized the Libertines for having attributed to God the paternity of evil. He thundered against his contradicters: For insofar as God has nothing more rightly than His goodness, it would be necessary for Him to deny Himself and to change Himself into the devil in order to perform the evil they attribute to Him.162

The treatise marked a very important stage in Calvin’s theological evolution at least under the following four points of view. 1) The French Reformer treated the doctrine of Providence separately from that of Predestination, which was never mentioned. In such a way the doctrine of Providence acquired an authonomy. 2) There are in this treatise all the elements of the vindication of God’s Justice that Calvin developed in the years that followed. Even this is not casual, since Calvin was able to develop a proper defence of God only in the wider context of a right comprehension of the doctrine of Providence. 3) The French Reformer was more interested in reconciling God’s Omnipotence with human liberty, than deepening the dimensions of God’s Hiddenness. This is the reason why the references to God’s Hiddenness are few and scattered.163 4) This treatise represents the concrete demonstration of the central and increasing importance that Providence acquired in Calvin’s theology.

161 Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 247. 162 Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 248. 163 The only reference occurs when Calvin wrote: “One might ask if we can ever do anything against God’s will. I think not. But the whole of the matter is that we ought not to inquire into His Providence, which is a secret to us, since we know what He wants of us and what He approves and condemns.” Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 253.

98

2.11

Calvin in the Valley of the Shadow of Death

During the period of 1547 to 1555, which B. Cottret termed “the somber years,”164 Calvin, more than any other time in his life, faced severe personal difficulties as well as experiencing the continued agonies of the persecuted church. “There are so many obstacles and hindrances in the world and so many infirmities in our flesh,”165 he wrote to Lady Anne Seymour, and some years later confessed to Melanchthon that in addition to the very great troubles, with which I am so sorely consumed, there is almost no day on which some new pain or anxiety does not occur. I should, therefore, be in a short time entirely overcome by the load of evils under which I am oppressed, did not the Lord by his own means alleviate their severity.166 His grievance was well justified. Some years before in 1542, when his son had died, Calvin had expressed his feelings to Viret with unmistakable accents betraying his grief as well as his steadfast confidence in God’s promises: The Lord has certainly inflicted a severe and bitter wound in the death of our infant son. But he is himself a Father, and knows best what is good for his children.167

On 29 March 1549 his wife Idelette de Bure, after a long and painful illness, died. Calvin expressed his great consternation to Viret.168 Seven 164 165 166 167 168

Cottret, Calvin a Biography, p. 182. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 237. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 376. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 4, p. 344. He wrote: “Although the death of my wife has been exceedingly painful to me, yet I subdue my grief as well as I can. Friends, also, are earnest in their duty to me. It might be wished, indeed, that they could profit me and themselves more; yet one can scarcely say how much I am supported by their attentions. But you know well enough how tender, or rather soft, my mind is. Had not a powerful self-control, therefore, been vouchsafed to me, I could not have borne up so long. And truly mine is no common source of grief. I have been bereaved of the best companion of my life, of one who, had it been so ordered, would not only have been the willing sharer of my indigence, but even of my death. During her life she was the faithful helper of my ministry. From her I never experienced the slightest hindrance. She was never troublesome to me throughout the entire course of her illness; she was

99

years after, remembering this painful and burning experience he reiterated his firm conviction that: our chief comfort, after all, is the wonderful Providence of God, which overrules our affliction for our spiritual benefit, and separates us from our beloved only to reunite us in his heavenly kingdom.169

The doctrine of Providence, far from being an abstract and speculative notion on God’s government, becomes a living reality that enabled Calvin to apply it in the counseling of God’s people. The persecution of the Protestants reached its apex. The situation in Geneva became more and more difficult, reaching a point where Calvin could not help being “displeased with the present state of our republic.”170 All these sad events prompted him to take a firm stand; and he sought to encourage, exhort and strengthen all those who were in despair. As Robert Godfrey writes, “during his ministry, Calvin wrote over twelve hundred letters to friends, acquaintances, churches, and even strangers.”171 In one letter dated 8th January 1549 he exhorted Madame de Cany to offer a courageous and honest profession of the truth, despite the murmuring and threatening that it might evoke. He wrote: We can appreciate the honour he confers upon us in making use of our service to maintain his so precious truth, we shall hold it to be a peculiar advantage, rather than be annoyed on account of it. True it is, that the human understanding cannot apprehend that; but, seeing that the infallible wisdom of God pronounces, that those who are persecuted for the testimony of the Gospel are most happy, at all hazards we must needs acquiesce in that judgment. Furthermore, let us take to ourselves the example of the Apostles, who counted the reproach of the world as a great honour, and even gloried in it. In short, let us never think that we have fully received the

more anxious about her children than about herself. As I feared these private cares might annoy her to no purpose, I took occasion, on the third day before her death, to mention that I would not fail in discharging my duty to her children.” In Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 376. 169 I owe this quotation to P. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Michigan, Grand Rapids, 1983), p. 431. 170 Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 298. 171 John Calvin, Pilgrim and Pastor (Wheaton, Good News Publishers, 2009), p. 120.

100

truth, if we do not prefer, above all worldly triumphs, to right under the banner of our Lord Jesus, that is to say, to bear his cross.172

There is a similar exhortation in a letter sent on 10th June 1549 to Madame de la Roche Posay, when Calvin reminded her: Howbeit, you must remember, that wherever we may go, the cross of Jesus Christ will follow us, even in the place where you may enjoy your ease and comforts.173

In a letter written on 19th of January 1551, recognizing that the triumphs of Jesus Christ are despised and reproached by the world, while the wicked are glorifying themselves in their pride, Calvin invited Richard Le Fevre to think upon that immortal glory which has purchased for us to the end that you may be able to endure in patience the afflictions, wherein you are.174 A letter dated January 1550, and addressed to the Protector, Monseingeur Somerset, anticipated a theme that the Reformer would develop more extensively in his Sermons on Job, namely that God always had good reasons for chastening His people: However, Monsignor, you have also to consider that if God has been pleased to humble you for a little while, it has not been without a motive. For although you might be innocent in regard to men, you know that before this great heavenly Judge there is no one living who is not chargeable. Thus, then, it is that the saints have honoured the rod of God, by yielding their neck, and bowing low their head under his discipline. David had walked very uprightly, but yet he confessed that it had been good for him to be humbled by the hand of God. For which reason, as soon as we feel any chastisement, of whatsoever kind it may be, the first step should be to retire into ourselves, and well to examine our own lives, that we may apprehend those blessings which had been hidden from us: for sometimes too much prosperity so dazzles our eyes, that we cannot perceive wherefore God chastises us.175

The acceptance of, and acquiescence to, the Providence of God is part of one’s service to God. An explanation of the hidden Providence of God concluded the letter sent to the Ministers of Switzerland on October 1551 when Calvin stated: 172 173 174 175

Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 202. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 230. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, pp. 291-292. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, pp. 259-260.

101

Finally, this much is fixed and conceded by us all, that when man sins, God must not be regarded as having any share in the blame, nor that the word sin can in any sense be applied to him. Yet this does not hinder him from exercising his power, in a wonderful and incomprehensible way, through Satan and the wicked, as if they were the instruments of his wrath, to teach the faithful patience, or to inflict merited punishment on his enemies. This profane trifler cries out that we bring an impeachment against God when we allege that he governs all things by his Providence; destroying, in short, in this way, all distinction between causes as remote and concealed, on the one hand, and as near and patent on the other; rendering it impossible to regard the sufferings to which holy Job was subjected as the work of God, but that he may be held as equally guilty with the Devil, the Chaldeans, and the Sabaean robbers.176

Among the events that particularly troubled the Reformer were the agonies of the persecuted church. In the years between 1549 and 1555 the persecution against those who supported the Reformation intensified not only in Paris, but also in the provinces. Places of execution arose everywhere as if the King wished to remove the memory of an edict which he had issued on behalf of the Vaudois of Provence. In a letter written to Bullinger on 15th October 1551, the Reformer lamented that in order “to gain new modes of venting his rage against the people of God, the King has been issuing atrocious edicts, by which the general prosperity of the kingdom is broken up. A right of appeal to the supreme courts hitherto has been, and still is, granted to persons guilty of poisoning, of forgery, and of robbery; yet this is denied to Christians: they are condemned by the ordinary judges to be dragged straight to the flames, without any liberty of appeal.”177 The “firmness of the martyrs”178 and their “miserable condition”179 impressed Calvin so much that he spent much of his time helping refugees in the city, and writing letters of comfort and encouragement to Christian people who were in hopeless situations abroad. In this way, the Doctrine of Providence was contextualized, for it was intended to communicate hope and comfort.

176 Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 325. 177 Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 320. See also the letter to Oswald Myconius written on November 1551, in Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 326. 178 Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 244. 179 Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 342.

102

In a series of letters written to five prisoners of Lyons the Reformer made reference to all the most important elements of his defence of God. In the first letter dated on 10th July 1552 he reminded them of their vocation, stressing the fact that God “will give you strength to fulfil His work, for He has promised this, and we know by experience that He has never failed those who allow themselves to be governed by Him.”180 The same recommendation was echoed in a letter written on 7th March 1552.181 It was only when it was clear that every effort to save them had failed, that Calvin was induced to abandon hope. Openly addressing them in the letter, he wrote, “turn your whole mind heavenward.” He continued: But since it appears as though God would use your blood to sign his truth, there is nothing better than for you to prepare yourselves to that end, beseeching him so to subdue you to his good pleasure, that nothing may hinder you from following whithersoever he shall call. For you know, my brothers, that it behoves us to be thus mortified, in order to be offered to him in sacrifice.182

The idea that the true believers in this world suffered far more grievously than the wicked who abused and oppressed them took hold of Calvin gradually. It is worth noting that in these letters which were written just before his Sermons on Job Calvin perceived more and more clearly the one particular element which he would develop in his sermons, namely the eschatological dimension of Christian hope: “God will have a horrible punishment prepared for such as have despised His majesty with such enormous pride, and have cruelly persecuted those who call purely upon His name.”183 In a last letter, Calvin sent his assurances to the Prisoners of Lyon: Seeing that God has promised us victory in the end, do not doubt, that as he has imparted a measure of his strength, so you will have more ample evidence in future,

180 181 182 183

Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 350. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 391. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 405. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 407.

103

that he does not make a beginning only to leave his work imperfect, as it is said in the Psalm.184

Even though, he admitted: it is strange, to human reason, that the children of God should be so surfeited with afflictions, while the wicked disport themselves in delights; but even more so, that the slaves of Satan should tread us under foot, as we say, and triumph over us, however, we have wherewith to comfort ourselves in all our miseries, looking for that happy issue which is promised to us, that he will not only deliver us by his angels, but will himself wipe away the tears from our eyes.185

One of the prisoners, Louis de Marsac, answered to Calvin by thanking him for his words of encouragement: Sir and brother, I cannot express to you the great comfort I have received... from the letter which you have sent to my brother Denis Peloquin, who found means to deliver it to one of our brethren who was in a vaulted cell above me, and read it to me aloud, as I could not read it myself, being unable to see anything in my dungeon. I entreat of you, therefore, to persevere in helping us with similar consolation, for it invites us to weep and to pray.”186

In the months just before the drafting of his Sermons on Job the situation came to a head, as Calvin wrote to Bullinger: “the church is everywhere variously agitated, at Geneva it is tossed about by as many opposing as Noah’s ark was during the deluge.”187 He comforted Bullinger and himself with the assurance that: “It is well for us, however, that we have a pilot to guide us, under whom we shall be safe from shipwreck — and then that we are at no great distance from the harbor.”188 For Calvin the doctrine of Providence, far from being a theoretical doctrine, was a living reality. He insisted that if Jesus Christ spared not Himself for our salvation, it is not reasonable that our lives should be deemed more precious than His. And indeed if we desire to be 184 185 186 187 188

104

Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 412. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 413. Histoire des Martyrs, pp. 236- 251. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 6, p. 20. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 6, p. 20.

exalted to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, we must bear the opprobrium of His cross.189

The process of contextualization of the doctrine of Providence implied in all his teaching found concrete expression in innumerable letters of consolation written before his drafting the Sermons on Job. Here what he tried to do was to explain how to suffer rather than engaging in theoretical discussion about the origin of suffering. In these circumstances he was more pastor than theologian, more concerned for the therapeutic effect of Providence than for his theological implications. A vivid, but surely not sole example of this attitude190 is the letter of consolation for the death of the son of Richebourg. He wrote: The son whom the Lord had lent you for a season he has taken away. There is no ground, therefore, for those silly and wicked complaints of foolish men; O blind death! O horrid fate! O implacable daughters of destiny! O cruel fortune! The Lord who had lodged him here for a season, at this stage of his career has called him away. What the Lord has done, we must, at the same time, consider has not been done rashly, nor by chance, neither from having been impelled from without; but by that determinate counsel, whereby he not only foresees, decrees, and executes nothing but what is just and upright in itself, but also nothing but what is good and wholesome for us.191

All these sad events, which occurred before Calvin could write his Sermons on Job, only increased his deep conviction in the incomprehensibility of God and the contingency of human life. His anxiety, as Bouwsma192 aptly points out, found ample expression in his theological writings and in his correspondence prompting him to build up his theological defence of God. In a letter written to “the well beloved brethren of Orbe, who greatly desire the pure preaching of the Gospel, and the undefiled worship of God with the advancement of the kingdom of Christ,” he

189 Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 6, p. 23. 190 See for further examples P. C. Potgieter “Perspectives on the Doctrine of Providence in Some of Calvin’s Sermons on Job” in Hervormde Teologiese Studies 54, no. 1–2 (1998): 36–49. 191 Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 4, p. 240. 192 Bouwsma, John Calvin: a Sixteenth Century Portrait, Chapter 2, pp. 32-48.

105

strengthened their faith, emphasizing that it “is the unquestionable fact that you are standing forth in the defense of God’s rights and cause.”193 A first attempt in this direction was made when Calvin wrote the “Quatre Sermons traitant de matieres fort utiles pour notre temps.”194 As Ariste Viguié wrote, in these sermons : il semble que le style ait quelque chose de plus nerveux et de plus métallique. La parole se ressent de la majesté terrible du sujet. Dans les deux derniers sermons éclatent une ironie, une véhémence amère contre le malheureux qui, étant dans l’Église de Dieu, la déshonorent par leur indifférence ou leurs lâchetés frivoles.195

Although this collection of sermons was “une rude et forte expression de la pensée de Calvin, à un moment tragique de l’histoire de la Reforme,” they did not offer, S. Schreiner affirms, “consolation and courage to the faithful,” as did his Sermons on Job.196

2.12

Congrégation sur l’Election Éternelle

At the end of 1551, just as he was drafting the Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, Calvin held a seminar197 whose main goal was to oppose the false teaching of a former Carmelitan monk, Jerome Bolsec, who had caused problems with his statements on free will and Predestination. More concerned with the practical consequences of the teaching of Predestination than with his philosophical tenets, the French Reformer summed up his position as follows: 1) To believe in Jesus Christ does not depend on human intelligence, but is a consequence of a God’s grace.

193 Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 6, p. 26. 194 CO 8:373-452. 195 Les Sermons de Calvin sur le livre de Job, Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français (1882), p. 471. I owe this reference to Susan Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom be found (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994) p. 7. 196 Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom be found, p. 7. 197 CO 8:254-366.

106

2) Faith proceeds from a highest and hidden source, that is to say, from the gratuitous Election of God. 3) This grace surmounts our nature.198 4) The Election of God does not depend on the fact that He foresees the good use of grace by His elect. 5) Election precedes faith. 6) Human beings are not able to understand what God wants to keep hidden.199 7) The doctrine of Election is an empirical doctrine.200 8) The doctrine of Predestination is based only on Christ.201

198 CO 8:94: “Or voicy par où il [page 3] nous faut commencer : c’est assavoir, que quand nous croyons en Iesus Christ, cela ne vient pas de nostre propre industrie, ne que nous ayons l’esprit tant haut, ne tant aigu, pour comprendre ceste sagesse celeste, laquelle est contenue en l’Evangile: mais que cela vient d’une grace de Dieu, voire d’une grace laquelle surmonte nostre nature. Il reste maintenant à voir si ceste grace est commune à tous ou non. Or l’Escriture saincte dit le contraire: c’est assavoir, que Dieu donne son sainct Esprit à qui bon luy semble, qu’il les illumine en son Fils. L’experience le monstre et en sommes convaincus.” 199 CO 8:106: “nous sommes si rudes et si ignorans, que nous ne pouvons pas comprendre ce que Dieu a voulu nous estre caché. 200 “L’experience le monstre et en sommes convaincus” in CO 8:94. 201 CO 8:114: ”Cependant, apprenons que nous ne pouvons pas nous asseurer de nostre salut que par la foy. Car si un homme dit: Et que say-ie si ie suis sauvé ou damné? par cela il demonstre que iamais il n’a cognu que c’est de foy ne de l’asseurance que nous devons avoir en Dieu, par Iesus Christ. Veux-tu donc bien savoir si tu es esleu? Regardetoy en Iesus Christ. Car ceux qui, par foy, communiquent vrayement en Iesus Christ, se peuvent bien asseurer, qu’ils appartiennent à l’election eternelle de Dieu, et qu’ils sont de ses enfans. Quiconque donc se trouve en Iesus Christ, et est membre de son corps par foy, celuy-là est asseuré de son salut, et quand nous le voudrions savoir, il ne faut pas que nous montions là-haut pour nous enquerir de ce qui nous doit à ceste heure ester caché. Mais voila Dieu qui s’abaisse à nous; il nous monstre dequoy en son Fils; comme s’il disoit: Me voicy: contemplez-moy, et cognoissez comment ie vous ay adoptez pour mes enfans. Quand donc nous recevons ce tesmoignage de salut qui nous est rendu par l’Evangile, de là nous cognoissons et sommes asseurez que Dieu nous a esleus.”

107

2.13

De Aeterna Dei Praedestinatione (1552)

In the same year 1552, Calvin was able to develop further his intuitions on the eternal Predestination of God. The impulsion for writing this treatise arose from reading a book by the theologian, Albert Pighius, who, in Calvin’s opinion “attempted, at the same time, and in the same book, to establish the free-will of man and to subvert the secret counsel of God, by which He chooses some for salvation and appoints others to eternal destruction.”202 According to Calvin, the essence of Pighius’ writing and that of another Catholic theologian, George (named the Sicilian), could be understood in the following way, that: it lies in each one’s own liberty, whether he will become a-partaker of the grace of adoption or not; and that it does not depend on the counsel and decree of God who are elect and who are reprobate; but that each one determines for himself the one state or the other by his own will, and with respect to the fact that some believe the Gospel, while others remain in unbelief; that this difference does not arise from the free Election of God, nor from His secret counsel, but from the will of each individual.203

Calvin resolutely rejected such a point of view on the basis of the assumption that “men are not chosen because they believe, but on the contrary are chosen that they might believe.”204 No treatment of the subject has surpassed the depth of analysis of this work, in which Calvin made extensive use of terms like “secret,” “hidden,” “concealed,” “incomprehensible.” He applied them to the entire spectrum of the modus operandi of God. “The fountain of that eternal counsel of God,”205 “His eternal counsel,”206 “the life of the believers,”207 “the reason for His works,”208 “the will of God,”209 “the 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209

108

Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 25. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 25. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 240. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 46 and 58. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 46, p. 94. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 56. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 72. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 72.

reason why God does not reveal His arm equally to all,”210 “the causes for reprobating a part of mankind,”211 “the wisdom of the Gospel,”212 “our salvation in Christ,”213 ”the reason why God corrects sin in His own elect, and does not deem the reprobate worthy the same remedy,”214 “the purpose of God,”215 “the reasons why God knowingly and willingly permitted man to fall,”216 “the mystery of His majesty,”217 “the abysses of the mind and counsel of God,”218 “the mind of God,”219 “the eternal fountain and the free adoption of God,”220 “His judgements,”221 “the calling of the Gentiles,”222 “the source of all the wickedness of mankind and the corruption of nature,”223 “the reason of the counsels of God”224 were all considered hidden. Secret were “the counsel of God,”225 “the communication of His grace,”226 “His council,”227 “His good pleasure,”228 “His will and purpose,”229 “His judgment,”230 “His power,”231 “the wisdom of the Gospel,”232 “the inspiration and influence of His Holy Spirit”233 “the

210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233

Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 81. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 81. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 96. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 111. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 117. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 120. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 126. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 127. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 132. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 146. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 160. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 162. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 168. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 178. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 190. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, pp. 27, 33 35, 46, 81, 91, 93, 99, 100, 105, 112, 125, 132, 141, 177, 184, 185,186, 190, 193, 194, 197, 199, 200, 201. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 56. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 59. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 65, 141. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 77, 88, 115, 205. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, pp. 83, 141, 162, 177, 184, 195. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 96, 172. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 96. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 130.

109

secret mind of God,”234 “His sovereign reign,”235 “His illumination,”236 “His will,”237 “His judgment,”238 “His wonderful counsel by which He governs and directs all things,”239 “His majesty which surpass the narrow limits of our finite intellect.”240 These were all “incomprehensible” according to Calvin. When one looks at the context of these quotations, one recognizes that most of them are related to the main focus of the work: an explanation of the notion of eternal Predestination of God. For instance, in response to the question of how it is possible that God condemns the wicked and yet justifies the wicked, he stated: “this is a mystery that is shut up in that secret mind of God, which is inaccessible to all human understanding.”241 To the question how it was that God, by His foreknowledge and decree, ordained what should take place in Adam, and yet so ordained it without His being Himself in the least a participator of the fault, or being at all the author or the approver of the transgression, Calvin replied: “this is a secret manifestly far too deep to be penetrated by any stretch of human intellect.”242 On other occasions, he answered questions by echoing the words of the apostle Paul “who art thou, o man, that replies against God?”243 by offering a warning to those “who presume to subject the tribunal of God to their own judgment,”244 or by stating simply “because it was His will.”245 He was not ashamed to frequently confess “his utter ignorance,”246 while at other times he responded simply “the reason lies hidden in Himself.”247 In fact, he sarcastically pointed out: 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247

110

Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 162. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 191. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 205. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 69. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 83. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 120. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 127. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 162. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 128. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 32, 39, 40, 41, 71. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 34. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 122. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 128. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 117.

when you hear of a mystery surpassing all human understanding, you may at once conclude that all solutions of men, derived from common natural judgment and which might avail in a profane court of justice, are frivolous and vain.248

If one sets aside the collection of the 159 Sermons on Job (which he drafted three years after this treatise), The Eternal Predestination of God turns out to be his most exhaustive defence of God’s Justice, since in it Calvin spoke as a lawyer, as he wrote in the preface: Now this Defence, which I offer to all the godly, will, I hope, be a strong and effectual remedy to those who are healable, and will serve also as a wholesome antidote to the sound and the whole. And the subject itself is one to which the children of God may devote their most studious attention, that they become not ignorant of their heavenly birth and origin.249

Here and elsewhere all the references to the hidden, secret and concealed character of the modus operandi of God had no other purpose than that “of vindicating the Justice of God from all calumny,”250 “clearing it from imputation,“251 “from the profane slander of men,”252 “and from ignominy.”253 To the provocative question: “Is there no Justice of God, but that which is conceived of by us?” Calvin answered saying that “it is lawful to measure the power of God by our natural sense,”254 or “the Justice of God by the short rule of human justice,”255 or by the own comprehension.”256 “God,” he said, “in a secret and marvellous way justly wills the things which men unjustly do. His will, though hidden, is the highest Justice,”257 or “the highest rule of all equity,”258 since, he 248 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 72. 249 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 15: CO 5:254: “Ista autem, quam sub vestro nomine piis omnibus offerimus, defensio, tam erit ad curandos sanabiles, ut quidem speramus, validum efficaxque remedium, quam salubre antidotum sanis et integris.” 250 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 34: CO 8:342:“conscientias valide urget, Deique iustitiam a sacrileges hominum calumniis acerrime vindicat.” 251 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 189. 252 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 177. 253 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 193. 254 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 72. 255 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 131. 256 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 34 and 72. 257 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 72. 258 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 190.

111

warned, “in whatsoever God doeth He never deviates from His own perfect justice!”259 From the above mentioned premises Calvin was able to draw the following conclusion: The sum of the doctrine of the thus Reviled one is; that God, in wondrous ways and in ways unknown to us, directs all things to the end that He wills, that His eternal will might be the first cause of all things. But why God wills that which may seem to us inconsistent with His nature the Reviled one confesses to be incomprehensible! And, therefore, he declares aloud that the ‘why?’ of God’s works is not to be audaciously or curiously pried into; but that, on the contrary, as the counsels of God are a mighty deep, and mysteries that surpass the limits of our comprehension, it becomes a man rather to adore them with reverence than to investigate them with presumption.260

In this statement there is a summary of Calvin’s Theodicy. Evil is not an independent reality from God. Everything is subject to the Creator, Who holds the reins of all things in His hands and directs all to the fulfilment of His purposes. God uses evildoers as the instruments of His Providence in order to accomplish His secret judgements. Even Satan must stand ready in His service. This does not mean that God bears the ultimate responsibility for evil and that evil deeds are thus excused. Calvin wrote: In this respect we should not think of any violent coercion, as though God led men into evil against their will; but in a marvellous and incomprehensible way He men overrules all the impulses of men so that their free-will remains intact.261 If act wrongly, they break the commandment of God by their own free-will and yet through their conduct, God fulfils what He, in His hidden counsels, has determined 262 to accomplish.

Whereas in the previous tracts the French Reformer had left unresolved the question of God’s involvement in Adams’s fall, by saying simply that “man felt according as God’s Providence ordained,” in this treatise 259 260 261 262

112

Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 193. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 190. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 199. In his Commentary on Romans Calvin had highlighted the same principle: “God is just, even though his justice may be hidden from us,” and “there is no higher cause than the will of God.” See Commentary on Romans, p. 25.

he used a different terminology. Calvin’s defence of God reached a climax when Calvin, echoing Augustine, summed up his point of view: So mighty, therefore, are the works of God, so gloriously and exquisitely perfect in every instance of His will, that by a marvellous and ineffable plan of operation peculiar to Himself, as the ‘all wise God,’ that cannot be done, without His will, which is even contrary to His will; because it could not be done without His permitting it to be done, which permission is evidently not contrary to His will, but according to His will.263

Far from being written from an insensible and academic perspective only in order to give birth to noisy speculation without any profit, Calvin maintained that the discussion on Predestination is a solid discussion eminently adapted to the service of the godly, because it builds us up soundly in the faith, trains us to humility, and lifts us up into an admiration of the unbounded goodness of God towards us, while it elevates us to praise this goodness in our highest strains.264 Once again he never tired to stress the pastoral implications of the teaching of Election that “stands in the eternal and immutable goodwill of God towards us; and that, therefore, it cannot be moved or altered by any storms of the world, by any assaults of Satan, by any changes, or by any fluctuations or weaknesses of the flesh. For our salvation,” he repeatedly pointed out, “is sure to us, when we find the cause of it in the breast of God.”265 It is worth mentioning that Calvin would never have spoken on Predestination, unless he had found it in the Scripture. Contrasting the Epicurean point of view, Calvin passionately maintained that God was not a ‘far-away’ God, but intimately involved in human salvation. The divine hand has ordained all things to be as they are, and this order is manifest in the world and revealed in the Bible. This order is crucial for Calvin, and it takes root in his theology. God has so ordained the 263 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, pp. 44 and 126: CO 8:270 and 364: “Propterea namque magna opera Domini exquisita in omnes voluntates eius, ut miro et ineffabili modo non fiat praeter eius voluntatem, quod etiam contra eius fit voluntatem: quia non fieret, si non sineret: nec utique nolens sinit, sed volens.” 264 CO 8:260: “disputatio solida.” Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 29. 265 CO 8:260: “Tunc enim demum nobis certa est nostra salus, quum in Dei pectore causam reperimus.” Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 29.

113

salvation of the elect that none come to God except by a divine calling. To say that humans seek God by their own free will is to disrupt this order for Calvin, hence limiting God’s role in salvation. The result is that Calvin upholds God’s sovereignty despite an inability to understand it fully. Anything we allege to be injustice on God’s part is a matter of God’s secret will, a will far beyond human comprehension. It is with this understanding that the exploration of Predestination can begin, while giving special attention to Calvin’s citation of specific biblical texts which have informed his discussion of this doctrine. In this work, for the first time, Calvin made reference to the fact that some “allege that we hereby attribute to God a twofold will.”266 Although Calvin had negated this charge, firmly asserting that “God is so far from being variable,”267 this theme is returned to some years later in his Sermons on Job. Nonetheless, although Calvin anticipated and concentrated on some of the essential elements that he would further develop in his Sermons on Job, his defense of the divine Justice was mainly restrained to the task of vindicating God against all those who think He is unjust in electing some men to eternal perdition. The general problem of human suffering was not taken into account. The complete absence of any reference to Job in this treatise clearly shows that Calvin was not yet concerned about this sensitive problem.

2.14

The 159 Sermons on the Book of Job

Undoubtedly, this seminar paved the way for Calvin to turn his attention to Job, who suffered not because of persecution but for unknown reasons. B. Cottret supports this conclusion when he writes: Incessantly subject to migraine, fever, haemorrhoids, kidney stones and phthisis, his physical appearance called up images of Job. Brother of all in his humanity, subject to all torments, Job furnished Calvin with the topic of his finest reflections.268

266 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 99. 267 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 99. 268 Cottret, Calvin, A Biography, p. 234.

114

Perhaps no other theological work reveals such a major similarity between the preacher and the subject of his preaching than is found in Sermons on Job. Job’s tragic experience of unjustified suffering was Calvin’s experience as well. When he asked, “Why do I suffer? Why do evil and anguish afflict the innocent?” people echoed Job’s friends as they answered, “You deserve to suffer.” Neither Job nor Calvin, however, was willing to accept this simplistic response which in their opinion deeply distorted the truth. Both were convinced that they did not deserve such punishment and they dared to call upon God to vindicate them. From such a perspective the Sermons on Job have to be interpreted in a supra-temporal context. As a matter of fact, in no other work was Calvin able to deal so extensively with the two questions which constitute the heart of every theodicy, namely “Why do the righteous suffer?” and, “How a good God could allow evil?” At the beginning of 1554, just when he was under the greatest attack, Calvin began an analysis of the book of Job, culminating in one hundred and fifty-nine sermons with a verse-by verse interpretation of the text. It remains questionable whether he had read the previous most important commentaries on this book, namely of Gregory the Great and Thomas Aquinas. He decided to address his sermons, not to scholars and students, but to all those who were confronted daily by the anguished problem of the meaning of God’s divine governance in a hostile world.269 His exegesis of the text was deeply pastoral,270 as Theodore of Beza wrote: They were of great importance to the remotest French churches. They were appreciated so much, both for private and public use, that in many places where

269 Often Calvin explained that the book of Job was written for “notre edification.” See CO 33:570 and CO 35:64. 270 As Viguie reported, Gaspar de Coligny was used to read these sermons every day. The contrary opinion of Giorgio Tourn according to which “Calvin, folly comfortable to express his thought in Latin, encountered major difficulties in using French, his own language,” sounds extravagant and unfounded, in Giorgio Tourn, Giobbe a Ginevra: I Sermoni di Calvino sul libro di Giobbe in Dimensioni e Problemi della Ricerca Storica, Università della Sapienza di Roma, 2, 2010.

115

congregations usually did not have their own shepherd and teacher, these sermons are presented from the pulpit in regular meetings of congregations.271

H. Dekker confirms that Calvin’s preaching was far from any abstract theological disquisition, as he remarks: Calvin’s treatment of Job is intensely practical. It is a living, breathing thing. It throbs with moral and spiritual reality. Job’s pulse is there. Ethical passages are prominent, involving the family, society, the church and the state, as well as the individual life…No abstract disquisition on a dogmatic formula detaches the congregation from Job’s exemplary life, his struggles of soul, the wrestling of his counselors, and the Majesty of God. This is the living Word! It has to do with Job and his God, Job and his fellows, Job and himself. And Job is always every believer. That makes great preaching.272

Undoubtedly, Calvin was “one of the few great preachers in the history of the Christian church,”273 and his tone incomparable,274 as his contemporaries could not help recognizing.275 A juridical framework and legal jargon intermingled with passion mark his preaching. Calvin wrestled with the text in order to understand and justify either Job in the presence of God, or God in the presence of Job. More than David, Job became the personification of the deepest contradiction of Calvin’s life and in his passionate protest it is possible to hear the genuine concerns of the French Reformer for unjustified suffering.

271 CO 33:13-14: “Neque id vero temere factum fuisse res ipsa mox ostendit, maximo cum remotissimarum etiam gallicarum ecclesiarum fructu, quibus usque adeo privatim et publice placuerunt ut plurimis in locis, quibus quotidiani pastores deerant, conciones istae in communi coetu ex pulpito recitatae pastorum vice fuerint, et nunc quoque asper rimis istis temporibus plurimae in Gallia tum ecclesiae tum familiae eorum confirmatione mirifice confirmentur.” 272 H. Dekker, Sermons from Job (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Ed. Nixon, Baker, 1980), xxxvii. 273 T.H.L. Parker, The Oracles of God (Cambridge, James Clarke & Co. 1947), p. 80. 274 The contrary opinion of Giorgio Tourn according to which “Calvin, folly comfortable to express his thought in Latin, encountered major difficulties in using French, his own language,” sounds extravagant and unfounded, in Giorgio Tourn, Giobbe a Ginevra: I Sermoni di Calvino sul libro di Giobbe in Dimensioni e Problemi della Ricerca Storica, Università della Sapienza di Roma, 2, 2010. 275 Gilmont, Bibliotheca Calviniana, (Geneva: Droz, 1991-94).

116

This process of identification with the figure of Job started in the drafting of the first edition of the Institutes and continued throughout the course of his life, as shown when he wrote to Bullinger: For all good men know, that we have been hitherto over-accommodating, in order to obviate troubles, even when there could be no doubt at all, that our patience was tried by the wicked.276

Like Job, Calvin faced hostility on every side, in both his public and his personal life, as he wrote: I say nothing of fire and sword and exiles and all the furious attacks of our enemies. I say nothing of slanders and other such vexations. How many things there are within that are far worse! Ambitious men openly attack us. Epicureans and Lucianists mock at us, impudent men insult us, hypocrites rage against us, those who are wise after the flesh do us harm, indirectly, and we are harassed in many different ways on every side. It is in short a great miracle that, weighed down by the burden of such a heavy and dangerous office, any one of us should persevere.

An entirely new perspective emerged, little by little, in the course of his preaching. The tragic experiences of Job, with whom Calvin identified, remained at the center of his preaching as well as the themes of exile, persecution277 and of the internal predicament of the church.278 And yet,

276 Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 659. 277 The references are scattered: The believers are often described as sheep among wolves. In Sermon 118 Calvin mentioned martyrdom: “Pensons-nous quand les ennemis de la verité condamnent auiourd’huy les fidelles à estre brûlez, et qu’ils sont assis pour ce faire en leurs sieges tapissez, qu’un gibet ne soit point plus honorable quand un martyr sera là tormenté, ou qu’on dressera un posteau, et que là un enfant de Dieu sera brûlé?” CO 34:720. 278 In Sermon 16 Calvin mentioned Servetus: “Autant en a-il esté d’autres fantastiques, et de nostre temps mesmes que ceux qui ont troublé l’Eglise ont voulu avoir leurs visions: et c’est l’un des articles de ce malheureux qui a esté bruslé. Car il disoit que le S. Esprit n’a point regné encores, mais qu’il devoit venir: le meschant fait ce deshonneur à Dieu, comme si les Peres anciens n’avoyent eu qu’un ombrage du S. Esprit, et comme si une fois ayant esté espandu visiblement sur les postres, il s’estoit retiré incontinent, tellement que l’Eglise ait esté destituée du S. Esprit. Voila ce qu’il met en avant, et quant à luy il se veut faire un Mahomet pour avoir le S. Esprit, à sa poste: mais on voit comme le diable l’avoit transporté: et il faut que

117

whereas in his treatises and the letters written before the drafting of his Sermons on Job,279 Calvin had had the intention of making suffering bearable in a time of fierce persecution, in these sermons he faced a more complex situation: Why had God afflicted Job without cause? Why had God acted in an incomprehensible way? Why evil? Why suffering? The paradoxicality of Job’s experience was the starting point of his reflections. Calvin conceived the suffering of Job as a mirror reflecting the suffering of that “little flock of sheep,” namely the church under the attack of “an infinite number of wolfs.”280 Against the temptation of the persecuted church to believe that God has abandoned His elect, the French Reformer was never tired of instilling courage and hope, insisting that God controls every detail of human history. In this sense he was able to fully respond to the needs of his people, who whilst suffering persecution, wanted to know that God was "at the helm" and that neither torture nor death could have separated them from God’s love. Simplicity and conciseness are the most important features of these sermons, which were drafted after Seneca rather than Cicero. In them Calvin was able to express what he wanted to say plainly and straight forwardly in order to accomplish his goal without being distracted by extemporal considerations. It was for this reason that the Sermons on Job were so popular, as Fritz Büsser points out: La grande, la profonde raison de la faveur dont les sermons sur Job ont joui dans le monde chrétien, c’est l’intensité de la piète…. Dieu, toujours Dieu, ne voir que lui, sa puissance, sa justice, sa miséricorde; s’abaisser, s’anéantir en sa présence, ne vivre que de lui et par Lui, c’est la note dominante, exclusive des ces discours; cette piété intense est le secret de leur vertu.281

Far from being secondary sources, they integrate his theology, as one of the most distinguished connaisseurs of Calvin’s theology pointed out:

Dieu ameine telles gens iusques là, afin que nous les ayons en plus grande detestation.” In CO 33:204. 279 An eloquent example is found in the Quatre Sermons traitant de matieres fort utiles pour notre temps, edited just two years before Calvin drafted his Sermons on Job. 280 Sermons on Job, p. 92: CO 33:256. 281 F. Büsser, Calvin über sich selbst (Zürich, Zwingli Verlag, 1950), p. 84.

118

Voila le Calvin qui m’apparaît come le vrai et authentique Calvin, celui qui explique tous les autres, Calvin, le prédicateur de Genève, pétrissant par sa parole l’âme reformée au XVI siècle.282

And yet integration does not mean correction, as Calvin himself recognized it, when, in April 1564 just before his death, he wrote: I protest also that I have endeavoured, according to the measure of grace he has given me, to teach his word in purity, both in my sermons and writings.283

Calvin was convinced that his sermons provided the opportunity to more appropriately express his opinion on some ticklish questions to such an extent that the Sermons on Job paved the way for topics that found their definitive form in the last version of the 1559 edition of The Institutes. In the present essay I will take in account both sources.

2.15

Predestination consequence of Providence or Providence consequence of Predestination?

In these last centuries there has been an ongoing debate on the relationship between the doctrine of Providence and that of Predestination. Which came first? Was the former a sheer consequence of the latter or just the opposite? Assuming that the doctrine of Predestination has to do with the ultimate destinies of men after death, whereas the doctrine of Providence regards the ruling of universe and history hic et nunc, the hypotheses that have been advanced can be reducible to three: 282 E. Doumergue, Calvin, le Prédicateur de Genève (Genève: Labor & Fides, 1909), p. 9. 283 Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), vol. 7, p. 366. CO 20:299: “Ie proteste aussi que i’ay tasché, selon la mesure de grace qu’il m’avoit donnee, d’enseigner purement sa Parole, tant en sermons que par escrit et d’exposer fidelement l’Escriture saincte.” The opinion that the Sermons complement and even correct Calvin’s theology was expressed by Richard Stauffer in Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 304.

119

1) Predestination is Calvin’s central Dogma, as Alexander Schweizer and Ferdinand Baur contended. 2) Providence is Calvin’s root metaphor (Stammlehre), whereas Predestination is his central teaching (Zentrallehre).284 3) Providence is the central teaching, whereas Predestination is a sheer consequence.285 Without entering in medias res, not one of these explanations seems to hold up to scrutiny. We assume that Predestination is the starting point of Calvin’s theology from which originates the doctrine of Providence which with the passing of time rose to the highest importance. In other words, Calvin’s doctrine of Providence is hardly separable from his idea of Predestination. The recognition of God’s Providence was deduced from the recognition of God’s Predestination, which in its turn presupposes Election. Contrary to what Victor Monod stated,286 Calvin’s teaching on Predestination, coming as a result of a process of deduction of the data of the experience, was not a point of arrival, but a point of departure. The fact that Predestination is more a principle of explication rather than a sheer hypothesis is confirmed by the following considerations: 1) By the order that Calvin followed whilst dealing with Predestination and Providence. In the chapter VIII of 1539 version of the Institutes devoted to the theme, he wrote that it was necessary in the first place (prius) to clarify how some are predestined to salvation and other to damnation, and only afterwards (deinde) explain how the world is

284 See Josef Bohatec,”Calvins Vorsehungslehre,” in Calvinstudien: Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johannes Calvins, ed. J Bohatec (Leipzig: Rudolf Haupt, 1909). 285 Earlier theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, had followed that pattern. In the Summa Thomas was covering the doctrine of God in Book I, chapter 22, when he treated the doctrine of Providence. Then in chapter 23 he dealt with Predestination. Providence was the bigger category for Thomas. God plans, decrees, and brings into action in time everything that comes to pass. Part of that is the Election and reprobation of individuals. 286 Victor Monod wrote: ”The Calvinistic Predestination certainly did not come from an effort of a logical and abstract systematization, it is for Calvin a point of arrival, not a point of departure, a necessary hypothesis, not a principle of explication.” In La Predestination Calviniste, Foi et Vie (1909), 546.

120

governed by the Providence of God.287 Consequently, the doctrine of Providence became part of his treatment of Predestination and not the opposite, as Paul Helm claims.288 2) By Calvin’s strong refusal to identify God’s Foreknowledge with His Providence. The distinction between Foreknowledge and Providence, already adumbrated in the Institutes of 1539, found his highest expression when in the Commentary on the Acts of the Apostle in 1552 Calvin wrote: Luke setteth down two things in this place, the foreknowledge and the decree of God. And although the foreknowledge of God is former in order, (because God doth first see what he will determine, before he doth indeed determine the same,) yet doth he put the same after the counsel and decree of God, to the end we may know that God would nothing, neither appointed anything, save that which he had long before directed to his [its] end. For men do often times rashly decree many things, because they decree them suddenly. Therefore, to the end Peter may teach that the counsel of God is not without reason, he coupleth also therewithal his foreknowledge. Now, we must distinguish these two, and so much the more diligently, because many are deceived in this point. For passing over the counsel of God, wherewith he doth (guide and) govern the whole world, they catch at his bare foreknowledge. Thence cometh that common distinction, that although God doth foresee all things, yet doth he lay no necessity upon his creatures. And, indeed, it is true that God doth know this thing or that thing before, for this cause, because it shall come to pass; but as we see that Peter doth teach that God did not only foresee that which befell Christ, but it was decreed by him. And hence must be gathered a general doctrine; because God doth no less show his Providence in governing the whole world, than in ordaining and appointing the death of Christ. Therefore, it belongeth to God not only to know before things to come, but of his own will to determine what he will have done. This second thing did Peter declare when he said, that he was delivered by the certain and determinate counsel of God. Therefore, the foreknowledge of God is another thing than the will of God, whereby he governeth and ordereth all things.289

3) By the grade of empirical verification of the two doctrines.

287 CO 1:861: “Hic autem locus duobus membris continetur. Prius enim expediendum, qualiter intelligi debeat, quod hominum alii ad salutem, alii ad damnationem praedestinantur. Deinde quum aeterna quoque rerum omnium dispensatio ex Dei ordinatione pendeat, quomodo providentia illius regatur hic mundus declarandum.” 288 John Calvin’s Ideas. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 96. 289 Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, p. 96.

121

Calvin held that, whereas Predestination is an empirical doctrine, which could sic et simpliciter be deducted by a mere observation of facts, the Providence of God, according to Bejamin Wirt Farley’s striking phrase, is “a doctrine of faith. It is neither a postulate of reason or science nor a philosophical position. It is a conviction of faith, based on revelation.”290 Evidence of the fact that Calvin intended Predestination to be the hermeneutical key to explaining the inexplicable incongruities of life can be found in all his works starting from The Instruction of Faith,291 as well as from The Congregation on Election, 292 to The Institutes.293 The covenant of life is not preached equally among all men, and among those to whom it is preached, it does not gain the same acceptance either constantly or in equal degree.294 Before the advent of Christ about four thousand years passed, during which he hid the light of his saving doctrine from all the Gentiles.295 How does it happen that among a hundred people who hear a sermon, only twenty accept it with the ready obedience of faith, while the rest hold it valueless, or laugh, or hiss, or loathe it? How are we to explain the fact that the fall of Adam involved so many nations with their infant children in eternal death?296

Completely different was the attitude of the French Reformer towards the doctrine of God’s Providence. He was firmly convinced that it is neither a rational postulate nor an empirical doctrine, as Melanchthon initially argued,297 but rather a confession of faith, based on revelation. Gerrish aptly remarks that:

290 B. W. Farley, The Providence of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 18. 291 Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 38. 292 In the Congregation on Election Calvin stressed that the teaching of the Scripture concerning the Predestination is confirmed by experience. CO 8:94: “Dieu donne son sainct Esprit à qui bon luy semble, qu’il les illumine en son Fils. L’expérience le monstre et en sommes convaincus.” Peter Barth attacked Calvin’s convintion in His “Die biblische Grundlage der Prädestinationslehre bei Calvin” in l’Election Eternelle de Dieu, (ed. Martin Nijhoff: Editions Labor et Fides, 1936), p. 44. 293 ICR 1559, III.14.12. 294 ICR 1559, III.21.1. 295 ICR 1559, III.24.12. 296 ICR 1559, III.8. 297 The position of Melanchthon was not always consistent. Whereas in treatise on physics he held that Providence could be known through natural human reason, in his commentaries on Colossians he deemed that Providence could be apprehended

122

Calvin’s doctrine of Providence, so far from being inferred from the visible tokens of God’s presence, was in fact developed despite God’s Hiddenness. We do not invariably see that God’s hand is at work. We believe it on the basis of the Word.298

This was the reason why299 Calvin devoted a treatise to the Defense of the Secret Providence of God. In fact, if these words have a sense, a proper defense is presumable only when the truth of a fact is questioned. Even in the Sermons on Job, he held the same attitude. 4) By the fact that very rarely Calvin termed Predestination as hidden or concealed. He held that, whereas the reasons why God elects one and not another could be hidden, secret and concealed, the fact of the double Predestination remains not hidden but revealed.300 Differently from other theologians of the past, like Thomas Aquinas, Calvin did not regard Predestination as consequence of Providence. The process that led him was inductive and not deductive. Only afterwards, starting from a soteriologic experience, Calvin was induced to examine the broadest context of God’s action in universe and history. Under the above perspective Hunter hits the mark when he wrote: Calvin’s doctrine of Providence was an immediate corollary of his doctrine of Predestination. Predestination defines the relation of God to the world; Providence is the working out in detail of that relation. Predestination fixes the gaze upon the eternal destinies; Providence deals with the links, minute as well as vast, in the

only through faith. See: Scholia in Epistulam Pauli ad Colossenes, MW IV, 230242; Initia Doctrina Physicae, CO 13:191, 199-200. 298 “To the Unknown God: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God, in The Old Protestantism and the New (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 142. 299 In this regard E. Saxer pointed out: “Dabei ist charakteristisch, dass nicht mehr di Vorsehungslehre als ein dogmatischer Paragraph betrachtet und dessen Einordnung in ein Gedankensystem Calvins versucht wird. Es wird dabei vielmehr sichtbar, wie der Vorsehungsglaube als eine Art Lebenselement das ganze Denken Calvins durchzieht und eine genaue Entsprechung zu dem schon immer festgestellten Grundmotiv der ehre Gottes als letztem Ziel Geschehens bilde.” In Vorsehung und Verheißung Gottes (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980), p. 22. 300 In this direction B.A Gerrish, who adds: ”Also hidden is the identity of the elect, who are known only by God” in “To the Unknown God: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God.”in The Old Protestantism and the New (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 283.

123

chain of events, which join up the pretemporal decree with the execution of the final judgment.301

The above mentioned considerations confirm once again that the purpose of this doctrine was to give assurance to the believers by teaching them that their final destiny depends only on God and not on their human striving.

301 Hunter, A. Mitchell, The Teaching of Calvin: A Modern Interpretation (2d., rev. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1950), p. 130.

124

Chapter III The juridical framework of Calvin’s Theodicy

It now only remains that I vindicate the glory of the true and eternal God from your profane maledictions and blasphemies. My defence needs only to be brief and comprehensive, because all my writings openly testify that I never had before me any other end, or purpose, or prayer, than that the whole world should dedicate itself to God with all fear, reverence and holiness; and that all men should cultivate equity with a good conscience among and towards each other; and also, that my own life might not be inconsistent with my doctrine. On The Secret Providence of God.

3.1 Defence or Theodicy? In the previous chapter we examined the development of Calvin’s thought, not only in reference to his rediscovery of the concept of Deus Absconditus, but also to his effort of defending God. In this chapter we have to deal with one preliminary question: What kind of Defence did Calvin develop and how could this Defence be defined? In order to respond this question, one has to begin with the distinction that Alvin Plantinga1 draws between Defence and Theodicy which R. Douglas Geivett has summarized in the following way: It is widely accepted, at least among theists, that there is a nontrivial distinction between a defence and a theodicy. A defence is supposed to show that no contradiction can be made out between the existence of God and the existence of evil. But this does not show that God actually has a justifying reason for permitting

1

“Epistemic Probability and Evil,” in M.M. Olivetti, Teodicea oggi (Padova: Cedam, 1988), p. 561.

125

evil. A theodicy is often supposed to show what justifying reasons God actually has for permitting evil.2

There is little doubt that Calvin developed a genuine Theodicy in all of his works, if one utilizes the standard definition, namely, “The vindication of the Justice and Goodness of God in spite of the existence of Evil.”3 Although Calvin made extensive use of legal terminology, this aspect of his thought has often been neglected and it would require a major monograph to shape the problematic for a complete investigation. The following remarks, making no pretence to being exhaustive, rely 4 upon the use of two databases: The Calvin Opera Database and The 5 Comprehensive John Calvin. By analysing the first, one cannot help but be astonished by the massive use of words stemming from the root vindex. For instance, the word vindicta occurs more than 1122 times, 2

3 4

5

126

R. Douglas Geivett, Evil and the Evidence of God: The Challenge of John Hick’s Theodicy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995), p. 60. This distinction is shared also by O. Wiertz, “Das Problem des Übels in Richard Swinburnes Religionssphilosophie” in Theologie und Philosophie 71 (1996) pp. 224-256 and by Natalie Brender and Larry Krasnoff who write: “The aim of defense is to show that antitheistic arguments from evil are not successful on their own terms. The general aim of theodicy, by contrast, is to give positive plausible reasons for the existence of evil in a theistic universe.” in New Essays on the History of Autonomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 63. The New Lexicon of Webster Encyclopaedic Dictionary of the English language (New York, Lexicon Publications, Inc, 1998), p. 1025. The Calvin Opera Database gathers the 59 volumes of the Corpus Reformatorum of Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz (Brunswick and Berlin, 1863-1900). The Calvin Collection includes all the 22 Volumes of the Commentaries on the Old Testament (Genesis, Harmony of the Law, Joshua, Psalms 1-78 & 79-150, Isaiah 137-38-66, Jeremiah 1-24-25-52, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) and on the New Testament (Harmony of the Gospels Vol. 1-Vol 2-Vol 3, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, and Jude) the Institutes (Both Battles and Beveridge), Selected Works 7 volumes (Treatise on Relics, The Secret Providence of God, Sermons on Galatians, Sermons on Psalm 119, Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Sermons on Election and Reprobation (Genesis), Commentary on Seneca's of Clemency.

whereas vindicare, with all his variants 6 recurs in various contexts of time and situation. In all of these texts the main meaning turns out to be the same; that is to say: “to keep,” “to preserve,” or “to defend,” rather than the traditional interpretation, “to punish” or “to retaliate.” Similarly, the word vindex,7 which appeared for the first time in the Commentary on Seneca’s de Clementia, can be understood in the same manner,8 as Olivier Millet aptly points out.9 In the second database the word “vindicate” (which is translated variously from the Latin words vindicare and asserire) recurs 201 times, in 64 documents, in different contexts, most of them employed while discussing God and His primary attributes, such as Justice, Wisdom, Will, or Holiness. By considering the context in which these words are used, it is possible to argue for the cosmic dimension undergirding Calvin’s perspective. In the glorious theatre which is the universe, believers, as actors, are called upon to glorify God. That this duty supersedes personal salvation for every truly pious person is perspective that emerges from the exchange of letters between Calvin and Cardinal Sadoleto, Bishop of Carpentras, France. In 1539 the latter had sent a letter to the magistrates and citizens of Geneva asking them to return to the Catholic faith. Among the various questions he had dealt also with the problem of the main goal of human life. He wrote: 6 7 8

9

In the infinitive vindicare occurs 65 times; vindicat 193 times; vindicet 79 times; vindicabat 12 times; vindicabit 21 times; vindicarunt 7 times; vindicatus 10 times. Vindex recurs 190 times; vindicem 343 times; vindicis 12 times; vindice 19 times. In the CD The Comprehensive John Calvin, p. 5:“And most particularly did I set store by the opinion of my friend Connan, a man of prudence and learning, by whose judgment I stand or fall. Add to this, that I simply could not tolerate seeing the best of authors despised by most, and held in almost no esteem whatsoever; so that I had long since been wishing that some illustrious champion would stand up to vindicate his cause and restore him to his proper place of dignity. “CO 05. 6 : “Valuit praesertim Connani mei autoritas, viri prudentissimi ac disertissimi cui uni stant et cadunt mea consilia. Adde quod optimum autorem plerisque sordescere, ac nullo paene esse numero, iniquissime ferebam: ut iamdiu optaverim egregium quempiam vindicem emergere, qui illum in suam dignitatem assereret.” “Conformément aux emplois latins du terme, le ’vindex’ peut être un répondant en justice (qui prend à sa charge l’affaire et ses suites), dans un sens plus général un défenseur, ou enfin un vengeur. Le dernier sens est ici exclu.” Olivier Millet, Calvin et la Dynamique de la Parole, Etude de Rhétorique Reformée (Genève: Editions Slatkine, 1992), p. 65.

127

And that we may begin with what we deem most seasonable, I presume, dearest brethren, that both you and I, and all else besides who have put their faith and hope in Christ, do, and have done so, for this one reason, viz., that they may obtain salvation for themselves and their souls—not a salvation which is mortal, and will quickly perish, but one which is ever during and immortal, which is truly attainable 10 only in heaven, and by no means on earth.

Against this anthropocentric and egoistic perspective the answer of Calvin was adamant and uncompromising. It is not very sound theology to confine a man’s thought so much to himself, and not to set before him, as the prime motive for his existence, zeal to illustrate the glory of God. I am persuaded that there is no man imbued with true piety who will not consider as insipid that long and laboured exhortation to zeal for heavenly life, a zeal which keeps a man entirely devoted to himself and does not, even by one 11 expression, arouse him to sanctify the name of God.

This motive of glorifying God represents the common denominator of all the writings of the French Reformer and found its apex in one remarkable passage of his Opus Magnum: If we, then, are not our own [cf.1 Corinthians 6:19] but the Lord’s, it is clear what error we must flee, and whither we must direct all the acts of our life. We are not our own: let not our reason nor our will, therefore, sway our plans and deeds. We are not our own: let us therefore not set it as our goal to seek what is expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own: in so far as we can, let us therefore forget ourselves and all that is ours. Conversely, we are God’s: let us therefore live 10 11

128

John C. Olin, A Reformation Debate (New York : Harper & Row, 1966), p. 26. Selected Works of John Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 33: CO 5:391-392: “Id tamen parum est theologicum, hominem ita sibi ipsi addicere, ut non interim principium hoc illi vitae formandae praestituas, illustrandae Domini gloriae studium. Deo enim, non nobis, nati imprimis sumus. Siquidem, quemadmodum ab eo fluxerunt omnia, et in eo consistunt, ita in eum referri debent, inquit Paulus (Rom. 11:36). Sic quidem,2) fateor, Dominus ipse, quo nominis sui gloriam magis commendabilem hominibus faceret, eius promovendae atque amplificandae studium temperavit, ut cum nostra salute perpetuo coniunctum foret. At quum docuerit, illud ipsum oportere omnem cuiuslibet boni et commodi nostri curam cogitationemque excedere, et naturalis aequitas id quoque dictet, non tribui Deo quod suum est, nisi rebus omnibus praeferatur, christiani certe hominis est altius conscendere, quam ad quaerendam et comparandam animae suae salutem. Itaque neminem recta pietate imbutum fore puto, a quo non insipida censeatur tam longa et accurata ad studium celesti vitae exhortatio, quae hominem penitus in se ipso detineat, nec ad sanctificandum Dei nomen, vel uno verbo, erigat.”

for him and die for him. We are God’s: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions. We are God’s: let all the parts of our life accordingly strive toward him 12 as our only lawful goal [Romans 14:8; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19].

E. Troeltsch aptly pointed out the reason why Calvin concentrated Christian life on God: To Calvin the chief point is not the self-centered personal salvation of the creature, and the universality of the Divine Will of Love, but it is the Glory of God, which is equally exalted in the holy activity of the elect and in the futile rage of the 13 reprobate.

In the Sermons on Job this motive reoccurs just at the beginning of Calvin’s reflections on the experience of Job with unmistakable accents: Herein we see upon what condition God has set us in this world, namely that we should be here as mirrors of His virtue. For when He gives us the grace to govern ourselves by His Holy Spirit, He set us as it were upon a scaffold to the end that His gracious goodness and mercy should be known in us and thereupon He Himself might be glorified against Satan in ourselves and sure the honour is inestimable which God does unto us, when He chooses us poor worms of the earth, to be 14 glorified in us against Satan, and to make us triumphs by us.

12

13 14

ICR III.7.1.: CO 2:505-506: ”Quod si nostri non sumus, sed Domini, et quis error sit fugiendus, et quorsum dirigendae sint vitae nostrae actiones universae, apparet.Nostri non sumus: ergo ne vel ratio nostra,vel voluntas in consiliis nostris factisque dominetur. Nostri non sumus: ergo ne statuamus nobis hunc finem, ut quaeramus quod nobis secundum carnem expediat. Nostri non sumus: ergo quoad licet obliviscamur nosmetipsos ac nostra omnia. Rursum, Dei sumus: illi ergo vivamus ac moriamur. Dei sumus: cunctis ergo nostris actionibus praesideat sapientia eius et voluntas. Dei sumus: ad illum igitur, tanquam solum legitimum finem, contendano omnes vitae nostrae partes.” See E. Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1931), 2, 589. Sermons on Job, p. 17: CO 33:65: “Et en cela voyons-nous à quelle condition Dieu nous a mis au monde, c'est que nous soyons ici comme miroirs de sa vertu: quand il nous a fait ce bien de nous gouverner par son sainct Esprit, il nous met comme sur un eschaffaut, afin que sa bonté et misericorde se cognoisse en nous, et sur cela il se glorifie contre Satan en nos personnes. Or c'est un honneur inestimable que Dieu nous fait, quand il nous choisit, nous povres vers de terre, pour estre glorifié en nous contre Satan, et qu'il fait ses triomphes sur nous.”

129

How then, can we glorify God? For Calvin it was absolutely clear that the human being can glorify God chiefly by vindicating and defending His Justice. It was especially in his Commentaries15 that Calvin took care to enumerate all those who were committed to the task of vindicating or defending God. First, he quoted the Judges who “should vindicate the worship of God.”16 Other names followed close behind: Phinehas “was inflamed with zeal to vindicate God’s glory, so that he took upon him the zeal of God Himself.”17 Elijah, “with whom we have a common defence, fought only to vindicate the glory and restore the pure worship of God.”18 The Psalmist vindicated “God’s claim to the government of the world,”19 and “the incomprehensible wisdom of God, from that contempt which proud men have often cast upon it.”20 “Micah offered vindication of God from their calumny and ungodly murmurings.”21 Hosea vindicated “God from every blame, that men might not raise a clamour, as though he dealt unkindly with them.”22 “The companions of Daniel, as 15 16

17

18

19

20

21 22

130

All the Commentaries of John Calvin are published in 22 Volumes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1996). Calvin, Commentary on the four last books of Moses, Vol. IV, pp. 97-98: CO 25: 213: “Porro in genere hoc exemplum docet non minus ad prioris quam secundae tabulae conservationem armari magistratus: ut si poenas exigent de caedibus, adulteriis, et furtis, cultum Dei vindicent.” Calvin, Commentary on the four last books of Moses, Vol. IV, p. 239: CO 25:300: “Quanquam peraeque conveniet sive passive sive active accipias: nempe quod Phinees zelo vindicandae gloriae Dei fuerit accensus, vel induerit ipsius Dei affectum.” Calvin, “The necessity of Reforming the Church,” in Selected Works of John Calvin, Tracts and Letters (Baker Book House, 1983), Vol 1, p. 184: CO 6:500: “Ille se hac sola ratione excusat, quod non nisi pro vindicanda Dei gloria et restituendo eius puro cultu pugnaverit, turbarum vero et certaminum crimen reiicit in eos qui ut veritati resisterent tumultuabantur.” Calvin, Commentary on Psalms, Vol. IV, p. 154: CO 31:118: “Regis nomine mundi gubernandi partes ei asserit: aeternitas vero regni huc spectat, temporum angustiis perperam ipsum includi.” Calvin, Commentary on Psalms, Vol. V, p. 498: CO 32:13: “Interim a contemptu vindicat incomprehensibilem Dei sapientiam, stultitiae et amentiae damnans eos omnes qui fastidiose eam reiiciunt.” Calvin, Commentary on Micah, Vol. XIV, p. 205: CO 43:313: “Iterum hic vindicat Deum a calumnia et improbis murmuribus.” Calvin, Commentary on Hosea, Vol. XIII, p. 88: CO 42:233: “vindicat scilicet Deum ab omni culpa, ne homines obstrepant, quasi inclementius cum ipsis ageret.”

a memorable example of incredible constancy, were at length prepared to vindicate the pure worship of God, not only with their blood, but in defiance of a horrible torture set before their eyes.”23 All the apostles vindicated “the judgment of God”24 as well as Paul who vindicated “God’s Justice” and His “law.”25 Taking these notable examples as a starting point for his further reflections, Calvin stressed that nobody ought to be exempted from the task of vindicating God. “It is our duty,” he reminded, “to vindicate the truth of God against those false suspicions which the ignorant entertain respecting it,”26 to defend “God’s Justice from every accusation,”27 and uphold the “Lord’s glory,”28 and the “purity of doctrine.”29 Even “babes and sucklings are advocates sufficiently powerful to vindicate the Providence of God.”30 The French Reformer often wondered provocatively: “For what duty can be deemed more sacred than to 23 24

25

26

27 28

29

30

Calvin, Commentary on Daniel, Vol. XII. LXV. Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. XVI, p. 453: CO 45:282: “Unde sequitur, non irritam fore apostolorum operam, quae Dei iudicium illustrabit, ubi suae pervicaciaeconvicti fuerint homines.” Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Vol. XIX, p. 365: CO 49:185: “Hac priore responsione nihil aliud quam improbitatem illius blasphemiae retundit argumento ab hominis conditione sumpto. Alteram mox subiiciet, qua Dei iustitiam ab omni criminatione vendicabit.” See also CO 49: 185-186: “Nam quae ad Dei aequitatem asserendam factura erant, et ad manum illi suppetebant, initio producere noluit, quia apprehendi non poterant. Imo et secundam rationem sic temperabit ut non plenam defensionem suscipiat : sed ita Dei iustitiam demonstret, si religiosa humilitate et reverentia a nobis expendatur.” Calvin, Commentary on the first epistle of Peter, Vol. XXII, p.110: CO 55:263: “Cur enim nuper iubebat nos ad defensionem paratos esse, si quis fidei nostrae rationem postulet: nisi quod Dei doctrinam nostrum est vindicare a sinistris suspicionibus quibus eam gravant imperiti?” ICR I.15.1: CO 2:134: “Itaque sic tractanda est humani generis calamitas, ut praecidaturomnis tergiversatio, et iustitia Dei ab omni insimulatione vindicetur.” ICR II.8.27: CO 2:287: “Nullam itaque .meliorem regulam habeo, nisi ut iuramenta sic moderemur ne temeraria sint, ne promiscua, ne libidinosa, ne frivola; sed iustae necessitati serviant, ubi scilicet vel Domini gloria vendicanda, vel promovenda fratris aedificatio.” Calvin, Commentary on Zechariah, Vol. XV,p. 384: CO 44:348: “Haec omnia dicuntur, ut discamus oblivisci quidquid mundi et carnis est, ubi vindicanda est nobis Dei gloria, et puritas doctrinae.” Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. IV, p. 96: CO 31:89: “Parvulos et lactentes dicit satis validos esse patronos qui Dei providentiam asserant.”

131

vindicate God’s righteousness?”31 For him, Christian hope resides in the conviction that in the end God will vindicate “his poor when they are afflicted contrary to justice and equity,”32 and those “whose names He has deigned to write in heaven.”33 A meaningful illustration of what Calvin meant more specifically with the word “vindication” occurs in the treatise on The Secret Providence of God, where he wrote: It now only remains that I vindicate the glory of the true and eternal God from your profane maledictions and blasphemies. My defence needs only to be brief and comprehensive, because all my writings openly testify that I never had before me any other end, or purpose, or prayer, than that the whole world should dedicate itself to God with all fear, reverence and holiness; and that all men should cultivate equity with a good conscience among and towards each other; and also, that my own life might not be inconsistent with my doctrine.34

The similarities between Calvin and Seneca are striking. Even the Stoic philosopher wrote a treatise on the Providence, in which in reference to the question “why, if the world be ruled by a Providence, so many evils befall good men?” he had expressed the intention “to plead the cause of the gods.”35 31 32

33

34

35

132

Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. XVI, p. 18. ICR III.17.14.: CO 2:602: “Atqui sancti, dum ad comprobandam suam innocentiam Dei iudicium implorant, non se ipsos omni noxa solutos et omni ex parte inculpatos offerunt; sed quum in sola eius bonitate salutis fiduciam defixerint, confisi tamen esse vindicem pauperum praeter ius et aequitatem afflictorum, profecto causam in qua innocentes opprimuntur, illi commendant.” Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah, Vol. VIII, pp. 322-323: CO 37:343-344: “et quamvis nos maledictis lacerent impii, sugillent, conspuant, modisque omnibus foedare conentur, meminerimus Deo minime eripi ius suum, ut nos in mundo illustret, quorum nomina dignatus est in coelis scribere.” Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 339: CO 9:312-313: “Superest ut veri et aeterni Dei gloriam a sacrilegis tuis maledictis vendicem. Tu me diabolum veri Dei loco iactas obtrudere. Mihi brevis et expedita defensio est: quum scripta omnia mea clare testentur non aliud fuisse mihi propositum, quam ut pie sancteque totus mundus se Deo addicat, puraque conscientia sinceram inter se aequitatem mutuo colant omnes, vitam meam a doctrina non discrepare, non faciam Dei gratiae iniuriam, ut me tibi tuique similibus comparem, quibus innocentia non nisi in blanditiis sita est.” Seneca, Dialoghi, (Milano, Mondadori, 1998), p. 28. “Quaesisti a me, Lucili, quid ita, si providentia mundus ageretur, multa bonis viris mala acciderent. Hoc commodius in contextu operis redderetur, cum praeesse universis providentiam

3.2 The metaphor of lawsuit The choice of the word “vindicate” was not casual, as this term (which derives from the Latin word vindicatio meaning to clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting arguments or proof) has a juridical meaning. According to Roman law, the rei vindicatio was the most important redress granted to an owner seeking to reassert his ownership. The rei vindicatio was a real action (actio in rem, as opposed to a personal action, actio in personam), which the owner could bring against anybody who, without any legal right, took possession of the object in question. The action not only ascertained the plaintiff’s ownership but, more importantly, obtained restitution of the property and condemned the 36 defendant who then had to make payment for damages. The reason why Calvin preferred the word vindication was, very likely, rooted in his conviction that he had not only to defend God from all unjust charges, but also to restore and consequently to vindicate37 His Holy Name. Calvin conceived his task not only passively, in rejecting the false charges against God and demonstrating that He was not guilty, but also actively, in “vindicating” His Justice. This is evidenced in the Institutes of 1559, where Calvin constantly made use of the word vindicare, whenever he determined that the Person of God had been challenged. Deeply convinced that the Honour of the Holy Person of God was at stake, Calvin undertook the task of vindicating “His majesty from every

36 37

probaremus et interesse nobis deum; sed quoniam a toto particulam revelli placet et unam contradictionem manente lite integra solvere, faciam rem non difficilem, causam deorum agam.” Gaius (Inst.4,5) called all “actions in rem vindicationes” and Justinian accepted this terminology (Inst. 4,6,15). It is worth mentioning that the words “vindicate” and “vindication” occur in the works of Calvin in reference to God and His attributes much more than the words “defend” and “defence.” The English words do not always represent a literal translation of the correspondent terms in Latin and in French. For instance in CO 40:646 and in CO 31:89 the English word vindicate is the translation of the Latin verb asserire, whilst in CO 55:263 is the translation of “vindicare.” On the contrary the French verb is quite always “maintenir” and in some case “purger.”

133

calumny,”38 “His Justice against all who would impugn it,”39 “His glory,”40 “His sacred name from all contempt and insult,”41 as well as “His own right.”42 It is worth noting that the use of the expression vindicare in reference to God was an apax legomenon, at least in the theological works of the Church Fathers. In fact, not one of them, with the notable 44 exception of Rufino,43 had ever made use of this word. Together with the word vindicare, Calvin employed other words, namely, defendere, defensio, patrocinare in Latin, and defendre and maintenir in French.45 In a particularly vivid characterization John Fiske stated that Calvin was the constitutional lawyer of the Reformation, with vision as clear, with head as cool, with soul as dry, as any old solicitor in rusty black that ever dwelt in

38 39 40 41 42 43

44 45

134

ICR I.14.16.: CO 2:128: “Quanquam autem haec breviter sunt et minus clare dicta, ad id tamen abunde sufficiunt ut Dei maiestas ab omni calumnia vindicetur.” ICR I.15.1.: CO 2:134: “Itaque sic tractanda est humani generis calamitas, ut praecidatur omnis tergiversatio, et iustitia Dei ab omni insimulatione vindicetur.” ICR II.8.27.: CO 2:287: “sed iustae necessitati serviant, ubi scilicet vel Domini gloria vendicanda, vel promovenda fratris aedificatio.” ICR III.20.41.: CO 2:666: “ut Deus sacrum illud nomen ab omni contemptu et ignominia vendicet.” ICR I.8.22.: CO 2:282: “Unde colligitur hoc ius suum sibi vendicare, ac tueri nominis sui sanctitatem, non autem docere, quid homines hominibus debeant.” See: The Apology addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome’s Letter to Pammachius, written at Aquileia A.D. 400, published in CD The Master Christian Library, Version 5, Vol. III, pp. 902, 903, 910, 937, 938 and 995 A similar analysis of the Commentary of both Gregory the Great and Thomas Aquinas would demonstrate an absence of the word “vindicate” as well. Although a careful scrutiny of the incidence of the above-mentioned words lays outside the scope of the present research, even a cursory analysis of his works indicates Calvin's preference for the use of the word vindicare over other synonymous terms, whenever he made reference to God. See for instance the Commentary on Micah, Vol. XIV, p. 381: “The faithful, therefore, after having found God to be their deliverer, do here undertake his cause; they do not regard themselves nor their own character, but defend the righteousness of God.” CO 43: p. 417: “Ergo hic fideles postquam experti sunt Deum liberatorem, ut gratitudinis testimonium reddant, uscipiunt eius causam: non respiciunt se ipsos, neque suas personas:sed potius hic patrocinantur iustitiae Dei.”

chambers in Lincoln’s Inn. His sternness was that of the judge who dooms a 46 criminal to the gallows.

In fact, as though installed in a tribunal, Calvin behaved as a lawyer trying to convince that God is not only innocent but also just.47 In her valuable essay Serene Jones, deepening our understanding of this rhetorical aspect of Calvin, writes: When Calvin intends to make his readership feel judged, challenged, or scolded, he uses the classical form of forensic rhetoric, the rhetoric of defence and attack. His arguments become sharp-edged, his language becomes caustic, and the reader is 48 overwhelmed by the force of his polemic.

Especially in his 159 Sermons on Job the main purpose of the French Reformer in speaking out was to explain why bad things happen to good people, defending God with the enthusiasm of a lawyer. In Sermon 48 Calvin expressed this purpose in unmistakable accents: True it is that when we behold the order of nature that God had set already we ought of right to glorify Him for it as it is. And certainly God has set us in this world as on a great stage to behold His works and to confess that he is wise, righteous and almighty, yea even after a wonderful manner.49

46 47

48 49

John Fiske, The Beginnings of New England; or the Puritan Theocracy in Its Relation to Civil Liberty (Boston and New York: Mifflin & Co., 1889), p. 57. In the Institutes words like actio, citatio, cognitio-cognitor, damnare, inscribere, sui juris manus injicere, patrocinium, possessio, reatus, stipulatio, suffragium, tribunal tutor occur many times, as A. Veerman in De Stijl van Calvijn in de Institutio Christiane Religionis (Utrecht: Kemink en zoon, 1943), pp. 117-119 has pointed out. S. Jones, Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Nashville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), p. 30. Sermons on Job, p. 202: CO 33:539: “Il est vray que desia quand nous voyons l'ordre de nature tel que Dieu l'a constitué, nous le devons bien glorifier. Et de fait Dieu nous a mis en ce monde, afin que nous soyons comme en un grand theatre pour contempler ses oeuvres, pour confesser qu'il se monstre et sage, et iuste, et puissant, voire d'une façon admirable.“

135

As Bernard Cottret reminds us: if Calvin the theologian preserved the soul of a lawyer while speaking of God and man, this is precisely because in the sixteenth century the law had seized a position in the humanist pantheon alongside grammar.50

Edward Dowden, who had no sympathy for Calvin’s theology, summed up the basic features of his preaching: Clearness, precision, order, sobriety, intellectual energy are compensation for his lack of grace, imagination, sensibility and religious unction. He wrote to convince, to impress his ideas upon other minds and his austere purpose was attained.51

Calvin’s preaching, as Francis Higman highlights, was undoubtedly 52 marked by a didactic quality. The theologian, the minister and the advocate of Christian faith were merging within Calvin’s person and very often it was not easy to understand who wrote: the theologian equipped with the instruments of law, or the lawyer armed with the instruments of biblical exegesis. Considerable importance must also be ascribed to the dialectics that Calvin employed extensively as Imbart de la Tour wrote: This grand systematician was also an incomparable dialectician. The theologian who forbade reason in the search for divine truths will put all the resources of his reason to disengaging and defending them. He will masterfully manipulate the usual procedure of logic: analysis and reasoning.53

The concern for vindicating God’s Justice dominated Calvin’s theology and represented his refuge whenever he thought that God’s Justice was at stake. Many of his Sermons on Job were laid out in such a way as to suggest a juridical structure, consisting of an exordium, a narratio, a

50 51 52 53

136

Cottret, Calvin, a Biography, p. 23. E. Dowden, History of French Literature, p. 94, quoted by T.H.L. Parker, The Oracles of God (London: Butterworth, 1947) pp. 79-80. F. Higman, The Style of John Calvin in His French polemical Treatises (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967) p. 123. I. de La Tour, Les Origines de la Reforme, IV, 181. For this quotation see Charles Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), pp. 6-7.

confirmatio, a confutatio, and finally a peroratio.54 This juridical framework reached its climax particularly in the first of them.55 Although Calvin rarely succeeded in being brief and concise, he was a brilliant systematic theologian, able to combine biblical insight, and knowledge of church history within a doctrinal framework. He was, as well, a dialectical theologian. Paul Helm writes: If a dialectical theologian is someone who strives to balance one theological element against another, say a high view of created human nature balanced by a 56 radical view of fallenness, then certainly Calvin was a dialectical theologian. 54

55

Notwithstanding, as Girardin aptly warned, this progression can not be exaggerated: “Que la structure cicéronienne ne soit pas appliqué fermement ne doit pas etre pris pour l’indice d’une relativisation de cette rhétorique. Dans la théorie classique, cette séquence est clairement considérée comme naturelle à tout discours et ensuite souple. Il ne s’agit d’une modèle à appliquer mécaniquement, mai du mouvement même du discours persuasif. Le bon rhéteur ne sera pas celui qui convainc son auditoire; souplesse et sens de l’opportunité s’imposent comme vertus capitales.” in Rhétorique et Théologique: Calvin, le Commentaire de l’Epitre aux Romains (Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979), pp. 213-214. Here Calvin had the occasion to sum up the purpose of the entire book. Firstly, he affirmed that all are in God’s hands, regardless of what happens. Secondly, Calvin confronted the problem of the apparent contradiction between God’s righteousness and Job's innocence and gave a new interpretation of the word ‘integrity.’ Thirdly, he explained why God allowed Job to be subjected to so many trials. Finally, with a proper peroration he pled the case: “Let us withdraw ourselves from evil: that is to say let us fight against such assaults after the example of Job and when we see abundance of vices and corruptions reign in the world, albeit that we be seen to be intermeddled with them, yet let us not be defiled with them,….and to retire in such sort, as Satan may not be able to make us to yielded for all the temptations that we shall cast before us, but that we may suffer God to cleanse us from all our filthiness and infection, according as He has promised us in the name of Jesus Christ.” Sermons on Job, p 5: CO 33:32-33. “Que faut-il donc? retirons nous du mal: c'est à dire bataillons contre tels assauts à l'exemple de Iob: et quand nous verrons beaucoup de vices, et de corruptions regner au monde, encores qu'il nous faille estre meslez parmi, que neantmoins nous n'en soyons point pollus et que nous ne disions point comme de coustume, qu'il nous faut hurler entre les loups: mais plutôt que nous ad visions à l'exemple de Iob de nous retirer du mal, et de nous en retirer en telle sorte que Satan ne puisse nous y faire adonner pour toutes les tentations qu'il nous mettra en avant: mais que nous souffrions que Dieu nous purge de toutes nos ordures et infections, comme il nous l'a promis au nom de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, iusques à ce qu'il nous ait retirez des souillures et pollutions de ce monde, pour nous conioindre avec ses Anges, et nous faire participans de ceste félicité éternelle, à laquelle nous devons maintenant aspirer.”

137

3.3 Calvin’s dilemma in the lawsuit between God and man The need to absolve God from all the charges against Him and to vindicate His Justice found its best expression when the French Reformer analysed the book of Job and was confronted with an anguishing dilemma: Was God just in punishing a man like Job, who, as recorded in the first verse of the first chapter, “was perfect and upright, feared God, and eschewed evil?” Yet, if Job was “perfect and upright,” how is one meant to understand his repentance and his confession of sin in the last chapters of the book? Calvin did not find the answers given by Job’s friends exhaustive: You deserve punishment because you are sinner. God never does anything wrong. His Justice is visible, and can be easily recognized in history. God punishes always the sinners. Unsatisfied with these answers, Calvin, like Job before him, questioned them. In the lawsuit which followed, God and man, alternatively and respectively, took on the role of indicter and defendant. If God had accused man of being a sinner and blameworthy, then the latter charged God and blamed Him for what was happening; asking for an explanation as to why God had continually tolerated so much evil and why evil and suffering attacked the innocent. Adopting the metaphor of a lawsuit Calvin made use of many juridical terms related either to substantial law, or to legal procedure. To 57 58 59 the first category belong the words: acquittal, “accused,” “accuse,” 60 61 62 63 64 “condemn,” “crime,” “criminal,” “defend,” “advocate,”

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

138

P. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 4-5. “absolution” 3 times. “accuse” 59 times. “accuser” 51 times. “advocat” 26 times. “condamner” 249 times. “crime” 17 times. “criminel” 16 times. “defendre” 8 times.

65

66

67

68

69

“defence,” “disputing,” “right,” “innocence,” “innocent,” “ 70 71 72 73 74 “judge,” “procurator,” “redeemer,” “sentence,” “judicial,” 75 76 77 “seat,” “vengeance,” “avenge,” whereas to the second category 78 79 80 belong terms like “appeal,” “inquisition,” “bring an action,” 81 82 83 84 “jurisdiction,” “procedure,” “lawsuit,” “action.” In some sermons, like the 132, the use of the latter category was particularly intensive. Being extremely familiar not only with the legal mentality, but also with its functioning, Calvin did not hesitate to make recourse to very special expressions taken from the Registry in order to better clarify his 85 opinion. The use of legal jargon was far from accidental. For Calvin the relationship between God and man could be interpreted in the context of a legal setting. And yet, although Calvin used this framework faithfully, he acknowledged that it was merely an interpretative model. Even having fully adopted the phraseology of legal speech, he was equally conscious of the fact that the imagery of the legal setting was nothing but

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

“defence”11 times. “disputes” 29 times. “droit” 290 times. “innocence” 2 times. “innocent” 20 times. “iudicial” 26 times. “iuger“ 165 times. “procureur” 4 times. “redempteur” 46 times. “sentence” 284 times. “siege” 88 times. “vengeance” 188 times. “venger” 31 times. “appeler” 16 times. "inquisition” 13 times. “intenter procez” 8 times. “iurisdiction” 9 times. “procedure” 20 times. “proces” 11 times. “querelle” 46 times. For instance, the names of those who are adopted are written “dans les registres de Dieu” and this element is so certain that it doe not need that we have un “copie authentique of them.” In CO 34:363.

139

a very imprecise metaphor to describe that which, in reality, constitutes a mystery and he was always careful to specify its inadequacy. The popular stereotype of Calvin as a cold law teacher,86 who knew little of the love and grace of God is based on sheer prejudices which do 87 not hold up under scrutiny. Davis Willis argued that Calvin’s legal training had not made him a legalist.88 On the contrary the legal studies enabled the French Reformer to learn the art of persuasion. In Sermon 132, for example, commenting the phrase of Elihu: “He breaks in pieces mighty men without inquiry, and sets others in their place” (Job 34:24), Calvin was careful to state that God would not judge men as humans might; conduct a long trial in order to punish us, nor be bound by any human laws.89 God is “under no law” not because His will is tyrannical, 90 but because His will is the norma normans of all the laws.

86

87

88

89

90

140

Friedrich Brunstad, Theologie der lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1951). For this quotation see John Hesselink, Calvin’s concept of the Law (Allison Park, Pennsylvania: Pickwick Publications, 1992), p.1. In his L’Humanité de Calvin (Neuchatel: Dalachaux et Niestele, 1964) Richard Stauffer demonstrated that the caricature of Calvin’s heartless character is indeed off base. D. Willis, “Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin’s Theology,” in The Context of Contemporary Theology, Essays in honour of Paul Lehmann, ed. A.J. McKelkay and E. David Willis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974), p. 314. “Ceste inquisition donc de laquelle il parle, se rapporte proprement à Dieu en chastiant les hommes: comme s'il estoit dit, Quand les iuges feront un procès, on en parlera, et la façon et le style sera observé, tellement qu'on cognoistra les choses: et puis le dicton sera publié, on sait les crimes du malfaicteur, et comme il a esté convaincu. Mais il ne nous faut point mesurer la puissance de Dieu ne son authorité à ces loix humaines. Et pourquoi? Car il brisera sans inquisition, c'est à dire sans nous monstrer pourquoi. Il ne prononcera pas tousiours sentence, les crimes ne seront pas là récitez pour deschiffrer pourquoi c'est qu'il nous punist: cela donc nous sera caché: mais cependant il ne laissera pas toutes fois de mettre à execution sa iustice.” CO 35:176. “Retenons donc ce passage, afin que chacun se solicite et soir et matin, quand il est dit, que Dieu ne tiendra. point une longue procédure pour nous punir, il n'est point aussi obligé a nulles loix.” CO 35:177. The more exhaustive definition of God’s freedom can be found in Calvin’s Commentary on Daniel. Vol. XIII, p. 173. He wrote: “We must not suppose the existence of any superior law to bind the Almighty; he is a law unto himself, and his will is the rule of all justice.” CO 41:152: “Non quod fingenda sit lex aliqua superior, quae Deum adstringat. Ipse enim est sibi lex, et voluntas eius est regula omnis iustitiae.”

Calvin was eager to explain the meaning of this lawsuit metaphor more extensively which constitutes the leading idea of all the Sermons on Job: However, we have also to note that in the whole dispute Job maintains a good case, and his adversary maintains a poor one. Now there is more, that Job maintains a good case pleads it poorly, and the other bringing a poor case plead it well. How is it that Job maintains a case which is good? It is that he knows that God does not always afflict men according to the measure of their sins; but that He has His secret judgements of which He does not give us an account, and yet we must wait until he may reveal to us why He does this or that. He was, then entirely persuaded that God does not always afflict men according to the measure of their sins, and by that he has testimony in himself that he was not a man rejected by God, as they wished to make him believe. This is a case which is good and true, though is poorly pleaded; for Job here now throws himself off balance and uses excessive and exaggerated proposition, so that he shows that he is desperate in many respects. And he is even so heated that it seems that he wishes to resist God. So here is a good case that is pleaded badly. Now on the contrary those who sustain the poor case that God always punishes men according to the measure of their sins, speak beautiful and holy sentences; there is nothing in their proposition that we ought not to receive as if the Holy Spirit had pronounced it; for it is pure truth, these are the foundations of religion, they discuss the Providence of God, they discuss His justice, they discuss the sins of men. Here, then, is a doctrine which we have to receive without contradictions, and yet the result that these people try to put Job into despair and to destroy him completely is bad.91

91

Sermons from Job, p. 5: CO 33:23: “Mais cependant nous avons aussi à noter, qu'en toute la dispute Iob maintient une bonne cause, et son adverso partie en maintient une mauvaise. Or il y a plus, que Iob maintenant une bonne cause la deduit mal, et les autres menans une mauvaise cause la deduisent bien. Quand nous aurons entendu cela, ce nous sera comme une clef pour nous donner ouverture à tout le livre. Comment est-ce que Iob maintient une cause qui est bonne? c'est qu'il cognoist que Dieu n'afflige pas tousiours les hommes selon la mesure de leurs pechez: mais qu'il a ses iugemens secrets, desquels il ne nous rend pas conte, et cependant qu'il faut que nous attendions iusques à ce qu'il nous revele pourquoy il fait ceci, ou cela. Il a donc tout ce propos persuadé, que Dieu n'afflige point tousiours les hommes selon la mesure de leurs pechez, et de cela il en a tesmoignage en soy, qu'il n'estoit pas un homme reietté de Dieu, comme on luy veut faire à croire. Voila une cause qui est bonne et vraye, cependant elle est mal deduite: car Iob se iette ici hors des gonds et use de propos excessifs, et enormes, tellement qu'il se monstre un homme desesperé en beaucoup d'endroicts. Et mesmes il s'eschauffe tellement, qu'il semble qu'il vueille resister à Dieu. Voila donc une bonne cause qui est mal conduite. Or au contraire ceux qui soustiennent ceste

141

And yet the Sermons on Job were distinguished in a substantial way by the novelty of this lawsuit metaphor and with the entirely unexpected assignment of the major roles. In his previous works Calvin had conceived this lawsuit in a very traditional way, assigning the function of judge to God and that of accused to man. In his Commentaries on the Romans Calvin had negated even the simple possibility that God could be charged with any unrighteousness, except it can be proved, that He renders not to everyone his due: but it is evident, that no one is deprived by Him of his right, since He is under obligation to none; for who can boast of anything of his own, by which he has deserved His favour.92

The main task of God is to be our judge and He could not act otherwise than as a judge: For though there are found among men unjust judges, yet this happens because they usurp authority contrary to law and right, or because they are inconsiderately raised to that eminence, or because they degenerate from themselves. But there is nothing of this kind with regard to God. Since, then, he is by nature ‘judge,’ it must be that he is just, for he cannot deny Himself.93

This traditional configuration underwent a radical and unexpected change. While in other biblical books God’s Justice had only been discussed academically and impersonally, in the Sermons on Job Calvin, for the first time encountered a real public prosecutor: Job not only defended himself by proclaiming his innocence, he also went on the offensive, wanting to demonstrate that the guilty party was not himself, but God. Job no longer spoke as a victim who had undergone a constant series of misfortunes provoked by God; on the contrary, he spoke as a prosecutor and began to question the traditional parameters of the

92 93

142

mauvaise cause, que Dieu punit tousiours les hommes selon la mesure de leurs pechez, ont de belles sentences, et sainctes, il n'y a rien en leurs propos qu'il ne nous faille recevoir, comme si le Sainct Esprit l'avoit prononcé: car c'est pure verité, ce sont les fondemens de la religion, ils traittent de la Providence de Dieu, ils traittent de sa iustice, ils traittent des peschez des hommes. Voila donc une doctrine, laquelle nous avons à recevoir sans contredict, et toutesfois le but est mauvais, que ces gens icy taschent à, mettre Iob en desespoir, et l'abysmer du tout.“ Calvin, Commentary on Romans, Vol. XIX, p. 447. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, Vol. XIX, p. 120.

relationship between God and man. In view of this changed perspective, God assumed the role of defendant and Job that of the public prosecutor. This exchange and overlapping of roles represents one of the most characteristic and interesting features of this work which emphasized and amplified the legal setting. The juxtaposition and inversion of the roles of Job and Calvin was so intensive that it is difficult sometimes to understand who was really speaking. Although the role of prosecutor was officially played by Job, it was Calvin who gave voice to his protest, and behind Calvin it is possible to hear the echoes of innumerable generations of people who have dared to question God’s Justice. Nowhere was that voice so authentic than in Sermons on Job. God’s Justice remained the centre of Calvin’s concern. In the first Sermon one finds a general statement of purpose for his work which encapsulates the theme that runs through all the sermons: To truly profit by the content of this book, we must first know the scope of it. The story shows us how we are in the hand of God, that it is up to Him to order our lives and to dispose of them according to His good pleasure while our duty is to submit ourselves to Him in all humility and obedience; that it is quite reasonable that we be altogether His both to let live and to let die; and even if it shall please Him to raise His hand against us, though we may not perceive for what cause He does it, nevertheless we should glorify Him always, confessing that He is just and equitable.94

The emphasis on the divine Justice represents the leading motive of the theological production of Calvin. The believers have to confess that God is just, irreprehensible and equitable in all His doings, although this 95 statement can “seem strange to human mind.” This proper axiom 94

95

CO 33:21: “Pour bien faire nostre profit de ce qui est contenu au present livre: il nous faut en premier lieu savoir quel en est le sommaire. Or l'histoire qui est ici escrite nous monstre, comme nous sommes en la main de Dieu, et que c'est à luy d'ordonner de nostre vie, et d'en disposer selon son bon plaisir, et que nostre office est, de nous rendre subiets à luy en toute humilité, et obeissance, que c'est bien raison que nous soyons du tout siens et à vivre, et à mourir: et mesmes quand il luy plaira de lever sa main sur nous, encores que nous n'appercevions point pour quelle cause il le fait neantmoins que nous le glorifions tousiours, confessans qu'il est iuste, et equitable, que nous ne murmurions point contre luy, que nous n'entrions point en proces, sachans bien que nous demourerons tousiours vaincus, contestans avec luy.” Sermons on Job, p. 33.

143

recurs innumerable times in various contexts of time and situations, not only as a general statement, but also whenever divine Justice is 96 challenged. “God does not anything, but in all uprightness and equity.” If God were not just, he warned, “all that is proper to Him” would be “plucked from Him” and He should be “no longer God. His glory and 97 His Godhead and His being would be quite abolished.” Calvin also excluded any possibility of comparing God’s Justice with that of an earthly judge, who will do good justice “by startes,”98 since He is not 99 acceptor personae. Repeatedly, he urged his listeners to keep in mind that God is “the wellspring of righteousness, and that there is no agreement between Him 100 and unrighteousness.” Consequently, all God’s doings “are grounded upon reason and 102 uprightness,”101 “are rightful and good,” “are brought about by infinite righteousness and wisdom,”103 “are grounded upon good reason.”104 Deeply convinced that God’s Justice is in strict contrast with any human claim to be just, Calvin incessantly criticized those who “measure God’s Justice by their own wit and capacities”105 and noted that

96 97

98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

144

Sermons on Job, p. 668: CO 34:299. Sermons on Job, p. 41: CO 33:125: “Mais cependant Dieu est accusé d'estre desloyal et se mocquer des siens, mesmes de n'est ce point iuste: tout ce qui luy est propre luy est ravi, il ne sera plus Dieu, sinon qu'il discerne entre le bien et le mal pour avancer ceux qui l'ont servi en integrité, qu'il soit Iuge du monde, et que il soit prest d'exaucer ceux qui auront recours à luy. Si Dieu est despouillé de telles vertus, il est certain que voila et sa gloire et sa divinité, et son essence qui est abolie.” Sermons on Job, p. 591: CO 35:263: “par bouffee.” Sermons on Job, p. 591: CO 35:263: “Car il n'a point d'acception de personnes.” Sermons on Job, p. 591: CO 35:89: “Dieu est la fontaine de justice et il n’y a point de convenance entre Lui et l’iniquité.“ Sermons on Job, p. 431: CO 34:382: ”tout ce que Dieu fait est fondé en raison et en equité.” Sermons on Job, p. 423: CO 34:362: ”iuste et bon.” Sermons on Job, p. 634: CO 35:206: “est composé à une justice et sagesse infinie.” Sermons on Job, p. 32: CO 33:102: “est fondé en bonne raison.” Sermons on Job, p. 136: CO 33:367: “veulent mesurer la justice de Dieu selon leur sens, et leur apprehension.”

our pride is too fond, especially when we become so bold as to lift up ourselves against Him and to go about to pluck from Him the things that belong to Him and to rob Him of His righteousness.106

God is by definition just and as “He Himself cannot be divided, so His righteousness cannot be divided,” since He has “comprehended it in His 107 whole law.” Calvin was also eager to stress that God’s righteousness, far from being only a sheer attribute of God, is also extended to the 108 whole government of the world. The believers have to confess that “God does all things with righteousness,” even though, “it should please Him to alter the order of nature and to turn the light into darkness.” In the same Sermon Calvin went so far as to say that even “if the sun tumbled down into the deep, the earth mounted up on high and all things were confounded together, 109 yet we ought to glorify God.” Dissociating himself from the interpretation given by former theologians, Calvin was the first to interpret the book of Job as a debate on God’s Justice, rather than on His Providence. This interpretation has been challenged by Susan Schreiner who, quoting the beginning of the first Sermon, writes: Calvin adopts the Thomistic argument that Job was vindicated because he defended the true doctrine of Providence; that is, Job knew that God did not restrict his judgements to the earthly life and did not always inflict suffering because of sin. The Sermons on Job, therefore, should be read within the context of Calvin’s theology of Providence.110

106 Sermons on Job, p. 465: CO 33:467: “nostre orgueil est par trop ridicule, quand nous prenons ceste hardiesse de nous eslever contre Lui, et de Lui vouloir ravir ce qui Lui appartient, le vouloir despouiller de Sa justice?” 107 Sermons on Job, p. 627: CO 35:186: “Comme Dieu ne peut estre divisé, aussi notons que sa iustice ne se peut pas diviser par pieces. Il l’a comprinse en toute sa Loi.” 108 See Sermons on Job, p. 611. 109 Sermons on Job, p. 203: CO 33:540: “Prenons le cas que Dieu convertist la clarté en tenebres, que le soleil trebuchast aux abysmes, que la terre s'eslevast en haut, que tout fust confus: si est-ce qu'encores faudroit-il glorifier Dieu.” 110 S. Schreiner, Where shall wisdom be found (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 91. See also of the same author “Through a mirror dimly: Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” Calvin Theological Journal (1986), p.179.

145

This interpretative key is inaccurate. If one reads the remainder of this text, one recognizes that Calvin had another concern: And even if it shall please Him to raise His hand against us, though we may not perceive for what cause He, does it, nevertheless we should glorify Him always, confessing that He is just and equitable, that we ‘should not murmur against Him, that we should not enter into dispute, knowing that if we struggle against Him we shall be conquered. This, then, in brief, is what we have to remember from the story, that is, that God has such dominion over His creatures that He can dispose of them at His pleasure, and when He shows a strictness that we at first find strange, yet that we should keep our mouths closed in order not to murmur; but rather, that we should confess that He is just, expecting that He may declare to us why He chastises us.111

Calvin could not do otherwise. As a good theologian he was perfectly 112 as Eliphaz aware that Job did not deny the Providence of God, deemed, but questioned the divine Justice. It was for this reason that Calvin treated Providence in the wider context of God’s Justice.113 Deeply convinced that Providence independent from Justice would turn out to be only a sheer abstraction and synonymous of an absolute 114 Calvin firmly denied that God could be righteous only in power,

111 Sermons from Job, p. 3: CO 33:21: “Et mesmes quand il luy plaira de lever sa main sur nous, encores que nous n’appercevions point pour quelle cause il le fait, neantmoins que nous le glorifions tousiours, confessans qu’il est iuste, et equitable, que nous ne murmurions point contre luy, que nous n'entrions point en proces, sachans bien que nous demourérons tousiours vaincus, contestans avec luy. Voila donc ce que nous avons à retenir en brief de l'histoire, c'est que Dieu a un tel empire sur ses creatures, qu'il en peut disposer à son plaisir, et quand il monstrera une rigueur que nous trouverons estrange de prime face, toutesfois que nous ayons la bouche close pour ne point murmurer: mais plustost, que nous confessions qu'il est iuste, attendans qu'il nous declare pourquoy il nous chastie.” 112 Sermons on Job, p. 401: “For it seemed unto him ( Eliphas), that by this Job meant to deny the Providence of God. But it is clean contrary.” 113 There is a written evidence of this: in the Sermons on Job the word Providence occurs 132 times, whereas the sentences like iustice de Dieu, Dieu est iust occur around 202 times, not to mention other passages in which one could find the same idea. 114 “God plagues us not like a Tyrant, he deals with us by absolute authority. God uses no such absolute power, that is to say no lawful power which should be separated from His righteousness. “Sermons on Job, p. 302-303: CO 34:36: “qu'il n'y va point d'une puissance absolue: comme ces theologiens de la Papauté ont imaginé ceste

146

Himself. Instead of an abstract notion of Justice he held that the place in which divine Justice reveals itself and becomes evident is history. He wrote: Will we then know how God is righteous? Let us look everywhere about us and we may well espy His righteousness in considering that the world is governed by Him 115 with such equity, as there is no fault to be found in it.

Calvin maintained that Providence is a manifestation of God’s Justice and not the opposite. The close connection between Providence and Justice emerges particularly clear in Sermon 75, where Calvin highlighted that God wants to be known not only as Almighty, but also 116 as Righteous. The essence of God is deeply marked by His Justice in the sense that Justice can be understood as a synonym for God, as Calvin aptly pointed out in Sermon 30: ”For under this term God, Baldad comprehends Justice and right dealing, and so does he afterwards under 117 the word Almighty.” God’s Justice is a major theme throughout his Sermons on Job, a theme which Calvin forcefully reiterated: ”For is treated of God’s righteousness whereof we have spoken.”118 In this perspective his analysis of the content of the book of Job was more accurate than of that of Gregory the Great and Thomas Aquinas, since he correctly interpreted

115

116

117 118

doctrine diabolique. Dieu donc n'usera point ici d'une puissance absoluë, c'est à dire, desreglee, qu'ils appellent, et qui soit separee de sa iustice.” Sermons on Job, p. 611: CO 35:144: “Quand il nous parle de la iustice de Dieu, n'imaginons point qu'il soit seulement iuste en soi: mais apprehendons sa iustice comme il appartient, et l'estendons comme il faut, c'est assavoir de tout le gouvernement du monde.” Sermons on Job, p. 354 : CO 34:175: “Car si nous attribuons simplement à Dieu une puissance, pour dire, Il gouverne le monde, il fait tout, il n'y a rien qui ne se conduise par son conseil et sa volonté, et que nous ne passions point plus outre, ce n'est pas glorifier Dieu comme il appartient. Car tout ainsi que Dieu veut estre cognu tout - puissant, il veut aussi estre cognu iuste. Mais quant à nous, cognoissons que Dieu n'a point une puissance tyrannique ou desordonnée, mais qu'elle est coniointe d'un lien inseparable avec sa iustice, et qu'il fait tout d'une façon equitable” Sermons on Job, p. 138: CO 33:372: “Car sous ce mot de Dieu Baldad comprend la iustice, et droiture, et puis encores sous le mot de Tout-Puissant.” Sermons on Job, p. 72: CO 33:202: ”Car il est question de la iustice de Dieu dont nous avons parlé.”

147

the book in the wider context of those literary works which try to give an 119 answer to the problem of theodicy. Together with the idea of Justice, Calvin never tired of emphasizing the divine Goodness which, contrary to the opinion expressed by Richard 120 Stauffer, is recurring in his theological and homiletic production, as 121 we will see in the next chapter. Calvin was not interested in deep, abstract, theological questions and never indulged in theoretical speculations about the essence of God. Job, who he identified with, was neither afflicted by the modern-day belief that God does not exist nor by the notion that He does not care about human problems. In an illuminating passage in Sermon 95, Job was described as being self-consciously aware of the fact that God rules history: I’m not ignorant that God has created the world, that He governs all things, that He holds all things in His hand, and that His majesty ought to be honored. All these things I know.122

Job never doubted that God is the ruler of history or that anyone could escape His design. He feared that God is unjust, inasmuch as He exercises an unregulated, cruel and tyrannical power over him. In Sermon 88, commenting on the text where Job cried, “Would He contend with me in His great power? No! But He would take note of me,” Calvin wrote: How meant he that God will not deal with him by force? It were to go too law with Him if he would give him the hearing. Job then presupposes that God uses an absolute or lawless power (as they term it) towards him, as if he should say, I am God, I will do what I will, although there be no order of justice in it, but plain lordly overruling. Herein Job blasphemes God: for although God’s power be infinite, yet notwithstanding to imagine it to be so absolute and lawless is as much as to make

119 See in this sense G. Von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Vol. 1, p. 467. 120 Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 110. 121 In the Sermons on Job the word Goodness recurs more than 639 times in the most various context of time and situations. 122 Sermons on Job, p. 444: CO 34:428: ”Ie ne suis pas ignorant que Dieu n'ait creé tout le monde, qu'il ne gouverne tout, qu'il ne tienne tout en sa main, et que sa maiesté ne doive estre redoutable: ie cognoi toutes ces choses.”

148

Him a Tyrant, which were utterly contraire to Hs majesty. For our Lord will not use might without right. His righteousness and mightfullness are things inseparable.123

This main interpretive key to these sermons is made clear at the very beginning of the work. After all the tragedies that had befallen him, had Job wanted to call into question God’s Providence, he would not have come to the simple conclusion that “God gave and God took away.”124 Recognizing instead that what had happened to him was according to God’s intention and not by chance, Calvin attempted to fathom the mystery of the divine Justice, challenged by a senseless suffering. Job’s predicament provided Calvin with the starting point that he needed to build his defence, that is to say that God is righteous and impartial in all that He does.”125 Here lays the “bonne cause” of Job, that is, here is the conviction that: God does not ever punish men according to the measure of their sins; but has His secret judgements, of which He does not give us an account, and yet we must wait until He may reveal to us why he does this or that.126

123 Sermons on Job, p. 413: CO 34:336: “Comment entend-il que Dieu ne debatra point avec luy par force? Ce seroit vouloir entrer en iustice, quand il luy voudroit donner audience. Iob donc presuppose que Dieu use envers luy d'une puissance absolue qu'on appelle: pour dire, Ie suis Dieu, ie feray ce que bon me semblera, encores qu'il n'y ait point de forme de iustice, mais comme une domination excessive. Or en cela Iob blaspheme Dieu: car combien que la puissance de Dieu soit infinie, si estce que de la faire ainsi absolue, c'est imaginer en luy une tyrannie, et cela est du tout contraire à sa maiesté, car nostre Seigneur ne veut point estre puissant qu'il ne soit iuste: et ce sont choses inséparables, que sa iustice et sa puissance. The same idea is echoed in Sermon 89: “Iob quand il n'aperçoit point la raison de ce que Dieu fait, imagine qu'il n'y a qu'une puissance absolue (qu'on appelle) c'est à dire, que Dieu besongne à son plaisir, sans tenir nul ordre, nulle regle, et qu'il en fait comme bon lui semble, ainsi qu'un prince quand il ne voudra point se regler par raison, mais voudra suivre son appetit.” 124 Job 1:21. 125 Sermons on Job, p. 21: CO 33:73: ”Dieu est iuste et equitable en tout ce qu'il fait.”. The phrase “Dieu est iuste” recurs 61 times. 126 Sermons from Job, p. 21: CO 33:23: “Dieu n'afflige pas tousiours les hommes selon la mesure de leurs pechez: mais qu'il a ses iugemens secrets, desquels il ne nous rend pas conte, et cependant qu'il faut que nous attendions iusques à ce qu'il nous revele pourquoy il fait ceci, ou cela.”

149

The rapid success and popularity of Sermons on Job lays in the fact that Calvin set Job’s experience in a supra-historical context. In the course of this trans-historical process, which had as its centre the discovery of the meaning of human suffering, the charges against God covered the whole gamut of human complaint. Calvin enumerated many of them. God was accused of “injustice,”127 “tyranny,”128 “cruelty,”129 “excessive severity,”130 “violence,”131 “falsehood,”132 “not being loyal and just,”133 “as though He governed not the word righteously,”134 “as if He mocked us in putting us in hope to deceive us.”135 Contrary to the interpretations of some scholars, the autobiographical character of the Sermons on Job 136 comes out undeniably and can be measured by the continuous use of questioning. The word pourquoi, followed by a question mark, recurs more than 200 times in a variety of contexts. In these questions resound all the anxieties and unresolved whys of human existence. The questions are neither academic nor abstract. Although Calvin often termed these 137 the consistent use of the first-person questions as sheer “fantasies,” plural reminds us that these experiences were lived out by the Reformer and by other innumerable generations of believers. If God governs the world, why redresses He not the number of evils that are committed? Why delivers He not those that are His whom He sees tormented with

127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

CO 34: 61: “'iniustice.” CO 35: 55: ”de quelque tyrannie.” CO 34: 12, 212: “de cruauté.” CO 33:284: “ou de trop grande rigueur.” CO 34:444: “de violence.” CO 33:85: “de mensonge.” CO 33:125: “d'estre desloyal et mesmes de n'est ce point iuste.” CO 34:374: “comme s'il ne gouvernoit point le monde en iustice.” CO 35:185: “comme s'il se mocquoit de nous, en nous donnant un espoir lequel nous frustrate.” 136 Nicholas Adams writes that “while Calvin is an excellent reformed theologian, he is a poor reader of Job.” In The Goodness of Job’s Bad arguments, in The Journal of Scriptural reasoning, number 4.1, July 2004. The article was found on Internet on the 10. March 2011 under the following address:http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/issues/volume4/number1/ssr04-01e03.html William Bouwsma points out that “Calvin’s moralism thus all but prevented him from understandings this poetic and paradoxical work.” in John Calvin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 95. 137 See for example CO 34:351.

150

138

such extremity? Where are God’s hands which should succor those that are 139 His? We see not the reason why God handles men so roughly.”140 “Why rather does he not let us alone in peace and prosperity?141 For if we be given up to evil, why does God command us to do well? Is not this a plain mockery?142 Why does he choose the one rather than the other?

Calvin took great care to face these questions, even recognizing that “to 143 argue against God was like to spew out against heaven:” And surely on this point it is sheer folly that many dare with greater license to call God’s works to account, and to examine his secret plans, and to pass as rash a 144 sentence on matters unknown as they would on the deeds of mortal men.

And yet, even while warning moderation in order to avoid making God render us to account, he had tremendous difficulties recognizing the 145 traces of a loving God in a world marked by a “hellish cruelty.” When 146 God afflicts us, he wrote, He showed Himself as “our adversary.” In Sermon 23 the French Reformer seemed to include himself in those believers who say: God had showed Himself as a lion toward me. He had broken all my bones, I’m on a burning fire…. my body is as good as rotten and there is nothing but stench in 147 me.

138 Sermons on Job, p. 372. 139 Sermons on Job, p. 230. 140 Sermons on Job, p. 7: CO 33:38: ne voyans point la raison pourquoi Dieu traitte ainsi rudement les hommes.” 141 Sermons on Job, p. 97: CO 33:267: “Pourquoi ne nous laisse il en paix et en prospérité plustost?” 142 Sermons on Job, p. 231: CO 33:616: “Car si nous sommes adonnez à mal, et pourquoi est-ce que Dieu nous commande le bien? n'est-ce pas se moquer?“ 143 ICR I.18.3. 144 ICR.I.17.1. 145 Sermons on Job, p. 92: CO 33:256: “Cruaute infernale.” 146 Sermons on Job, p. 175: CO 33:468: ”Quand Dieu nous afflige,…il se monstre comme nostre partie adverse.”This word taken from the legal procedure recurs often in the Sermons on Job. 147 Sermons on Job, p. 104: CO 33:285: “Et quoy? Dieu s'est monstré envers moy comme un lion: il a desbrisé tous mes os, ie suis en un feu ardant, ie ne sui que devenir, mon ame est comme engloutie, mon corps est comme pourri, ie n'ai que puanteur en moy. Pourquoy I est-ce que les fideles parlent ainsi?”

151

Often he could not help but confess the consternation of the entire church in seeing all things so confounded, as it may seem that all order is turned upside down, that God favours the wicked and hates the godly, or rather that Fortune beareth all the sway, that God is asleep in heaven and governs no more the things here beneath.148

God seems to be absent. When we see that, while “a wicked man is 149 punished, a righteous man is punished much more,” or while “a good man prosper, a wicked man prospers double,” we are “astonished at our 150 wits and we know not which way we turn us.” Calvin was forced to acknowledge that: these two things can very well go together, that is that the good may be, as here, as though accursed, so that their lives are subject to many evil, and that the wicked 151 may make merry, be prosperous, triumph, and have everything they want.

Far from being the result of an intellectual exercise, these words came from the heart; this is not a detached theologian preaching in a vacuum. Perhaps in no other series of preaching has there been so much empathy between the preacher and the subject of his Sermons. Calvin recognized himself in Job’s tragic experience. In his thoughtful essay Les Discourses de Calvin en premiere person R. Stauffer quoted many examples, some of them excerpted from the Sermons. And yet the use of

148 Sermons on Job, p. 40: CO 33:123: ”Quand vous verrez les choses confuses, tellement qu'il semblera que tout ordre soit renversé, et que Dieu favorise aux meschans, et haysse les bons, ou bien qu'il n'y ait plus que fortune qui domine, que Dieu dorme au ciel, qu'il ne gouverne plus les choses d'ici bas.” 149 Sermons on Job, p. 309: CO 34:52: ”Si nous voyons un homme meschant estre puni, le iuste le sera encores plus: si nous voyons un homme de bien prosperer, un meschant prosperera au double.” 150 Sermons on Job, p. 309: CO 34:53: ”Nous sommes estonnez, nous sommes en perplexité, nous ne savons de quel costé nous tourner.” 151 Sermons on Job, p. 232: CO 34:18: ”Or au contraire, ces deux choses se peuvent tresbien accorder, c'est assavoir, que Dieu soit Iuge du monde, et neantmoins que les bons soyent ici comme maudits, que leur vie soit subiette à beaucoup de maux, et que les meschans s'esgayent, qu'ils soyent en prosperité, qu'ils facent leurs triomphes, et ayent tout à souhait: ces deux choses, di-ie, ne sont pas repugnantes.”

152

the first person singular is even wider, when we enlarge the research to the pluralis majestatis that Calvin often used. Like Job, Calvin was overcome by an unutterable anxiety whenever 152 he had to acknowledge the tragic reality of a God, who “persecutes,” 153 154 “afflicts roughly,” “exercises, and tries His servants ”restrains,” 155 after strange fashions,” and “proves” their patience “by making them 156 In this anguished situation a series of subject to many miseries.” questions were to arise spontaneously: “God consumes all man’s flesh, 157 bruises, and breaks, swallows up and kills men. Why?” The position of Calvin was not always univocal. Sometimes he took refuge in God’s revelation and stressed once again that the only purpose of God is “to quicken them” because this is “the only mean to bring us 158 Other times he hinted at the principle of revelation sub unto life.” contraria specie stating that, in spite of contrary appearances, God 159 “takes no pleasure in the tormenting of His poor creatures,” or “to 160 make our state the worst.” More often his deep sense of impotence towards the mystery of God arose whenever he felt obliged to recognize against his will, that “we don’t know wherefore God does one thing or other,” since “there are 161 secretes that are hidden from us.”

152 153 154 155 156 157 158

159 160 161

Sermons on Job, p. 357: CO 34:182: “persecute.” Sermons on Job, p. 305: CO 34:43 and CO 35:76: ”reprime.” Sermons on Job, p. 743: CO 35:494: “tormente rudement.” Sermons on Job, p. 517: CO 34:613: ”Dieu exerce les siens, et les examine par façons estranges.” Sermons on Job, p. 743: CO 34:322: “esprouve leur patience quand il les assujettit a beaucoup des misères.” Sermons on Job, p. 588: CO 35:82: “Dieu consume toute la chair, Dieu brise et casse, Dieu engloutit, Dieu occit l'homme. Et pourquoi?” Sermons on Job, p. 588: CO 35:82: “Pour le vivifier. Et ainsi combien que son ire nous soit terrible, quand il nous visite en rigueur, et qu'il faille que nous expérimentions les choses qui sont ici contenues: si est-ce qu'encores nous esclaireil de ceste espérance de salut qui est le seul moyen pour nous mener à vie.“ The phrase Dieu “nous vivifie” recurs other times: CO 33:109, 755; CO 34:109 and CO 35:116. Sermons on Job, p. 589: CO 35:83: ”Dieu ne prend point plaisir à tormenter ses povres creatures.” Sermons on Job, p. 147: CO 33:397: “pour faire empirer nostre condition.” Sermons on Job, p. 201.

153

At other times, the cries of pain from the persecuted church “Why does God dissemble us? Why does He suffer His church to be turmoiled? 162 Why are there so great outrages done?” seemingly received no answer, if not the urgent warning to refrain from blaspheming God. In Sermon 37 Calvin’s identification with Job reached its highest level through a consistent number of existential questions posed in the first person: Why labour I in vain? Why take I this pain to no purpose? Why am I not wiped out of the world? Why does God take pleasure to hold me so in long punishing? Seeing I acknowledge myself worth to be condemned, what would He have more?163

Although “God is my judge, He will never cease to be my Father. He 164 Perhaps the cannot either wrong or cruelty or wrong towards us.” most concise example of Calvin’s perspective could be found in Sermon 65, where he wrote: Whenever God afflicts us, let us understand that He chastised us for our sins, and if He spares us, let us understand that His meaning is to draw us to Him by gentleness.165

Despite all these trials, Calvin, like Job, was able to resist the temptation to believe that God is not just. Contrary to the interpretation given by Susan Schreiner,166 Job, more than the Psalmist David, embodied 162 Sermons on Job, p. 609: CO 35:139: “Comment Dieu dissimule-il? Pourquoy est-ce qu’il permet que son Eglise soit ainsi tormentee? Et comment les violences sontelles si grandes?” 163 Sermons on Job, p. 171: CO 33:458: ”Pourquoi est-ce que ie travaille en vain? Car Dieu me persecute ici: et si ie suis condamné il n'y a plus de remede: faudroit-il pas que Dieu du premier coup m'abysmast? Pourquoy estce que ie ne suis racle de ce monde? Pourquoy est-ce que Dieu prend plaisir à m'entretenir ici en langueur? Quand ie confesse que ie suis condamnable, que veut-il plus?” 164 Sermons on Job, p. 177: CO 33:473 and 475: ”Dieu est mon iuge, et il ne laisse point toutefois d’estre mon Pere. Dieu ne peut user ne d’iniustice ne de cruauté contre nous. Il ne peut user d’iniustice.“ 165 CO 34:50: “Mais si Dieu nous afflige, cognoissons qu’il nous chastie pour nos pechez: s’il nous espargne cognoissons qu’il nous veut attirer à lui par douceur.” 166 In Where Wisdom shall be found, Susan Schreiner contends that “when Calvin looks for an example of how one endures corrective suffering, he often turns not to Job but to David.” p. 100. Recently Susan Schreiner has reiterated this conviction. She wrote: “Job was not a character that Calvin found particularly easy to like.”

154

Calvin’s concerns and became the personification of the suffering cry: why is there evil? Why does suffering strike the innocent? Who, if not Calvin, raised the question: Is not God righteous? Then all that He does must not be ruled by reason and righteousness? Yes, but I see it not to be so, but rather the opposite.167

It is interesting to note that whenever Calvin placed his own doubts in Job’s mouth, the questions were never rhetorical. They found an answer, not on the purely philosophical level, but with a biblical sense of meaning. Everything Calvin wrote was based on the principle of Sola Scriptura.168 Here lays one of the most important features of Calvin’s theology. He aimed to build up a theology, based not on abstract speculations, but simply on God’s revelation, as Georgia Harkness observes:

“Calvin as an interpreter of Job” in Calvin and the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 58. 167 Sermons on Job, p. 176: CO 33:462:” Dieu n’est-il pas iuste? ne faut-il pas donc que tout ce qu’il fait soit reglé en raison, et en equité? or ie n’apperçoy point ceci, mais tout l’opposite.” 168 For instance the question “Pourquoi (Dieu) ne nous laisse il en paix et en prosperité plustost,” received the following answer: “Mais i'ai desia monstré que les playes que Dieu fait, nous sont autant de médecines. Il y a donc double grace qui nous est ici monstrée: l'une est d'autant que Dieu quand il nous afflige procure nostre bien, qu'il nous attire à repentance, il nous purge de nos pechez, et mesmes de ceux qui nous sont incognus. Car Dieu ne se contente pas de remedier aux maux lesquels sont desia presens, mais il regarde qu'il y a beaucoup de semence de maladies cachées en nous. Il anticipe donc, il y met ordre, c'est un bien singulier qu'il nous fait que quand il semble qu'il viene contre nous l'espée desgainée qu'il nous monstre signe de courroux: toutesfois quoi qu'il en soit il se declare medecin.” CO 33:267. To the question “pourquoi Dieu traitte ainsi les hommes,” is answered: “Ce n'est pas tousiours: car aussi Dieu veut esprouver nostre obeissance quand il nous tient les yeux bandez, et que nous ne cognoissons point la raison de ses oeuvres, que nous y sommes comme aveugles. Si alors nous le glorifions, et que nous confessions qu'il est iuste et equitable, encores que cela ne nous soit point manifeste: voila une bonne approbation de nostre foy, et du service que nous lui rendons.” For further examples see the fourth chapter.

155

Calvin did not have an ethical system in a philosophical sense. To the "frigid" theories of the philosophers he gave short shrift.169

R. Stauffer highlights that one of the main features of Calvin’s homiletic production was “son biblicisme strict, et même, serions-nous tenté d’écrire, dans son radicalisme biblique.”170 Closely connected to the form is the intense polemic vein of his pleading. Acting as though he were the Defender of the Christian faith, Calvin attacked all his theological opponents, no matter who they were (Muslims, Nicodemites, Libertines, Astrologers). After having specified and indicated their errors, he brought in his verdict and derided them, employing various invectives. His greatest polemic, carried on to the very end of his life, was directed against the Papists, who were described as “brute beasts,”171 “too far oversotted,”172 “falsifier,”173 “ impudent and shameless,”174 “claw backs and hypocrites,”175 “dogs and pigs,”176 guilty of having “forged devilish imagination.“177 Their state is described as “cursed and wretched.”178 As P. Schaff reminded us: Calvin treated his opponents Pighius, Bolsec, Castellio, and Servetus with sovereign contempt, and called them nebulones, nugatores, canes, porci, bestiae. Such epithets are like weeds in the garden of his chaste and elegant style. But they were freely used by the ancient fathers, with the exception of Chrysostom and Augustine, in dealing with heretics, and occur even in the Scriptures, but impersonally. His age saw nothing improper in them. Beza says that "no expression unworthy of a good man ever fell from the lips of Calvin. The taste of the sixteenth century differed widely from that of the nineteenth.179

169 G. Harkness, John Calvin, The Man and his Ethics (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1931), p. 63. 170 Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 304. 171 Sermons on Job, p. 43: CO 33:131: “povres bestes brutes.” 172 Sermons on Job, p. 78: CO 33:217: “trop sots.” See also CO 33:228 and 586. 173 Sermons on Job, p. 78: CO 33:218: “faussaires.” 174 Sermons on Job, p. 269: CO 33:715: “impudens et effrontez.” 175 Sermons on Job, p. 286: CO 33:760: “caphards et bigots.” 176 Sermons on Job, p. 563: CO 35:13: “chiens et porceaux.” 177 Sermons on Job, p. 630: CO 35:195: “forgéur de imagination diabolique.” 178 Sermons on Job, p. 596: CO 35:102: “maudite et miserable.” 179 P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), p. 134.

156

The charges against them were several and always detailed.180 To those who criticised him harshly for being too severe, he replied: And why? Is it possible that we should see only a mortal and frail creature rise up so against the majesty of God to trample under foot all good doctrine, and yet that we should bear it patiently? We would certainly show by that that we have no zeal for God; for it is said in Psalm 69:9 that the zeal of the house of God ought to eat us up. For if we had a worm which nibbled away the heart, we ought not to be so much moved as when there is some opprobrium which is done to God, as we see that His truth is changed into falsehood.181

Although Calvin attacked his adversaries in a way that might hurt our modern and delicate ears, he certainly never indulged in the roughness or even obscenity that was common to many preachers of his time. His sometimes harsh judgements were offered with no personal resentment, but simply employed with the conviction that he must perform a particular duty. Deeply convinced that he had been called to build up the Christian church, Calvin, as Verbi Divini Minister, believed himself entitled to use plain words to point out others errors. One should also remember that the times in which he lived were polemical. The 180 Stauffer wrote: “Calvin leur reproche ainsi de vouloir remonter à Dieu à partir de la révélation générale; de spéculer sur l’essence de Dieu dans leurs écoles de théologie; de prêter à Dieu une puissance absolue; de considérer la Bible comme un document qui non seulement serait inaccessible aux simples fideles, mais qui dépourvu de toute “perspicuitas,” serait susceptible de multiples interprétations, de méconnaitre le fait que Dieu parle dans le’ Ecriture; d’être des illumines et des novateurs en faisant crédit à la tradition; de considérer les anges comme des médiateurs possibles entre Dieu et les hommes; de priver enfin les fideles de la certitude du salut.” In Dieu, la Creation et la Providence, p. 306. 181 CO 35:12: ”Et comment? Est-il possible que nous voyons qu'une créature mortelle et caduque s'esleve ainsi contre la maiesté de Dieu, pour fouler au pie toute bonne doctrine: et cependant que nous portions cela patiemment? Nous monstrerions bien par cela que nous n'avons nul zele de Dieu: car il est dit au Pseaume (69:10), Que le zele de la maison de Dieu nous doit manger. Car si nous avions un ver qui nous rongeast le coeur, nous ne devrions point estre tant esmeus, que quand il y a quelque opprobre qui est fait à Dieu, que nous voyons que sa verité est convertie en mensonge.” This statement echoed the most famous sentence in which the French Reformer wrote to the King of Navarra: “Even a dog barks when his master is attacked; how could I be silent when the honor of my Lord is assailed?” CO 6:503: "Canis, si quam suo domino violentiam inferri viderit, protinus latrabit: nos tot sacrilegiis violari sacrum Dei nomen taciti aspiceremus?”

157

Protestants were engaged in a life and death struggle with Rome and the provocations to one’s patience were numerous and grievous. Was Calvin anxious and oriented to pessimism? This question has been raised innumerable times and recently by Bouwsma when he wrote: A vocabulary of anxiety pervades his discourse; it includes not only anxietas and its equivalent solicitudo in Latin, but in French, angoisse, destresse, frayeur, solicitude, and even perplexité.182

In this statement lays a deep misunderstanding of Calvin’s attitude. Although his personality often tended to anxiety, it is difficult to single out in his sermons any emphasis in this direction but only and always this comforting announcement summed up in Sermon 24: nothing shall happen without His will, and His will tends to our welfare, and so seeing we be His children, there is no cause for us to doubt183

At the basis of this attitude there was a very deep confidence in the promises of God. Whatever tragedy might occur, Calvin never lost confidence that God would save His church from the attacks of Satan and of the wicked. Paraphrasing Bouwsma, Calvin was optimistic in spite of his natural pessimism because he was convinced that God works for human salvation and He will convert evil to good. Although his health was always precarious and during his life he encountered political and theological opposition, he maintained that God tenderly cared not only for His elect, but also for him.

3.4

Calvin’s empathy with Job

It is within this polemical context that his Sermons on Job find their explanation. In writing them Calvin found himself faced with the following dilemma: Was it theologically correct to defend Job and 182 Bouwsma, John Calvin: a Sixteenth Century Portrait, p. 37. 183 Sermons on Job, p. 110: CO 33:301: “si est-ce que rien n'adviendra sans sa volonté, et sa volonté tend à nostre salut, puis que nous sommes de ses enfans, il n'y a point de doute.”

158

ignore the fact that Job had frequently spoken excessively and randomly? And even assuming that Job’s reasons were valid, how was it possible to place God in the defendant’s box? How could one maintain the notion of God’s Justice in view of the fact that Job, at the end of the book, was freed from all blame? Indeed, in light of Job’s suffering, how was it possible to believe in God’s Justice? Calvin struggled with these anguishing questions and often he was ambivalent. His analysis was based on two different and contradictory concerns: the desire to vindicate God’s Justice, while experiencing a profound solidarity with, and compassion for, the reality of human suffering. Convinced that the main goal of human life is the glorification of God, he severely criticised his listeners for their self-love, carnal desires, luxury, materialism, injustice and hypocrisy. The very way of salvation, leading one out of self-centredness is self-knowledge, humiliation, repentance and, ultimately, the glorification of God. For Calvin, the honour of God is the salvation of mankind. Calvin was convinced that the answer to this dilemma depended upon the way in which one interpreted the integrity of Job. In the first Sermon, Calvin established what constituted the guidelines for his thought. Taking these words from Job 1:1, “Job was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil,” Calvin drew a distinction between two seemingly similar concepts: integrity and perfection. The problem which has always worried Christian theologians is related to the more general question of how it is possible to be saved. If the Hebrew term tam is interpreted as perfection, then the principle of salvation per sola gratia is doomed to fail, because Job could have been saved independently from God’s grace. Calvin identified the underlying danger: It is said, that he was a sound man. This word sound in the Scripture is taken for a plainness, when there is no point of feigning, counterfeiting, or hypocrisy in a man, but that he shows himself the same outwardly that he is inwardly, and specially when he hath no starting holes to shift himself from God, but lays open his heart, and all his thoughts and affections, so as he desires nothing but to consecrate and dedicate himself wholly unto God. The said word hath also been translated perfect, as well by the Greeks as by the Latins. But forasmuch as the word perfect, hath afterward been misconstrued: it is much better for us to use this word sound. For many ignorant persons, not knowing how the said perfection is to be taken, have thought thus: Behold here a man that is called perfect, and therefore it follows, that it is possible for us to have perfection in ourselves, even during the time that we

159

walk in this present life. But they deface the grace of God, whereof we have need continually. For even they that have lived most uprightly, must have recourse to God’s mercy: and except their sins be forgiven them, and that God uphold them, they must needs all perish. 184

In Sermon 11 Calvin presented his opinion more precisely, clarifying that Job had not acquired such perfection by himself; rather it had been necessary for God to reform him by His Holy Spirit so that he was, as it were, separated from the common rank of men.185 The distinction 184 Sermons from Job, p. 10: CO 33:27-28: “Il est dit, Qu'il estoit un homme entier. Or ce mot en l'Escriture se prend pour une rondeur, quand ii n'y a point de fiction, ne d'hypocrisie en l'homme, mais qu'il se monstre tel par dehors comme il est au dedans, et mesmes qu'il n'a point d'arriere boutique pour se destourner de Dieu, mais qu'il desploye son coeur, et toutes ses pensees et affections, qu'il ne demande sinon de se consacrer à Dieu, et s’y dedier du tout. Ce mot ici a esté rendu Parfaict, tant par les Grecz que par les Latins: mais pource qu'on a mal exposé puis apres le mot de Perfection, il vaut beaucoup mieux que nous ayons le mot d'integrité. Car beaucoup d'ignorans, qui ne savent pas comment se prend ceste perfection, ont pensé, Voila un homme qui est appelé parfait, il s'ensuit donc qu'il y peut avoir perfection en nous, cependant que nous cheminons en ceste vie presente. Or ils ont obscurci la grace de Dieu, de laquelle nous avons tousiours besoin: car ceux qui auront chemine le plus droitement, encores faut-il qu'ils ayent leur refuge à la misericorde de Dieu: et si leurs pechez ne leur sont pardonnez, et que Dieu ne les supporte, les voila tous peris.” 185 “Vray est que de nature il n'estoit pas tel: et aussi quand il dit, qu'il a fait paction, c'est apres avoir profité en la crainte de Dieu, en telle sorte qu'il avoit mis sous le pie ses cupiditez mauvaises, et gagné ceste victoire sur son coeur, qu'il s'est peu tenir bridé et enserré, pour dire, Ie ne convoiteray nul mal pour l'appeter et souhaiter, ie n'auray nulle veine en moy qui tende à offenser Dieu, mais ie seray ici retenu et en mes yeux, et en ma bouche, et en mes aureilles. Voila donc comme Iob avoit fait ceste paction. Cen'est pas qu'il eust une telle integrité en sa nature, il estoit homme suiet à passions comme nous, etne faut douter qu'il n'ait eu beaucoup, de tentations en sa vie: mais il a chemine en telle sorte qu'il estoit accoustumé en la crainte de Dieu iusques là, de ne concevoir point de mauvais appetis. Il avoit donc une habitude, comme on l'appelle, c'est à dire, il estoit tellement duit à cela qu'il n'estoit plus vagabond pour se ietter d'un costé et d'autre, et se soliciter à telle chose ou à telle. En somme nous voyons ici que Iob a voulu declarer que non seulement il taschoit de servir à Dien, mais qu'il s'y estoit tellement efforcé qu'il avoit donté et captive toutes les passions de sa chair, en sorte qu'il ne luy coustoit plus rien de servir à Dieu: pource qu'il n'avoit point ces combats que nous avons en nous à cause de nostre fragilité, et mesmes de la corruption qui est en nostre nature. Or notons que ceci n'estoit pas de sa vertu propre, il n'a peu acquerir une telle perfection de soy: mais il falloit que Dieu l'eust tellement reformé par son sainct Esprit, qu'il fust

160

between integrity and perfection allowed Calvin to get out of an impasse and, at the same time, to defend both God and Job. Bound by these two contrasting concerns, Calvin’s position did not seem consistent. His indecision prompted many observers to believe that he had difficulty sympathizing with Job.186 These remarks fail to grasp the complexity of the Reformer’s position. It is certainly true that Calvin was “often ambivalent about Job’s defence of innocence,”187 as Thomas Derek has recognized. It is also true that Calvin repeatedly expressed a profound criticism of Job. In many ways he could not help but recognize that Job was frail,”188 “because he looked not at God’s sovereign grace,”189 “deaf and blind:”190 he “speaks excessively,”191 “thorough a brutish and confused affection without measure nor modesty,”192 “blasphemes God,”193 behaved as “as a man in a rage,”194 “ravish in trance,”195 and did not have “so sound a perfection as he had before.”196

186

187 188 189 190 191 192 193

comme separé du reng commun des hommes:…. il s'ensuit donc que Iob n'a peu faire une telle paction par son franc-arbitre, pour dire que la raison dominast tellement en luy, qu'il fust victorieux sur toutes ses passions: mais icy il entend attribuer à Dieu la louange d'un tel bien. Ce n'est pas donc se vanter et magnifier, comme s'il avoit acquis un tel bien: mais il recognoist que Dieu l'avoit si bien gouverné, qu'il n'estoit plus solicite à mal en sa veue.” In CO 34:625. An example of such interpretation is undoubtedly William Bouwsma, who writes: “Calvin’s moralism prevented him from sympathizing with the tribulation of biblical figures. His almost deliberate insensitivity is nowhere more in evidence than in his reading of the book of Job. It interested him deeply; he devoted one of his longest Sermon sequences to it; and, baffled by its contrast between the faith and humanity of Job and the moralism of Job's friends, he hardly knew what to make of it. He finally came to the remarkable conclusion that Job's friends, although their “arguments and reasons” were good and their teachings “holy and useful,” had mysteriously defended the wrong cause…. Calvin's moralism thus all but prevented him from understanding this poetic and paradoxical work. He was blind to its ironies.” John Calvin, a Sixteen Century Portrait, pp. 94-95. Derek, Calvin’s Teaching on Job, Proclaiming the Incomprehensible God, p. 54. CO 33:141. CO 34:29: “d'autant qu'il ne regarde point à la iustice souveraine de Dieu.” Sermons on Job, p. 56: CO 33:162: “sourd et aveugle.” Sermons on Job, p. 239: CO 33:458, 464-468, 478, 635; CO 34:351:” parle excessivement.” Sermons on Job, p. 50: CO 33:171: “d’une affection brutale et confuse, qu’il ne tient ni regle, ni modestie.” Sermons on Job, p. 413: CO 34:336: “blasphème Dieu.”

161

Instead of being an example to follow, Job sometimes became a mirror of human weakness. God had willed that those who were suffering would recognize themselves in his person. In commenting on verses 1-7 of chapter seven, he pointed out: For in the person of Job, the Holy Ghost has set our frailty before our eyes as it were in a glass: I mean the frailty of mind and not of body.197

Calvin reserved his harshest criticism for Job’s complaining about his suffering and giving expression to his sorrow and anger. When Job cursed the day of his birth, Calvin deeply censured him.198 The same happened when Job asked to die, though in this case Calvin charged him with having “unhallowed the name of God”199 Yet, in spite of his criticisms Calvin certainly did not go as far as to minimize the reality of his suffering. Job was afflicted, persecuted, humiliated, chastened, and punished for reasons that were hidden and concealed. His torment was genuine as were the misfortunes that befell him. Calvin acknowledged the inconsistency of the stoic apatheia and treated the experience of suffering as real. His sympathy was sincere and unconditioned when he stressed that Job was a “man of such virtue and excellence,”200 “an Angel of God,”201 and warned that “we are far off from the perfection that was in Job.”202 He repeatedly referred to “this holy man”203 as a role model, as a prophet and teacher for us:

194 195 196 197

198 199 200 201 202 203

162

Sermons on Job, p. 171: CO 33:458: “an homme desborde.” Sermons on Job, p. 54: CO 33:157: “ravy en extase.” Sermons on Job, p. 48: CO 33:142: “une perfection si entiere comme auparavant.” Sermons on Job, p. 123: CO 33:334: “Il nous faut bien noter ce passage ici: car en la personne de Iob le Sainct Esprit nous a mis en un miroir devant les yeux quelle est nostre fragilité: ie di fragilité de sens, et non point du corps.“ CO 33:141 and CO 33:85. Sermons on Job, p. 232: CO 33:296: “profané le nom de Dieu.” CO 33:355: “homme d'une telle vertu et si excellente.” Sermons on Job, p. 521: CO 34:625 and 706. Sermons on Job, p. 262: CO 33:698: “nous sommes bien loin de la perfection qui estoit en Iob.” Sermons on Job, p. 29: CO 33:94, 302, 369, 642, CO 34:7: “ce sainct personage.”

to give us warning what our affections be,204 to renounce themselves, that they may give themselves wholly over to God,205 that he withdrew himself from evil,206 that we may beat back all the wicked flaunders, wherewith the enemies of God and of His word labour, to over throve and turn away our faith,207 to bless the name of God208 and to return to Him,209 to be vigilant to keep good watch, 210 to keep our mouth shut, when God afflicts us.”211

In Sermon 27 Calvin reminded his listeners that “in the person of Job the 212 Holy Ghost has set our frailty before our eyes as it were in a glass,” whereas in Sermon 51 he exhorted people to regard the example of Job, who “has abide these spiritual battles, that is to say, seeing God pressed 213 him in such way that he felt Him as his enemy.” The reference to Job as example recurs more than 35 times in the most various contexts. Over and over again he defended Job against the opinion of his friends, who deemed that his punishment was due to specific sins, stating that Job was afflicted without cause for an unknown reason214 “as a wicked offender.”215 On many occasions Calvin warned that the doctrine stating that those who are persecuted by the hand of God cannot complain because they are the cause of their own miseries, contains a general principle which has been “misapplied to Job’s

204 Sermons on Job, p. 175: CO 33:469: “Prophète et docteur, afin de nous mettre en avant quelles sont nos affections.“ 205 Sermons on Job, p. 38: CO 33:119: “pour resister à toutes nos affections et de les mettre bas, si nous voulons servir à Dieu.” 206 Sermons on Job, p. 5: CO 33:32: “pour nous retirer du mal.” 207 CO 33:323: “pour repousser toutes les meschantes calomnies dont les ennemis de Dieu et de sa parole taschent de renverser et divertir notre foy.” 208 Sermons on Job, p. 61: CO 33:102: “pour bénir le nom de Dieu.” 209 CO 35:473. 210 Sermons on Job, p. 61: CO 33:174: “Que nous soyons vigilans pour faire bon guet.” 211 Sermons on Job, p. 335: CO 34:124: “Ainsi en conioignant ce passage de David avec l'exemple de Iob, nous devons estre instruits de tenir la bouche close quand Dieu nous afflige.” 212 Sermons on Job, p. 123: CO 33:334: “En la personne de Job le saint Esprit nous a mis en un miroir devant les yeux quelle est notre fragilité.” 213 Sermons on Job, p. 239-240: CO 33:637: “qu'il a enduré ces combats spirituels, c’est à dire, que Dieu l'a pressé en sorte, qu'il le sentoit comme son ennemi. “ 214 CO 33:103-116, 242, 372. 215 Sermons on Job, p. 188: CO 33:501: “comme un meschant.”

163

person.”216 and, consequently, “Eliphas does Job great injury and wrong.”217 As a matter of fact, Job showed “a wonderful strength of mind.”218 Even when Job was excessive, Calvin repeatedly reminded others that Job had no intention “to plead against God, as if he would go to the law with Him,”219 “to accuse God of unrighteousness,”220 “to displease God willingly neither to do against His mind,”221 “to blasphemy God,”222 or, “to lift up himself against Him.”223 He repeatedly pointed out that “Job tormented himself here not for the miseries which he endured in his body, but because God held him as a poor condemned person and because He dealt as a judge with him and 224 is altogether against him.” Job would desire that “God should proceed with him not by the said secret and hidden righteousness, but after his 225 ordinary manner.” Although Calvin sometimes criticised Job, one has to consider his statements in the widest context of his thought. In Sermon 46 the statement that “it seems that Job speaks here as a man that had no more 226 is taste of the heavenly life, nor knows what God’s mercy means,” counterbalanced immediately afterwards by the acknowledgement that

216 Sermons on Job, p. 204: CO 33:544 and 275: ”est tresmal appliqué à la personne de Iob.” 217 Sermons on Job, p. 392: CO 34:278: “Eliphas fait grand tort et iniure à Iob.” 218 Sermons on Job, p. 27. 219 Sermons on Job, p. 57: CO 33:163: “de contester contre Dieu, comme si ’il intentoit procez.” 220 Sermons on Job, p. 516: CO 34:610; CO 35:56, 132: “d’ accuser Dieu d’iniustice.” 221 Sermons on Job, p. 51: CO 33:150: “de despiter Dieu à sonv e lui maugreer.” 222 Sermons on Job, p. 58: CO 33:158; CO 34: 37, and 336: “de blasphemer Dieu.” 223 Sermons on Job, p. 137: CO 33:369: “de s'eslever contre Luy.” 224 Sermons on Job, p. 108: CO 33:294: “Iob se tourmente ici, non pas pour le mal qu'il endure en son corps, mais d'autant que Dieu le tient comme un povre homme condamné, et qu'il se monstre son iuge, qu'il luy est contraire.” 225 Sermons on Job, p. 176: CO 33:471 :“ il voudroit bien que Dieu ne procedast point avec lui en ceste iustice Secrette et cachee, de laquelle nous traitasmes hier: mais il voudroit que Dieu l’examinast selon sa façon ordinaire.” 226 Sermons on Job, p. 176, pp. 311-312: CO 34:61: “il semble bien que Iob parle ici comme un homme qui n'a plus nul goust de la vie celeste, qu'il ne sait que c'est de la misericorde de Dieu.”

164

Job showed well that he had terrible conceits, which notwithstanding he resisted.227 Now, if this happened to Job, who was constant above others, alas, what shall become of us?228

And again he asked anxiously.229 For if Job (who was an Angel in comparison of us) were not spared, what shall we be? Shall we not be blamed a hundredfold more than Job was?”

While condemning the fact that sometimes Job spoke “thorough a brutish and confused affection, and that he kept neither measure nor modesty,” Calvin expressed the conviction that he felt, “howbeit not with a deadly fall, but with a half fall and God raised him up again.“230 Even when there was an attitude of ingratitude in Job, Calvin excused him alleging that “he was so turmoiled, that this escaped his mouth unawares.”231 In Sermon 28, the denial of faith in the resurrection, implicit in the words pronounced by Job, could lead to the conclusion that he spoke “like an unbeliever” until Calvin recalled that the things we have in these days were not yet written in the time of Job.”232 227 Sermons on Job, p. 312: CO 34:61: “a bien monstré qu'il avoit des apprehensions terribles, ausquelles neantmoins il a tousiours resisté.” 228 Sermons on Job, p. 328: CO 34:105: “Si cela est advenu à Iob qui estoit constant par dessus les autres, helas que sera-ce de nous?” The same question echoed also in CO 33:155 and 362, CO 34:105 and 351, CO 35:137, 221 and 450. 229 Sermons on Job, p. 328: CO 35:215: “Car si Iob n'a point esté espargné, luy qui estoit un Ange au pris de nous, et que sera-ce? …Ne serons-nous point redarguez cent fois plus que n'a esté Iob? “ 230 Sermons on Job, p. 59: CO 33:171: “Ainsi donc nous voyons comme il est tombé, et non pas d'une cheute mortelle, mais il est tombé à, demi, et Dieu l'a relevé puis apres, comme nous verrons.” 231 Sermons on Job, p. 52: CO 33:154: “Mais notons cependant, qu'il n'a point parlé comme celuy qui consentoit à tels propos: il a esté agité en sorte que ceci luy est eschappé de la bouche: neantmoins si a-il retenu en son coeur que Dieu luy avoit fait tant de biens, qu'il avoit bien raison de les recognoistre.” 232 Sermons on Job, p. 128: CO 33:348: “Mais il nous faut noter qu'ici il parle de la mort des hommes telle qu'elle est en soy, comme aussi l'Escriture saincte use bien souvent d'un tel stile. Or nous ne devons point trouver estrange que Iob ait parlé selon que nous sommes enseignez par le sainct Esprit. Les choses que nous avons auiourd'huy n'estoient pas encores escrites pour ce temps-la: mais si est-ce que Dieu avoit engravé au coeur des siens tout ce qui est escrit: et Dieu encores auiourd'huy nous le fait sentir en nos ames, et l'engrave là de son doigt, c'est à dire de son sainct Esprit.”

165

In Sermon 36 the statement that God “laughs at the plight of the innocent” was mitigated by saying that Job spoke “after the understanding of man.”233 This also happened in Sermon 35 where Calvin commented on Job’s phrase: “for He crushes me with a tempest, and multiplies my wounds without cause ( Job 9:17). Even admitting that “it seems that Job blasphemes God here in saying that he was smitten and wounded without cause,”234 he justified this statement by pointing out that Job spoke ”according to His natural understanding” “and that his words “without cause have respect to the apparent and open knowledge of men.”235 It is noteworthy that the word “seems” recurs every time Calvin tried to mitigate some of Job’s more embarrassing statements.236 Repeatedly, he highlighted the inexistence of any animus iniuriandi in Job, who wanted neither “to accuse God of unrighteousness”237 nor “to blaspheme Him.”238 It is also significant that Calvin pursued this defence of Job even against the charges of Elihu. Contrary to the interpretation given by S. Schreiner that “Elihu emerges as the greatest of Calvin’s hero,”239 the French Reformer directed some very critical remarks against Elihu.240 Surely the most detached and impartial judgment can be read at the beginning of Sermon 147, when Calvin, having to sum up his opinion on the extraordinary experiences of Job, wrote: Here is a mirror of angelic holiness. We have seen the protestations that he made here below; and although he was afflicted to the limit, though he murmured, and although there escaped from him extravagant statements; yet he always retained the principle of worshipping God, and of humbling 233 Sermons on Job, p. 166: CO 33:446: ”selon l’apprehension humaine.” 234 Sermons on Job, p. 163: CO 33:437: “il semble que Iob blaspheme ici contre Dieu, disant qu'il a esté affligé, et navre sans propos.” 235 Sermons on Job, p. 163: CO 33:437: “selon son sentiment naturel” and that his words “sans propos se rapporte à la cognoissance evidente des hommes.” 236 See CO 33:94, 175, 660 and CO 34:679. 237 See CO 34:610; CO 35:56 and 132. 238 CO 34:37 and 336, 713; CO 35:449 and 506. 239 Susan Schreiner, “Through a Mirror dimly: Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” in Calvin Theological Journal 21 (1986), p. 185. 240 For example in Sermon 136, when Elihu said to Job: “Look to the heavens and see; And behold the clouds. They are higher than you,” Calvin terms this answer “bien maigre and sarcastically wrote: car n'avoit-il point d'autre raison pour monstrer la iustice de Dieu?” In CO 35:226.

166

himself under His majesty; he kept this in general, although he fell down in 241 part.

In this affirmation lays the heart of Calvin’s dilemma: even though he was convinced of the legitimacy of several of Job’s lamentations he was also a merciless critic of them.

3.5 Lawsuit against God? Yet, even if Calvin could vindicate Job and overlook in claris some of his exaggerated statements, surely he could not afford to place God in the defendant’s box, bringing Him to trial. Caught at the crossroads, determining whether he was to be the prosecutor or the lawyer of God, Calvin, never hesitated in the slightest: he became God’s lawyer; and his first goal was to “maintain His glory and truth,”242 “His case,243 His truth,244 his honour.”245 In the wider context of this ‘trial’ metaphor, Calvin’s defence became a constant lecture against those who wanted to charge God; a passionate plea in favour of God’s rights. Nevertheless, when Calvin decided to become God’s attorney, he raised, as a good advocate, a series of questions which needed to be reviewed in preliminary discussions before coming to the heart of the matter. The first question was: Do human beings have the formal legitimacy to charge God?

241 Sermons from Job p. 290: CO 35:353-354: “Et si un tel homme sainct, et qui avoit appliqué toute son estude à, honorer Dieu, a eu besoin d'estre ainsi dompté: que sera-ce de nous? Faisons comparaison de nous avec Iob: voila un miroir d'une saincteté angelique, nous avons veu les protestations qu'il a fait ici dessus: et combien qu'il fust affligé iusques au bout, et qu'il murmurast, et qu'il lui eschappast des propos extravagans: si est-ce qu'il a tousiours retenu ce principe d'adorer Dieu, et de s'humilier sous sa maiesté: ii y a eu cela en general, combien qu'il ait decliné en partie.“ 242 CO 34:144; CO 34:216. 243 CO 34:333. 244 CO 34:458. 245 CO 34:706.

167

The answer to this preliminary and procedural question was negative. Even a superficial acknowledgement of the fact that men are nothing else than “earth and dung should discourage them to lift up themselves against God and to check against His truth.”246 Wretched creature, where are thou ? asked sharply Calvin, Commest thou here to dispute against thy God and to subdue Him? Is a reason that thou shouldest take upon thee to control Him, and make Him to pass as it were under thy hand? What a malapertnesse is that?247Were it not too devilish a pride if men should not acknowledge God to be righteous, except they could perceive Him to be so? 248 It is not true that nature itself teaches us that we ought to abhorre it?249

He did not hesitate to make sarcastic remarks against those who disputed 250 and spoke of Him “as of against God “as if they were His fellow” 251 their companion, or as He were inferior unto them.” Other times he went so far as to speak of “high treason.”252 His second question was related to the existence of what we would now call our human rights in relation to God. Calvin’s conclusion was plain

246 Sermons on Job, p. 222: CO 33:590: “Que si les hommes se regardent bien, ils ne seront point si hardis de s'eslever contre Dieu, et de se rebecquer contre sa verité. Car qui sommes nous? Nous sommes terre et " fange.” 247 Sermons on Job, p. 669: CO 35:301: “Povre creature, où estois-tu? Tu viens ici entrer en dispute contre ton Dieu, et l'assuiettir, et y a-il raison en cela? Que tu le viennes ainsi contre roller, et qu'il passe comme sous ta main ? et quelle audace estcela?” The same question recurs many other times : See also in CO 33:130,343, 543, 539, 642, 750 and in CO 35:202. 248 Sermons on Job, p. 33: CO 33:106: “N'est-ce point une arrogance diabolique, que les hommes ne veulent point confesser que Dieu est iuste, sinon entant qu'ils le cognoissent tel : et veulent qu'il s'aneantisse et s'abaisse iusques là.“ 249 Sermons on Job, p. 153: CO 33:411: “Si on nous parle de plaider contre Dieu, nature mesme nous enseigne que nous devons avoir cela en horreur: ie di les plus meschans?” 250 Sermons on Job, p. 384: CO 34:256: “Qui es tu? Et qui est Dieu? C'est ton Createur: et tu t'adresses à lui pour disputer de ses oeuvres, comme si tu estois son pareil?” 251 Sermons on Job, p. 400: CO 34:299: “Et quand ils disputent de Dieu, il semble que non seulement ils en parlent comme de leur compagnon, mais de ie ne say quoy qui est inferieur à eux.” 252 Sermons on Job, p. 668: CO 35:298: “Voulons-nous donc iuger de Dieu? C'est un sacrilege: car nous usurpons ce qui est sien.”

168

and clear: God does not owe us anything.”253 In this same Sermon Calvin emphasized that God will not enter into debate and “will not abase Himself so far as to answer us when we summon Him to the law: He will not in that case appear as our counterparties.”254 Nevertheless, even accepting that one might bring an action against God, the possibility of winning the case would be nonexistent.255 Identifying himself with those who tried to charge God, he had to recognize that this action was doomed to fail, since “we shall get no good by advancing ourselves against God in going to law with Him.”256 Convinced that this attempt to plead against God was not only useless,257 but also counterproductive,258 Calvin, the skilled attorney, took care to enumerate the risks in bringing a lawsuit against God. God will “have His hands armed and will stretch it out of heaven to confound all such as shall so plead against Him.259 In Sermon 118 his warning sounded particularly preoccupied, when he acknowledged: There is not a more terrible thing, than if God should enter into law with us. If He set Himself against us, alas, what shall become of us? Let us keep ourselves from

253 CO 33:500: “Peut-il encores plaider contre Dieu? Nenni: il faut qu'il demouré là court. Et pourquoi? Car Dieu ne nous doit rien.” 254 Sermons on Job, p. 622: CO 35:174: “Dieu ne s'abbaissera point iusques là, de nous respondre quand nous l'appellerons en iustice: il ne sera point là comme nostre partie.” 255 CO 34:36. See also CO 35:9: “Il est vray que nous n'appercevrons point la raison de ce qu'il fait, mais d'où procede cela, que de nostre infirmité et rudesse? Faut-il que nous mesurions la iustice de Dieu par nostre sens? Où seroit-ce aller? Quel propos y auroit-il? Ainsi donc que nous apprenions de glorifier Dieu en tout ce qu'il fait: et combien que sa main nous soit rude, que nous ne laissions pas tousiours de confesser, Helas! Seigneur si i'entre en procez avec toy, ie say bien que ma cause est perdue.” 256 Sermons on Job, p. 175: CO 33:467: “Nous ne profiterons rien à nous eslever contre Dieu, si nous pretendons de l’amener en iustice.” 257 CO 33:470: “Ainsi en est-il, que si nous voulons plaider contre Dieu, c'est autant comme si nous iettions un fardeau sur nostre teste, et il faut qu'il retombe là dessus en despit que nous en ayons: nous aurons beau fuyr ou ça ou là, si est-ce qu'il retombera sur nous.” See also CO 35:190. In The Institutes (I.18.3.) he wrote : “But if they openly curse, what will they gain by spitting at the sky?” 258 CO 34:174. 259 Sermons on Job, p. 364: CO 35:202: “Dieu aura sa main armée, et la lèvera du ciel pour rendre confus tous ceux qui auront ainsi plaidé contre lui.”

169

quarrelling with God, when He strikes us with His roddes, that we have Him not our deadly enemy.”260

The same occurred in Sermon 33 when Calvin warned his listeners not to fight against God in order to justify ourselves, since otherwise God will “confound us and so rush against us, as we shall be oppressed and overwhelmed of a thousand crimes, and we shall not be able to answer any of them.”261 Calvin had not the slightest doubt about the outcome of this lawsuit. Ultimately God will be discharged and “justified,”262 and everything will find an answer. Satan must bear the blame still for his own naughtiness, and men are reproved and condemned by their own conscience which shall be their judge and God shall be glorified in all that He does.263

Despite all their strong pleas against God, men will lose the case. Why? Calvin answered this question emphasizing once again that the final outcome will demonstrate that “God hath not handled us unindifferently, nor laid to sore a burthen upon us, that is to say, He hath not afflicted us out of measure.”264

260 Sermons on Job, p. 555: CO 34:15: “il n'y a rien plus espouvantable, que quand Dieu voudra entrer en procez avec nous: s'il se constitue partie adverse, helas que pourrons-nous devenir? Gardons-nous d'intenter querelle contre Dieu quand il nous frappe de ses verges, et de l'avoir pour ennemi mortel.” 261 Sermons on Job, p. 155: CO 33:415: “Gardons bien donc de nous eslever iusques-là que de combattre contre Dieu, et d'entrer en procez pour nous iustifier. Car autrement ii faudra que nostro Dieu nous confonde, et qu'il heurte tellement contre nous, que nous soyons opprimez et accablez de mille crimes, et que nous ne puissions respondre à un seul: que quand nous serons accusez de mille pechez mortels, c'est à dire, d'un nombre infini, si nous voulons avoir defense d'un seul article, nous en serons deboutez.” 262 CO 33:428 and CO 35:10, 11 and 174. 263 Sermons on Job, p. 34: CO 33:107: “Satan demeurera coulpable en sa malice, les hommes sont redarguez et convaincus par leur conscience propre qui est leur iuge, et Dieu sera glorifié en tout ce qu'il fait.” 264 Sermons on Job, p. 622: CO 35:174: “que Dieu ne nous a point traittez iniquement, qu'il n'a point mis trop de charge sur nous: c'est à dire, qu'il ne nous a point affligez outre mesure.”

170

Yet if Calvin condemned those who stood as God’s accusers, he similarly fought against those who tried to defend God with fraudulent grounds. In Sermon 49, commenting on Job 13:7-8,265 he wrote: Job blames those that had gone about to overcome him by their disputations, as who should say they would speak in the defence of God. Thinke yee (sayeth he) that God has need of your dealings? Or that you should come here to be his proctors and advocates? Hath he need that men should defend Him after such a fashion? He will show that He abhorred such dealings, and that he will be maintained by His own righteousness, without borrowing of any means to be acquitted at men’s hands and without borrowing of their dealings, and of the excuses that they shall have forged.266

The clear teaching of the Holy Scripture could not be modified in a vain attempt to protect God’s Justice.267 This was particularly important for Calvin in regards to the doctrine of Free Will which had been employed at times in a futile effort to defend God’s Justice. Now there are forgers of lies who row between two streams and say that it is better, then, to grant men some freewill, in order that they may be blameworthy when they have done amiss. Indeed, but the Scripture speaks otherwise. Why is it that they flee to such a subterfuge, unless it be that they tell lies in behalf of God? Has He need of their lies? Must His truth be maintained by that means? Must God borrow our lies and must we be His attorney full of quibbling?268

265 “Will you speak wickedly for God, and talk deceitfully for Him? Will you show partiality for Him? Will you contend for God?” 266 Sermons on Job, p. 229: CO 33:611: “Or venons maintenant au principal qui est ici touché. Iob dit, Qu'il parlera neantmoins à Dieu, et qu'il veut disputer contre luy: mais il reproche à ceux qui avoyent tasché de le vaincre par leurs disputes, qu'il semble qu'ils veulent parler en faveur de Dieu. Assavoir, s'il a besoin de vos mensonges? que vous veniez ici estre ses procureurs et advocats? Et Dieu a-il besoin qu'on luy favorise en telle façon ? Il monstrera que telles choses luy sont detestables, et qu'il veut estre maintenu en sa propre iustice, sans emprunter des moyens pour estre absous ne des hommes ne de leurs mensonges et advertissemens qu'ils auront forgez.” 267 In the same sermon Calvin deeply censured those “qui veulent favoriser à Dieu, en desguisant la doctrine de l’Escriture saincte: comme si Dieu avoit mestier de leurs mensonges.” In CO 33:616. 268 Sermons from Job, p. 60: CO 33:617-618: “Or il y a des forgeurs de mensonge qui nagent entre deux eaux, et disent, Qu'il vaut mieux donc attribuer aux hommes quelque francarbitre, afin qu'ils soyent tenus coulpables quand ils auront failli.

171

Calvin singled out another awkward attempt to defend God’s Justice with the use of the appeal to divine permission.269 In Sermon 33 he rejected as futile the claim that God punished every man according to his faults. It is, then, a vice when anyone wishes to measure the justice of God, as if to say: He afflicts no one except for his faults: indeed, both in such quality and in such quantity as each one has offended Him, God must return to Him in this world. Then the justice of God is not properly understood.270

In one of his last sermons Calvin advanced provocatively the hypothesis that God, rather than “raise up great orators among men, will content himself to have the brute beasts to plead for him.”271 Rather than have the defence of God’s Justice based on lies and compromises, Calvin countered another defence, based on a complete different attitude, in which is not possible to be “neuters and to row between two streams.”272

269

270

271 272

172

Voire: mais l'Escriture en parle autrement. Pourquoy est-ce qu'ils vienent à un tel subterfuge, si ce n'est qu'ils mentent en faveur de Dieu? Et a-il besoin de leurs mensonges? faut-il que sa verité soit maintenue par ce moyen-la? Mais faut-il que Dieu emprunte nos mensonges, et que nous luy soyons advocats pleins de cavillations? “ CO 33:106. The same perspective echoed in the Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, where Calvin had written: “But to turn all those passages of the Scripture (wherein the affection of the mind, in the act, is distinctly described) into a mere permission on the part of God is a frivolous subterfuge and a vain attempt at escape from the mighty truth!” CO 8:359: “frivolum est effugium.” The same perspective echoed in Sermon 47: “Ceux qui veulent excuser Dieu d'iniustice alleguent pour couleur, qu'il permet bien ce que les hommes font, et toutesfois qu'il ne le fait pas. Mais ie vous prie, donneront-ils solution à ce passage? Car Iob apres avoir dit, Qu'il y a vertu et droiture en Dieu, adiouste, Qu'en a main sont ceux qui sont trompez et ceux qui déçoivent.” CO 33:587. For a more exhaustive analysis on this issue see chapter IV of the present essay. Sermons from Job, p. 47: CO 33:406: “Voila donc un vice, c'est que quand on veut mesurer la iustice de Dieu, pour dire, II n'afflige personne sinon pour ses fautes: voire, et en telle qualité, et en telle quantité comme chacun l'a offensé, il faut que Dieu luy rende en ce monde: alors on ne prend point la iustice de Dieu comme on doit.” Sermons from Job, p. 718: CO 35:427-428: “Die ne suscitera point de grands rhetoriciens d'entre les hommes, mais il se contentera d'avoir les bestes.” Sermons on Job, p. 460: CO 34:459: “Il n'y a point de neutralité, qu'il ne faut point que nous soyons moyens pour nager entre deux eaux.”

If we are able to be “more zealous of God’s glory and inflamed with a holy anger,”273 only then will “God do us the honour to acknowledge us for His Proctors and Advocates.” But,” he warned, “if we do otherwise, we give Satan the upper hand, and are guilty of betraying the name of God.”274 Having cleared the air of any prejudicial question, Calvin was in position to enter in medias res and to come once and for all to the heart of the matter, that is to say to the vindication of God’s Justice.

273 Sermons on Job, p. 653: CO 35:256: “zelateurs de la gloire de Dieu, ..enflammez d'une saincte colere.” See also CO 35:31. 274 Sermons on Job, p. 653: CO 35:256-257: “voire, et alors Dieu nous fera cest honneur, de nous avouer pour ses procureurs et advocats. Mais si nous faisons autrement, nous donnons la cause gaignee à Satan : et sommes coulpables d'avoir trahi le nom de Dieu, et de n’avoir tenu conte de ce qui estoit le principal, et le devoit estre.”

173

Chapter IV Landmarks of Calvin’s Theodicy

When He puts us into the world, it was not to let us loose at rouers, and to let us walk at all adventure, but He determined what should become both of our life and of our death. Therefore let us understand, that we walk in such wise under the guidance of our God, that there cannot one hear fall from our head, but by His good will. For His Providence extend even to the sparrows and to the wornness of the earth. Sermons on Job, p. 423

Calvin’s Theodicy is based on the following tenets: 1) God is Omnipotent and rules universe and history through His Providence. 2) God wills and does not merely permit evil. 3) Evil does not have a hypostasis. 4) The experience of suffering is real. 5) God is good.

4.1 God is Omnipotent and rules universe and history It has been commonly acknowledged that the divine Omnipotence represents the foundation of Calvin’s theology. But how did Calvin understand God’s Omnipotence? In the Instruction on Faith Calvin had already answered this question by explaining the words of the Apostle’s Creed “I believe in God, the Father Almighty” mean that “all power is attributed to God,”

175

who “administers all things by His Providence, rules them by His will, and guides them by His virtue and might.”1 In the Sermons on Job, instead of giving an abstract definition of God’s Omnipotence, Calvin preferred to direct the attentions of his audience to its features. To the question “What is the power of God?,” Calvin repeatedly stated that it is “infinite,”2 “out of measure,”3 “invisible,”4 “beyond our capacity,”5 “wonderful,”6 “inestimable,”7 and it cannot be enclosed in our brain since “it is deeper than the deeps.”8 “God shrinks not into corner,”9 but He “has such a power and preeminence, that nothing is hidden from Him.”10 What did Calvin meant exactly with these statements? Did he hint that God is not liable to any moral limitation, as the theologians of voluntarism held? While the influence of John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham on Calvin’s thought is now widely accepted, a substantial disagreement has remained regarding its extent and its significance, especially with reference to the distinction between potentia Dei absoluta (God’s absolute power) and potentia Dei ordinata (God’s ordained power), that is to say between what God can do in view of His sheer and unlimited ability to act and what He has chosen to do in the light of His wise and sometimes inscrutable purposes. Albrecht Ritschl expressed the opinion that the French Reformer stood in the voluntarism tradition of Scotus and Ockham, inasmuch as the notion of God informing his doctrine of double predestination would lead to the idea of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

176

Calvin, Instruction in Faith, p. 47. Sermons on Job, p. 381. See also CO 33:349, 427, 428; CO 34:246, 336, 340, 360. Sermons on Job, p. 188: CO 33:501. CO 33:426. Sermons on Job, p. 246: CO 34:246: ”Et quelle est la puissance de Dieu? Infinie, une puissance que nous ne concevons pas.” Sermons on Job, p. 695: CO 35:367: “admirable.” Sermons on Job, p. 704: CO 35:392: “inestimable.” Sermons on Job, p. 203: CO 33:541: “plus profonde que les abysms.” Sermons on Job, p. 588: CO 33:588: “Dieu ne se retire point en un anglet.” Sermons on Job, p. 35: CO 33:541: “Dieu a ”une telle puissance et maistrise que rien ne Luy est caché.”

“potentia absoluta” conceived as synonymous with sheer caprice and of total “arbitrium.”11 This conclusion, drawn from selections of the Institutes of Christian Religion12 and from the Commentaries, was deeply questioned by Reinhold Seeberg13 who clearly demonstrated that “diese potentia absoluta Gottes hat zur Schranke nur das logisch Unmögliche sowie das eigene Wesen Gottes oder seine bonitas.”14 Calvin had chance to dwell frequently on the distinction between potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata, especially during the period from 1551 to 1563, in his Commentaries on Gen. 18:13, Gen. 25:29, 11

12

13 14

A. Ritschl, “Geschichtliche Studien zur christlichen Lehre von Gott“ in Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie 1865-1868, Gesammelte Aufsätze, Neue Folge (1896): pp. 25-176. “Premierement, ils demandent à quel propos Dieu se courrouce contre ses créatures, lesquelles ne l’ont provoque par aucune offense; car de perdre et ruiner ceux que bon luy semble, c’est chose plus convenable à la cruauté d’un tyran, qu’à la droiture d’un Iuge. Ainsi il leur semble que les hommes ont bonne cause de se plaindre de Dieu, si par son pur vouloir, sans leur propre merite, ils sont predestinez à la mort eternelle. Si telles cogitations viennent quelquefois en l’entendement des fideles, ils seront assez armez pour les repousser, quand seulement ils reputeront quelle temerité c’est mesme d’enquerir des causes de la volonté de Dieu, veu qu’icelle est, et à bon droict doit estre la cause de toutes les choses qui se font. Car si elle a quelque cause, il faut que ceste cause-là precede, et qu’elle soit comme attachée à icelle: ce qu’il n’est licite d’imaginer; car la volonté de Dieu est tellement la reigle supreme et souveraine de justice, que tout ce qu’il veut, il le faut tenir pour iuste, d’autant qu’il le veut. Pourtant quand on demande, Pourquoy est-ce que Dieu a fait ainsi? Il faut respondre, Pource qu’il l’a voulu. Si on passe outre, en demandant, Pourquoy Pa-il voulu? c’est demander une chose plus grande et plus haute que la volonté de Dieu: ce qui ne se peut trouver.” ICR III.23.2. Francois Wendel cannot help but recognizing that “la nuance scotiste de ce passage ne peut guère être contestée” and added: “De même quand il affirme, dans le commentaire sur L’Exode, que Dieu est indépendant de toute loi, en ce sens qu’il est sa propre loi et la norme de toutes choses ou encore qu’il n’est permis a aucun mortel d’attaquer ou de reprendre le moindre commandement de Dieu non seulement parce que son gouvernement est au dessus de toutes le lois, mais parce que sa volonté est la norme la plus parfaite de toutes le lois.” See: Calvin, Sources et évolution de sa pensée religieuse, (Geneve: Labor et Fides, 1985), p. 93. R. Seeberg, Die Theologie des Johannes Duns Scotus (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1900), p. 163. R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, III, p. 654, quoted by R. Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 137 to whom I owe the quotation.

177

Rom. 9:19,15 Isa. 23:9,16 not to mention in the Treatise on The Secret Providence of God.17 In all of these texts, as Steinmetz rightly points out, he read the distinction between the potentia absoluta and the potentia ordinata, not as a distinction between the absolute and the ordained power of God, but as a distinction between potentia ordinata and potentia inordinata, between ordered and disordered power. Whatever God has done, is doing, or plans to do is an expression of His potentia ordinata, even if the Justice that guides His will is secret and hidden from us.18 In other words the power of God is infinite but not absolute. Nevertheless, it was mainly in the Sermons on Job that Calvin had the opportunity to develop his insights by developing two different argumentations. First, he argued, God’s power cannot be separated from His Justice, Wisdom and Goodness. In Sermon 123 he wrote: When we speak of His power, or His justice, or His wisdom, or His goodness, we speak of Himself; they are things inseparable, and cannot be severed (that is to say, they cannot be taken away from His Being): for they are so joined together, as the

15 16 17

18

178

Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 363. See David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 40-52. Calvin, Commentaries on Isaiah, Vol. 8, p. 152. “That Sorbonic dogma, therefore, in the promulgation of which the Papal theologians so much pride themselves, “that the power of God is absolute and tyrannical,” I utterly abhor. For it would be easier to force away the light of the sun from his heat, or his heat from his fire, than to separate the power of God from His justice. Away, then, with all such monstrous speculations from godly minds, as that God can possibly do more, or otherwise, than He has done, or that He can do anything without the highest order and reason. For I do not receive that other dogma, “that God, as being free from all law Himself, may do anything without being subject to any blame for doing so.” For whosoever makes God without law, robs Him of the greatest part of His glory, because he spoils Him of His rectitude and justice. Not that God is, indeed, subject to any law, excepting in so far as He is a law unto Himself. But there is that inseparable connection and harmony between the power of God and His justice, that nothing can possibly be done by Him but what is moderate, legitimate, and according to the strictest rule of right. And most certainly, when the faithful speak of God as omnipotent, they acknowledge Him at the same time to be the Judge of the world, and always hold His power to be righteously tempered with equity and justice.” Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 248. D. Steinmetz, Calvin and the absolute power of God, Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18:1, Spring 1988.

one of them cannot be without the other. Is God mighty? So is He also good. His mightiness defeats not His goodness, nor yet His justice.19

He stressed the same idea when he emphasized that “God’s mighty Power is matched with His Goodness,”20 or that “His Justice, Goodness, and Wisdom must be linked with His Almightiness.”21 For Calvin it was unimaginable to state that God can be defined in terms of potentia absoluta,“ as if He governs the world like a tyrant.”22 The Almighty God does nothing without reason, since “it is impossible that He should do anything that is not good and rightful.”23 How could God judge the world, Calvin provocatively asked, “if He should not perform all right?”24 “God would cease to be God and His being would diminish,”25 if He could turn aside from right and equity. Calvin held that all the divine attributes, Power, Goodness, Wisdom and Justice are nothing else than constitutive elements of God’s glory, as he highlighted in Sermon 4626 and he sharply criticised those who “would abolish His mighty Power in order to prove that God is righteous.”27 Repeatedly he exhorted the church “to look still to the

19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Sermons on Job, p. 581: CO 35:60: “Quand nous parlons de sa puissance, ou justice, ou sagesse, ou bonté, nous parlons de lui-mesme: ce sont choses inséparables et qui ne se peuvent point discerner de son essence; c’est à dire pour en estre ostees. Car elles sont tellement conjointes, que l’une ne peut estre sans l’autre. Dieu est-il puissant? Aussi il est bon. Sa puissance ne desrogue point à sa bonté, ni à sa justice.” See also CO 33:371, 440, CO 34:336, 362, CO 35:131, 206. I owe these references to R. Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 115. Sermons on Job, p. 615: CO 35:154: “La puissance de Dieu est conjointe avec sa bonté.” See also CO 35:59. Sermons on Job, p. 675: CO 35:315: ”Nous voyons donc, qu’avec la puissance de Dieu il faut que sa justice, sa bonté, et sagesse soyent comprinses.” Sermons on Job, p. 137. Sermons on Job, p. 137: CO 33:371: “il est impossible qu’il face rien, qui ne soit bon et iuste.“ Sermons on Job, p. 138. See Sermons on Job, p. 138. Sermons on Job, p. 215: CO 33:571: “Wherein consists God’s glory? In His power, goodness, wisdom and justice.” Sermons on Job, p. 415: CO 34:340: “Il y en a d’autres, qui pour prouver que Dieu est iuste, veulent abolir la puissance.”

179

Power that God shows therewithal and to His Goodness” in order “to discern that God governs the world rightfully.”28 Commenting on the questions “Does God subvert judgment? Or does the Almighty pervert justice?” Calvin concluded firmly that God could do only that which is just and good: Some can well find that God is Almighty, but in the meanwhile they acknowledge Him not to be righteous, as they ought to do. For the one of them must not to be separated from another. We must not imagine that there are things in God which can be divided one from another. True it is that one has to put a difference between the wisdom and the goodness, and the justice, and the almightiness of God, but yet notwithstanding, in respect that He is God, all these things must need be in Him at once and they must be as it were himself or His very being. Then let us beware that we surmise not a lawless power in God, as if He governs the world like a tyrant or used excess or cruelty. But let us understand whereas He has all things in His hand, and is of endless power and does all things, yet notwithstanding He ceases not to be righteous.29

He held as unacceptable that the Power of God could be regarded as “lawless,”30 “tyrannical or inordinate,”31 “excessive,”32 “having no rule nor measure”33 and “separated from His Justice.”34 28

29

30 31 32 33

180

Sermons on Job, p. 730: CO 35:459: “de contempler tousiours la puissance de Dieu qui se demonstre parmi, et sa bonté discerner que Dieu gouverne iustement le monde.” Sermons on Job, p. 137: CO 33:371: “Ici nous sommes admonestez d’attribuer a Dieu cest honneur, qu’il est la fontaine de toute equité et droiture,et qu’il est impossible qu’il face rien, qui ne soit bon et iuste. Car il ne nous faut point separer l’un d’avec l’autre: nous ne devons point imaginer qu’en Dieu il y ait des choses qui se puissent diviser l’une d’avec l’autre. Vray est qu’il nous faut bien distinguer entre la sagesse, et bonté, et justice, et puissance de Dieu: mais tant y a que selon qu’il est Dieu, il faut que toutes ces choses soyent en luy, et qu’elles soyent comme de son essence… Gardons nous bien donc d’immaginer une puissance absolue en Dieu, comme s’il gouvernoit le monde ainsi qu’un tyran, qu’il usast d’excez ou de cruauté: mais sachons qu’en ayant tout sous sa main, ayant un pouvoir infini,faisant toutes choses: neantmoins il ne laisse point d’estre iuste. Or il est vray que ceste justice de Dieu nous est cachée en partie, que nous ne la comprenons pas: mais autant en est-il de sa puissance.” Sermons on Job, p. 442: CO 34:360: “déréglée.” Sermons on Job, p. 354: CO 34:175: “tyrannique ou desordnnee.” The right translation of the French word “exorbitante” is excessive and not lawless.” Sermons on Job, p. 421: CO 34:357: “exorbitante, et qui n’a ne règle ne mesure.”

If God would be not just, He shall be no longer God, since “His glory, and His Godhead and His Being would be quite abolished.”35 Calvin deemed that the most important feature of God is that He is just. Even while stressing that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, Calvin was convinced that these attributes could be rightly understood only in the light of the divine Justice. The main task of God is to administer justice by rewarding and punishing His creatures accordingly to their deeds. Refusing to hold the adjectives “infinite” and “absolute” as equivalent, the French Reformer criticized Job, for having blasphemed God and pointed out that “although God’s power be infinite, yet notwithstanding to imagine it to be so absolute and lawless is as much as to make Him a tyrant.”36 Only in the last day “God shall be found righteous” and He “will make feel His power and might: not a tyrannous power, but an infinite power.”37 Taking Job as an example, Calvin warned against the temptation to “enclose God’s mighty power, righteousness and wisdom within the state of this present world, so as it might be discerned”38 and from indulging in the fantasy “that God governs not the world when He shows not Himself as a judge.”39 Confronted with the inexplicable sufferings of the righteous Job and eager to dispel the suspicion that history was floating randomly, without the guidance of a just God, Calvin never tired of emphasizing the absolute mystery of God’s Power, which is understandable only by 41 faith40 and not by reason. In Sermon 123 Calvin strongly stigmatized 34 35 36

37

38 39 40

Sermons on Job, p. 303: CO 34:336: “separee de Sa justice.” See Sermons on Job, p. 41: CO 33:125: “Il ne sera plus Dieu.” Sermons on Job, p. 159: CO 34:336: “Or en cela Iob blasphème Dieu: car combien que la puissance de Dieu soit infinie, si est-ce que de la faire ainsi absolue, c’est imaginer en Luy une tyrannie.” Sermons on Job, p. 159: CO 33:428: “Dieu…fera sentir sa vertu et sa puissance, non point une puissance tyrannique, comme ils l’ont imaginé: mais une puissance infinie.” Sermons on Job, p. 467: CO 34:480: “enclore la puissance et justice et sagesse de Dieu en l’estat present du monde tel comme il se peut apercevoir.” Sermons on Job, p. 309: CO 34:53: “que Dieu ne gouverne point le monde quand il ne se monstre point Iuge.” “Or maintenant (comme i’ay dit) il faut que nostre foi s’estende sur la puissance de Dieu: et puis que Dieu n’a point une puissance par certaine mesure, et qui soit

181

the attempt of those who, whilst thinking of God’s mighty Power, attributed Him a “tyrannical power.”42 He did not hesitate to call this point of view “not only outrage, but also cursed blasphemy,”43 “a devil’s blasphemy forged in hell,”44 and “a cursed and devil’s thing.”45 In Sermon 90 he had the opportunity to define more precisely the meaning of the sentence that God would have a “lawless power without rule and measure.”46 This sentence, he said, could be rightly interpreted only by keeping in mind that God “is always at one point or in one mind, that is to say, that He is constant and invariable and cannot be turned one way nor other.”47 On the contrary, he pointed out that “God is so gracious unto us, as to join and knit His Justice to our salvation, like as He has matched His Mightiness with it also.”48 In order to stress once again the Justice of God in The Sermons on Job Calvin did not hesitate to term God’s works as “judgments and righteousness.”49 From Romans 11:33 he adopted the characterization of God’s action as exercise of His jurisdictional competence. In other words, whatever God is doing is not indifferent or neutral, but always serves the purpose of establishing His Justice. The close connection between God’s Providence and God’s Justice was clearly expressed, when Calvin provocatively asked:

41

42 43 44 45 46 47

48

49

182

enclose ni suiette à moyens humains, ne naturels, il faut aussi que nostre foy s’estende et haut et bas, qu’elle soit infinie.” CO 34:604. In Sermon 109 he provocatively asked: “Or quand nous voudrons comprendre ceste puissance et ceste vertu-la, ie vous prie, Je pourrons- nous enclorre à nostre cerveau? Il est impossible.” In CO 34:603. Sermons on Job, p. 580. Sermons on Job, p. 580: CO 34:362: “un blaspheme execrable.” Sermons on Job, p. 415: CO 34:339-340: “blaspheme diabolique qui a esté forgé aux enfers.” Sermons on Job, p. 203: CO 33:540: “une chose detestable et diabolique.” Sermons on Job, p. 421: CO 34:357: “une puissance exorbitante, et qui n’a ne regle ne mesure.” Sermons on Job, p. 421: CO 34:357: ”Mais cependant ceste sentence est vraye, quand elle sera apropriee comme elle doit: c’est que Dieu est en un propos, c’est à dire, qu’il est constant et ne varie point, et que nul ne l’en pourra destourner.” Sermons on Job, p. 423: CO 34:357: “Cognoissons aussi que Dieu nous fait ce biende conjoindre et unir Sa justice à nostre salut: comme aussi il y conjoint Sa puissance.” Sermons on Job, p. 34: CO 33:108: ”iugemens et droitures.”

Can we deny the Providence of God? Can we abolish His power? Can we say that He has not done and disposed all things with wisdom? Can we bring any of these things to pass? No, it is impossible.50

Secondly, he argued that God’s Power cannot be disjointed from His Will. For Calvin it was unthinkable to state that God can do whatever is feasible. It is the divine Will (and not external forces) which determines what God can do. Although God is legibus solutus, “He is law to Himself and to all.”51 We see many fantastical persons, who when they talk of God’s almightiness fall to gazing at this and that saying: If God be almighty why does He not such a thing? If God be almighty, then can He do this? Yea, but we must not range abroad so after our own imagination, God’s almightiness aims not a tour dotages no rat any common thing. Whereat then? God’s almightiness and His will are things inseparable. God is almighty: but it is to accomplish whatsoever He hath ordained in His own purpose. So let us learn to knit these two things together, namely His almightiness and His will.52

The voluntaristic aspect of Calvin’s theology became particularly clear when the French Reformer pointed out that “the righteousness, whereby we must be ruled and whereto we must be subject, is above us, but is God’s will above that.”53 Calvin was also adamant in emphasizing that any notion of goodness or justice is sheer abstraction independently from God’s Will. 50

51 52

53

Sermons on Job, p. 722: CO 35:438: “Pourrons nous nier la Providence de Dieu? Pourrons-nous abolir sa vertu selon qu’elle se monstre? Pourrons nous dire qu’il n’a point fait et ordonné tout en sagesse? Et puis, pourrons-nous non plus anéantir sa justice, laquelle nous apparoist avec Sa bonté et sagesse? Pourrons-nous donc venir à bout de tout cela? Il est impossible.” J. Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law (Allison Park, Pennsylvania: Pickwick Publication, 1992), p. 22. Sermons on Job, p. 737: CO 35:479: “Nous en voyons beaucoup de phantastiques,” Calvin wrote, “que quand ils parlent de la puissance de Dieu, ils speculent ceci et cela, O si Dieu est tout puissant, pourquoy ne fait-il telle chose? Si Dieu est toutpuissant, cela est possible. Voire, mais il ne nous faut pas ainsi extravaguer en nos imaginations: la puissance de Dieu ne s’adresse point à nos resveries, et n’y a rien de commun. Quoy donc? Ce sont choses inséparables, que la puissance de Dieu et Sa volonté.” Sermons on Job, p. 222: CO 33:590: “La justice à laquelle nous devons estre reglez et suiets, est par dessus nous: mais la volonté de Dieu est encores par dessus.”

183

He held the basic theonomous notion that whatsoever God is doing is righteous by that fact alone. In other words, nothing in itself is good or evil, but it is the divine Will that establishes the criteria of justice and goodness. In Sermon 90 he wrote: “God’s will is the rule of all reason and the fountain of all righteousness, in the sense that God wills anything which is not rightful and indifferent.”54 The primacy of the divine “Will which surmounts all righteousness,” was repeatedly stressed, whenever Calvin emphasized that God is not bound to any laws,55 that is, if with this word one intends the human law. On the other hand, whenever one speaks of God’s Will, should be taken into account His revealed will rather than His hidden counsel. To avoid any misinterpretation Calvin related God’s Omnipotence to “His good Will such as He show it to be in His word,”56 and His Righteousness to His whole Law.”57 All these elements recurred in the final edition of his Opus Magnum, in which he made unmistakably clear that what God commands is not whimsical, but rooted in His Goodness. The will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness, so that everything which He wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of His willing it. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because He has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why He so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found. We fancy no lawless god who is a law unto himself. For, as Plato says, men who are troubled with lusts

54

55 56

57

184

Sermons on Job, p. 423: CO 34:362: “Car la volonté de Dieu est la seule regle de toute raison, et la fontaine de toute justice. Contentons-nous donc de cela, et ayons ceste modestie de dire, que Dieu ne veut rien qui ne soit iuste et equitable.” Calvin had to develop this thought in the final edition of the Institutes, when he wrote: “Car la volonté de Dieu est tellement la reigle supreme et souveraine de justice, que tout ce qu’il veut, il le faut tenir pour iuste, d’autant qu’il le veut) Pourtant quand on demande, Pourquoy est ce que Dieu a fait ainsi? Il faut respondre: Pource qu’il l’a voulu. Si on passe outre, en demandant, Pourquoy Pa-il voulu? C’est demander une chose plus grande et plus haute que la volonté de Dieu: ce qui ne se peut trouver.” In CO 4:488. Sermons on Job, p. 624: CO 35:178: “volontè qui surmonte toute justice.” Sermons on Job, p. 738: CO 35:480: ”En cela voyons nous qu’il nous faut conjoindre la puissance de Dieu avec sa bonne volonté: voire telle qu’il nous la déclaré par sa parole.” Sermons on Job, p. 627: CO 35:186: “Quelle est la justice de Dieu? Il l’a comprise en toute sa Loy.”

are in need of law; but the will of God is not only free of all fault but is the highest rule of perfection, and even the law of all laws.58

Even emphasizing the incommensurable dimensions of the divine Power, Calvin never hinted that it is absolute and unordered. He was interested neither in sheer speculations about the essence and the power of God, nor to build up a theological frame for a scholar’s audience, but to develop a series of theological reflections that could contribute to increase the faith and be a source of comfort for the church. This is the reason why his intuitions on God’s Omnipotence, far from being an end in themselves and an academic exercise, found their best expression in the doctrine of Providence. The passage from a sheer theoretical analysis on God’s Omnipotence to his practical consequences had been already anticipated by the Catechism. To the question “In what sense do you give him the name of Almighty?” the answer sounded clear: Not as having a power which He does not exercise, but as having all things under His power and hand; governing the world by His Providence, determining all things by His will, ruling all creatures as seems to Him good.59

The doctrine of Providence, far from being restricted to his theological works, held an important position in his homiletic production.60 This point is well made by Harold Dekker: The utter Theocentricity (of his sermons) involves certain characteristics stressed in Calvin’s effort to meet the spiritual needs of God’s people. One of these is the stress on Providence. The doctrine of God’s all-inclusive Providence is a staple in feeding the hungry of heart. It is balm for every wound. One feels that it is basic to every sermon and it comes out in one way or another in a majority of them. Providence is understandably prominent in the Sermons on Job. Job must come to 58 59

60

ICR III.23.2. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 2, p. 40: CO 6:15: “Comment entens-tu qu’il est Tout-puissant? L’enfant : Ce n’est pas seulement à dire, qu’il ait le pouvoir, ne Peu exercent plus: 1) mais qu’il a toutes créatures en sa main et subjection: qu’il dispose toutes choses par sa Providence: gouverne le monde par sa volonté: et conduit tout ce qui se fait selon que bon Luy semble.” It needs only to highlight that the locution “Dieu gouverne” occurs 25 times in the Sermons on Job: For instance in CO 33:257, 551, 584, 592, 594, 598; CO 34:20, 52, 204, 221, 222, 370, 404, 407, 428; CO 35:70, 246, 254; 255, 256, 266, 334, 478, 483.

185

rest in the ultimate goodness of the divine purpose, wrought by a strange and vexing plan.61

Instead of being the conclusion of abstract speculation, detached from daily concerns, the doctrine of Providence can be understood only in the wider context of the sixteenth century, in which the belief that “God governs and that all things are directed by His guiding and Providence”62 was “under attack.”63 Some years before, in the 1539 edition of The Institutes, Calvin had insisted that “ignorance of Providence is the greatest of miseries; the knowledge of it is attended with the highest felicity.”64 In order to stress its further practical implications he entitled the second chapter on Providence significantly: “How we may apply this doctrine to our benefit.”65 In a period of deep predicament, he was convinced that faith in God’s governance could be a source of release and encouragement. Being fully aware that one of the critical temptations to which believers might succumb, when they are suffering without apparent reason, is nihilism, he repeatedly stated that without God’s Providence, life would be unbearable.66 Calvin did not develop his doctrine of Providence in a vacuum. A long series of debates had preceded him. In chapter II we examined how the doctrine of God’s Providence came out gradually as a consequence of Predestination. Yet another element contributed to the establishment of this doctrine. In Calvin’s opinion the belief that God created the world would be incomplete and illogical without being associated with the axiom of God’s rule. Even the mere suspicion that something could happen by chance67 was intolerable for Calvin, although he recognized 61 62 63 64

65 66 67

186

H. Dekker, Sermons on Job, trans. Leroy Nixon (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. XXX. Sermons on Job, p. 372: CO 34:222: “Dieu gouverne, et que tout est sous sa conduite et son conseil.” S. Schreiner, The Theatre of His Glory (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995), pp. 16-37. “Denique, ne hic diutius immorer, facile,si animadvertas, perspicies, extremum esse omnium miseriarum, providentiae ignorationem; summam beatitudinem in eiusdem cognitione esse sitam.” In CO 1:900. “Quel est le but de ceste doctrine, pour en bien faire nostre profit.”In CO 3:249. ICR I.17.10. In the Sermons on Job the references to the risk of believing in chance are more extremely frequent in the most various contexts of time and situations.

that believers are led into such a temptation when they look at the apparent disorder and injustice of the world. In Sermon 91 he singled out this state of mind: I have said already, that it is a very sore temptation to the faithful, when things are confused in the world, so as it may seem that God meddles no more with them, but that fortune rules and governs all things. And this has been the cause of all these devils proverbs, that all things are tossed by casual fortune, that things are blindly guided, that God plays with men as with tennis ball, that there is neither reason, nor measure in His doings, but rather that all things are governed by a certain secrete necessity and that God vouchsafes not to think upon us.68

The statement according to which God would be only a “temporary creator,” who after creation would leave the world and history to go their own way, not only portrays a crude and cold description of God’s creative work, but also imperils His honor, since it implies the existence of another god. Sermon 130 stigmatized this point of view with unmistakable accents: Therefore when we call God the maker of heaven and earth, we must not restrain it to one instant; but we must bear in mind that like as God has framed the world so all power is still in Him and He disposes things here beneath, so as He has a care of us and the hears of our head are numbered, yea He guides our footsteps, so as nothing cometh to pass which is not fore appointed by His Providence. Then if we imagine that God governs not all things, but that some things happen by chance and fortune, it follows that fortune is a Goddess that has created part of the world, and so is not all praise due to God alone. It were a cursed blasphemy if we should think that the devil could do anything without God’s leave. Therefore let us learn that there is an inseparable bond between these two things: namely that God created all things and He governs all things.69

68

69

Sermons on Job, p. 427: CO 34:371: “I’ay desia dit, que c’est une tentation bien mauvaise aux fideles, quand les choses sont confuses au monde, et qu’il semble que Dieu ne s’en mesle plus: mais que fortune gouverne et domine. Et voila qui a esté cause de ces proverbes diaboliques, Que tout se demené par cas fortuit, Qu’il y a une conduite aveugle des choses, et que Dieu se iouë des hommes comme de pelotes, qu’il n’y a ne raison ne mesure, ou bien que tout se gouverne par quelque necessité secrete, et que Dieu ne daigne pas penser de nous.” Sermons on Job, p. 614: CO 35:151: “Quand donc nous appellons Dieu Createur du ciel et de la terre, ne restraignons point cela à un moment: mais cognoissons que Dieu ayant basti le monde, auiourd’huy a tout en sa puissance, et qu’il dispose des

187

Calvin held that “the word Creator implies that God has done everything in such a way that all power and sovereign dominion must remain His.”70 God upholds universe and history and His Power shines forth in keeping order, in restraining the destructive forces of nature and in bridling the wicked. Contrary to the Aristotelian idea according to which God is only the first mover, Calvin assumed that God does not limit Himself to observe what happens, but governs and leads all events. The French Reformer stated that the hypothesis of those who “babble to destroy or to restrain God’s Providence,“71 would be “a very slender and cold tale.”72 A God, who would simply create a universe, without being involved in its conservation, would cease to be God, as Calvin repeatedly highlighted: The philosophers can well say, that God has created and fashioned us and that we have our being of Him, but therewithal they are of the opinion that after God has set us in our race every man guides and governs himself. Lo how they deface the goodness and power of God.73

70 71 72

73

188

choses d’ici bas, tellement qu’il a le soin de nous, et que les cheveux de nostre teste sont contez, qu’il guide nos pas, que rien n’advient qui ne soit decreté par son conseil. Or notamment il est dit, qu’outre luy nul n’est ordonné sur le monde, nul n’est mis sur la terre: c’est pour signifier que ce sont deux choses coniointes que la creation et le gouvernement du monde. Si donc nous imaginons que Dieu ne gouverne point tout, mais qu’il advienne quelque chose par fortune: il s’ensuit que ceste fortune est une deesse qui aura creé une partie du monde, et que la louange n’en est pas deuë à lui seul. Et voila un blaspheme execrable si nous pensons que le diable puisse rien sans le congé de Dieu, c’est autant comme si nous le faisions créateur du monde en partie. Ainsi apprenons, qu’il y a un lien inseparabile de ces deux choses, c’est assavoir, Que Dieu a tout fait, et qu’il gouverne tout.” Sermons on Job, p. 26: CO 33:99: “Car ce mot de Créateur emporte, qu’il a tellement tout fait, u’il faut que toute puissance et empire souverain luy demeure.” Sermons on Job, p. 221. Sermons on Job, p. 685: CO 35:341: “Car que seroit ce, si on nous disoit seulement, que Dieu a creé le monde, et que maintenant les choses vont comme elles peuvent? Cela seroit bien maigre et bien froid.” Sermons on Job, p. 184: CO 33:491: “Les philosophes diront bien que Dieu nous a creez et formez, que nous avons nostre estre de Luy: mais il leur semblera cependant, qu’apres qu’il nous aura mis en train, un chacun se conduit et se gouverne de soy-mesme. Voila comme ils obscurcissent la bonté de Dieu et Sa vertu.”

Undoubtedly with the words “God has set us in our race,” Calvin intended to challenge the Aristotelian principle of prima movens. God has not only given a general impulse to nature, but governs the world by His Providence. “His majesty is spread through the whole world.”74 God has to be conceived not only as the maker of the world, but also as a Father,75 since the denial of His fatherhood would entail the collapse of any moral system. The dissolute attitude of the Libertines and Epicureans was nothing other than the sheer consequence of a philosophy which wished to put aside God, as Calvin one aptly pointed out: The women that have no children and the widows are the preys that wicked men hunt after, because they think there is no body to withstand them, and that they may do what they will, without regard to God, who names Himself the defender of the widows.76

Undoubtedly, there was, in Calvin’s opinion, a close relationship between Aristotle and the Epicureans. Despite starting from different premises, they had a “horrible blasphemy” as common denominator, namely to think that man “is master of his own life” and that “God shall not meddle with commanding him anything.”77 Calvin sought to avoid the risk that God could be conceived deistically, as an impersonal and distant entity, since, so he pointed out, 74 75 76

77

Sermons on Job, p. 398: CO 34:294: “sa maiesté remplit aussi bien la terre.” Sermons on Job, p. 677. Sermons on Job, p. 436: CO 34:396: “Ce sont donc telles proyes que cerchent et desirent les meschans, pource qu’il leur semble qu’il n’y a nul qui s’y oppose, et que tout leur est permis, et ne regardent point à Dieu, lequel se nomme protecteur des vefves.” See also Sermons from Job, p. 196: “He does not say only He is Creator of mankind, but He names Himself Father; we must then, have brotherhood among us.” CO 34:660: “Il ne dit pas seulement qu’il est Créateur du genre humain, des povres comme des riches, des serviteurs comme des maistres, mais il se nomme Père: il faut donc que nous ayons fraternité entre nous, si nous ne voulons renoncer à la grâce de nostre Dieu, et nous retrancher de sa maison, au lieu que nous en sommes domestiques.” Sermons on Job, pp. 526-27: CO 34:637: “C’est merveilles qu’un homme voudra estre maistre de sa vie, qu’il en voudra estre le conducteur, comme si Dieu ne nous pouvoit rien commander. Il est vrai qu’on auroit honte de parler ainsi, on ne dira pas, C’est à. moi de me gouverner, ie veux suivre mon cerveau, ie ne veux point que Dieu entreprenne à me commander rien: voila un blasphème execrable.”

189

“His immortal being and His authority of governing are things inseparable.”78 Faith in creation implies a belief in divine governance. God’s decision, alone, is the basis of everything that occurs in the world. God is the cause and source of all motion and there is not multiplicity of decisions-makers. He did not hesitate to term as a “beastly” the opinion of those, who would shut God out of this word.79 By making recourse to the juridical jargon, Calvin stated that God exercises a “sovereign jurisdiction,”80 when He controls the universe and history. Consequently, the three aspects wherein God’s Providence can be substantiated are, in Calvin’s opinion, creation (creatio), preservation (sustentatio) and government (gubernatio). Although Calvin did not go into detail in his Sermons on Job about the way God’s Providence operates, he assumed de facto the distinction he had already made in his treatise Contre la secte phantastique et furieuse des Libertines between a General Providence and a Particular Providence. He exhorted the believers to contemplate “the Providence of God in the order of nature.”81 He maintained that all natural events, even the movements of stars, are not due to causes operating independently of God, but to the incessant action of God’s will.82 The idea of ascribing to God every natural event, from the rising of the sun to the rain and drought found its highest expression when he termed term them as “His artilleries, His spears and His swords wherewith to fight against His enemies.”83 Calvin called into question God even in natural catastrophes, reminding that God can “chastise the world by rain, heat, cold tempests, storms and even dearth.”84 Although “the philosophers can well bring 78

79 80 81 82 83 84

190

Sermons on Job, p. 613: CO 35:150: “De nature il a le gouvernement du monde, tellement que ce sont deux choses inséparables que l’essence immortelle de Dieu, et l’authorité qu’il a de gouverner.” Sermons on Job, p. 401: CO 34:301: “brutale.” Sermons on Job, p. 264: CO 35:173: “jurisdictions souveraine.” Sermons on Job, p. 682: CO 35:334: “La Providence de Dieu qui est en l’ordre de nature.” CO 35:401-402. Sermons on Job, p. 704: CO 35:393: “Comme s’il estoit dit, que ce sont ses artilleries, ses lances, ses espees, quand il veut combatre contre ses ennemis.” Sermons on Job, p. 682: CO 35:335: “Dieu chastiera le monde par la pluye, par le chaud, et par le froid, par les tempestes et orages….. Voila Dieu, qui pour nous chastier, envoyera quelque famine.“

reason, that it has some beginning, and that is disposed by some inferior causes,” he asked: “do not the chastisements that God sends upon us, come of Him?”85 Even the forces of nature are controlled by God, as he repeatedly highlighted: “Moreover, as oft as we hear it thunder, let us understand that it is a found which proceeds from the mouth of God.”86 “Although the stars have their natural courses and properties, yet notwithstanding they be not driven by their own power, neither do they give influence to the world otherwise than as God commandeth them, so that they obey His sovereign dominion which He hath over His creatures.”87 In Sermon 96 the French Reformer, after having stated that “God is above the order of nature,”88 warned that in the alteration that are in heaven, and in earth, we have to think that God is not idle in heaven and He has not created the world once, and afterwards to let it alone there, but also He disposes all things and guides His creation.89 He also sharply stigmatized the tendency of human beings to attribute the cause of natural disasters to “some misfortune or evil

85

86

87 88 89

Sermons on Job, p. 682: CO 35:335: “Les Philosophes pourront bien amener des raisons, pour dire que cela a quelque principe, et que cela se dispose par quelques causes inferieures. Mais cependant les chastimens que Dieu envoye, ne sont-ils pas de Luy?“ Sermons on Job, p. 677: CO 35:401: ”les estoilles, combien qu’elles ayent leur cours naturel, et leur proprieté, toutes fois ne vont point d’elles mesmes, et ne sont point poussees de leur propre vertu, et ne donnent point influence au monde, sinon d’autant que Dieu leur commande, et qu’elles obeissent à cest empire souverain qu’il a par dessus toutes creatures.” Sermons on Job, p. 708: CO 35:321. Sermons on Job, p. 449-450: CO 34:432: “Dieu est pardessus l’ordre de nature.” Sermons on Job, p. 450: CO 34: 432-433: “Et d’autant plus nous faut-il bien estre advertis quand nous voyons les changemens au ciel et en terre, de noter ce qui nous est ici monstré. Dieu feroit bien que le temps seroit tousiours couvert, ou bien que le ciel seroit tousiours serain, qu’il n’y auroit iamais nuee. Or veut-il qu’il y ait des changemens: car nous serions endormis quand les choses continueroyent en un estat: il nous sembleroit que c’est fortune qui gouverne: mais en telle varieté nous sommes contraints (vueillions ou non) de penser que la main de Dieu besongne, et qu’il n’est point oisif au ciel, et qu’il n’a point seulement une fois creé le monde, pour puis apres le laisser là: mais qu’il dispose tout, et qu’il a une conduite telle de ses creatures, qu’il veut que nous sentions qu’il nous est prochain.”

191

fortune.”90 “This manner of speech,” he wrote, “proceeds of that we look ever at that which is nearest hand, and can mount no higher to know that all things are of God’s disposing.”91 If the believers know God’s Providence which reigns above all worldly means,” they should not be astonished “to see a plague to depopulate a country, or if there happen a famine, or if the land that has been fruitful becomes barren.”92 To assume that God would allow “all things by a free course to be borne along according to a universal law of nature” would it tantamount to “defraud God of His Glory.”93 The Providence of God also rules the wider universe, as Calvin reminded in Sermon 150: Although the stars have their natural courses and properties, yet notwithstanding they are not driven by their own power neither do they give influence to the world, otherwise than God commands them, so as they obey His sovereign dominion which He has over all creatures. 94

90

91

92

93 94

192

Sermons on Job, p. 330: CO 34:111: “Et de fait, les hommes ne se peuvent tenir de penser, que c’est une mauvaise fortune qui leur est advenue: quand ils endurent quelque mal: s’il est tombé une gresle, qu’il soit venu quelque gelée pour gaster les vignes et les bleds, voila une mauvaise fortune.” Sermons on Job, p. 330: CO 34:111: “Ceste maniere de parler procede de ce que nous regardons à ce qui nous est prochain, et que nous no pouvons monter plus haut, pour cognoistre que Dieu a disposé le tout.” Sermons on Job, p. 614: CO 35:178-179: “Nous sommes comme ravis en estonnement, quand nous voyons qu’il adviendra une peste pour depeupler un pays, qu’il y adviendra des famines, que la terre qui avoit esté bien fertile, deviendra sterile, comme si on y avoit semé le sel, ou bien que les guerres feront de tels troubles, que voila un pays desert, que les principautez seront changees. Quand nous voyons tout cela, nous sommes estonnez. Et pourquoy? Car nous ne cognoissons point la Providence de Dieu qui regne par dessus tous ces moyens humains.” See also CO 35:335. ICR I.16.3. Sermons on Job, p. 708: CO 35:401: ”D’autant plus donc nous faut-il noter ces passages, là où Dieu nous declare que les estoilles, combien qu’elles ayent leur cours naturel, et leur proprieté, toutes fois ne vont point d’elles mesmes, et ne sont point poussees de leur propre vertu, et ne donnent point influence au monde, sinon d’autant que Dieu leur commande, et qu’elles obeissent à cest empire souverain qu’il a par dessus toutes creatures.”

Even in this case Calvin concluded his sermon by inviting his listeners “not to learn to gaze at the stairs as though they had power of themselves to do either good or harm.”95 Excluded by the order of nature, chance plays no role even in history, as Calvin made unmistakably clear, when he wrote that “the changes and turnings in the world come not to pass by haphazard, but by God’s volition,”96 and “are to be attributed “upon the hand of God.”97 In Sermon 47 a deep sense of astonishment caught him when, through a careful analysis of the events of the past starting from the Assyrians to the Roman Empire as well as of the present, he recognized that only the Providence of God and not chance is “the cause why so great alterations happened in the world.”98 “When a man reads the Chronicles, he would wonder how it should be possible, that whereas had been so great monarchies, things have been overthrown in so small time and after so strange fashion that nobody would ever have thought.”99 Other times his sense of wonder was overwhelmed by a deep sense of disquiet. If God disposes all things in the world, how is it possible to believe that He stirs up wars and persecutions?100 Keenly aware that the term, “General Providence,” used in his previous treatise Contre la secte phantastique et furieuse des Libertines could give the impression that only major historical events are under the Providence of God, the French Reformer stressed that every single creature, as well as every futile event of human life remain under “God’s wings.”101 Far from disagreeing with the idea of a General Providence where God sustains the universe, 95

Sermons on Job, p. 708: CO 35:401: "prenons donc de ne nous point amuser aux estoilles du ciel, comme si elles avoyent vertus d’ellesmesmes de nous faire du bien ou du mal." 96 Sermons on Job, p. 213: CO 33:593: ”Les changemens et revolutions qu’on voit au monde ne vienent point par cas fortuit: mais que c’est Dieu qui le dispose ainsi.” 97 Sermons on Job, p. 472: CO 34:492: “Il ne faut point cercher en ceci quelque hazard, comme les enfans de ce monde imaginent une rouë de fortune, par laquelle les hommes sont eslevez bien haut, et puis ils tombent bas. Car ce ne sont point choses qui adviennent de cas d’adventure, que les changemens et revolutions que nous voyons au monde: il les sant attribuer à la main de Dieu.” 98 Sermons on Job, p. 222: CO 33:595. 99 Sermons on Job, p. 213. 100 Sermons on Job, p. 189: CO 33:503. 101 Sermons on Job, p. 624: CO 35:181: “Sous les ailes de Dieu.”

193

Calvin was firmly convinced God rules not only the most important events of history but even the lives and destinies of human beings, and that “we are not governed by fortune, but God has an eye upon us and full authority over us.”102 In Sermon 90, after having reminded that God’s Providence “extends even to the sparrows, and to the worms of the earth,”103 he pointed out that, when God did put us into the world, it was not to let us walk at all adventure, but He determined what should become both of our life and of our death.104 By rejecting chance and stressing that God is not “idle,”105 Calvin emphasized that the entire spectrum of events both natural and historical is ruled by God. And in doing so, he kept two basic biblical principles: God rules and governs nature and history, but at the same time He is distinct from them. With the first principle, he attacked the Epicureans, who hold that world is floating randomly.106 With the second principle, he distanced himself from the Stoics who identified God with natural processes. In Calvin’s opinion God rules creation, but He does not identify with it. Whilst pointing out that universe and history are ruled by the divine Providence, Calvin was adamant in refusing the possibility of restricting Providence to the bare prevision of the future events. Omniscience represents the other side of Omnipotence. When God created the world, everything was present in His mind. 102 Sermons on Job, p. 14: CO 33:57: “nous ne sommes point gouvernez par fortune, mais que Dieu a l’oeil sur nous, et qu’il y a toute autorité, comme aussi c’est bien raison, veu que nous sommes ses creatures.” 103 Sermons on Job, p. 423. 104 Sermons on Job, p. 423: CO 34:361:”Quand il nous a mis au monde, ce n’a pas esté pour nous ietter là comme à l’abandon, et que nous cheminions à l’adventure: mais il a establi de nostre vie et de nostre mort ce qui en sera.“ 105 Sermons on Job, p. 15: CO 33:58; CO 33:194; CO 34:174 and 432. 106 P. H. Reardon summed up the distinction between these two philosophies. “The Epicureans lived in a world in which they were totally free, because there was neither meaning nor pattern in which to work out the terms of one’s existence. They were like men at sea on a boat with no shore. The Stoics inhabited a world in which there was, if you will, too much meaning. Man could put no more in it. Everything was programmed and happened on schedule. They were like men in a boat tied at the shore. The Epicureans could go nowhere, as there was nowhere to go. The Stoics could go nowhere, because their craft was tied in a cosmological blueprint.” In “Calvin on Providence: The Development of the Insight,” Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (1975), p. 525.

194

The concept of Providence involves that not only God foresees the future, but also guides and governs everything, as Calvin made unmistakably clear in Sermon 130: We must consider God’s Providence: namely that He has a care of the whole world and watches over all His creatures, not only to foresee what may happen, but also that nothing may be done which He has no determined, so as His will is the rule of all things.107

In accordance with these principles Calvin frequently denied any form of contingency. Nothing happens by chance or accident, or without God’s Providence. There are no mere contingencies or possibilities relative to God. For Calvin, the negation of any form of Epicureism is essential for the Christian faith. As Torrance Kirby points out, for Calvin “to affirm Epicurus’s swerve is to deny that all events are governed by the secret counsel of God, and is tantamount to atheism. This doubtless accounts for Calvin’s vituperative dismissal of Lucretius as that filfthy dog.”108 Calvin repeatedly pointed out that “God were not Almighty if things might be done in this world against His will and without meddling them.”109 He held as unacceptable and even blasphemous the idea that something could happen by chance and repeatedly warned, “God is above all this common order of nature, so that He can work after a fashion that is new and strange to us.”110 107 Sermons on Job, p. 614: CO 35:153: “Et ainsi maintenant nous voyons comme il nous faut considerer la Providence de Dieu, c’est qu’il a le soin de ce monde, qu’il veille sur toutes ses creatures, non seulement pour prevoir ce qui adviendra: comme aucuns phantastiques pensent que Dieu regarde comme de loin les choses d’ici bas, et puis qu’il y prouvoit apres coup: non, mais il y a bien plus, c’est que rien ne peut estre fait que ce qu’il a determiné, tellement que sa volonté est la regle de toutes choses.” See also ICR I.18.1.: ”However, that men can accomplish nothing except by God’s secret command, that they cannot by deliberating accomplish anything except what he has already decreed with himself and determines by his secret direction, is proved by innumerable and clear testimonies.” 108 ICR I.5.5. “Stoic and Epicurean? Calvin’s Dialectical Account of Providence in the Institute,” International Journal of Systematic Theology, 5. 3 (2003), 309. 109 CO 33:586: “Dieu ne seroit pas tout-puissant, si les choses se faisoyent en ce monde contre sa volonté, et sans qu’il s’en mesle.” 110 Sermons on Job, p. 281-82: CO 34:248: “Dieu est par-dessus tout cest ordre commun de nature, tellement qu’i peut besongner d’une façon qui nous est estrange et nouvelle.”

195

Contrary to what Satan’s craftiness leads us to believe, that “God fights against us,”111 everything is in the hands of a loving Father who takes care of us. Whereby He does us to understand that we are not governed here by fortune and haphazard. And why? For God had determined what shall befall us. When He did put us into the world, it was not to let us loose at rovers, and let us walk at all adventure, but he determined what should become both of our life and of our death. Therefore let us understand, that we walk in such wise under the guiding of our God, that there cannot one hear fall from our head, but by His good will. For His Providence extend even to the sparrows, and to the worms of the earth: what does it unto us whom He esteems much more, as whom He has created and shaped after His own image and likeness?112

Every fact, every seemingly irrelevant event proceeds necessarily from God’s Will, as Calvin recognized when he provocatively asked: “Shall God be careful for a flea, for a worm, for a bird of the air and for this and for that?”113 On the basis of the premise that it is unthinkable to believe that “Satan can overcome his maker,”114 Calvin was adamant when confronting his listeners with the dreadful consequences that would have resulted from the negation of God’s Providence. If divine Providence would not exist, the world would decay early and come to nothing, as he pointed out in Sermon 130:

111 Sermons on Job, p. 24: CO 33:82: “que Dieu bataille contre moy.” 112 Sermons on Job, p. 423: CO 34:361: “En quoy il signifie, que nous ne sommes pas ici conduits par fortune ni à l’adventure. La raison? Dien a ordonné de ce qui sera de nous. Quand il nous a mis au monde, ce n’a pas esté pour nous ietter là comme à l’abandon, et que nous cheminions à l’adventure: mais il a establi de nostre vie et de nostre mort ce qui en sera. Cognoissons donc que nous cheminons tellement sous la conduite de nostre Dieu, qu’il ne peut tomber un cheveu de nostre teste (comme dit nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ) sinon par sa bonne volonté. Car si sa Providence s’estend iusques aux passereaux,et aux vers de la terre: et que sera-ce de nous, lesquels il prise beaucoup plus, comme de fait il nous a creez et formez à son image et semblance?” 113 Sermons on Job, p. 401: CO 34:300: “Et Dieu se souciera-il d’une mouche, et d’un ver, et des oiseaux de l’air, et de ceci, et de cela?“ 114 Sermons on Job, p. 36: CO 33:111: “ne craignons point que Satan surmonte son createur.”

196

We see then that the creatures continue no longer in their being, then it pleases God to maintain them: and that as soon as He withdraws that power by and by all returns to nothing.115

Sometimes Calvin gave to understand that Providence could be easily inferred from the visible tokens of God’s presence. In the Treatise on the Secret Providence of God he exhorted his listeners in this direction: For marvellous are the judgements of God, in punishing the wicked, in teaching the faithful patience and crucifying their flesh, in purging out the wickedness of the world, in awakening the sleep and sloth of many, in breaking down the arrogance of the proud, in making the wisdom of the wise a laughing-stock; at another and in destroying the machinations of the malicious. The surpassing goodness of God is brightly displayed in succoring the distressed, in protecting and defending the cause of the innocent, and in coming to the assistance of those who are in despair of all help.116

Although Calvin constantly refused to consider Providence as an empirical doctrine117 and strongly criticized the opinion of Job’s friends, sometimes he seemed to adhere to the idea that through the eyes of faith the believers could get some unmistakable signs of the divine Justice. Sermon 153 reflects this point of view, when Calvin provocatively asked: Can we deny the Providence of God? Can we abolish His power which shows itself? Can we say that He has not done and disposed all things with wisdom? Again, can we displace His justice which appears to us matched with His goodness and wisdom? Can we bring any of these things to pass? No it is impossible.118

115 Sermons on Job, p. 615: CO 35:154: Nous voyons donc, que les créatures ne demeurent point en leur estre, sinon d’autant qu’il plaist à Dieu de les soustenir: si tost qu’il aura recueilli ceste vertu, voila tout qui est reduit à neant.” 116 The English translation of this Treatise in Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1996), p. 225. The original text in CO 8:255-256. 117 Schreiner, Through a mirror dimly, Calvin’s Sermons on Job, in Calvin Theological Journal 21 (1986): p. 180. 118 Sermons on Job, p. 722: CO 35:438: “Pourrons nous dire qu’il n’a point fait et ordonné tout en sagesse? Et puis, pourrons-nous non plus aneantir sa justice, laquelle nous apparoist avec sa bonté et sagesse? Pourrons-nous donc venir à bout de tout cela? Il est impossible.”

197

In spite of these statements which can give the impression that divine Providence could be sic et simpliciter be understood by a general contemplation of the created order, more often Calvin was less optimistic and could not help but recognize that the apparent chaos of history constitutes a serious obstacle to understand the dialectical dimension of God’s Providence.While the righteous suffer, the wicked thrive and have success. Although “the universe reflects the glory of God,” as S. Schreiner points out, history “is awash in blood.”119 It was for this reason that, as Gerrish points out, “Calvin’s doctrine of Providence was in fact developed despite God’s Hiddenness.”120

4.2 Evil is not out of God’s control The conviction of God’s providential governance left unsolved another more sensitive question: If God is Omnipotent and rules and controls everything, does He rule and control also Evil? Calvin did not hesitate to acknowledge that even evil and sinful human acts are controlled by the secret counsel and directed by God. The starting point for his reflection on this theme was taken from the first chapter of the Book of Job. The fact that Satan “came to present himself before the Lord” was for Calvin the concrete proof that “not only the Angels of heaven, which obey God willingly, but also the Devils of hell which are enemies and rebels to Him are subject unto God and yield Him account al all their doings and cannot do anything without His permission.”121 119 Schreiner, Through a mirror dimly, Calvin’s Sermons on Job, p. 183. 120 Brian A. Gerrish, “To the Unknown God: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God,” p. 142. 121 Sermons on Job, p. 15: CO 33:58: “Et au reste quand il est dit, Que Satan est aussi venu parmi les Anges, ce n’est pas qu’il se soit insinué là, comme aucuns l’ont entendu, pour faire du bon valet, qu’il se mette là en la trouppe: mais au contraire le S. Esprit nous a voulu signifier, que non seulement les Anges de paradis, qui obeissent à Dieu de leur bon gré, et qui sont du tout enclins et adonnez à cela, lui rendent conte, mais aussi les diables d’enfer, qui luy sont ennemis et rebelles tant qu’il leur est possible, qui taschent de ruiner sa maiesté, qui machinent à brouiller tout: qu’il faut que ceux-la (en despit de leurs dents) soyent subiets à Dieu, et qu’ils

198

In order to better stress this belief, Calvin repeatedly used various expressions all having a common denominator, namely that Satan is but sheer instrument and slave of God. One of them was the idea of the “bridle.” The devils, as well the angels, “don’t have a proper or peculiar authority in themselves.”122 As R. Stauffer wrote, “les agents du mal sont semblables a des chevaux sauvages qui, freines par des rênes invisible, sont dans l’impossibilité de s’emballer.123 They are bridled by God and “can do nothing, further than is permitted him from above.”124 The devils are “God’s hangmen to execute His judgements and the punishment upon the wicked and His rods whereby He chastises His children.”125 Their intention is only to “procure our destruction,”126 ”to thrust us out of the right way,”127 ”to swallow us up”128 and “to drive us to despair.”129 Satan is not free. “The Devils obey God as enforced, that is to say, not of their own good will, but because God compels them. They would with their hart resist His power, and oppress him if they could.”130 If they were not bridled, they would overturn everything. In Calvin’s repeated use of the word, “if,”131 lays the core of his argumentations. The French

122 123 124

125

126 127 128 129 130

131

lui rendent conte de tout ce qu’ils font, et qu’ils ne puissent rien attenter sans sa permission et son congé.” Sermons on Job, p. 15: CO 33:58: “n’ont point une autorise propre, ni separee.” Stauffer Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin (Bern, Peter Lang, 1978) p. 276, 197. Sermons on Job, p. 16: CO 33:61: “Ainsi donc c’est l’un des articles le plus nécessaire que nous ayons, de savoir que le diable est tenu en bride, et quelque chose qu’il soit enragé contre nostre salut, que neantmoins il ne peut rien faire sinon d’autant qu’il luy est permis d’enhaut.” The word “bride” occurs 274 times most of them in connection with the name of Satan. Sermons on Job, p. 22: CO 33:75: ”Les diables sont comme bourreaux pour exécuter les iugemens de Dieu, et les punitions qu’il veut faire sur les méchants: ils sont aussi comme verges, par lesquelles Dieu chastie ses enfants.” The same perspective echoes in CO 34:498 and 648 Sermons on Job, p. 16: CO 33:63: “procurer nostre perdition.” Sermons on Job, p. 56: CO 33:33: “de nous destourner du non chemin.” Sermons on Job, p. 16: CO 33:62: ”pour nous engloutir.” Sermons on Job, p. 424: CO 34:363: ”de nous mettre en desespoir.” Sermons on Job, p. 15: CO 33:59: “Mais les diables obeissent à Dieu, comme forçaires, c’est à dire, non point de leur bon gré, mais d’autant que Dieu les y contraint: ils voudroyent bien resister à sa vertu, et l’opprimer s’ils pouvoyent, mais il faut qu’ils suivent par tout là où il les veut mener.” Sermons on Job, p. 15: “If Satan’s power were not limited, he would out of hand his full sting at us. If the Devil were not subject to God, but could attempt what they lift

199

Reformer, as man of order, feared chaos. God rules history and universe and exercises his supreme will in causing all events. “In what condition would we be,” he asked himself, “if Satan were free to act against us?” Should God not always maintain the control and give Satan the bridle, everything would collapse into complete confusion and we would “endure as much as more than Job.”132 God is not a watchover God, but He is always active and ceaseless. Although “the devils cease not to turmoil and destroy all things, as near as they can,” this happens not without God’s will.”133 Evil will not last indefinitely.134 Anxiously Calvin asked: “If the Devils were not subject to God, but could attempt what they like, alas, full wretched should our fate be. For we should be cast up as a pray without any remedy.”135 In this world there is an order, although unsatisfactory and imperfect. One could ask whether this perspective could not be regarded as an anticipation of Leibniz’s statement, according to whom the world in which we life turns out to be after all the best of all the possible worlds. Very likely Calvin would not concur entirely with this statement, since it was inclined to emphasize the negative aspect of a world which for him remains engulfed by a flood of iniquity. Notwithstanding, he was perfectly aware that the present reality, however negative it could seem, is the best that we could expect in a world marked by human sin.

132 133 134

135

200

themselves and have leave without limitation, so as God with held them not back, alas full wretched should our state be.” Sermons on Job, p. 16: CO 33:61: “Car si la puissance de Satan n’estoit point limitee, il auroit incontinent la vogue sur nous. Si donc les diables n’estoient point subiets à Dieu, et qu’ils peussent attenter ce que bon leur semble, et qu’ils eussent une licence desbordee, et que Dieu ne les retinst point, helas! nostre condition seroit bien miserable: car nousserions exposez en proye sans aucun remede. Et où seroit nostre foy? Quelle certitude aurions-nous d’estre gardez? Car nostre ennemi est trop puissant.” Sermons on Job, p. 39: CO 33:118: “Si Dieu luy laschoit la bride, il est certain que nous aurions à endurer autant ou plus que Iob.” Sermons on Job, p. 35: CO 33:110: “Cependant les diables ne cessent de troubler et ruiner tout, tant qu’ils peuvent: et cela n’advient point sans la volonté de Dieu.” CO 33:77: “Quand Dieu permet une telle vogue à Satan sur ses fideles ce n’est que pour peu de temps.” CO 33:61. On this point Calvin returned innumerable times: See: CO 33:23, 71, 81, 103, 462. Sermons on Job, p. 16: CO 33:61: “Si donc les diables n’estoient point subiets à Dieu, et qu’ils peussent attenter ce que bon leur semble, et qu’ils eussent une licence desbordee, et que Dieu ne les retinst point, helas! nostre condition seroit bien miserable: car nous serions exposez en proye sans aucun remede.”

Therefore, he pointed out, “when we see that wicked men throw everything into disorder, let us not think that God has laid the bridle on their neck that they may rush forward wherever they please; but let us be fully convinced that their violent attacks are under control.”136

4.3 God not only permits, but also ordains evil The acknowledgment that God is in control of every detail in universe and history was doomed to open a more ticklish question: if the power that God assigns to Satan is never out of His control, then He necessarily bears responsibility for whatever happens. Being uncomfortable with considering that “God does both good and evil,”137 Calvin asked: Furthermore a man might move yet many other questions. How is it possible that God should serve His own turn by Satan? There is nothing but malice and naughtiness in him. And besides that look upon a wicked man that had no other intent but to overthrow all goodness and to destroy it and yet he does it and brings it to pass: seems it not that he is acquit, because his service hath been to the accomplishing of God’s will?138

This question persecuted Calvin until his deathbed. He was at a crossroads: either attribute the existence of evil to God’s permissiveness concerning Satan’s activity, or admit that God ordains evil. Unwilling to draw back from his premises, Calvin opted for the second solution. In the Treatise Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God he faced the problem squarely and labelled the attempt to defend God’s Justice by an appeal to divine permission a “frivolous subterfuge and a vain attempt at escape from the mighty truth,”139 stating that “God does 136 Commentary on Isaiah, 7:19. 137 Sermons on Job, p. 163: CO 33:450: ”Dieu fait le bien et le mal.” 138 Sermons on Job, p. 221: CO 33:589: “Au reste on pourroit encores esmouvoir beaucoup de questions. comment? Est-il possible que Dieu se serve de Satan? Il n’y a que malice en luy. Et d’autre costé voila un meschant qui n’aura autre intention que de pervertir tout bien et le destruire: et qu’il le face, et qu’il en vienne à bout: ne semble-il pas qu’il soit absout, d’autant qu’il a servi à la volonté de Dieu?” 139 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 201.

201

not only permit a thing to be done, or to continue, by His long suffering, but He rules and overrules what is done by His almighty power.”140 In the Sermons on Job Calvin, in which he had occasions to deal with the problem in the wider context of God’s responsibility in human suffering, his attitude was not always univocal. An evident sign of uncertainty in his arguments can be found in Sermon 74 concerning the saying of Sophar in Job, 20:9.141 How is it possible to reconcile the statement that “God will utter His vengeance not only in the person of the wicked, but also in their children,” with what Ezekiel said: “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son?” To avoid any form of misunderstanding Calvin used the verb suffer instead of cause,142 even remaining uncomfortable with it. In Sermon 36 he felt obliged to term this kind of defence as “an utter defacing of God’s majesty.” He asked: For that were as much as to cut off His power, and it were all one as if were asleep in heaven, and left the ruling of the world here beneath, either to Satan, or to men.143

In Sermon 47, after having emphasized that “we see here a thing that seems against all reason, namely that God has the deceivers in his hand and that he drives the thereunto,”144 he stated: “If there were but a single sufferance, Job had spoken very ill.” On the contrary “God guides all things in such wise as nothing is done otherwise that He has ordained. …God shrinks not into a corner to say, I will suffer it to be done: but ordains and disposes it.”145 In the first Sermon on the second chapter Calvin decided to tackle the problem squarely.

140 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 7. 141 “His children will seek the favor of the poor, and his hands will restore his wealth.” 142 Sermons on Job, p. 349: “God suffered the children to follow their fathers.” CO 34:161: “Dieu permet que les enfants suivent leurs peres.” 143 Sermons on Job, p. 168: CO 33:451: “Car c’est luy retrancher sa puissance, c’est comme s’il donnoit au ciel, et qu’il laissast gouverner ce monde ici ou par Satan, ou par les hommes. C’est (di-ie) anéantir la maiesté de Dieu.” 144 Sermons on Job, p. 220: CO 33:585: ”Voila une chose qui nous semble contre toute raison. Que Dieu ait en sa main ceux qui trompentet qu’il les pousse à cela.” 145 Sermons on Job, p. 221: CO 33:587-588: “S’il y avoit une simple permission, Iob auroit bien mal parlé. Il faut donc conclure, que Dieu a tellement la conduite de

202

But many men think to have gained much when they have found some trifling cavils, to uphold that God does not all the things that are done by Satan and by wicked men. It is common alleged for anywhere that when wicked do nay evil, God works not that, but only suffers it and simply gives them leave. But seeing He has authority and power let them: is not his suffering and permission all one as if he did it Himself? Therefore that is but a very fond excuse and God has no need of our leaving to maintain His truth and righteousness with all… We must not find such starting holes to stop the wicked mouths with all which would speak blasphemy against God’s holiness. For that God not only permitted and gives leave, but also executes His will both by the devil and by wicked persons it appears by this, that 146 the Scripture says not, Lord you has permitted, but Lord you have done.

After having stated that “it is certain that Satan was the doer of all, both in raising the horrible tempest, and in spoiling Job of his substance, and in killing of his children,”147 Calvin echoed the question he had already raised in the Institutes “Wherefore is then that he imputes these things unto God?”148 The answer sounded clear and unequivocal: tout, que rien ne se fait sinon d’autant qu’il l’a ordonnné… Dieu ne se retire point en un anglet, pour dire, Ie laisserai faire: mais qu’il ordonne, qu’il dispose.” 146 CO 33:106: “Or il semble à d’aucuns qu’ils ont beaucoup gaigné quand ils auront trouvé quelques disputations frivoles, pour dire que Dieu ne fait pas toutes choses, lesquelles se font et par Satan, et par les méchans. On allegue pour response, que quand les meschans font quelque mal, Dieu ne besongne point là: mais il permet, et donne simplement le congé. Or ayant l’authorité d’empescher et la puissance, quand il le permet, n’est-ce pas autant comme s’il le faisoit? C’est donc une excuse par trop frivole, et aussi Dieu n’a que faire de nos mensonges pour maintenir sa verité et sa justice. Il ne faut point que nous amenions de tels subterfuges pour clorre la bouche aux meschans, qui veulent blasphemer contre la saincteté de Dieu, mais c’est assez d’avoir ce que l’Escriture saincte nous dit. Car que Dieu non seulement permette et donne le congé, mais aussi qu’il execute sa volonté et par Satan et par les meschans, il appert par ce que l’Escriture ne dit point, Seigneur, tu l’as permis, mais tu l’as fait: comme David quand il confesse ses pechez et transgressions, quand Dieu l’a si griefvement puni, il dit (Pse. 39, 10), Seigneur, de qui me plaindray-ie? car ie voy que c’est ta main: et toutesfois David estoit persecuté par les meschans: il appelle cela la main de Dieu. Voila comme le Seigneur mesmes en parle: voulons nous estre plus sages que luy ? luy serons nous à croire qu’il a besoin de nos belles couleurs afin de l’asseurer, qu’on ne luy puisse faire nulles reproches“? 147 Sermons on Job, p. 33. 148 “Comment pourrons-nous dire qu’une mesme œuvre ait esté faite de Dieu, du diable et des hommes, que nous n’excusions le diable entant qu’il semble conioint avec Diéu: ou bien que nons ne disions Dieu estre auteur du mal“? CO 03:355.

203

We see here the thieves that we may condemn; and yet notwithstanding Job says not it are Satan that has so wholly spoiled, or they be the thieves that have robbed me: but he says it is God that has done it. Does Job blaspheme God in saying so? No. For God allows his saying as we have seen already, that he charged not God with any unreasonable dealing. He has confessed that God is righteous and full of equity and has glorified Him as meet was: and yet nevertheless he says flatly here, how God was the doer of the things which the thieves did, and that the devil was a doer of them too.149

This last sentence150 represents the most radical answer of the French Reformer to the problem of the origin of evil151 and challenges the 149 Sermons on Job, p. 33: CO 33:104: “Voila des brigands que nous pouvons condamner, et toutesfois Iob ne dit pas, c’est Satan qui m’a ainsi tout ravi, ce sont les brigans qui m’ont despouillé: il dit, C’est Dieu qui l’a fait. Iob blaspheme il en parlant ainsi? Non, car Dieu approuve son dire, comme desia nous avons veu, qu’il n’a rien attribué à Dieu, qui fust hors de raison. Il a confessé que Dieu estoit iuste et equitable, et l’a glorifié comme il appartenoit: si est-ce neantmoins qu’il prononce, que c’est Dieu qui a fait ce qu’ont fait les brigands, et ce qu’aussi a fait le diable. Or donc nous voyons ici comme Dieu tousiours est en degré souverain pour conduire les choses qui se font ici bas, et pour les disposer, afin de les amener à telle issue, que bon Luy semble.” 150 One finds the same sentence in CO 42:169: “que nous sachions que les afflictions et miseres, et calamités, n’adviennent pas sans la volonté de Dieu, sans sa Providence et conseil, voila pour le premier, que nous disions avec Iob, c’est le Seigneur, avec David, Seigneur, tu l’as fait, avec Ezechias.” 151 In other works Calvin was more explicit, with the possible exception of Sermon 83 on II Samuel quoted by R. Stauffer in Dieu, la Creation et la Providence dans la Predication de Calvin (Bern, Peter Lang, 1978) p. 197. On other occasions Calvin gave a more careful answer. For instance in Sermon 18 on the Letter to Ephesians in response to the question “comment est-il possible que Dieu ne soit meslé parmi les pecheurs, et qu’il ne soit autheur de mal, quand il se sert ainsi et de Satan et de tous les meschans, et qu’il les employe pour s’eslever les uns contre les autres? et comment est-il possible qu’il n’en soit coulpable,” he confined himself to suggest sobriety: “Quand donc toutes ces fantasies-là nous viendront au devant, ou que ces chiens qui desgorgent ainsi leurs blasphemes contre Dieu viendront nous assaillir, que nous soyons munis de sobrieté, sçachans ce qui nous est ici dit, c’est à sçavoir que la sagesse de Dieu est diverse en plusieurs sortes: et si sa volonté est diverse en plusieurs façons, que neantmoins elle est tousiours une.” CO 51:465. Richard Stauffer also quotes the Sermon 36 on II Samuel (Supplementa Calviniana, 1, p. 317-318) in which Calvin seems to take a more prudent attitude: “Comment ont esté robez ses biens, ses maisons ruinées et tout ce qu’il avoit, mis en proye? Dieu l’a fait par la main des brigandz. Et en cela dirons nous que Dieu soit contamine? Nenni.”

204

traditional distinction between God’s causing and God’s permitting. “Let us not think,” warned Calvin, “that God should give the devil such a liberty, as to be able to raise up lightening, whirlwinds and tempests.”152 Although it seems “irksome”153 and “unreasonable”154 that “God gives bridle to the wicked, to persecute His children and to trample them under their feet,”155 one must recognize and confess that God is the only cause of all things, since “the Holy Scripture tells us that life and death, light and darkness, good and evil are in God’s hands.”156 Here he exhorted the church to confess that “diseases, dearth, and other miseries, as wars, plagues, and famine come of God.”157 Susan Schreiner hits the mark, when she writes: Calvin’s refusal to rely on the concept of a permissive will in God, in order to keep God from being the author of evil, also demonstrates his emphasis on the need for the active, ceaseless, and immediate power of divine Providence.158

Commenting on the text in which God said to Satan “Behold, all that he has is in your power,” Calvin pointed out that God did not do it “to pleasure Satan, but because He hath ordained it in His own purpose.”159

152 Sermons on Job, p. 27: CO 33:89: “Ne trouvons point donc estrange que le diable ayant un tel congé de Dieu (comme il a esté declaré) puisse esmouvoir les foudres, et les tourbillons et tempestes.” 153 Sermons on Job, p. 294: CO 34:14: ”fascheuse.” 154 Sermons on Job, p. 294: CO 34:14: “absurde.” 155 Sermons on Job, p. 294: CO 34:14: “Car c’est une chose plus fascheuse que Dieu lasche ainsi la bride aux meschans, qu’ils persecutent ses enfans, qu’ils les foulent aux pieds. Il est vrai que les bons ne doivent point penser à cela: mais si semble-il que ce soit une chose absurde, que Dieu donne une telle licence aux contempteurs de sa maiesté, à gens qui sont adonnez à tout mal, que les povres fideles soyent là opprimez par eux.” 156 Sermons on Job, p. 296: CO 34:18: “Pour ceste cause l’Escriture saincte, outre ce qu’elle nous declare que et la vie, et la mort, et la clarté, et les ténèbres, et le bien et le mai sont en la main de Dieu.” 157 Sermons on Job, p. 296: CO 34:20: “les maladies,les povretez, et les autres miseres, guerres, pestes, famines, que tout cela, di-ie, vient de Dieu.” 158 The Theatre of His Glory (Baker Academy, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1991), p. 30. 159 Sermons on Job, p. 21: CO 33:73.” Mais notons que quand Dieu a permis ceci à Satan, ce n’a pas esté pour luy gratifier, il n’a point esté esmeu de faveur qu’il luy portast: mais Dieu avoit ordonné cela en son conseil.”

205

On the other hand this is the only plausible religious point of view. Nothing escapes from the divine intention. With his usual outspokenness Karl Rahner pointed out: Having regard to God’s omnipotent freedom, which knows no bounds, causing and permitting seem to us to come so closely together, that we can ask quite simple why God allow us to suffer, without having to distinguish a priori in this allowing by God between permitting and causing.160

4.4. Evil does not have a hypostasis In entering into the controversial question of the nature of evil, Calvin was dealing with the mainstream tradition, represented by Augustine. In his exhaustive essay Saint Augustine dans l’oeuvre de Jean Calvin,161 Luchesius Smits of Louvain underlined and fully documented the French Reformer’s great indebtedness to Augustine by emphasizing the extensive influence of his thought on the entire theological corpus of Calvin. As Horton Davies points out, “Calvin’s works reveal a total of 4119 references to Augustine: 1175 in the Institutes, 2214 in other theological treatises, 504 in the commentaries, 47 in the letters, 33 in the sermons, and 146 in the letters of authors cited by Augustine that Calvin used.”162 In the Treatises on The Eternal Predestination and on The Secret Providence of God, which are of utmost importance to understand Calvin’s teaching on these sensible questions, the references are around 120. No other theologian elicited as much esteem as Augustine whom Calvin often referred to as Totus Noster.163 Nevertheless, if Calvin’s 160 Why Does God allow us to suffer, in Theological Investigations, XIX (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 196. 161 Luchesius Smits of Louvain, Augustine dans l’œuvre de Jean Calvin (Assen: Van Gorcum & Co., 1957), p. 8. 162 H. Davies, The Vigilant God (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), p. 110. 163 In De Aeterna Praedestinatione Consensus, Calvin wrote: “Porro Augustinus ipse adeo totus noster est, ut si mihi confessio scribenda sit, ex eius scriptis contextam proferre, abunde mihi sufficiat.”CO 8:266. Other references quoted by L. Smits are

206

indebtedness to Augustine remains unquestionable, any reference to Augustinian theodicy – evil being a mere privatio boni, conceived as deprivatio, corruptio, amissio, vitium, defectus, indigentia and negatio164 seems to have passed unnoticed. Did Calvin have difficulties following his great master on this question? In order to answer this question, it is worth quoting the only two references to the privative conception of evil shared by Augustine. In the first text, The Treatise Against the Fantastic and Furious Sect of the Libertines, who are Called Spirituals,165 John Calvin dissociated himself very sharply from the point of view held by this group, writing: Someone might well ask, "What then is their opinion of the devil?" My reply is that they use the title and speak of him, but in accordance with their meaning. For they interpret’ the “devil,” the “world,” and “sin" as an imagination that is nonexistent.166 And they say that man is such until he is remolded in their sect. For this reason they understand all of these things under a single word, i.e., imagination. By this they mean that whenever we think of the devil or of sin, these are only frivolous fantasies which we have conceived. And not only do they speak of devils as they do angels-taking them as inspirations without essence but they think they are only vain thoughts which we ought to forget as dreams.167

164

165 166 167

CO 6:287, 292, 301, 317, 319, 326, 330, 353, 359; CO 8:266 and CO 9:149 in Saint Augustine dans l’œuvre de Jean Calvin, p. 117. Augustine wrote: “And I inquired what iniquity was, and ascertained it not to be a substance, but a perversion of the will, bent aside from Thee, O God, the Supreme Substance, towards these lower things, and casting out its bowels and swelling outwardly…For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good.” Confessions 7. 16. 104. Various theologians of the past have held a privative view of evil, like Origen, De Principiis, II, 9,2 and Commentary on St. John, II.13; Athanasius, Contra Gentes, chapter VII and De Incarnatione, IV, 5 not to mention Basil the Great, Hexameron, homily 2, para. 4; and Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, chap. VII. J. Calvin, Contre la Secte Fantastique et furieuse des Libertines que se nomment Spirituelz, in CO 7:149-248. Here I do not follow the version of Benjamin Wirt Farley, who translated: “as imagining something to be real that is nonexistent.” J. Calvin, Treatises against the Anabaptists and again the Libertines (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1982), p. 235. CO 7:181: “Quelqu’un demandera icy, quelle opinion donc ilz ont du diable. Ie respons qu’ilz le nomment, et en parlent: mais c’est à leur sens. Car ilz prennent le diable, le monde, le peché pour une imagination qui n’est rien. Et disent que l’homme est tel, iusque à ce qu’il

207

The Libertines held that God determines all our actions. According to this perspective evil is only an illusion, since all that happens depends on God. The central tenet of Libertine dogma resided in the word “cuider” which could be translated by the verb “to believe” (“croire”) or by the nouns “belief” or “opinion” (“croyance” or “opinion”). Evil is “cuider” because it is only a creation of human imagination or fantasy and does not represent an autonomous reality.168 Calvin was clear that one of the greatest temptations that confronts the believers is to believe that evil is merely something subjective. Convinced that the consequence of this pantheistic determinism is the downplaying of the tragic and devastating reality of evil and making God author of sin, Calvin tried to discredit the Libertine theology by showing its incompatibility with biblical revelation. He wrote: As for sin, they do not simply say that it is a privation of good, but in their estimation it is a notion that evaporates and is gone once we move on to something else. In brief, they speak of these things in the same manner that Saint Paul speaks of idols. For when he says that “an idol is nothing” (I Cor. 8:4), he means that it exists only as a conception, without reason or foundation, in the minds of the ignorant. Therefore we can dismiss it.169

The risk underlying this position, in Calvin’s opinion, was to eliminate any distinction not only between good and evil, but also between God soit refondu en leur secte. Pour ceste cause ilz comprennent toutes ces choses en un mot: assavoir, Cuider. Voulans signifier que ce ne sont que phantasies frivoles qu’on conçoit: quand on a quelque opinion du Diable ou du peché. Et non seulement ilz parlent du Diable comme des Anges, les tenans comme inspirations sans essence: mais ilz veulent dire que ce sont vaines pensées, lesquelles on doit oblier comme songes.” 168 This point of view is shared by Christian Science, which was founded by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy. She maintained that evil is an illusion with no real basis and that,” the only reality of sin, sickness and death is the awful fact that unrealities seem real to human, erring belief.” In Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Christian Science Publishers, Boston, 1934), p. 480. 169 Calvin, Treatises against the Anabaptists and again the Libertines, p. 235: CO 7:181: “Touchant du peché, ilz ne disent pas seulement que ce soit une privation du bien, mais ce leur est un cuider qui s’esvanouist et est aboly, quand on n’en faict plus de cas. Brief ilz en parlent tout ainsi que fait S. Paul des idoles. Car quand il dit; que l’idole n’est rien (1 Cor. 8,4): il entend que cela gist en la seule apprehension qu’ont les ignorans sans raison ne fondement: pourtant qu’il n’en faut tenir compte.”

208

and the devil. On the contrary, as Calvin pointed out, “the Scripture teaches us that devils are evil spirits that constantly war against us in order to lead us into perdition.”170 Far from being autonomous entities Calvin assumed the instrumental character of evil spirits “are mere instruments of the wrath of God and his executioners,”171 denying the objection that his conclusions could entail the risk to fall into dualism. Undoubtedly, the Treatise against the Libertines represents the most resolute negation of a form of mechanical determinism in favor of the principle of secondary causation. Calvin felt obliged to go back to the theme of the reality of evil in the wider context of God’s Providence in the Treatise The Secret Providence of God172 which was published in 1558. Even here, in order to avoid the constant underlying risk of dualism, Calvin made recourse to his dialectics by distinguishing between cause and authorship: Whereas “the will of God is the great cause of all things that are done in the whole world,” he wrote, “God is not the author of the evils that are done therein.”173 Fully aware of the questionability of such statement, Calvin did not take refuge as in the past in Augustine:

170 Calvin, Treatises against the Anabaptists and again the Libertines, p. 235: CO 7:181: “Venons maintenant à la pure doctrine de l’escriture que les Diables sont espritz malings qui nous font continuellement la guerre, pour nous mener à perdition Et comme ilz sont destinez à eternelle damnation, qu’ilz machinent tousiours de nous tirer à une mesme ruine.” 171 Calvin, Treatises against the Anabaptists and again the Libertines, p. 235: CO 7:181: “Item, qu’ilz sont instrumens de l’ire de Dieu, et executeurs, pour punir les incredules et rebelles, les aveuglant et exerçant sur eux une tyrannie pour les inciter à mal (Iob 1:6.12; 2 :1.7; Zach. 3:1; Matth. 4:1; Luc 8:29; 22:31; Actes 7:51; 26 :18; 2 Cor. 2:11; I Thess. 2:18; Jean 8:44; 13:2; 1 Jean 3).” CO 7:181-182. 172 The English translation of this treatise in Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1996). The original text in CO 8:255-256. 173 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 233: CO 8:353: “Primo loco videndum est, quomodo Dei voluntas rerum omnium quae in mundo geruntur causa sit : neque tamen malorum autor sit Deus.”

209

But I will not say with Augustine, which, however, I readily acknowledge to have been truly said by him: ‘In sin or in evil, there is nothing positive. For this is an acuteness of argument which, to many, may not be satisfactory.174

How is it possible to interpret this statement in the wider context of Calvin’s theology? Whereas Allen Fitzgerald held that “the mildness with which Calvin rejects the teaching, suggests that he did not think it worth of serious refutation,”175 Lange Van Ravenswaay suggested that the French Reformer, being uncomfortable in criticizing his great master Augustine, tried at least to avoid contradicting him.176 I would dare to suggest another interpretation. Calvin was very far from being tactful and whenever he desired to distance himself from Augustine, he did not have the slightest hesitation.177 Already in other works he recognized the acuteness of Augustine arguments.178 Here there is more than the simple desire to refrain from contradicting his great master Augustine. In the words argutia and vere ab eo he was ready to recognize the sharpness and the exactness of this argument. Yet unlike the Reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli, who adhered sic et simpliciter to 174 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 233: CO 8:353: “Non dicam cum Augustino, quod tamen ut vere ab eo dictum libenter amplector: In peccato, sive in malo, nihil esse positivum. Est enim argutia, quae multis non satisfaceret.” 175 Augustine through the Ages (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), p. 119. He further adds that “Calvin made such sparing use of Augustine’s voluminous anti Manichean literature is presumably to be traced to Calvin’s hesitations concerning the grand principles that dominated it: malum ist privation boni.” 176 Augustinus Totus Noster, das Augustin Verständnis bei Johannes Calvin (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), p. 100. He writes: “Die Formulierung zeigen deutlich, wie schwer Calvin die Kritik am Kirchenvater hier fällt und wie geschickt er sie anderseits zu verdecken sucht. Obwohl Calvins Lösung der Beschreibung des Bösen ganz anders aussieht, gibt er so dennoch vor, Augustin im Grundsatz nicht zu widersprechen.” 177 CO 2:966; “Nec recipienda est illa Augustini argutia, in spe dimissa fuisse peccata baptismo Ioannis, Christi baptismo re ipsa dimitti.” 178 In his Commentary on the Book of Ephesians he recognized the acuteness (argutia) of Augustine, although he did not share his opinion: “Augustine is quite delighted with his own acuteness, which throws no light on the subject. Endeavoring to discover some kind of mysterious allusion to the figure of the cross, he makes the breadth to be love, — the height, hope, — the length, patience, and the depth, humility.” This is very ingenious and entertaining: but what does it have to do with Paul’s meaning?” (Vol. XXI), p. 263.

210

the Augustinian perspective,179 Calvin held that the statement in peccato, sive in malo, nihil esse positivum is far from being satisfactory and exhaustive. In fact, if “the will of God is the great cause of all things,” as he had stated before, there must be another and more significant reason to discharge God from any responsibility in causing evil, as Calvin pointed out: I would rather assume another principle of argument, and say, those things which are vainly or unrighteously done by man are, rightly and righteously, the works of God!180

Calvin aimed to integrate Augustine’s statement, rather than to contradict him. He deemed that the privative conception of evil, right in itself, could not be an exhaustive defense of God’s Justice. In other words, to single out in evil a privatio boni could be, in Calvin’s opinion, a necessary starting point, but not the conclusion of a proper theodicy. From Calvin’s statement some conclusions can be gleaned: 1) Evil does not have an ontological hypostasis and consequently any dualistic solution to the problem of theodicy is firmly excluded. Only God is responsible for whatsoever happens in universe and history. 2) Evil and sin are quite synonymous concepts, in the sense that evil is nothing else as an act. 3) An act is in itself neither good nor evil.

179 “I will say something about evil, the genus under which sin is included. Evil is a lack (privation), I mean of goodness; not of all goodness, but of such a good as is required for the perfection of the creature…as a privation, evil cannot exist without good, for it must have a subject. Since a subject is a substance (natura), it is good; so evil can exist only in some good; blindness is a deprivation of sight; it does not hang in the air, but stays in the eye.” (“Whether God is the author of Sin,” Scholium on 2 Sam. 16, in the Pier Martyr Library, vol. 4; The Philosophical Works, trans. Jospeh C. McLelland (Kirkville, Mo.; Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 1996) 223, quoted by Paul Helm, John Calvin Ideas, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 117. 180 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 233: CO 8:353: “Sed aliud mihi principium sumo: Quae perperam et iniuste ab hominibus fiunt, eadem recta et iusta esse Dei opera.”

211

4) The only criterion to distinguish whether an act is good or evil is related to the person who performs it: whatsoever God is doing is righteous by that fact alone, whereas whatsoever man is doing and will to be is sinful and evil. These elements constituted the background of the Sermons on the book of Job, in which Calvin faced the ticklish problem of the relationship between God and the Devil. Commenting on verses 6-8 of the first chapter, Calvin made it clear that: 1) “The Devils were created by God as well as the Angels, howbeit not such as they now be.”181 2) The wickedness which is in them “proceeds of themselves, when they became apostate and separate themselves from the fountain of righteousness.”182 3) “The Devils obey God as enforced, that is to say, not of their own good will, but because God compels them.”183 4) “The Devils are in such a way under God’s guidance, as they can do nothing without His leave.”184

Strange as it might seem, in his homiletic production Calvin was not interested in answering the question of how it was possible that a perversion could have occurred in the good creation of God. Calvin did not take on the traditional distinction between metaphysical, physical and moral evil. Undoubtedly, he did not ignore the natural tragedies.185 Yet it was essentially the moral evil, perpetrated 181 Sermons on Job, p. 16: CO 33:75: ”that is to say not of their own good will.” 182 Sermons on Job, p. 22: CO 33:59: “la malice qui est aux diables procede d’eux, quand ils ont esté apostats pour s’eslongner de la fontaine de justice.” 183 Sermons on Job, p. 22: CO 33:59: “les diables obeissent à Dieu, comme forçaires, c’est à dire, non point de leur bon gré, mais d’autant que Dieu les y contraint.” 184 Sermons on Job, p. 22: CO 33:75: “les diables sont sous la conduitte de Dieu, tellement qu’ils ne peuvent rien faire sans son congé.” 185 CO 35:377: “Mais quand il y a une licence donnee à la mer, de s’eslever si haut et si puissamment: et toutes fois qu’elle ne se peut destorder, mais qu’elle est empeschee par ceste ordonnance de Dieu: voila où nous pouvons appercevoir comme Dieu a disposé tout en bonne mesure et raison. Or ceci se peut estendre plus loin. Car quand nous voyons les guerres esmeuës, il semble que tout doive estre meslé haut et bas, nous viendrions incontinent condamner Dieu, s’il estoit en nous, ou bien iargonner contre luy de ce qu’il permet toutes ces choses. Mais si nous attendons l’issue en patience, nous cognoistrons d’un costé que Dieu chastie les hommes à bon droit, quand il suscite les guerres entre eux: et puis, par cela il veut

212

by the evildoers that deeply upset him: cruelty, injustice, brutality and perversion. Echoing his great master Augustine, he was convinced that the greatest part of evil in the world is caused by human beings. Therefore, moral evil turns out to be the consequence of transgression of God’s commandments,186 whereas metaphysical and physical evil are only God’s just punishment and the consequences of sin. From the above considerations it is plain that Calvin entirely shared the Augustinian perspective of evil as a privatio boni and of sin as an actus. It is also worth noting that Calvin, even assuming some basic tenets of Augustinian theology, did not share the speculative and neoplatonic aspects of his thought. He did not utter a word on the principle of plenitude, that is to say, the idea that the most rich and valuable universe is one exemplifying every possible kind of existence, lover as well as higher, ugly as well as beautify, imperfect as well as perfect.

monstrer sa vertu: car quand le feu sera ainsi allumé, il sera puis apres esteint en une minute de temps. Et Dieu alors exerce son office, duquel il est traitté au Pseaume 46 (v.10) que c’est à luy de rompre les lances, de briser les espees, de renverser les chariots, et d’appaiser ce qui estoit auparavant ainsi esmeu. Il faut donc que nous ayons tousiours devant les yeux et en memoire l’ordonnance de Dieu, selon laquelle il conduit et gouverne les troubles qui semblent tendre à une fin mauvaise.” See also CO 35:335. 186 In Sermon 18 he stated: “Things fall not out by chance in this world, nor that it is long of the earth, air or heaven that men are afflicted, but that men bear their bane in themselves.... so that all the mischief cometh of ourselves.” Sermons on Job, p. 83: CO 33:232: “Les choses ne vienent point en ce monde par cas fortuit, que ce n’est point la terre qui afflige les Homme, ce n’est ne l’air, ne le ciel, mais l’homme porte le mal en soy. Que nous cognoissions donc cela, et quand il adviendra des afflictions en ce monde, que nous sachions que c’est la main de Dieu qui est sur nos pechez, et que tout le mal procede de nous, que nous en avons là dedans la source, et la matiere.” The same perspective echoes in Sermon 19: “Whereas we be subjected to many miseries and wants, let us learn to taken the whole burthen and blame of it upon ourselves. It is not the heaven that is so hardened of its own nature, nor it is the earth be barren, it proceeded not of ist own kind, but we our selves are the cause of all.” Sermons on Job, p. 84: CO 33:234: “Apprenons donc de n’accuser ne ciel ne terre, mais de prendre toute la charge et condamnation sur nous de ce que nous sommes ainsi subiets à tant de miseres et povretez. Comme quand nous verrons le temps estre contraire, qu’il y viendra ou gelee, ou tonnerre, ou gresle, que nous sachions que ce n’est point l’air qui est tel de soy: quand il y a secheresse, que ce n’est point le ciel qui soit ainsi endurci de sa nature: quand la terre sera sterile, que cela ne procede point de sa nature, mais nous sommes cause de tout.”

213

4.5. Suffering is real Although emphasizing the privative essence of evil, Calvin steadily refused to consider suffering as only apparent. The recognition that evil is not a hypostasis did not lead him to negate the reality of human suffering or to state that our experience of it is illusory. In Calvin’s opinion, if evil does not exist substantially, it exists accidentally in the dimension of pain, anxiety, and distress. The sufferings stemming from injustice and natural calamities are real tragedies. Even though Calvin regarded the world and history as a theater of the glory of God, he had a profound sense of the tragedy of human suffering. The following passage, taken from his Opus magnum, is one eloquent example of Calvin’s deep realism in considering the vulnerability of human condition: Innumerable are the evils that beset human life; innumerable, too, the deaths that threaten it. We need not go beyond ourselves: since our body is the receptacle of a thousand diseases — in fact holds within itself and fosters the causes of diseases — a man cannot go about unburdened by many forms of his own destruction, and without drawing out a life enveloped, as it were, with death. For what else would you call it, when he neither freezes nor sweats without danger? Now, wherever you turn, all things around you not only are hardly to be trusted but almost openly menace, and seem to threaten immediate death. Embark upon a ship, you are one step away from death. Mount a horse, if one foot slips, your life is imperiled. Go through the city streets, you are subject to as many dangers as there are tiles on the roofs. If there is a weapon in your hand or a friend’s, harm awaits. All the fierce animals you see are armed for your destruction. But if you try to shut yourself up in a walled garden, seemingly delightful, there a serpent sometimes lies hidden. Your house, continually in danger of fire, threatens in the daytime to impoverish you, at night even to collapse upon you. Your field, since it is exposed to hail, frost, drought, and other calamities, threatens you with barrenness, and hence, famine. I pass over poisonings, ambushes, robberies, open violence, which in part besiege us at home, in part dog us abroad. Amid these tribulations must not man be most miserable, since, but half alive in life, he weakly draws his anxious and languid breath, as if he had a sword perpetually hanging over his neck?187

The French Reformer often underlined that history is characterized by confusion and moral disorders. “Things are so confounded in the 187 ICR I.1.1. See also CO 33:81, where Calvin repeated the same considerations.

214

world.”188 “Now is the time of darkness.”189 “There is so great disorder, as we be amazed at it, and the hairs of our head stand upright.”190 Repeatedly, he stressed the awful and devastating reality of the machinations of wicked: The wicked consulte aforehand upon their ungraciousness, treacheries, and unlawful doings, deuysing guiles and deceits: and afterwarde when they have laid the whole platform, they seek all means possible to put their lewde enterprises in execution.191

And yet: In fact the iniquity of men is so wicked, so headstrong, and so desperate that the more God chastises them, the more do they spew out their blasphemies and show themselves to be utterly incorrigible, so that there is no way to bring them back to reason.192

Innumerable times he hinted to the themes of death, cruelties, injustice, violence, and iniquity. “The iniquity runs abroad unbridled, overflowing all things as a water flood.”193 Rather than being the figment of human imagination, he regarded all these negative aspects as the concrete evidence that the time we live is “a time of darkness.”194 In Sermon 105 the analysis of the human situation was particularly inconsolable:

188 Sermons on Job, p. 179: CO 33:477: “Au monde les choses sont confuses.” The same sentence with insignificant variations recurs in the most various of contexts more than 70 times. 189 Sermons on Job, p. 179: CO 33:477: “C’est le regne des tenebres.” 190 Sermons on Job, p. 437: CO 34:397: “Il y ait un désordre si grand que nous en sommes estonnez, que les cheveux nous en dressent en la teste.” 191 Sermons on Job, p. 67: CO 33:191: “les meschans machinent au dedans leurs iniquitez, leurs trahisons, desloyautez, qu’ils inventent des fraudes, et des tromperies, et puis quand ils ont tout conceu, ils cerchent tous les moyens de mettre en execution leur mauvaise entreprinse.” 192 Sermons on Job, p. 34. CO 33:261: “L’iniquité des hommes est si meschante, si obstince, et si desesperee, que tant plus que Dieu les chastie, tant plus desgorgentils leurs blaphemes, et monstrent qu’ils sont du tout incorrigibles, qu’il n’y a nul moyen de les amener à raison.” 193 Sermons on Job, p. 179: CO 34:220: “l’iniquité se transporte comme sans bride, qui est comme un deluge qui s’espanche par tout.” 194 Sermons on Job, p. 179: CO 33:477: ”Voici un temps de ténèbres.”

215

But yet notwithstanding we see in what times we be. For nowadays, like as there is not any fear of God, so is there no shame of men: iniquity does so overflow, that they which be most shameless, are most valiant. At least, youth ought to have some modesty. But what is seen nowadays? To be short we see how youth is become altogether devilish and that not only there is no fear of God but also no honesty at all in them.195

What happened in the past also happens today. Instead of being a laudator temporis acti, Calvin refused to idealize ancient times, even recognizing that the situation had become increasingly worse. The fact that iniquity reigns sovereign, he wrote in Sermon 91: must not seem strange to us: for it has been so in all times. Now if there were such cruelties in the time of Job, shall we marvel if there be may outrages committed, or if the strongest go away with things by force, or if there be no more reason, equity and uprighteousness among men, than there is in wild beasts, nowadays when the world overflows in all naughtiness and we become to the full top of all iniquity?196

It was for the above reasons that Calvin took great care to accentuate its perceptual effects. This existential aspect has been often overlooked, as if Calvin were apathetic towards human suffering. In the book Calvin et Loyola; deux Reformes, Andre Favre-Dorsaz depicts Calvin as “an acid, negative person, withdrawn, embittered and unfeeling, coldly committed pessimist, alternately sympathetic and cruel.”197 Among the protestants

195 Sermons on Job, p. 493: CO 34:549: “Mais cependant nous voyons en quel temps nous sommes, car auiourd’huy comme il n’y a gueres de crainte de Dieu, aussi n’y a-il nulle reverence des hommes: l’iniquité s’est tellement desbordee, que les plus effrontez sont les plus vaillans. La ieunesse devroit pour le moins avoir quelque modestie.Or main tenant que voit-on? Bref, nous voyons que la ieunesse est du tout endiablee, et que non seulement il n’y a point de crainte de Dieu, mais il n’y a plus nulle honnesteté. Quand nous voyons cela, cognoissons qu’il y a un deluge d’iniquité, et que les choses sont tellement confuses qu’il n’y a plus de remede.” 196 Sermons on Job, p. 427: CO 34:373: “ne doit point nous sembler nouveau: car il en a este ainsi de tout temps. … Or si telles cruautez ont desia este du temps de Iob: auiourd’hui que le monde est desbordé à tout mal, que nous sommes venus au comble de toute iniquité, se faut-il esbahir s’il y a des cruautez beaucoup, si les plus forts l’emportent par la violence, et qu’il n’y ait plus ne raison, ni equité, ne droiture, que les hommes soyent comme bestes sauvages?" 197 I owe this quotation to Richard Stauffer, The Humanness of John Calvin (Neuchatel and Paris: Abington Press, 1971), pp. 25-26.

216

the same incomprehension can be found in many authors from Alfred Franklin198 and Stefan Zweig to Paul Tillich. The latter wrote: The suffering of the world was not a real problem for Calvin. Since his first principle is the honour of God, he can show that human suffering is: l) a natural consequence of the distorted, sinful world; 2) a way of bringing the elect to God; 3) a way to show His holiness in the punishment of a distorted world.199

In this statement lays a deep misunderstanding of Calvin’ stance. For Calvin suffering and affliction, far from being abstract realities, were personal experiences. He himself knew well the full meaning of hardship. After being forced to leave Paris in the aftermath of the affair of the Placards, he sought a provisional asylum for three years in Strasbourg. His only child died, as well as “the best companion of his life,”200 his wife. His existence was hard. Diseases afflicted his body and eventually led him to an early grave. In his commentary on Hebrews 11:1 he significantly wrote: Promised to us is eternal life, but it is promised to the dead; we are assured of a happy resurrection, but we are as yet involved in corruption; we are pronounced just, as yet sin dwells in us; we hear that we are happy, but we are as yet in the midst of many miseries; an abundance of all good things is promised to us, but still we often hunger and thirst; God proclaims that he will come quickly, but he seems deaf when we cry to him. What would become of us were we not supported by hope, and did not our minds emerge out of the midst of darkness above the world through the light of God’s word and of his Spirit? Faith, then, is rightly said to be the subsistence or substance of things which are as yet the objects of hope and the evidence of things not seen.201

And yet, although affliction and misery marked his life deeply, what particularly troubled him was not suffering in itself, but the suffering of 198 He wrote:” The great black phantom, a glacial person, sombre, unfeeling, hurried, prey to an exclusive idea, who moved through the world quickly and left upon it a deep mark, irresistibly drew attention without inspiring sympathy.” I owe this quotation to Richard Stauffer, The Humanness of John Calvin, p. 28. 199 The History of Christian Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), p. 266. 200 Letters of John Calvin selected from Bonnet Edition (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), p. 105. 201 Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mi: Eerdmansd, 1974), pp. 157158.

217

the innocents202 aggravated by the “overflowing of iniquity”203 and by the seeming silence of God.204 In the preface to King Francis he had already singled out with great clarity the terms of the theodicy question: What further? Examine briefly, most mighty King, all the parts of our case, and think us the most wicked of wicked men, unless you clearly find that “we toil and suffer reproach because we have our hope set on the living God” [1 Timothy 4:10]; because we believe that “this is eternal life: to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent” [John 17:3 p.]. For the sake of this hope some of us are shackled with irons, some beaten with rods, some led about as laughingstocks, some proscribed, some most savagely tortured, some forced to flee. All of us are oppressed by poverty, cursed with dire execrations, wounded by slanders, and treated in most shameful ways.

This proper scandal, as he often termed it, had been one of the most important objections to the Justice of God. Painfully he asked himself:

202 “Our Lord has wanted to afflict His own in many places” he wrote in Sermon 3 on II Samuel. “Poor people have had their throats cut, there have been many horrible and bloody butcheries, many outrages, tyrannies and cruelties. Then the poor faithful will be expelled from their homes, and it will be much if they escape with their lives. Their goods will be seized, their wives and children will be like poor vagabonds, fleeing here and there, always in danger, like a bird on a branch.” 203 Sermons on Job, p. 493. 204 CO 33:448. “Or maintenant il reste de voir comme Dieu est iuste, et comme il gouverne le monde en equité: et toutes fois les choses sont confuses cependant. Car les meschans ont la vogue, ils oppriment, ils pillent, ils saccagent: et Dieu dissimule: et ne fait point semblant d’y prouvoir. Comment ceci s’entend-il, Que Dieu ait la conduite du monde, et que tout soit iustement disposé par lui: et toutes fois qu’on voye des troubles si grands, des iniquitez si enormes, sans qu’il y remedie.” See also: CO 34:480: “Ayent leur recours à luy, il ne semble point qu’il les vueille secourir. On voit que les plus simples, et ceux qui ont vescu sans faire tort à nul, sont tormentez iusques au bout, et comme exposez en proye, et Dieu ne fait point semblant de les delivrer: au contraire, les meschans triomphent, ils s’endurcissent en leurs maux, et leur semble qu’ils peuvent despiter Dieu sans crainte: et Dieu dissimule tout. cela.” CO 34:381: “Or tant y a que de nostre costé nous ne pouvons pas tousiours marquer à. l’oeil pourquoi c’est que Dieu dissimule, quand les uns pillent et ravissent, et que les autres sont despouillez de leur substance, nous ne pouvons pas voir la raison.”

218

Then ought not all the wicked to be rooted out of earth?205 Where is God’s hands which should succor those that are His.206 Why does God dissemble thus? Why does He suffer His church to be turmoiled so?207 But contrary wise it is to be seen, that many men are afflicted and tormented with many miseries. To what purpose does God hold them at that point?208

In many sermons the contrast between the poor condition of the believers and the privileged status of the wicked led him to be deeply unsatisfied. Whereas the believers are “little flock of sheep”209 “in the wolfs mouths,”210 the wicked, he pointed out, are not only one herd of wolfs, but as an infinite number of wolfs. “The whole world is full of such as could find in their hearts to eat the very bowels of us. And they are not satisfied with putting of us to single death: but there is such cruelty among them, as a man may well perceive it to be altogether hellish.”211 “Whereas God’s children drag their lines and cords, do but pain away here below and death pursues them, the wicked are lust and strong.”212 He never tired to stress the precariousness of the believers who live in “a wild wood full of robbers,213 “subject to a hundredth thousand kind of deaths.214 205 Sermons on Job, p. 167: CO 33:448: “Ne faut-il que tous les meschans en soyent exterminez?” 206 Sermons on Job, p. 230: CO 33:614: “Ou est la main de Dieu, laquelle devroit secourir les siens?” 207 Sermons on Job, p. 609: CO 35:139: “Et comment Dieu dissimule-il? Pourquoy estce qu’il permet que son Eglise soit ainsi tormentee?” 208 Sermons on Job, p. 57: CO 33:164: “Or au contraire on voit qu’il y a beaucoup de gens qui sont affligez, qui sont tourmentez de beaucoup de misères: à quel propos Dieu les tient-il ici?" 209 Sermons on Job, p. 92: CO 33:256: “comme un petit troupeau de brebis.” 210 CO 33:672: “en la gueule des loups.” 211 Sermons on Job, p. 92: CO 33:256: “Sont non seulement un troupeau de loups, mais un nombre infini: le monde est plein de ceux qui ne demandent qu’à nous manger les entrailles: et ils ne se contenteroyent point de nous avoir mis simplement à mort: mais il y a une cruauté, qu’on voit bien du tout estre infernale.” 212 Sermons on Job, p. 315: CO 34:70: “Voila (dit David [Ps. 73,4J) les enfans de Dieu qui trainent leurs liens et leurs cordeaux, ils ne font que languir ici bas: il semble que la mort les poursuive, et toutes fois qu’elle ne les vueille point emporter. Et qu’est-ce des meschans? Ils sont sains et robustes, et meurent sans y penser.” 213 Sermons on Job, p. 18: CO 33:72: “Nous sommes comme en une forest pleine de brigands.” 214 Sermons on Job, p. 24: CO 33:81: “subiets à cent mille especes de morts.”

219

To further support this statement Calvin added: “God begins to chastise His own household folk first. When He intends to execute His Justice He begins not at the unbelievers.”215 He found comfort in the conviction that suffering is definitive of our precarious lives and does not represent something unexpected.216 God has never promised us that we would be exempted from trials.217 In a letter to the French brethren, the French Reformer went so far as to set the life of the believers sub specie crucis. Since it is our duty to suffer, we ought humbly to submit; as it is the will of God that his church be subjected to such conditions that even as the plough passes over the field, so should the ungodly have leave to pass their sword over us all from the least to the greatest. According then to what is said in the psalm, we should prepare our back for stripes. If that condition is hard and painful, let us be satisfied that our heavenly Father in exposing us to death, turns it to our eternal welfare. And indeed it is better for us to suffer for his name, without flinching, than to possess his word without being visited by affliction. For in prosperity we do not experience the worth of his assistance and the power of his Spirit, as when we are oppressed, by men. That seems strange to us; but he who sees more clearly than we, knows far better what is advantageous for us. Now when he permits his children to be afflicted, there is no doubt but that it is for their good. Thus we are forced to conclude that whatever he orders, is the best thing we could desire.218

215 Sermons on Job, p. 742: CO 35:492: “Dieu commence a chastier les domestiques de sa maison. Quand il exerce son iugement, il ne commencera point par les incrédules.” 216 Already in The Institutes, Calvin expressed his point of view: “Or, en cest endroict on peut voir une singulière félicite des fidèles: la via humaine est environnée et quasi assiége de misères infinies. Sans aller plus long, puisque nostre corps est un réceptacle de mil’ maladies et mesme nourrist en soy les causes, quelque part ou aille l’homme, il porte plusieurs espèces de mort avec soy, tellement que sa vie est quasi enveloppée avec la mort. Car que dirons-nous autre chose, quand on ne peut avoir frit ne suer sans danger? Au contraire si la Providence de Dieu reluyt au cœur de l’homme fidèle, non seulement il sera délivré de la crainte et déstresse, de laquelle il estoit presse auparavant, mai sera relève de toute doubte.” CO 3:263. 217 CO 33:556: “Notons bien donc que Dieu n’a point promis aux fideles une telle prospérité qui soit du tout exemptée en ce monde des afflictions communes, ausquelles il faut que nous soyons subiets: mais toutes telles promesses de Dieu tendent à ceste fin-la, que nous sachions que communément Dieu fera préparer ceux qui cheminent en sa crain.” 218 Tracts and Letters, 7:84.

220

Holding together the knowledge of God as Lord and as Father, Calvin combined these two titles. What God did, has done and is doing is the outcome of His fatherly love and of His divine sovereignty. He steadfastly refused to recognise the dilemma presented by those who asked him to choose between an impotent and an unjust God. There are other some which to prove that God is righteous, would abolish His mighty power… God righteousness is too high and too deep for us to attain unto as now.219

4.6 God is good This analysis of the basic tenets of Calvin’s Theodicy would be incomplete without emphasizing once again the great importance played by the notion of the goodness of God. Although this aspect of Calvin’s thought has often been neglected, one needs only to research the use of this word, to realize the importance that the goodness of God played in the wider context of the French Reformer’s theology. In Sermon 55 on Deuteronomy he went so far to state that “nothing is more peculiar to Him than His goodness,” because without it, “He is no longer God.”220 Contrary to the opinion shared by Richard Stauffer, according to whom the theme of the goodness of God was hardly mentioned in the preaching of the French Reformer, the word occurred numberless and in the Sermons on Job even more than 639 times. With various accents Calvin stressed the greatness and the amplitude of divine goodness by

219 CO 34:340: “Il y en a d’autres, qui pour prouver que Dieu est iuste, veulent abolir la puissance…: La justice de Dieu est trop haute et trop profonde pour nous.” 220 J. Calvin, The Sermon on the Book of Deuteronomy, (The Banner of Truth Trust, Pennsylvania, 1987) p. 328. CO 26:548: ”Il n’y a rien qui luy soit plus propre que sa bonté. Ostons-luy sa bonté: il ne sera plus Dieu. “I owe this quotation to Richard Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin (Peter Lang, Berne, 1978), p. 110.

221

emphasizing that, although infinite221 and sometimes hidden,222 it could be easily recognized, known, and praised223 by everyone. In Sermon 144 the French Reformer pointed out that “it is not enough for us to conceive God to be the maker of the world, but we must also know Him to be our father, because He draws us to Him with gentle and loving care, as if we were His own children.”224 Or asked provocatively: “What earthly father does so much for those that are descended of Him?” The answer he gave was a fervent hymn to divine goodness that God “has not put us into this world to the end we should perish as brute beasts, but to bring us to everlasting heritage which He has promised us.225 In Calvin’s opinion goodness is not merely the expression of God’s decision, but also corresponds to His intimate nature. God cannot be anything else than good. In Sermon 72 he invited his listeners to contemplate the goodness of God not abstractly but “in all the benefits that He bestowed upon us, ..... in having a care of this body” and in the fact that He has formed us “after His own image.”226 Strictly depending on divine goodness was the notion of divine love which contrary to the opinion expressed by Paul Tillich,227 he termed as “mere,”228 “infinite,”229 “paternal,”230 “gratuitous,”231 marvelous,”232 221 222 223 224 225

CO 33:485. CO 34:180. CO 35:332. Sermons on Job, p. 677: CO 35:320. Sermons on Job, p. 677: CO 35:320: ”Or en premier lieu retenons ce que nous avons touché, c’est assavoir, qu’il ne suffit point que nous comprenions Dieu comme Createur du monde, pour lui attribuer toute vertu: mais que nous le cognoissions aussi comme Pore, d’autant qu’il nous attire d’un soin tant benin et tant amiable, comme si nous estions ses propres enfans. Qui est le pere terrien, qui en face autant pour ceux quisont descendus de lui? Pour bien donc cognoistre que c’est de Dieu, il faut que nous goustions sa bonté laquelle il nous declare etnous fait sentir, et de laquelle nous recevons les fruicts, et en iouyssons mesmes en ceste vie mortelle. Or avons-nous ainsi gousté la bonté de Dieu? C’est pour nous mener plus outre, c’est assavoir que nous esperions en lui,qu’il ne nous a point mis en ce monde pour nous faire perir comme les bestes brutes: mais que c’est pour nous mener à l’heritage eternel qu’il nous a promis.” 226 Sermons on Job, p. 337: CO 34:130. 227 He wrote: “It is remarkable how little Calvin had to say about the love of God. The divine glory replaces the divine love.”A History of Christian Thought (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1967) p. 270. 228 36 occurrences.

222

“sovereign,”233 “inestimable,”234 “extraordinary,”235 “incomparable,”236 “singular,”237 “admirable.”238 Calvin made often recourse to the figure of the loving, though strict father. God loves us so tenderly, that He desires nothing but to bring us home again.239 He is merciful240 and “showed Himself gentle and loving towards us.”241 If, therefore, at least in the Sermons on Job, God’s Justice, love and goodness represent the core of Calvin’s concerns and appear to be closely connected to one another, it is difficult to share the opinion of those who continue to paint the image of Calvin as a cold theologian. In his recent essay Randall Zachman thinks otherwise: I argue, on the contrary, that goodness is central to Calvin’s understanding of God. God for Calvin is ultimately and essentially ‘the fountain and author of every good thing,’ and although he certainly considered power to be one of those good things, it is always seen in the context of other good things such as wisdom, righteousness, life, mercy, and goodness. Moreover, the fountain of every good thing manifests itself to us in two essentially related ways: in the beauty of God’s works and in the truth of God’s Word. The goodness of God not only proclaims and attests itself in truth, but it also manifests and exhibits itself in beauty. We need the truth of God to be able to discern the beauty of God in God’s works; but we also need the beauty of God to be sweetly allured and gently invited to God, so that we might be ravished with admiration for the beauty of God’s goodness, and seek God from the inmost affection of our hearts.242

229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241

47 occurrences. 23 occurrences. 25 occurrences. 1 occurrence. 2 occurrences. 7 occurrences. 1 occurrence. 1 occurrence. 2 occurrences. 1 occurrence. CO 33:74: “Dieu nous aime si tendrement, qu’il ne demande sinon à nous reduire.” Sermons on Job, p. 195: CO 33:519: “Il est nous propise.” Sermons on Job, p. 308: CO 34:50: “Notre Seigneur se monstre doux et bénin envers nous.” 242 Randall Zachman, Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 2007), p. 59.

223

Chapter V The “first line of Defence” of God’s Justice

But how it was that God, by His foreknowledge and decree, ordained what should take place in Adam, and yet so ordained it without His being Himself in the least a participator of the fault, or being at all the author or the approver of the transgression; how this was, I repeat, is a secret manifestly far too deep to be penetrated by any stretch of human intellect. John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, p. 128

In the previous chapter we have examined the basic tenets of Calvin’s Theodicy which seem to form a coherent frame. And yet Calvin’s refusal of the distinction between God’s causing evil and God’s merely permitting evil was doomed to open another more serious question: If God not only permits but also wills evil, is He not its author, as the 1 Libertines claimed? It was in order to answer this objection that Calvin felt obliged to build up a “first line of Defense” in which he tried to demonstrate that: 1) God is not the direct author of evil. 2) God’s intentions are good and justified. 3) God will convert evil to good.

1

One needs only to compare Calvin’s statement “it is God that has done it” with the reply given by Quintin when he was asked who had committed a murder: “Since you want to know, it is I, it is God.”For whatsoever I do it God doing! And whatsoever God does, we do; for God is in us.” J. Calvin Treatises against the Anabaptists and again the Libertines (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1982), p. 239.

225

5.1 God is not the author of evil: the distinction between the remote cause and the proximate cause In the treatise Contre la Secte phantastique et furieuse des Libertines, where it is given to find in nuce all the elements which Calvin developed in the following years, he attempted to make a distinction between the concept of cause and that of authorship. He assumed that: although the universal operation by which God guides all creatures according to the condition and property which he has given each when He made them does not prevent each creature, heavenly or earthly from having and retaining its own quality 2 and nature and from following its own inclination.

Although God operates through agents and instruments, “Satan and evildoers are not so effectively the instruments of God that they do not also act in their own behalf.”3 The image that Calvin often used was that one of the sun. For in the same way that the sun shines on carrion and causes it to rot, neither being corrupted nor tainted by it, and by its purity is not the cause of the carrion’s stench and infection, God also so truly performs His works through evildoers that His sanctity does not justify them nor does their infection contaminate anything in 4 Him.

In the attempt to discharge God from any responsibility, he asked provocatively:

2 3 4

226

Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 242-43. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 245. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 247: CO 7:190: “Car tout ainsi que le soleil, donnant de ses rayons sur une charongne, et causant en icelle quelque putrefaction, n’en tire point de corruption ne macule aucune, et ne faict point par sa pureté que la charongne ne soit puante et infecte: aussi Dieu fait tellement ses oeuvres par les meschans, que la saincteté qui est en luy ne les iustifie point, et l’infection qui est en eux ne le contamine en rien.”

Whence comes the stench of a corpse, which is both putrefied and laid open by the heat of the sun? All men see that it is stirred up by the sun’s rays; yet no one for this 5 reason says that the rays stink.

This example clearly anticipated the distinction that Calvin elaborated further between primary and secondary causation. He assumed that God does not work “in an iniquitous man as if he were a stone or a piece of wood, but He uses him as a thinking creature, according to the quality of his nature which He has given him.”6 Satan and the wicked are completely free and their freedom does not limit God’s freedom. God does not violate the freedom of the evildoers, although He works in and through their actions. In the preface to Commentary on the Book of Psalms he tried to dispel a possible misunderstanding of his theology by terming as a “foolish calumny”7 that he had represented God as the author of sin. In his biography on John Calvin Theodore von Beza ascribed this destructive opinion to: some of the neighboring churches of Berne, which threatened to enter into controversy with Calvin, as if he made God the author of sin, evidently forgetting that Calvin had long ago professedly refuted this very destructive opinion, in his 8 treatise against the Libertines.

5 6 7 8

ICR I.17.5. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 245. CO 31:30: “calunnie frivole.” CO 31:29: “Futilis calumnia.” The Life of John Calvin, in the CD The Comprehensive John Calvin, pp. 48-49: He added: “Another circumstance which occurred this year did not allow Calvin’s joy to be complete. A faction, composed of a few neighboring ministers, who in themselves felt inclined to oppose Calvin, and were, moreover, instigated by Bolsec, to gain some degree of reputation, by attacking an individual so celebrated, men, moreover, whose characters had already many stigmas attached to them, raged like Bacchanalians against him, alleging that he made God the author of evil, by excluding nothing from His eternal Providence and ordination. These calumnies, to which we have already alluded, although they did not move him from his course, yet, from the slanderous manner in which they were urged, obliged him to obtain permission from the Senate to proceed to Berne with deputies, and plead the cause of truth before the Bernese themselves. The cause was accordingly pleaded; the result being, that Sebastian was convicted of infamy, and banished, and Bolsec also was ordered to leave the country; but it was not thought proper to give any express decision on the subject itself.”

227

In Calvin’s opinion God cannot be regarded as “the author of evil, if 9 with these words one intends to be the direct executor.” He faced this 10 question directly, referring to those as “fanatics” or as “perverse 11 disputants” who held such point of view. Commenting on the text Lead us not into temptation, the French Reformer wrote: It is certainly true, that “every man is tempted,” as the Apostle James says, (1:14) “by his own lust:” yet, as God not only gives us up to the will of Satan, to kindle the flame of lust, but employs him as the agent of his wrath, when he chooses to drive men headlong to destruction, he may be also said, in a way peculiar to himself, to lead them into temptation. In the same sense, “an evil spirit from the Lord” is said to have “seized or troubled Saul,” (1 Samuel 16:14) and there are many passages of Scripture to the same purpose. And yet we will not therefore say, that God is the author of evil: because, by, giving men over to a reprobate mind,” (Romans 1:28) he does not exercise a confused tyranny, but executes his just, though secret 12 judgments.

Even in the Sermons on Job Calvin took the same attitude and termed as “beasts” all those who, seeing “no reason why God should be the doer of 13 all things,” held that “He be the author of sin,” and as “toads full of poison” those who:

9 10 11 12

13

228

Commentary on Acts of the Apostles 2:22-24. Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah 45:8. Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 115:2. Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. XVI, pp. 327: CO 45:202: “Certum quidem est, unumquemque tentari a propria concupiscentia, quemadmodum docet Iacobus (1:14), sed quia Deus non modo Satanae libidini nos permittit, ut ignem concupiscentiae accendat, sed eo utitur irae suae ministro, quoties vult homines in exitium praecipites agere, ipse quoque suo modo in tentationem inducit. Quo sensu dicitur spiritus Dei malus arripuisse Saulem, et eodem tendunt complures scripturae loci: neque tamen propterea Deum vocabimus malorum antorem, quoniam homines mittendo in sensum reprobum non confusam tyrannidem exercet, sed iusta sua iudicia, licet arcana, exsequitur.” Sermons on Job, p. 33: CO 33:105: “Ce sont des bestes, voire si lourdes que rien plus. Il n’y a ne savoir, ni esprit: mais afin de se faire valoir ils diront, qu’ils ne trouvent pas bon que Dieu face ainsi tout : car il seroit auteur de peché.” See also CO 34:585.

spew out their blasphemies against the providence of God saying: If God disposes 14 all things, then is He the author of sin, then is evil to be fathered upon Him.

The reason why these wild beasts state that God is “the author of sin” would be, in Calvin’s opinion, nothing else than the arrogance. “They would frame God to their own fantasy and cannot agree that He should be Almighty, except they might make Him subject to their own fashion and fantasy.”15 Calvin held that the statement according to which sometimes it seems that God is “the cause of evil,”16 has to be interpreted in the sense He is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.17 Although God makes uses of the wicked, He remains substantially unsullied. Nevertheless, it was especially in the treatises On the Eternal Predestination of God and On the Secret Providence of God, that Calvin deepened the distinction between the remote cause and the proximate cause, that turned out to be of paramount importance in his Theodicy. In order to answer to the question “How God can be free from blame in that very deed which He Himself condemns in Satan and in the reprobate, and which He declares that men condemn in their fellow-men,”18 he attributed the first to God and the second to human agency. The fact that 14

15

16 17

18

Sermons on Job, p. 584: CO 35:69: “Comme nous voyons ces crapaux qui sont pleins de venin, qui viendront desgorger leurs blasphemes contre la Providence de Dieu: Et si Dieu dispose de tout, et Il est donc auteur de peché, le mal donc Luy doit estre imputé.” Sermons on Job, p. 220: CO 33:585-586: “C’est d’autant qu’ils veulent renger Dieu à leur fantasie, et qu’ils n’apprehendent point sa sagesse admirable pour l’adorer combien qu’elle nous soit cachee. Voila donc des bestes arrogantes qui ne peuvent point accorder à Dieu qu’il soit tout-puissant, sinon qu’ils l’assuiettissent a leur guise et a leur appetit “ Sermons on Job, p. 57. Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah 45:8: “Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences.” Then he goes on to note that “we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.” Indeed, the contrast does point the way here toward that understanding of ra’ as “bad.” Whatever it is, it is the opposite of “shalom,” which means “peace, well-being.” Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 249.

229

“the Divine will is the necessity of all things,” does not necessarily imply that God is the only cause of all events. In order to better clarify his point of view, he used once again various examples: The sun rises day by day; but it is God that enlightens the earth by his rays. The earth brings forth her fruits; but it is God that gives bread and it is God that gives 19 strength and nourishment of that bread. Man is not nourished by his labor, nor by his industry, but by the grace of God alone. That it is not the heat or influence of the sun which makes the earth fruitful, but the pure grace of God. That it is not bread that sustains and nourishes us, but the strength which God of his goodness puts into 20 us.

He recognized also that, although “all inferior and secondary causes, viewed in themselves, veil like so many curtains the glorious God from our sight, the eye of faith must be cast up far higher, that it may behold 21 the hand of God working by all these His instruments.” He applied this principle whenever the liability of God is at stake and held that, ”the careful observance of this distinction is indispensable,” in order to better understand “how wide a difference there is, and how momentous a distinction between the just and equal Providence of God and turbulent 22 impetuosities of men.” The will of God is “the supreme or remote cause” of the hardening of the Pharaoh, but the will of the latter “who hardens his own heart is 23 the proximate cause of the hardening.” “The first proximate cause of 24 the reprobation of Israel is their not having believed the Gospel,” whereas “the purposes of God” is the remote cause. The same happened with Job, who recognizing that “the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away,” acknowledged the thieves as the proximate cause and the will of God as the remote cause of his suffering but never went to the extreme 25 of charging “God with sin.” Calvin was always adamant in excluding any form of dualism: nothing can escape from the Divine will, since “when God displays His 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

230

Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 231. Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5, p. 368. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 231. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 251. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 318. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 184. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 298.

power through means and secondary causes, that power of His is never 26 to be separated from those means or inferior causes.” However, he did not always feel comfortable using the distinction between “the remote cause” and “the proximate cause” as a hermeneutical key. The fall of Adam deeply upset him and forced him to ask how it is possible to reconcile the fact that Adam fell without implicating God in any blame? He struggled with this problem and finally singled out the following conclusions: 1) The secret counsel of God cannot be regarded as the real and virtual cause of sin, but rather the will and inclination of 27 man is the cause. 2) Consequently, all the blame of that act falls upon men and 28 not upon God. 3) How this inescapable contradiction could be solved, was explained by Augustine who wrote: In a wonderful and unutterable way that was not done without the will of God (says he), which was even done contrary to His will; because it could not have been done at all, if His will had not permitted it to be done. And yet He did not permit it unwillingly, but willingly. The great and grand principle, therefore, on which Augustine argues cannot be denied: That both man and apostate angels, as far as they were themselves concerned, did that which God willed not, or which was contrary to His will but that, as far as God’s overruling omnipotence is concerned, they could not, in any manner, have done it without His will. To these sentiments of 29 the holy man I subscribe with all my heart.

In the Sermons on Job, as well as in all his homiletic production, the distinction between remote and proximate causation occurred marginally 26 27 28 29

Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 235. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 235. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 128. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 126: CO 8:315: “Quanquam sic ordinasse dico, ut eum proprie au torem fuisse non concedam. Ac ne longior sim, penitus quod Augustinus docet, impletum fuisse sentio: ut miro et ineffabili modo non fuerit praeter eius voluntatem factam, quod etiam contra eius voluntatem factum ost: quia non fieret, si non sineret. Nec utique nolens sinit, sed volens. Negari enim, quod illic principium sumit, non potest : Tam hominem quam angelos apostatas, quantum ad ipsos attinet, quod Deus noluit, fecisse: quantum vero ad Dei omnipotentiam, nullo modo efficere id valuisse. Ergo sancti viri sententiae subscribo.” The same quotation occurred in the Treatise on the Secret Providence of God.

231

and only for the purpose of stressing once again that “nothing happens 30 31 without His Providence” and “everything proceeds from God,” who 32 “reigns continually from above.” In Sermon 36 Calvin reminded that the denial of attributing the authorship of evil to God meant simply that God is not the proximate cause of evil, even remaining the first cause in the sense “that all things proceed from Him, whither it be prosperity or 33 adversity, life or death, light or darkness.” The same concept was 34 repeated in Sermon 6. 35 36 Carla Calvetti and Richard Stauffer try to explain the reasons of this forgetfulness holding that Calvin feared to compromise the Divine

30 31

32 33

34 35

36

232

CO 33:79. CO 33:451: “Ainsi donc considerons tellement les causes et les moyens inferieurs, que nous pourrons apercevoir en nos sens et en nos esprits, que cependant Dieu demeure tousiours en son empire souverain: et que nous cognoissions que toutes choses procedent de Luy.” Sermons on Job, p. 614: CO 35:152: “Dieu domine tousiours par dessus.” Sermons on Job, p. 168: CO 33:450: “Or nous ne dirons point que Dieu soit auteur de mal, entant que le mal est à condamner. Car quand l’Escriture dit que Dieu fait le bien et le mal, elle entend que toutes choses procedent de luy, ou prosperité ou affliction, comme aussi la vie et la mort, comme la clarté et les tenebres, ainsi qu’il en est parlé au Prophete Isaie (45:7): tellement que tout ce que le diable fait, ainsi que nous avons dit, ou que les meschans attentent, il faut que nous le prenions comme de la main de Dieu.” CO 33:86. ”Calvino nonostante in qualche momento sembri riconoscere al reale delle proprie caratteristiche sia pure determinate dal divino decreto e realizzate con il concorso di Dio, immediatamente dopo, forse nel timore che si possano conferire al reale delle proprie leggi destinate a mostrarne il comportamento, sia pure in dipendenza da Dio, ma con una propria fisionomia, forse per paura di sottrarre a Dio la sua gloria qualora si introducano delle cause seconde, forse ancora temendo che la divina onnipotenza sia compromessa, finisce con l’esasperare le possibili proprietà delle cose confondendole con la possibilità di se pour mener à son plasir e quindi col condannare, con l’arbitrio, le stesse leggi del reale, mentre l’universo, privato delle sue proprietà, perde la sua natura e diviene uno strumento attraverso il quale il divino arbitrio selon son plasir tourne à tels actes qu’il veut.” In La Filosofia di Giovanni Calvino (Vita e Pensiero, Milano, 1954), pp. 213-214. “La deuxième attitude que Calvin condamne est celle des philosophes, comme il les nomme, qui, s’efforçant de découvrir les causes des phénomènes, s’arrêtent aux causes secondes et oublient de remonter jusqu’à Diu qui est la cause première.” in Dieu la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin (Bern: Peter Lang, 1978), p. 122.

37

Omnipotence by attributing too much power to the secondary causations. There is a kernel of truth in this conviction: in fact, as Kinlaw aptly points out, “even when he referred to intermediate causes, Calvin quickly reminded us that these are mere occasions for the execution of God’s will and efficacious only when serving as transparent vessels for 38 the implementation of God’s directives.” A clear example of this attitude can be found in Sermon 130; after having stressed “that God does use inferior means to govern the world,” Calvin took care to point out that this principle is far from “diminishing His authority, for He 39 reigns continually from above.” Yet in our opinion the situation is more complex. Although in the Sermons on Job Calvin upheld the principle of secondary causation, whilst stressing the Devils are “God’s hangmen and instruments of His 40 wrath,” it is unquestionable that he did not insist very much on it. Very likely Calvin feared that the distinction between proximate and ultimate causation could be misunderstood by a public of non theologians. Elsewhere he had confessed his utter ignorance to answer the question “how it was that God, by His foreknowledge and decree, ordained what should take place in Adam, and yet so ordained it without His being Himself in the least a participator of the fault, or being at all 41 the author or the approver of the transgression.” 37

38

39

40

41

“We acknowledge is true, in words that the First Cause is self-sufficient, and that intermediate and secondary causes have only what they borrow from this First Cause; but, in reality, we picture God to ourselves as poor imperfect, unless he is assisted by second causes.” Commentary on Genesis I:6. Kinlaw, Charles Jeffery, Trinitarian Theology and the Hidden God: Determinism and the Hiddenness of God in Calvin and Schleiermacher. Ph.D Diss., University of Virginia, 1998, p. 161. Sermons on Job, p. 614: CO 35:152: “Vrai est que Dieu usera bien de moyens inferieurs pour gouverner le monde: mais si est-ce que ce n’est point pour amoindrir son autorité, ce n’est pas pour avoir quelque compagnon: car il domine toujours par dessus. Que sont les plus grands rois, sinon les mains de Dieu?” CO 33:75: “Mais il y a enconres plus, c’est à savoir, que les diables sont comme bourreaux pour executer les iugemens de Dieu, et les punitions qu’il veut faire sur les meschans: ils sont aussi comme verges, par lesquelles Dieu chastie ses enfans. Brief, il faut que le diable soit instrument de l’ire de Dieu, et qu’il execute sa volonté, non pas qu’il le face (comme nous avons dit) de son bon gré, mais d’autant que Dieu a l’empire souverain sur toutes ses créatures, et qu’il faut qu’il les plié, et les tourne là où bon luy semble.” Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 128.

233

It is said that God disposes all things in the world. Well then is it possible that when wars come, they should be of God’s stirring up or that God should guide them that are tossed with outrageous passion, such as the princes be that are full of ambition, covetous, blood shedders, racers, extorcioners…. We see that men are as ill as wild 42 beasts and much worse.. And should God use such instruments?

Fully aware that it is extremely difficult to square God’s Justice with the fact that God’s hand is ruling all events, Calvin was forced to deal with another and more complex question: How human beings could be held indictable if their actions are governed by God? In Calvin’s stance is there not underlying the risk of determinism? As we have seen in chapter II, already in the treatise Against the fantastic and furious Sect of the Libertines, Calvin had faced the problem of the pantheistic determinism of the Libertines and clearly stated that God acts in the bad deeds of the evildoers. In the treatise against Pighius, who confused coercion with necessity, he pointed out the four different meanings that the words free, bound, self determined or coerced could have. This text is worth quoting in its entirety: People generally understand a free will to be one which has in its power to choose good or evil [But] There can be no such thing as a coerced will, since the two ideas are contradictory. But our responsibility as teachers is to say what it means, so that it may be understood what coercion is. Therefore we describe [as coerced] the will which does not incline this way or that of its own accord or by an internal movement of decision, but is forcibly driven by an external impulse. We say that it is self-determined when of itself it directs itself in the direction in which it is led, when it is not taken by force or dragged unwillingly. A bound will, finally, is one which because of its corruptness is held captive under the authority of its evil desires, so that it can choose nothing but evil, even if it does so of its own accord and gladly, without being driven by any external impulse. According to these definitions we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. 42

234

Sermons on Job, p. 189: CO 33:503: ”Il est dit que Dieu dispose toutes choses en ce monde. Et bien, est-il possible que quand il se meine des guerres, Dieu les suscite? Que Dieu conduise ceux qui sont agitez de passions enragees: comme nous voyons les princes, qui sont pleins d’ambition, ou avarice, qui espandent le sang, qui pillent, qui ravissent, tellement qu’il y a une confusion infernale, et que ceux qui les vont servir là ne font nulle conscience ne scrupule de tuer, de violer, de piller? Voila donc les hommes qui sont comme bestes sauvages, et pires encores. Et que Dieu use de tels instrumens?“

We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man’s innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from 43 which follows that it is self-determined.

From this text a clearer sense is given of Calvin’s perspective. Providence does not represent an inevitable fate. Human beings are subjected neither to the old impersonal metaphysical determinism, held by Stoic philosophy nor to a physical modern scientific determinism but 44 to a Divine causation. God sustains and preserves the whole of creation, from moment to moment. What is the nature of this causation? Calvin was not always univocal on this issue. Yet, in spite of some 43

44

Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1996), pp. 69-70: CO 6:280: “Liberam voluntatem vulgo intelligunt, et sic Pighius quoque definit, quae bonum aut malum eligere habeat in sua potestate. Coacta voluta nulla esse potest, quum alterum alteri repugnet. Verum docendi causa, quid significet, dicendum est, ut intelligatur quid sit coactio. Eam ergo sic vocamus, quae non sponte sua, nec interiore electionis motu, inclinatur huc vel illuc, sed externo motu violenter fertur. Spontaneam dicimus, quae ultro se flectit, quocunque ducitur, non autem rapitur, aut trahitur invita. Serva postremo voluntas est, quae propter corruptionem sub malarum cupiditatum imperio captiva tenetur, ut nihil quam malum eligere possit, etiam si id sponte et libenter, non externo motu impulsa, faciat. Secundum has definitiones homini arbitrium concedimus, idque spontaneum, ut, si quid mali facit, sibi ac voluntariae suae electioni imputare debeat. Coactionem et violentiam tollimus, quia pugnet cum natura voluntatis, nec simul consistat. Liberum autem negamus, quia propter ingenitam homini pravitatem ad malum necessario feratur, nec nisi malum appetere queat. Atque hinc colligere licet, quantum sit necessitatis et coactionis discrimen. Neque enim nomine dicimus invitum trahi ad peccandum, sed quoniam vitiosa sit eius voluntas, sub peccati iugo teneri captivam, ideoque necessario male velle. Ubi enim servitus, illic necessitas. Sed plurimum interest, voluntariane sit servitus, an coacta. Nos autem non alibi statuimus peccandi necessitatem quam in vitio voluntatis: unde spontaneam esse ipsam sequitur“ “We are not Stoics who dream up a fate based on a continuous connections of events.” In John Calvin, The bondage and the liberation of the Will, p. 38: “Non sumus Stoici, qui fatum somniemus ex perpetua rerum connexione.” In CO 6:257.

235

uncertainties, one element comes out unequivocally: Divine causation turns out to be an abstention, more than a positive action. In the Treatise On The Eternal Predestination of God it is possible to find one of the clearest explanations of how God works: Now, if we are not really ashamed of the Gospel, we must of necessity acknowledge what is therein openly declared: that God by His eternal goodwill (for which there was no other cause than His own purpose), appointed those whom He pleased unto salvation, rejecting all the rest; and that those whom He blessed with this free adoption to be His sons He illumines by His Holy Spirit, that they may receive the life which is offered to them in Christ; while others, continuing of their 45 own will in unbelief, are left destitute of the light of faith, in total darkness.

In fact, as Calvin pointed out some years later in the treatise On the Secret Providence of God, “God does not govern the reprobate by his generating Spirit, but He gives them over to the devil and leaves them to 46 be his slaves.” In this word leave lays the core of Calvin’s perspective. 47 God “leaves men void and destitute of His Spirit,” and “in their 48 depravity.” The sense once again is clear: The will of the wicked is free in the sense that they are not coerced but self-determined, choosing voluntarily, of their own consensus. As the later scholastic Calvinist stated, God’s act can be defined in terms of passing over (praeteritio) or of the denial of unmerited grace (indebitae gratiae negatio) more than as appointment to merited punishment (praedamnatio). God does not coerce or force human will, but leaves it to its vile instincts so that men are the real agent of their choices. In this sense there is significant asymmetry between God’s action in the elect and the reprobates. The salvation of the former depends on the Predestination of God, whilst the perdition of the latter “depends upon the Predestination of God in such a 49 way that the cause and occasion of it are found in themselves.” In other words, reprobation depends on two causes, the will of God and the sin of man, although the latter is not the ultimate reason the justification of rejection. Men are free from coercion by outside powers, but not from

45 46 47 48 49

236

Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 31. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 319. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 78. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 315. ICR III.23.8.

their sinful nature and consequently they are indictable, because they sin voluntarily not because they are forced. The same distinction echoed some years later in a letter written on 6th of October 1552 to the Syndics of Geneva in the case of Troillet. Calvin wrote: I am ready to acknowledge that the wicked, sin of necessity, and that such necessity is by the ordinance and will of God; but I also add, that such necessity is without constraint, so that he who sins, cannot excuse himself by saying, that he was 50 compelled thereto.

In the Commentary on Isaiah Calvin reiterated his conviction as follows: 1) “God controls the purposes of men and turns their thought and exertions to whatever purpose He pleases.” 2) “There is no violent compulsion, as if God dragged men against their will.” 3) “Men does not cease to form plans so that they still have the 51 exercise of their will.” All these motifs had to come back later in an isolate passage of the Sermons on Job, where Calvin once again wrote that “when men are malicious and cruel against us, the naughtiness is of themselves, and yet 52 it is not therefore to be said but that God leads them thereunto.” In the Institutes of 1559, in order to better clarify his thought, Calvin made recourse to an image borrowed from Augustine. Man is like a horse, which can be guided either from God or by Satan. In the former case, he will follow the right course, in the latter, the wrong. Although this example can leave unsolved some problems about the nature of casual relationship, for Calvin it was sufficient to explain that the source 53 of the sin is not outside, but inside the human will. 50

51 52

53

CO 14:379-380: ”Et ie confesse bien que les meschans pechent de necessité, et que telle necessité est de l’ordonnance et volunte de Dieu: mais i’adiouste aussi cependant que telle necessité est sans contraincte, tellement que celuy qui peche ne peult pas dire pour son excuse quil y soit force.” Commentary on Isaiah, p. 352. Sermons on Job, p. 331: CO 34:113: ”Ainsi donc il est certain que quand les hommes sont malins et cruels envers nous, la malice est d’eux: mais cependant ce n’est pas à dire que Dieu ne les induise à cela.” ICR III.23.8.

237

In another meaningful passage he pointed out that, “God does not inquire into what men have been able to do, or what they have done, but what they have willed to do, so that purpose and will may be taken into 54 account.” However unpalatable this interpretation might seem, it is unquestionable, as A. Hunter aptly pointed out, that Calvin “in echoing Augustine, anticipated such a modern psychologist as Wundt, who defines liberty (in its psychological aspect) as the absence of constraint 55 but not of causes.” In the Treatise concerning The Secret Providence of God, the French Reformer took a step further and assumed the scholastic distinction between relative and absolute necessity, namely between necessity of 56 consequence and consequent necessity. Then, after having emphasized once again “that the internal affections of men are not less ruled by the hand of God than their external actions are preceded by His eternal 57 decree,” he wrote: We do not make it appear that the minds of men are impelled by any outward influence to do violently, nor do we impute to God the cause of their being hardened; as if cruel and hard" hearted persons did not act spontaneously from their own malice, and become of themselves excited to obstinacy and presumption! What we maintain is, that when men act perversely, they do so (according to the testimony of the Scripture) by the ordaining purpose of God.58

A. Case Winters and some scholars have claimed there is a contradiction 59 in this conclusion. To this claim Paul Tillich answered negatively, alleging that no contradiction can arise, since the levels, namely that of Divine action and that of human action, are different. Instead of thinking in a one levelled thinking, that inevitably lead to contradictory statements, one ought to think in terms of two levels; for example, you can say, "I cannot escape the category of causality when I speak of God’s action, and when I 54 55 56 57 58 59

238

ICR I.18.4. The Teaching of Calvin, a Modern Interpretation (London: James Clarke & Co., 1950), p. 118. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 235. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1996), p. 243. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 242. Leith John, John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989), p. 140.

do so I derive everything from God, including my eternal destiny.” This sounds like a mechanical determinism. But this is not what they mean. The two levels, of which the one uses the term “causality” properly, and then posits against it finite freedom – the human level; then the Divine level, where causality is used symbolically, and where everything which brings us to God is derived from God. These two statements must be made. And if you divide them up into two levels, they are not logical contradictions, i.e., meaningless sentences.60

It is worth mentioning that the Westminster Assembly adopted all these seemingly contradictory motives, when in the III article stated: God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

From all the various possible answers, Calvin’s point of view turns out to 61 be one of the most plausible Christian answers to theodicy’s question: No event can escape from the iron chain of necessity established by the sovereign Divine will. God does not force and do violence on human will, but abandons it with the consequence that human beings are justly punished by God, when they sin voluntarily. To sum up the question, “man falls by the providential ordinance of God Himself, yet he falls by 62 his own fault.” At the basis of this perspective lays a very clear distinction between negative and positive freedom. Negative freedom is the freedom to put into effect what before one has decided to do and it turns out to be nothing less than the absence of any hindrance of obstacle to attain a specific goal. Calvin held that man’s freedom is absolutely in this sense. Positive freedom is the freedom to do what one has not yet decided to do, that is to say is the liberum arbitrium indifferentiae. In his treatise concerning The Eternal Predestination of God, Calvin firmly denied the freedom of indeterminacy, terming it as an “invention” the possibility that “lies in each one’s own liberty, whether he will

60 61 62

The History of Christian Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), p. 269. In this sense Max Weber, The Social Psychology of the World Religion, eds H.H. Gerth and C. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 271. CO 2:705: “Cadit igitur homo, Dei providentia sic ordinante: sed suo vitio cadit.”

239

63

become a-partaker of the grace of adoption or not.” For Calvin it clear that liberty does not consist in the power of contrary choice (liberum arbitrium indifferentiae) but in the capacity to self-determination within the limits of human nature. As John Hick pointed out, “this is precisely the definition of freedom that is used by a contemporary philosopher to 64 create difficulties for the free will defense in theodicy.” Curiously, in the Sermons on Job Calvin decided to make limited use of these arguments. Indeed, the word libertè occurs 92 times, but from the context it is easy to recognize that this word is not positive liberty, rather it is negative liberty, that is to say, the liberty to carry out what before one has decided to do. Very likely, Calvin decided to make scarce reference to philosophical arguments, since he feared that the emphasis on them could, in the long run, be misunderstood by a public of non theologians. Even in this case one can find evidence of the fact that the sermons, far from representing another theological perspective, integrate his teaching. In this perspective, Calvin spoke of the liberty that God has given us to play against Him. He stigmatized the possibility that men could pretend “to have liberty to live as they will, because this would imply they would drive God far from them and have no 65 acquaintance with Him.” In Sermon 133 he pointed out to consider “a great beastliness what 66 the Papists say, that we have a freedom to do good and evil,” since this 67 acknowledgment would imply the annihilation of God’s Election. He disputed even the possibility that men could “take more liberty to do evil” and wished they were “restrained in order to be submitted to 68 God.” The conviction that that man could be free only when his will is determined by God was firmly reiterated. In Sermon 80 Calvin wrote: 63 64 65

66

67 68

240

Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 27: CO 8:259: ”Fingunt ambo, in libertate nostra positum esse, ut se quisque in adoptionis gratiam inserat.” J. Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 121. Sermons on Job, p. 375: CO 34:260: “Tous ceux donc qui veulent avoir une liberté de vivre à leur poste, c’est autant comme s’ils vouloyent repousser Dieu bien loin, et n’avoir nulle accointance avec Lui.” Sermons on Job, p. 626: CO 35:184: “Les Papistes concluent, O puis qu’ainsi est, nous avons donc une raison suffisante pour nous bien gouverner, nous pouvons voir clair, bref nous avons liberté d’aller au bien ou au mal. Or c’est une bestise trop grande, d’arguer ainsi.” Sermons from Job, p. 48: CO 33:407. Sermons on Job, p. 570: CO 35:31

And so( said the Apostle Paul) when men had not Jesus Christ, they were freed; so as they had liberty to do evil and were not subject to the righteousness of God, but what then? Were you therefore in true liberty? Nay clean contrary (said he) you served sin, whiles you took no hold upon the righteousness of God.69

The distinction between necessity and coercion was undoubtedly in the background when he wrote that, “the naughtiness which is in the Devils 70 proceeds of themselves,” or that “when men are malicious and cruel 71 towards us the naughtiness is of themselves.” It is worth noting that the distinction between coercion and necessity that Calvin adopted in reference to human beings was not taken into account in reference to the deeds of Satan. In the Sermons on Job as well in other works, the French reformer made clear that the devils are not free, whenever they are obedient to God: “they obey Him as enforced, that is to say, not of their 72 own good will, but because God compels them.”

5.2 God is not indictable, since His intentions are always pure and holy As we have seen in the previous chapter, Calvin deemed that the privative conception of evil had to be integrated by another subjective criterion: namely that “God wills righteously that which men will 69

70

71 72

Sermons on Job, p. 378: CO 34:238: “Et bien dit-il, les hommes n’ayans point Iesus Christ, estoyent affranchis tellement qu’ils avoyent une liberté de mal faire, et n’estoyent point suiets à la iustice de Dieu. Mais quoi? Estiez-vous en vraye liberté pourtant? Au contraire, dit-il, vous serviez à peché, cependant que vous n’aviez nulle apprehension de la iustice de Dieu.” Sermons on Job, p. 16: CO 33:60: “Il nous faut tousiours reserver cela, que la malice qui est aux diables procede d’eux, quand ils ont esté apostats pour s’eslongner de la fontaine de iustice.” Sermons on Job, p.331: CO 34:114: “Ainsi donc il est certain que quand les hommes sont malins et cruels envers nous, la malice est d’eux.” Sermons on Job, p.14: CO 33:59: “Mais les diables obeissent à Dieu, comme forçaires, c’est à dire, non point de leur bon gré, mais d’autant que Dieu les y contraint: ils voudroyent bien resister à sa vertu, et l’opprimer s’ils pouvoyent, mais il faut qu’ils suivent par tout là où il les veut mener.”See also CO 33:103.

241

73

evilly.” In order to support his assumption, Calvin quoted a long series of examples: The son may wish for the death of his father, that he may rush upon the inheritance. God also may will that this same father should die. God willed that Jerusalem’ should be utterly destroyed, that the temple should be profaned and demolished, and that the Jews should suffer every extreme of torment. The Idumaens were all the while ranging for the same. In order that the same measure might be measured to a dire and ruthless man, who had spared no one, God wills that no help whatever should be brought to him’, when pressed to destruction on every side, by inevitable necessity. His own son shall refuse him every duty of affection, nor shall he have the least desire to aid him’ in his desperate need. God willed that the sons of Eli should not listen to the counsels of their father, because He had determined to destroy them. The sons, on their part also, would not hear father. Now there appears herein, at first sight, a certain kind of harmony and agreement; but when we consider abstractedly the evil and the good involved, there is as much disagreement and contrariety as between fire and water. 74

From this assertion a further question was doomed to arise: Why God’s acts are by definition always right, whereas men’s acts are always evil? In order to answer this question, Calvin took a step forward and singled out the true nature of evil in a perversion of the will. He stated that God’s acts are always right because His intentions are pure and holy, whereas those of men are always evil because their intentions are evil. In other words, an act has no moral quality in itself, since its lawlessness depends entirely upon the governing intentions of agent. Whilst man is motivated by wrong impulses, God is always motivated by pure and holy ones. The same act can be right or wrong depending on the person who performs it. In his Opus magnum the French Reformer, taking inspiration once again from Augustine, illustrated his point of view with some concrete examples. Therefore all godly and modest folk readily agree with this saying of Augustine: “Sometimes with a good will a man wills something which God does not will For example, a good son wills that his father live, whom God wills to die. Again, it can happen that the same man wills with a bad will what God wills with a good will. For example, a bad son wills that his father die; God also wills this. That is, the 73 74

242

Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 252. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 252.

former wills what God does not will; but the latter wills what God also wills. And yet the filial piety of the former, even though he wills something other than God wills, is more consonant with God’s good will than the impiety of the latter, who wills the same thing as God does.75 76

In the treatise Against the fantastic and furious Sect of the Libertines Calvin had already emphasized this argument, by pointing out that, whilst the works of God and those of the wicked might appear to be similar, there is an enormous difference between them: For the wicked man is motivated either by his avarice, or ambition, or envy, or cruelty to do what he does, and he disregards any other end. Consequently, according to the root which motivated his heart and the end toward which he strives, his work is qualified and with good reason is judged bad. But God’s intention is completely different. For His aim is to exercise His justice for the salvation and preservation of good, to pour out His goodness and grace on His faithful, and to chastise those who need it. Hence that is how we ought to distinguish between God and men; by separating in the same work His justice, His 77 goodness, and His judgment from the evil of both the devil and the ungodly.

In order to support his point of view Calvin quoted the vicissitudes of Job: When Job received news of the loss of his goods, of the death of his children, and of all those calamities that befell him, he acknowledged that it was God who was

75 76 77

ICR I.18.3. Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, ed. Benjamin Farley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1982), pp. 161-326. Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 246. CO 7:189: “Il y a bien grande diversité entre l’oeuvre de Dieu, et celle d’un homme meschant, quand il s’en sert pour un instrument. Car le meschant est incité ou de son avarice, ou d’ambition, ou d’envie, ou de cruauté à faire ce qu’il fait, et ne regarde à autre fin. Pourtant selon la racine qui est l’affection du cueur, et le but où il pretend, l’oeuvre est qualifiee, et à bon droict est iugée mauvaise. Mais Dieu a un regard tout contraire. C’est d’exercer sa iustice pour le salut et conservation des bons, d’user de sa bonté et grace envers ses fideles, de chastier ceux qui l’ont merité. Voila donc comme il faut discerner entre Dieu et les hommes, pour contempler en une mesme œuvre sa iustice, sa bonté, son iugement: et de l’autre costé la malice tant du diable que des infideles.” For further references see also CO 43:502 and CO 48:46.

243

visiting him, saying,”The Lord has given me all these and takes them away.” (Job 1:21).78

Calvin resorted to the same distinction in other two occasions. Commenting on the text of II Cor. 12:8, he outlined that, whereas Satan intended to draw the Apostle Paul “into wickedness to the end he should have given over the service of God,…. God purposed another end, namely to bridle His servant, that he should not forget himself and to 79 exalt himself too much.” The significance of this evaluation of the intentions which are behind every fact should not be underestimated. Calvin resumed this theme some years later when he tackled the problem 80 of justifying God’s action in his Sermons on Job. Taking inspiration from the text in which God had permitted Satan 81 to afflict Job for the second time, Calvin expressed the conviction that the “Devil, being God’s mortal enemy, yields obedience to his Maker to Whom he is subject and he is able to bring nothing to pass, without the 82 will of God.” But if God is the ultimate cause of Job’s suffering, how can He be blameless? Fully aware of what is at stake, Calvin tried to meet the objections firstly stating that we ought to “content ourselves with that

78 79

80 81 82

244

Calvin, Treatises against Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 246. Sermons on Job, p. 23: CO 33:78: “Voila Satan qui besongne en S. Paul, voire par la permission de Dieu. Et l’issue quelle est-elle? Il est vray que Satan cuidoit abismer S. Paul, que son intention estoit bien de le desbaucher, afin qu’il quittast le service de Dieu, et qu’estant fasche des troubles et miseres qu’il enduroit incessammet, il se retirast un peu de la Chrestienté : voila que Satan pensoit. Mais quoy? Dieu regarde à une autre fin, c’est qu’il veut tenir en bride son serviteur, afin qu’il ne ne s’oublie point, qu’il ne s’esleve point par trop. » The motive of God’s intentions recurs repeatedly: CO 33:289, 634, 647; CO 34:35; CO 35:357, 367, 387, 406, 422. Job 2:7: “And the LORD said to Satan:”Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.” Sermons on Job, p. 33: CO 33:103: “Nous avons declaré par ci devant comme il faut que le diable estant (comme il est) ennemi mortel de Dieu, toutesfois rende obeissance à son createur, auquel il est subiet: non point qu’il le face de volonté, mais par force. Tant y a que le diable estant ainsi enragé, comme il est à nuire etruiner tout le monde, quelque chose qu’il attente, ne qu’il puisse machiner, et pratiquer, ne peut rien accomplir sans la volonté de Dieu.“

83

which the Scripture tell us.” Then he directed the attention of his listeners to eschatological hope, exhorting them to wait patiently for the coming of the latter day, ”at which time we shall know no more by piecemealed, nor as it were in dimness but we shall then behold the 84 things face to face which are showed us now as it were in a glass.” Finally, Calvin presented the heart of his defence, namely the goodness of Divine intention on the basis of the assumption that “all things ought 85 to be esteemed according to the intent and end that they may aim at.” Following this interpretative key he took care to differentiate the different intentions underlying the actions of the three protagonists of this episode: whereas “Satan’s desire was nothing else but to destroy and bring all things to ruin” and the robbers wanted only to despoil Job, “God intended a clean contrary end, namely to punish such as have offended, …to inure his faithful patience to mortify their fleshly 86 affections and to teach them lowliness.” The relevance of motivations in order to establish the morality of a behavior occurred again in treatise On the Secret Providence of God in relation to the various contexts of the verb give up used in reference to God, Jesus, and Judas. Even in this case to the question how it was that, in this same delivering up, God was righteous and man guilty? Calvin answered: “The reason was that, in this one same thing which God and man did, the motive was not the same from which God and man acted.” He warned not to “drag God into a 83

84

85 86

Sermons on Job, p. 33: CO 33:105: “nous avons à nous contenter de ce que l’Escriture prononce.” Nous ne comprenons point la grandeur et la hautesse des oeuvres de Dieu, sinon d’autant qu’il luy plaist nous en donner quelque goust, voire selon nostre mesure qui est bien petite.” Sermons on Job, p. 33: CO 33:105: “attendons que ce dernier iour soit venu, auquel nous ne cognoistrons plus en partie, ne comme en obscurité (ainsi que dit sainct Paul 1. Cor. 13:9. sv.) mais nous contemplerons face à face ce qui nous est maintenant monstré comme en un miroir.“ Sermons on Job, p. 34: CO 33:107-108: “Nous savons que toutes choses doivent estre estimées selon l’intention et la fin qu’auront les hommes.“ Sermons on Job, p. 34: CO 33:107-108: “Il est vray, comme nous avons desia veu, que Satan ne demande qu’à destruire, et à ruiner tout: mais Dieu de l’autre costé, a bien une autre fin. Or qu’il soit ainsi, voila Dieu qui punira ceux qui l’ont offensé: et qui est-ce qui pourra contester contre luy qu’il ne face bien? Apres il voudra exercer ses fideles à patience, il voudra mortifier leurs affections charnelles, il les voudra instruire à humilité: ces choses la peuvent elles estre condamnees de nous?“

245

participation of sin, or guilt, or blame, whenever any apparent similitude between the plainly depraved passions of men and His secret counsel 87 may present itself.” Building on this premise, Calvin came to the following conclusions: 1) The guilt for evil is to be ascribed entirely to the evil intentions of the agent. 2) Although the all-determining “will of God is the ruling cause of 88 all things,” human beings are indictable because they act voluntary prompted by their evil intentions and motives. 3) God’s intentions are, by definition, always good and just and therefore He is not indictable when He uses evil 89 instrumentally. Calvin was also convinced that the only problem arising from such coincidence between God’s purposes and those of the wicked has to do with “our mental incapacity” to understand “how in divers ways God 90 wills and does not will something to take place.” Even in this case Calvin had no doubt in making recourse once again to his great master Augustine stating: Let that sentiment of Augustine be ever present to our minds: “Wherefore, by the mighty and marvelous working of God (which is so exquisitely perfect in the accomplishment of every purpose and bent of His will), that, in a wonderful and ineffable way is not done without His will which is even done contrary to His will, because it could not have been done had He not permitted it to be done; and yet, He did not permit it without His will, but according to His will.91

87 88 89 90 91

246

Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 253. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 234. See Supplementa Calviniana, p. 476, quoted by R. Stauffer, in Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 278. ICR I.18.3. CO 2:171: “quia promentis nostrae imbecillitate, quomodo idem diverso modo nolit fieri et velit, non capimus.” In Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 253: CO 8:364: “Occurrat semper illud Augustini: Propterea magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes voluntates eius, ut miro et ineffabili modo non fiat praeter eius voluntatem, quod etiam fit contra eius voluntatem: quia non fieret, si non sineret, nec utique nolens sinit, sed volens.” See also Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 200: “ So that, by’ an inexplicable manner of operation, that is not done without the will of God which is, in itself, even contrary to His will, because without His will it could not have been done at all. And yet God willeth not

92

The same Augustinian quotation had occurred other times. Strictly connected and in a certain sense symmetrical was the consideration that evil happens according to God’s will (or else it would not happen), but not by His command. Calvin warned against confusing will with precept or command, arguing that if a man acts according to God’s will while violating His precept in so doing, he is inexcusable. The reaction to Calvin’s statement was extremely critical. As T. H. L. Parker pointed out, “Calvin was attacked in his own day for positing two wills in God, the one revealed in the Law and the Gospel, the other 93 kept hidden from men.” In response to this criticism, the French Reformer emphasized that “God is so far from being variable, that no shadow of such variableness appertains to Him, even in the most remote degree.”94 In the Institutes of 1559 he went further and stressed that God does not have a twofold but a simple will. It is only because of the weakness of our human minds that we are incapable of understanding 95 “how God can both will and not will the same thing.” The dialectical character of God’s will had to emerge again in the Sermons on Job with the concepts of “double justice” and “double wisdom,” as we will see in VI chapter.

92 93 94

95

unwillingly, but willingly.” The same perspective echoed in the Second Helvetic Confession, article VIII. See: CO 2:171 and CO 9:263. T.H.L. Parker, Calvin, an Introduction to his Thought (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster: John Knox Press, 1995), p. 47. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 99: CO 8:301: “Atqui, hoc modo duplex affingitur Deo voluntas, qui adeo varius non est, ut ne minima quidem in eum cadat obumbratio.” CO 3:276: “Toutesfois pour venir au poinct, ce n’est pas à dire pourtant que la volonté de Dieu repugne à, sov-mesme, ne qu’elle soit muable, ou qu’il face semblant de vouloir ce qu’il ne veut pas : mais sa volonté, laquelle est une et simple en soy, nous semble diverse, pource que selon nostre rudesse et debilité de sens, nous ne nous ne comprenons pas comment il veut et ne veut point en diverses manieres qu’une chose se face,comprenons pas comment il veut et ne veut point en diverses manieres qu’une chose se face.”

247

5.3 Suffering has a purpose Calvin’s defense of God’s Justice was far from being over. In fact, having once stated that what differentiates God and the wicked is the subjective element, he could not help but go further, by demonstrating concretely what concrete good and holy purposes God has in mind in inflicting suffering. In His Opus magnum the French Reformer tackled the question in general terms: It is, indeed, true that if we had quiet and composed minds ready to learn, the final outcome would show that God always has the best reason for his plan: either to instruct his own people in patience, or to correct their wicked affections and tame their lust, or to subjugate them to self-denial, or to arouse them from sluggishness; again, to bring low the proud, to shatter the cunning of the impious and to overthrow their devices.96 97

If our minds were always composed, we would understand what Calvin 98 called elsewhere “the immeasurable felicity of the godly mind.” In the Sermons on the Book of Job, Calvin’s argumentations, instead of being linked with an abstract and theoretical question, became existential, and were related with the bloody agonies and struggles of Job.

5.3.1 Suffering as punishment and sanction The first argument that Calvin took into account was the so-called retributive thesis, sponsored by Job’s friends according to which evil and suffering are willed by God as the result of a just judgement that He exercised over a humanity corrupted by original sin. Calvin imagined that the pre-fallen world was a paradise where all creatures had assigned 96 97 98

248

ICR I.17.1. CO 2:154: “si quietis et sedatis mentibus ad discendum parati essemus.” ICR I.17.10: CO 2:162: “Hac vero parte se prodit inaestimabilis piae mentis felicitas.”

places and lived in full conformity with God’s will. Especially in Sermon 39 Calvin made use of the lyrical expression to stress the dignity of man, who is God’s principal work, and the excellentest of all His creatures. It was His will to utter that thing in him, which he has put but in small portions, both in heaven and in earth and all living wights: in so much that man is termed as the little world, wherein we see 99 so many wonderful things, as a man must needs be astonished at them.

Adam’s condition was particularly fortunate. Created in the image of 100 God “to have understanding of all things that pertained to him,” he 101 and “in full control of the entire was “as the Angels of Paradise,” 102 creation.” He possessed judgement, understanding and reason which could enable him to attain eternal life. Unfortunately, the unjustified act of disobedience on the part of Adam and Eve turned out to be a violation of God’s order which had great and awful repercussions and deeply affected the entire universe. Whilst originally the world was created to be at the service of humans, it now rebelled against them. The abyss between the original state of grace and the present awful situation was depicted in Sermon 41: First we must know to what end we were born, yea even according as we are sinners in Adam. Therefore, we must understand that although we be born into this world, and be as noble and excellent creatures of God as any can be, yet notwithstanding by means of sin, death has as it were abolished and razed out that nobleness in so much that God disliked us and disclaimed us, as though His hands had not fashioned us, because we be disfigured and the devil has set his marks and stamp upon us, and furthermore be subject to the curse that was pronounced upon

99

Sermons on Job, p. 180: CO 33:481: "L’homme est le principal ouvrage et le plus excellent qui soit entre toutes les creatures, Dieu a voulu là desployer ce qu’il n’avoit mis qu’en petites portions et au ciel, et en la terre, et en tous animaux: tellement que l’homme est appellé comme un petit monde, que là nous voyons tant de choses admirables qu’il faut qu’on en soit estonné.” 100 CO 34:515. 101 CO 34:336. 102 CO 35:420.

249

Adam, we are as good as banished out of the whole world, for there I neither heaven nor earth, but it abhors us.103

As O. Millet pointed out, “Calvin, the advocate of God, made himself 104 Calvin the accuser of men, and censor of his contemporaries.” constantly emphasized that men, because of original sin, are nothing but sinners from birth and, consequently, their natural gifts are completely 105 corrupted and their supernatural gifts have been stripped from them. They cannot help but sin and consequently their sin is spontaneous and not an expression of coercion. Employing different accents and various 106 expressions, Calvin often insisted that before God “we are cursed” 107 108 109 “lost,” “damned,” “dirty,” “so perverted that the mark which 110 God had put into us to be glorified thereby is turned to His shame,” “corrupted in Adam, as we are always there as Satan’s prisoners and 111 cease not to do evil,” “born full of filthiness, cursed and rejected of 112 113 God,” “full of sins and corruptions,” ”poor offenders with halters 114 115 “wild beasts,” “poor and miserable about their necks,” 103 CO 33:515: “Il faut en premier lieu que nous cognoissions à quelle fin nous naissons, voire selon que nous sommes pecheurs en Adam…. Cognoissons donques que combien que nous naissions en ce monde, combien que nous soyons creatures de Dieu, tant nobles, tant excellentes que rien plus: toutesfois par le peché la mort a comme aneanti et renversé ceste noblesse qui estoit en nous, tellement que nous desplaisons à Dieu, qu’il nous deia voue comme si nous n’estions point formez de sa main, d’autant que nous sommes desfigurez, et que le diable a mis et imprimé ses marques en nous: et au reste qu’estans subiets â- la malediction qui a esté prononcee sur Adam, nous sommes comme bannis de tout le monde, qu’il n’y a ne ciel ne terre qui ne nous tiene comme detestables.” 104 Calvin, Oeuvres choisies, ed. O. Millet (Paris: Gallimard, Folio classique, 1955), preface, p. 12. 105 The phrase “Dieu nous afflige” recur more than 90 times in the works of the French Reformer. 106 CO 33:247. 107 CO 33:249. 108 CO 33:527. 109 CO 34:297. 110 CO 35:47-48. 111 CO 33:512. 112 CO 33:657. 113 CO 33:202. 114 CO 33:290. 115 CO 33:695.

250

116

117

“abominable, stinking, filthy, nought worth,” “sold creatures,” 118 under sin.” With this negative analysis Calvin painted a frightful picture of human 119 situation. “Our nature is too sinful and coward,” ”we come of a 120 121 corrupt and evil lump,” “sin is in man’s nature,” “there is nothing in our life but a shadow that slides away, nothing in all our wisdom but only mere follies and nothing in all ourselves that we should bring any 122 123 worthiness into His presence,” “our condition is vile and abject,” 124 “we are void of all goodness, and are given to nothing but evil.” Consequently, the conviction that “there is no more righteousness among 125 enabled the French Reformer to ascribe the entire cause of men,” 126 suffering to the sinful life of men. God has the right to punish humanity in the same manner as a judge condemns the criminal to death, since “when a criminal is punished, it is not said that he is wronged nor 127 that there was cruelty in the judge.” In order to highlight the close connection between human and divine Justice, Calvin did stated that the 128 former is a “little mirror of the latter.” Every event in human history is morally understandable and rationally justifiable, since it is a direct consequence of a visible and knowable Divine Justice. Sometimes God anticipates His judgement and punishes not only the 129 sinners, but also their children. He wrote: 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

CO 33:338. CO 33:729. CO 33:730. CO 35:57. CO 33:657. CO 33:60. CO 33:346-347. CO 33:341. CO 33:711. CO 33:456. CO 33:233. Sermons from Job, p. 111: CO 34:119: “Quand un criminel sera puni, on ne dira pas qu’on lui face tort, ne qu’il y ait cruauté au iuge. On dira don que ceux qui sont constituez en l’estat de iustice, s’acquitent de leur devoir.” 128 Sermons from Job, p. 111: CO 34:119: “la justice terrienne, qui n’est que comme un petit miroir de la justice de Dieu.” 129 CO 34:302: “Ici derechef Eliphas conferme le propos qu’il avoit tenu par ci devant, c’est assavoir quede toute ancienneté on a cognu que les meschans ont esté punis.

251

Truly we will think this strange to our own understanding. But it has been declared already heretofore, that God may punish the children of the wicked, without doing them wrong. And why? For we are all cursed in Adam, and bring nothing but damnation with us out of our mother’s womb.130

Human history turns out to be the theatre in which the retributive justice of God becomes discernible, as S. Schreiner has recognized: Calvin knows that in the moral word of Job’s friends, Divine Justice is knowable and visible. According to their retributive theology of suffering, God’s actions are rational, history is predictable, and God always rewards and punishes according to the Law…. The Reformer reminds his audience that there are times in history when God does act as Job’s friends argued, by restoring order and punishing the wicked; in such ages one can see Divine Justice at work in the earthly realm. 131

Or il est vrai que Dieu (comme nous avons declaré) a tousiours donné quelques exemples de ses iugemens, afin que les hommes fussent tenus en crainte: suivant ce qui est dit au Prophete Isaie (26:9), Le Seigneur fera ses iugemens, et les habitans de la terre apprendront que c’est de iustice. Ainsi, quand nous voyons que nostre Seigneur estend son bras, qu’il chastie les meschans, et qu’il se monstre leur Iuge: voila qui nous doit inciter à le craindre et l’aimer. Dieu donc a bien donné de tout temps quelques signes, qu’il falloit que les hommes vinssent à conte devant lui, et que les iniquitez ne demeureroyent pas impunies:mais cependant Dieu n’a pas egalement puni ceux qui l’avoyent offensé.” 130 Sermons on Job, p. 469: CO 34:484: “Il est vray que nous trouverions cecy estrange à nostre sens: mais ii a desia esté declaré cy dessus, comme Dieu peut punir les enfans des meschans sans leur faire tort. Et pourquoy? Nous sommes tous maudits en Adam, et n’apportons que condamnation avec nous du ventre de la mere. Si donc Dieu nous laisse tels que nous sommes, desia nous sommes destinez à perdition et grans et petis.” 131 Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom be found?, p. 43. Besides the texts quoted by Schreiner (CO 33:109, 383-88; CO 34:305-6,483, see Sermon 78 in CO 34:145146: “Car nous voyons comme il a exercé vengeance sur tous ceux qui s’estoyent adonnez à cruautez, à rapines, et autres extorsions: apres, comme il a puni les paillardises, et autres infections quand elles ont par trop regné: nous voyons puis apres comme il a puni les pariures, les cruautez, qu’il n’a peu porter l’orgueil des hommes. Ne faut-il point quand nous regarderons à cela, qu’il nous serve aussi bien auiourd’huy? Retenons bien donc ceste leçon qui nous est ici monstree, c’est à savoir, puis que Dieu dés la creation du monde n’a cessé de tousiours nous donner quelques advertissemens pour monstrer qu’il est Iuge du monde, que nous apprenions de le craindre, et de cheminer en solicitude, et que les punitions qu’il a faites sur les meschans nous soyent autant de miroirs, et autant de brides pour nous retenir.”

252

Often and especially in this case Calvin made use of an inverted hermeneutic. Even recognizing that the retributive thesis could not be applied to Job,132 he applied it to the entire human race, which deserves judgment. In fact, he asked, “What is man in himself? A mortal enemy of God and all goodness.”133 It is therefore necessary that the human “righteousness be cast down,”134 in order to exalt the Divine Justice. At the same time, Calvin was fully aware that the thesis of the retributive nature of suffering espoused by Job’s friends, although true in itself,135 was and still is at variance with another and more anguishing reality, namely that “God does sometimes spare the wicked, and bear with them; and sometimes He chastises those whom He loves and handles them much more rigorously than those that are utterly past amendments.”136 In his Commentary on the episode of the blind man, Calvin strongly warned all those who prematurely pass judgments: God has sometimes another object in view than to punish the sins of men, when he sends afflictions to them. Consequently, when the causes of afflictions are concealed, we ought to restrain curiosity, that we may neither dishonor God nor be malicious towards our brethren.137

Sometimes it seems “that God is minded to advance the wicked here, and that He is willing to open their mouths that they may spew out their

132 See among others CO 33:375, CO 34:281, 317. 133 Sermons on Job, p. 413: CO 34:334-335: ”Qu’est ce que l’homme en soy? Un ennemi mortel de Dieu, et de tout bien.” 134 Sermons on Job, p. 726: CO 35:449: “il faut donc que toute nostre iustice soit abbatue. Car Dieu ne peut estre iuste, et ne peut estre Iuge aussi, iusques à ce que nous soyons tous damnables.” 135 CO 33:23-24; CO 35:1. 136 Sermons from Job, p. 46-47: CO 33:406: “Dieu espargne aucunesfois les meschans et les supporte, aucunesfois il chastie ceux qu’il aime, et les traite en plus grande rigueur beaucoup, que ceux qui sont du tout incorrigibles.” 137 Commentary on John 9:3, p. 239. CO 47 :218: “Atque hoc est quod prius dixi, aliud interdum esse Deo propositum, quum aerumnas iniungit hominibus, quam peccata eorum persequi. Ideo quum latent afflictionum causae, cohibenda est curiositas, ne et Deo faciamus iniuriam et maligni erga fratres simus.”

253

blasphemies against Him.”138 Echoing Job’s protest Calvin went so far as to question the Justice of God.139 In Sermon 35 he asked: “For that God should torment men after a sort without cause, is it not only simple injustice, but such cruelty as He were not to be taken any more for judge of the world, but rather for a tyrant?”140 Why does this happen? Calvin struggled with this question. Initially, he acknowledged that it is not possible “to make a general rule that God does by His Providence govern the world, maintain and preserves the good and punishes the wicked,”141 since otherwise one could run the risk “to enter into a great disorder.”142 Then, taking inspiration from Job’s experience, he advanced two important remarks: 1) There is not a direct cause and effect relationship between suffering and sin.143 2) The thesis that Job was punished because of his sins,144 even in itself right, could not “be applied to him.”145 He compared the remarks of Job’s friend to the attitude of a “physician who chooses good drugs and without knowing the complexion and nature of the disease, should say to his patient: Lo here is a good 138 Sermons on Job, p. 178: CO 33:477: “Ii semble qu’il vueille ici eslever les meschans, qu’il leur vueille ouvrir la bouche, afin qu’ils desgorgent leurs blasphemes contre Lui.” 139 CO 33:353. 140 CO 33:437. 141 Sermons on Job, p. 365: CO 34:204: ”Ainsi il nous faut tellement recognoistre que Dieu gouverne le monde par sa Providence, maintient et conserve les bons, punit les mauvais, que nous n’en facions point une regle certaine, que tous ceux qui sont meschans soyent punis du premier iour, que Dieu ne differe pas iusques au lendemain.” 142 Sermons on Job, p. 365: CO 34:204: ”car nous entrerions en une grande confusion. 143 In Sermon 15 he wrote: “For as touching the punishments that God lays upon the world, there can no rule be made of them without exception.” Sermons on Job, p. 69: CO 33:196: “Car des punitions que Dieu fait en ce monde, il ne faut point faire une regle qui n’ait nulle exception.” For further examples see also Sermons on Job, p. 123: “God does not ever punish men according to the measure of their sins, but has His secret judgments.” CO 33:23: “Job cognoist que Dieu n’afflige pas tousiours les hommes selon la mesure de leurs pechez: mais qu’il a ses iugemens secrets.” 144 CO 33:96: “Iob n’est point puni à cause de ses pechez.” (Compare also CO 35:531) 145 Sermons on Job, p. 407: CO 34:315.

254

medicine.”146 This attitude, he carefully warned, would be not only “fond,”147 but also utterly dangerous since, whereas the physician could save one, should kill another. Calvin vehemently denied that God is unjust either in reference to the apparent triumph of the wicked or in reference to the suffering of the innocents. In reference to the former, he could not ignore that “the worst are most favoured of God.”148 Yet, in spite of the fact that the wicked enjoy a beautiful and long life, he took comfort in the consideration that God allows their existence so that they can condemn themselves to a deserved death by their actions.149 This idea was supported by the concept of the eternal Predestination of God and expressed with crude realism: God knows the time and season wherein the wicked should be rooted out. Sometimes He fattest them as men do oxen and swine, according as it is in the prophet. Now if a man fat an oxen or a swine it is not to travel them when they be full fed, it is not to put them to cold and heat, it is not to set them to labor as other beasts; but it is to snatch the oxen and to cut the swine throat. Even so does God fat the wicked till they come to the brimme of their grave.150

In Sermon 98 Calvin reinforced this argument more fully by pointing out that:

146 147 148 149

Sermons on Job, p. 228: CO 33:208. Sermons on Job, p. 559: CO 35:2. Sermons on Job, p. 370: CO 34:217: ”Les pires soyent les plus fevorisez de Dieu.” R. Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 278. 150 Sermons on Job, p. 316: CO 34:72: “Dieu cognoit le temps, et la saison qu’il doit exterminer les meschans: quelquesfois il les engraisse comme on fera un boeuf ou un porceau, ainsi qu’il en est parlé au Prophete (Iere. 12,3). Or si on engraisse un boeuf ou un porceau, ce ne sera pas pour les faire travailler quand ils seront bien saouls, ce ne sera pas pour les envoyer au froid et au chaud, ne qu’ils endurent la peine comme les autres bestes: mais ce sera iusqu’à ce qu’on assommé le boeuf, et qu’on coupe la gorge au porceau. Ainsi donc en est-il, que Dieu engraissera les meschans, iusques à, ce qu’ils soyent venus au poinct du sepulchro.” The same idea echoed in CO 34:464, CO 35:197 and 458.

255

God handles wicked men in this world as oxen or swine: He fatteth and pampereth them till they burst again. But it is to their destruction and for asmuch as the abuse His goodness and patience.151

The French Reformer insisted on the transience of suffering and the inconsequentiality of evil. Surely the wicked can achieve an illusory success, but the wrath of God hung over their heads and “the hell fire is 152 prepared long ago for them.” And again: “Although God will suffer 153 the wicked to be advanced and to flourish, it shall not endure long.” Differently from the believers, who “are in joy with God and do know that forasmuch as they be Christian members, they cannot perish, the reprobates are as condemned caitiffs that wait but for the hour of 154 execution and torment.” In order to emphasize that God will re-establish justice on earth, Calvin often made use of the word “vengeance.” He stressed the “horrible vengeance prepared for those who have abused God’s patience.”155 Although Calvin did not always hold this optimistic point of view, through this comparison he was able to go further and handle with the second question: Why do the innocents suffer? In order to answer this question, Calvin started from the image of a prince, who seeing his subject slow to do his duties, sends his officers to summon him. Likewise, he wrote, “God perceiving that we come not to 151 Sermons on Job, p. 461: CO 34:464: “Nostre Seigneur donc traitte les meschans en ce monde comme des boeufs ou des porceaux, il les engraisse, il les soule, il les crevé du tout: mais c’est à leur perdition, d’autant qu’ils abusent de sa bonté et patience.” 152 Sermons on Job, p. 361: CO 34:194: “Que la gehenne est apprestee desia de long temps aux meschans et ennemis de Dieu.” 153 Sermons on Job, p. 343: CO 34:146: “Dieu quelquefois permettra bien que les meschans soyent eslevez, et qu’ils fleurissent: mais cela n’est point de longue duree.” 154 Sermons on Job, p. 55: CO 33:160: “Voila donc comme les fideles estans sortis de ce monde sont en ioye avec Dieu, qu’ils cognoissent qu’estans membres de Iesus Christ ils ne peuvent perir, et le cognoissent beaucoupmieux, et avec une plus grande vertu qu’ils n’ont oint fait durant ceste vie presente. Quant aux reprouvez ils sont comme des povres condamnez qui n’attendent sinon l’heure du supplice et du tonnent: mais desia ils sont asseurez de leur condamnation.” 155 Sermons on Job, p. 743. The word horrible recurs innumerable times in his Sermons on Job; See for example: CO 33:232, 261, 286, 343, 375, 589, 758, 761; CO 34:91, 335; CO 35:4, 26.

256

Him with so willing and earnest affection, provokes us and summons 156 Following this hermeneutical key, the French Reformer us.” enumerated the various beneficial and positive effects which could stem from suffering.

5.3.2 Suffering as correction and admonition Together with the above-mentioned ideas, Calvin borrowed from Elihu’s argument that suffering should have a pedagogical and educative function and “serve to our instruction.”157 Calvin used this to compare believers to the children who “must be driven to God by force and by many strokes of the cudgel.”158 Other times he used more moderate expressions. He wrote that God “handles gently in order to move us to come to Him,” like as when “a prince sees His subject slow to do his duties, He sends His officers to him to summon him.”159 Following this educational perspective, Calvin held that sufferings, far from being a sign of God’s absence, are, on the contrary, “His archers,”160 “His artilleries, His spears and His swords wherewith to fight 156 Sermons on Job, p. 30: CO 33:96: “Ainsi Dieu voyant que nous ne tenons conte de venir à luy, ou bien que nous n’y venons pas d’une telle affection, ne si ardente comme il seroit bien requis, nous solicite, et nous adiourne. “ 157 Sermons on Job, p. 665: CO 35:289: “les chastimens nous doivent servir d’instruction.” 158 Sermons on Job, p. 683: CO 35:336: ”Il est vray que puis qu’il nous convie si doucement, c’est une grand’ honte à nous qu’il faille qu’il nous attire par force à son service, et à grans coups de baston. Et est-ce une nature d’enfans, de se faire ainsi matter, et qu’on ne vueille point venir à son pere sinon par violence?” 159 Sermons on Job, p. 30: CO 33:96: “Vray est que si Dieu nous traitte doucement, nous devons estre esmeus par cela de venir à luy, comme de fait il nous y convie. Ceste grande bonté de laquelle il use, qu’est-ce sinon qu’il nous veut attirer à soy: mais d’autant que nous sommes si laschez à y venir, il faut qu’il nous adiourne, et qu’il monstre quel droit il a par-dessus nous: comme quand un prince voit son vassal qui est tardif à faire son devoir, il luy envoye son officier pour le sommer.” See also CO 33:174,186; CO 34:90, 199, 618 and CO 35:285. 160 Sermons on Job, p. 296: CO 34:18: “les archiers de Dieu.”

257

161

and, therefore, although contradictory as this against His enemies,” might seem, a visible sign of His Providence. Nothing happens unless God wills it. In Sermon 141 the French Reformer went so far as to hint that: even when God seems full minded to thunder down upon us, as He strikes as with His one hand, so He sets us up again with the other: and if He sends us to the grave, it is to lift us up afterwards above the heavens.162

In this text Calvin seemed to echo Martin Luther’s intuitions: God hides Himself in His revelation and works sub contraria specie. His wisdom is hidden under foolishness, His power under weakness. He brings salvation, by judging and damning.163 Although the devil tries to convince us that “God is a deadly enemy to us, and we can no longer have recourse to Him,”164 God is ready to forgive our sins, if we acknowledge our faults.165 Echoing a dictum of Seneca,166 Calvin stated

161 Sermons on Job, p. 704: CO 35:393: “ses artilleries, ses lances, ses espees, quand il veut combatre contre ses ennemis.” 162 Sermons on Job, p. 664: CO 35:287: “Cependant si faut-il aussi que nous soyons consolez en nos afflictions, voyans que Dieu n’oublie iamais sa misericorde, et mesmes que quand il semble qu’il vueille foudroyer contre nous, s’il nous frappe d’une main, c’est pour nous redresser de l’autre : s’il nous met au sepulchre, c’est pour nous eslever par-dessus les cieux.” 163 As A. McGrath reminded: “The most significant statements relating to Luther’s theology are to be found in theses 19 and 20 of the Heidelberg Disputation on 26 April 1518, in which the German reformer wrote: “The man who looks upon the invisible things of God as they are perceived in created things does not deserve to be called a theologian.” (Non ille dignus theologus dicitur, qui invisibilia Dei per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspicit.) “The man who perceives the visible rearwards parts of God as seen in suffering and the cross does, however deserve to be called a theologian.”(Sed qui visibilia et posteriora Dei per passionem et crucem conspecta intelligit.) Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Oxford & Cambridge: Blackwell, 1985), p. 148. 164 Sermons from Job, p.4: CO 33:23: ”Le diable nous vient mettre en phantasie, que Dieu nous est ennemy mortel et qu’il ne faut plus que nous ayons recours à luy.” 165 CO 33:259-260: “Et ainsi, Dieu nous afflige-il? c’est signe qu’il ne veut point que nous perissions, mais plustost il nous solicite de retourner à soy. Car les corrections sont autant de tesmoignages que Dieu est prest de nous recevoir à merci, quand nous aurons cognu nos fautes, et que nous luy en demanderons pardon sans feintise.”

258

167

Commenting on the text that, “God loves those whom he afflicts.” “behold, happy is the man whom God corrects; therefore do not despise 168 the chastening of the Almighty,” Calvin dramatically stated that if the parents did not chastise the young children, they would “send them to the 169 gallows.” Through the positive experience of suffering, believers are 170 not only able to be known, but also to face the unsolved problems of human existence: “Who am I? What am I? And wherefore am I thus 171 172 so that afflicted?” Through afflictions God wants to humiliate us “we don’t presume of ourselves, but be pushed up with pride and 173 174 arrogance.” In Sermon 20 Calvin linked suffering with poverty, whereas in Sermon 140 he considered affliction to be: the true schoolmistress to bring man to repentance in order that they may condemn themselves before God and being condemned may learn to hate their faults in which they are previously bathed.175

166 Seneca, On the Providence: “God hardens, reviews, and disciplines those whom He approves, whom He loves.” “Hos itaque deus quos probat, quos amat, indurat recognoscit exercet.” 167 Sermons on Job, p. 312. CO 34:62: “Dieu aime ceux qu’il afflige.” 168 Job 5:17. 169 Sermons from Job, p. 37: CO 33:263: “Nous voyons mesmes cela en partie aux enfans: car si les peres es meres ne les chastient, ils les envoyent au gibet.” 170 In Sermon 5 Calvin advanced the hypothesis that “Dieu esprouve les siens, il les examine par afflictions, il les met comme un or en la fournaise, non seulement pour estre purgez, mais aussi pour estre cognus.” In CO 33:69. 171 Sermons on Job, p.29: CO 33:95: “Qui suis-ie? qu’est-ce que de moy? Et pourquoy est-ce que ie suis ainsi affligé?” 172 The phrase “nous humilier” recurs in various contexts 136 times. 173 Sermons on Job, p. 88: CO 33:246: “Nous voyons donc comme par les afflictions nous sommes enseignez premierement de nous cognoistre afin de ne rien presumer de nous, de n’estre point enflez de fierté et d’arrogance.” 174 He wrote: “Affligé, signifie aussi bien Humble. Et pourquoy? D’autant que la povreté est la vraye maistresse pour induire les hommes à modestie, afin qu’ils ne s’eslevent point par trop en eux, qu’il n’y ait point ceste audace, et yvrongnerie spirituelle d’ainsi se hazarder: mais qu’ils cheminent selon leur mesure, cognoissans que si Dieu ne leur survenoit à chacune minute de temps, ils seroyent perdus.” CO 33:255. 175 Sermons from Job, p. 277: CO 35:270: “pour amener les hommes à repentance, afin qu’ils se condamnent devant Dieu, et s’estans condamnez apprenent à hayr leurs fautes, ausquelles auparavant ils se baignoyent.”

259

Suffering, also, might become not only the occasion whereby a man 176 examines his conscience and becomes aware of his faults, but also to 177 pray and to take refuge in God. The afflictions enable us to “know ourselves, that we presume not 178 179 to learn “to be patient“ and to conceive anything of ourselves,” earthly life as perpetual warfare. Repeatedly he warned: Let us learn to prepare ourselves to battle, assuring ourselves that while we live in this world, we are not here as in a Paradise, but we are here to have many miseries and troubles, because God will is so.180

Calvin insisted innumerable times that the fight in which Christians are 181 182 183 “continuous,” and “steady.” Christian engaged is “spiritual,” faith has to deal with conflicts and tensions every day: “For faith is not 184 without fighting: it behoves her to be thoroughly exercised,” “God is 176 CO 34:285 and 290: ”Apprenons donc si Dieu nous visite, et que nos afflictions soyent grandes, de cercher bien la cause pourquoy, et d’examiner: Or ç’à i’ayeu moyen d’aider à ceux qui avoyent faute des biens de ce monde: comment les ay-ie secourus? M’en suis-ie acquité? S’il y a eu quelqu’un qui ait eu faute de mon secours, ay-ie tasché de lui donner aide? Si on est venu vers moi, ay-ie esté prest de communiquer de ma substance? Si nous cognoissons cela, gemissons devant Dieu, et cognoissons qu’il nous fait une grand’ grace de nous admonnester de nos fautes.“ 177 CO 33:245-246: “Pourquoy est-ce qu’il leur envoye tant de maux, qu’ils souspirent et gemissent, ne sachans de quel costé se tourner? C’est afin qu’ils l’invoquent, qu’ils ayent leur refuge à luy. Nous voyons donc comme par les afflictions nous sommes enseignez premierement de nous cognoistre afin de ne rien presumer de nous, de n’estre point enflez de fierté et d’arrogance: et puis afin de ne nous point esgayer par trop en nos cupiditez, mais plustost renoncer aux choses de ce monde, et finalement invoquer Dieu: car c’est le principal que cela.” 178 Sermons on Job, p. 88: CO 33:245: “de nous cognoistre afin de ne rien presumer de nous.” 179 CO 34:293:“d’estre patiens.” 180 Sermons on Job, p. 99: CO 33:272: “Apprenons donc de nous apprester aux combats sachans qu’en vivant en ce monde nous n’y sommes pas comme en un paradis, mais nous y sommes pour y avoir beaucoup de miseres, et de fascheries d’autant que la volonté de Dieu est telle.” 181 CO 33:363 and 611. 182 CO 33:271. 183 CO 33:254-255. 184 Sermons on Job, p. 258: CO 33:686: “Car la foy n’est iamais sans combats, il faut bien qu’elle soit bien exercee.”

260

minded to exercise us here with many battles,”185 “Before inheriting eternal life the believer have to live in this world where wickedness reigns sovereign and to fight not only against evildoers,186 but also against his selfish impulses which are in deep contrast to the will of God.”187 In the wider context of the conflict that opposes God to Satan, the believers are called to be “upon a scaffold to the end that His gracious goodness and mercy should be known in us and thereupon He Himself might be glorified against Satan in our persons.”188 God gives us an inestimable honour, when He chooses us “poor worms of the earth to be glorified in us against Satan”189 and to exercise us in temptations and conflicts. In his opinion the believers have to fight without interruption and, consequently, they are doomed to be subject to many afflictions both physical and spiritual. In the light of this conviction, Calvin recognised another positive function in suffering; namely to learn “to be Pilgrims,”190 or “wayfarers and wanderers.”191 He portrayed the Christian life as “a journey” or “a pilgrimage,”192 by outlining also that “our paradise is not in this world.”193 There is no space for a restless existence. 185 Sermons on Job. p. 652: CO 35:254: ”Dieu veut nous exercer en beaucoup de combats.” 186 CO 33:126, CO 35:55 and 485. 187 “Il nous faut bataiîler, suivant ce que nous dit l’Apostre (2. Tim. 2 :5), Que nous n’aurons point de victoire sinon en combatant. Or le principal combat que nous ayons à faire c’est contre nous-mesmes, et contre nos vices: et c’est où il nous faut efforcer. Ainsi donc notons bien, que Iob, quand il parle ici de la vie humains comme un homme qui n’a point d’esgard à la resurrection à venir, ne s’est point arresté là du tout (car il avoit bien preveu ce qui en est) mais il a voulu exprimer quelle passion il a senti, afin qu’un chacun de nous pense à soy, pour n’estre point transporté quand telles tentations adviendront.” In CO 33:679-680. 188 Sermons on Job, p. 17: CO 33: 65. 189 Sermons on Job, p. 17: CO 33:65. 190 Sermons on Job, p. 436: CO 34:397: “d’estre pelerins en ce monde, d’estre errans.” 191 Sermons on Job, p. 471: CO 34: 490 and 397: “voyagers et vagabons.” 192 CO 34:397: “Or ceci nous est declaré, afin que quand nous voyons de tels exemples, nous ne soyons point troublez (comme il a esté dit) mais plustost qu’estans premupis contre un tel scandale, nous cognoissions que nostre Seigneur permet que les choses soyent ainsi enveloppees, afin que nous tendions à l’heritage auquel il nous appelle: que nous ne facions point ici nostre nid, comme si nous y avions un repos certain: mais plustost que nous apprenions d’estre pelerins en ce

261

The French Reformer went so far as to dislike even the mere possibility that we would live in pleasure and that God should handle us like little 194 cockneys. Unlike Luther, Calvin did not relay on a quietist conception of the Christian life, as it is particularly evident in Sermon 66, when provocatively he asked: Were we as it were in a faire meadow, that we might run along the rivers side in the shadow, and that there might be nothing but pleasure and joy in all our life, who could vaunt that he had served God with good affection? 195

Given the perspective of life “conceived as a succession of ardent and strenuous moments,” as Bouwsma points out, “Calvin directed attention toward the cultivation of self-confidence, a sense of responsibility, 196 spiritual strength and a joyful acceptance of God’s will.” The believers are not to be idle but are called to demonstrate how 197 They need to turn their eyes they respond daily to God’s vocation.

193 194 195

196 197

262

monde, d’estre errans: et que quand il n’y aura nulle fermeté pour nous (comme sainct Paul dit, que c’est la condition des Chrestiens, d’estre remuez çà et là) nous sachions faire nostre profit de toutes ces choses: car iusques à ce que Dieu nous ait arrachez de ce monde comme par force, nous ne serons point adonnez à tendre à la vie celeste.” The notion of scandal recurs often in Calvin’s preaching: see CO 33:412, 715; CO 34:154, 160, 369, 371, 375, 377; CO 35:24, 232, 264. Sermons on Job, p. 343: CO 34:147: “nostre paradis n’est point en ce monde.” See for instance Sermons on Job, p. 343. Sermons on Job, p. 309: CO 33:54: “Si nous avions comme une belle prairie, et que nous allissions tout au long d’une riviere, que nous eussions l’ombrage dessus, qu’il n’y eust que plaisir et esiouyssance en toute nostre vie: qui est-ce qui se pourroit vanter d’avoir servi à Dieu d’une bonne affection? Mais quand Dieu nous envoye les choses tout au.” I owe this quotation to Thomas Derek, Calvin’s Teaching on Job, p. 235. W. Bouwsma, John Calvin, a Sixteenth Century Portrait, p. 186. “Advisons donc de continuer iusques à la fin, quand nous aurons bien commencé, et qu’estans asseurez que c’est Dieu qui nous a tendu la main, nous suivions le chemin auquel il nous a mis. Mais au reste, qu’un chacun conte bien le temps depuis qu’il a cognu la verité de Dieu. Comment? il y a desia un an, il y en a trois, il y en a dix, il y en a vingt que Dieu s’est manifesté à moi: et comment ai-ie profité depuis ce temps-là? Et maintenant encores, combien que ie ne me sois point tant advancé comme il est requis, toutes fois puis que mon Dieu m’a receu en sa maison, et n’a point permis que ie fusse du tout esgaré, mais m’a fait la grace de perseverer iusques ici: si maintenant ie le renonce, et le quitte, et que sera-ce?” CO 34:461.

toward in order to earn to “travel continually to the heavenly and 198 everlasting heritage.” From the perspective of a life conceived as a trial and a discipline, one then can understand some of the harsh statements made by the French Reformer that God “will have us to pass through fire and water, 199 that is to say, through all kind of miseries” In some sermons there also emerged the idea that God had been forced to become severe because of human perversion: For we cannot abide that He should be a loving father to us, and that He should handle us tenderly: we abuse His goodness continually and therefore He is said to make us feel His displeasure, or else we should utterly perished.200

Together with the above mentioned explanation in the sermons on the book of Job Calvin advanced three other reasons which could explain human suffering.

5.3.3

Suffering as a test

The first reason is that the chastisement of Job was intended to “try Job,”201 and in particular to test his “patience and obedience,”202 rather than to scourge him for past sins. Calvin shared this interpretation, although he did not completely identify with it. After having excluded the concept that God could chastise His servants “without just cause,” he singled out the real reason of God’s intention:

198 Sermons on Job, p. 471: CO 34:489-490: “aspirer à cest heritage celeste et permanent.” 199 Sermons on Job, p. 63: CO 33:179: “Dieu veut que nous passions parmi le feu et l’eau, c’est à dire, par beaucoup de misères.” 200 Sermons on Job, p. 664: CO 35:286: “Car nous ne pouvons souffrir qu’il nous soit un pere amiable, et qu’il nous traitte doucement, nous abusons tousiours de sa bonté: il faut donc qu’il nous face sentir son ire, ou autrement nous serions perdus.” 201 CO 33:341. 202 CO 33:647; CO 34:24, 107; CO 35:2 and 54.

263

to try Job’s patience and to clear him of the slander that Satan made of him in saying Job obeys God because he is in prosperity and therefore God meant the contrary.203

In other sermons he went further by referring to a wider dimension of 204 God’s purposes in afflicting Job, “that it might be a mirror unto us” in 205 order that “we follow his example duly.” Convinced that Job’s experience should be regarded as paradigmatic of the apparent tragedy of human life trapped within a disordered history, Calvin expressed the conviction that God uses suffering in order 206 207 to “try our faith and our obedience,” “our constancy,” “our 208 209 210 patience,” “our charity” “our constancy and steadfastness” “our 211 212 213 “the love which we bear Him “ “our modesty” “our hope,” 214 215 “our lowliness.” Suffering tests piety, reveals the humility,” feebleness of flesh, prompts the believer to suffer for the sake of righteousness and “casting them as it were gold into a furnace, purges 216 them and makes them known.” Through suffering, believers are roused to hope, trained in patience, instructed in obedience, and have their pride chastened.

203 Sermons on Job, p. 188: CO 33:501: “Il a voulu esprouver sa patience: il a vouíu oster ceste calomnie de Satan qui disoit, Iob obéit à Dieu, pource qu’il est en prosperité: Dieu donc a voulu monstrer le contraire.“ 204 Sermons on Job, p. 639: CO 35:209: “afin qu’il nous servist de miroir.” 205 Sermons on Job, p. 302: CO 34:34: “Ceci est advenu à Iob, afin qu’il nous fust en exemple.” 206 Sermons on Job, p. 18: CO 33:68: “esprouver nostre foy et notre obeisance.” 207 Sermons on Job, p. 18: CO 33:89: “nostre constance.” 208 Sermons on Job, p. 59: CO 33:273, 493; CO 34:594, 646; CO 35:10: “nostre patience” 209 Sermons on Job, p. 357: CO 34:288: “nostre charité.” 210 Sermons on Job, p. 397: CO 34:292: ”nostre fermeté et constance” 211 Sermons on Job, p. 405: CO 34:314: “nostre esperance.” 212 Sermons on Job, p. 497: CO 34:559: “l’amour que nous Luy portons” 213 Sermons on Job, p. 533: CO 34:657: “nostre modestie.” 214 Sermons on Job, p. 588: CO 34:699: “nostre humanité.” 215 Sermons on Job, p. 507: CO 34:585: ”nostre humilité.” 216 Sermons on Job, p. 20: CO 33:69: “Dieu esprouve les siens, il les examine par afflictions, il les met comme un or en la fournaise, non seulement pour estre purgez, mais aussi pour estre cognus.”

264

5.3.4 Suffering as medicine The second reason is that suffering can be understandable as medicine in the widest context of a curative function. In order to express this idea 217 and adequately Calvin used the expressions “for our profit” 218 “welfare.” According to this perspective “when God gives Satan leave to tempt faithful ones ordinarily it is to make them to be served therewith 219 “to purge them of the said pride and as with a medicine,” presumptuousness, whereof they could not otherwise draw 220 221 themselves,” and “to bring us again into the way of salvation.” God uses the afflictions “as preservative medicines, and tarries not till the 222 disease has progressed too far.” In Sermon 21 Calvin better clarified this concept: But I have already shown that the sores which God makes are to us so many doses of medicine. Double grace then, is here shown to us. 1) One follows from the fact that when God afflicts us he procures our benefit. He draws us to repentance. He purges us of our sins and even of those which are unknown to us. For God is not satisfied merely to remedy evils which are already present, but He considers that much seed of disease is hidden in us. He anticipates then, He puts it in order, it is a special blessing which He does when it seems as if He comes against us, sword unsheathed, to show us some signs of anger; whenever He does this, He shows that He is our Physician. That is the first grace. 2) Then, this is the second grace which is also clearly shown to us: namely, that God binds up the wounds which He has made and heals them223

217 CO 33:263. 218 CO 33:165. 219 Sermons on Job, p. 23: CO 33:78: “Ainsi donc ordinairement quand Dieu permet à Satan de tenter ses fideles, c’est pour leur faire servir le tout comme de medecine.” See also CO 33:480, CO 35:198, CO 35:221, CO 35:395. 220 Sermons on Job, p. 88: CO 33:245: “pour les purger de cest orgueil et presomption, de laquelle autrement ils ne pourroyent pas se retirer.” 221 Sermons on Job, p. 398: CO 34:292: “pour nous ramener au chemin de salut.” 222 Sermons from Job, p. 38: CO 33:264: “comme de medicines preservatives, n’attendant pas que la maladie ait gagné par trop.” See also CO 35:447. 223 Sermons from Job, p. 42: CO 33:267: ”Mais i’ai desia monstré que les playes que Dieu fait, nous sont autant de medecines. Il y a donc double grace qui nous est ici monstrée: l’une est d’autant que Dieu quand il nous afflige procure nostre bien, qu’il nous attire à repentance, il nous purge de nos pechez, et mesmes de ceux qui

265

224

225

Even admitting, “this medicine is harsh,” he recognized it is “good” 226 227 and “necessary,” in respect of the diseases that are rooted in us,” 228 and “since we are such dullards as to follow the lusts of our flesh.” The idea underlying this perspective was the image of God as the 229 230 231 “sovereign” “physician,” who “can heal not only our ”true,” 232 wounds, but also death itself.” Starting from the assumption that “if God should deal gently with us 233 and let us alone in quit, it would be the cause of our destruction,” he invited believers to turn themselves over to God in order to be purified 234 from their sins. In fact, he pointed out, it is for the faithful a source of

224 225 226

227 228 229 230 231 232 233

234

266

nous sont incognus. Car Dieu ne se contente pas de remedier aux maux lesquels sont desia presens, mais il regarde qu’il y a beaucoup de semence de maladies cachées en nous. Il anticipe donc, il y met ordre, c’est un bien singulier qu’il nous fait que quand il semble qu’il viene contre nous l’espée desgainée qu’il nous monstre signe de courroux: toutesfois quoi qu’il en soit il se declare medecin. Voila pour un item. Et puis il y a la seconde grace qui nous est aussi bien monstrée, c’est assavoir, que Dieu lie les playes qu’il a faites, et y donne guerison.” Sermons on Job, p. 587: CO 35:79: ”cette medecine est rude.” CO 35:273. Sermons on Job, p. 62: CO 33:289: “Dieu ne peut souffrir que nous allions ainsi en decadence, et ‘il nous laissoit ainsi à l’abandon sans aucun chastiment, ce seroit nostre perdition. Si les peres terriens gastent leurs enfans quand ils les tienent trop mignards, il est certain que nous sommes encores plus depravez si Dieu ne nous chastie, et qu’il ne nous monstre quelque signe de severité: car nous abusons de sa bonté à tous propos, comme l’experience le monstre.” Sermons on Job, p. 520: CO 34:621: ”attendu que nos maladies sont si enracinées en nous.” Sermons on Job, p. 105: CO 33:289: “veu que nous sommes tant estourdis à suivre les appetis de nostre chair.” Sermons on Job, p. 311: CO 34:58. Sermons on Job, p. 550: CO 34:705. CO 33:226, 265, 267, 270, 471, 712, CO 34:58, 368, 475, 705; CO 35:274. Sermons on Job, p. 148: CO 33:399: “car il est le medecin pour guarir non seulement des playes, mais de la mort mesmes.” Sermons on Job, p. 602: CO 35:119: ”Et ainsi apprenons que si Dieu nous traittoit plus doucement, et qu’il nous laissast en paix, et que nous fussions endormis en nos pechez sans estre resveillez: cela seroit cause de nostre perdition.” CO 34:26: “Toutes fois que nous advisions de recourir à nostre Dieu, lui demandans qu’il lui plaise de nous purger de toutes nos iniquitez, qui sont cause des maux que nous endurons en ceste vie presente: et qu’il lui plaise nous supporter en nos infirmitez, et nous faire sentir sa bonté, afin que nous ayons tousiours dequoi le

comfort to know that when God afflict them, “their wounds are not deadly, because God will at length deliver them from their miseries for 235 so much as He is the Surgeon to cure their stripes.” Repeatedly he 236 emphasized that “afflictions are not always signs that God hates us.” Other times, he was less sure and to the statement, “God by afflicting us, procures our salvation,” prudently added “although it seems not to 237 us.” Nonetheless, he recognized the difficulties of human mind to accept the teaching of Scripture “Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects; 238 therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty.”

5.4 God converts evil to good These above mentioned considerations lead us to the last and maybe more significant defence: the conversion of evil in good. In his Sermons on Job, this conviction was expressed many times: 239 God “will turn this adversities of ours to our warfare,” “the evil to our 240 241 “all our troubles into joy and glory,” “ceases not to benefit,” dispose things in such wise, as the evil is to us warde turned into good

235

236 237 238 239

240 241

glorifier, iusques à ce qu’il nous ait delivrez de ceste vie caduque, pour nous faire participans de sa gloire immortelle.” Sermons on Job, p. 98: CO 33:270: ”Nous traitasmes hier la consolation qui est ici mise à tous fideles quand Dieu les afflige: c’est que leurs playes ne sont point mortelles: car Dieu les delivre en la fin de leurs maux, mesmes que c’est luy qui est le medecin pour guerir leurs afflictions.” Sermons on Job, p. 26. Sermons on Job, p. 592: CO 35:91: “Combien qu’il ne le semble pas.” Sermons on Job, p. 96: CO 33:263. Sermons on Job, p. 46: CO 33:140: “Et bien, il est vrai que ces afflictions ici sont grandes, mais il faut tousiours esperer en Dieu, et esperer qu’il convertira ce mal ici en nostre salut, comme il fait servir au profit de ses fideles tout ce qu’il leur envoye en ce monde.“ Sermons on Job, p. 78: CO 33:231: “il convertira le mal en bien.“ Sermons on Job, p. 132: CO 33:358: “convertira toutes nos afflictions en ioye, et en gloire “

267

242

and all this their dealing shall further our welfare,” and “will find the 243 mean that the evil which is in Satan is turned to our welfare.” This hermeneutical principle had to come back in The Institutes. Here Calvin took up again the example of Job and quoting a saying of 244 Augustine enumerated other examples of situations where God had converted evil to good, as Hunter A. Mitchell highlighted: The treachery of Judas was divinely instigated for the furtherance of the plan of salvation. Sarah’s quarrel with and casting out of Hagar was directed by a heavenly providence. That Abraham should have been commanded to humour his wife entirely in this matter is no doubt extraordinary, but proves that God employed the services of Sarah for confirming His own promises. Although it was the revenging of a woman s quarrel, yet God did not the less make known His doctrine by her mouth as a type of the Church (Comm. Gal. iv. 30.). In all such instances Calvin seeks to make it plain that the providences of God are always justified by the fact that He uses the wickedness He decrees for the accomplishment of ends that are perfectly righteous.245

However, even maintaining this principle, Calvin did not rule out the opposite even residual possibility that God could turn the instruments of His goodness into death, in order to destroy disobedient humankind, as 242 Sermons on Job, p. 81: CO 33:225: “Dieu ne laisse point de tellement disposer les choses que le mal nous est converti en bien, et que tout cela nous aidera à salut.” 243 Sermons on Job, p. 23 : CO 33:78: “Or cependant Dieu trouvera le moyen, que le mal qui est en Satan nous sera converti à salut.” 244 “Parquoy toutes gens craignans Dieu et modesties acquiesceront volontiers à ceste sentence de sainct Augustin, c’est que l’homme veut quelque fois d’une bonne volonté ce que Dieu ne veut point: comme si le fils desire que son pere vive, lequel Dieu appelle à la mort. Et à l’opposite, que l’homme veut d’une mauvaise volonté ce que Dieu veut d’une bonne; comme si un mauvais garçon souhaite la mort de son pere, lequel mourra par la volonté de Dieu. Le premier veut ce que Dieu ne veut point, et le second ne veut sinon ce que Dieu veut: et neantmoins l’amour et reverence que porte à son pere celuy qui desire sa vie, est plus conforme au bon plaisir de Dieu auquel il semble repugner, que n’est l’impieté de celuy duquel le souhait tend à ce que Dieu veut faire. Telle importance il y a de considerer ce qui est decent à. Dieu ou à l’homme, de vouloir: et à quelle fin se rapporte la volonté de chacun, pour estre approuvée ou reprouvée. Car ce que Dieu veut iustement, il l’accomplit par les mauvaises volontez des hommes. Ce sont les mots de Sainct Augustin.” CO 03,276. 245 The Teaching of Calvin: A Modern Interpretation (Westwood, New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1950), p. 138.

268

He did at the time of the flood.246 In the perspective of the conversion of evil to good, Calvin stated that our “affliction are blessed,” since they contribute to our salvation.247 These considerations would have remained isolated if they had not been put into the wider eschatological context, as in Sermon 22. The text of Job 5, 19-26 represented the starting point of his reflections. His confidence in the visibility of Divine Justice reached its climax with the words: He shall deliver you in six troubles; yes, in seven no evil shall touch you. In famine He shall redeem you from death, and in war from the power of the sword.” Calvin, having invited his audience to embrace this doctrine, recognized that God does not always do, since “He suffers His servants to fall into violent death and He plucked them out of this world in the flour of their age and even in their infancy.248

He tried to get around the contradiction with two considerations. The first was related to the true interpretation of the word of God, in the sense that “when the Holy Scripture speaks of these worldly blessings it intended that it falls out so commonly and not that it falls out so continually.” In the second and more pertinent consideration he stressed once again the general principle that “we must make comparison between the greater benefit and the lesser,” which is nothing other than the conversion of evil into good: “When God suffers His children to be taken out of the world betimes, it is for their profit,”249 since He loves all

246 Sermons on Job, p. 677: CO 35:321. 247 CO 33:225: “Et au reste, cognoissons aussi à l’opposite, que nos afflictions sont benites, c’est à dire, combien qu’on nous iuge miserables, quand on nous regarde, qu’on nous mange la laine sur le dos, ce que nous soyons faschez et tourmentez, que Dieu ne laisse point de tellement disposer les choses que le mal nous est converti en bien, et que tout cela nous aidera à salut.” 248 Sermons on Job, pp. 102-103: CO 33:280: “Il est vray que ceci n’est point perpetuel: car nous verrons quelquefois que Dieu souffre que les siens tombent en mort violente, qu’il les retire de ce monde ici en fleur d’age, voire en leur enfance.” 249 Sermons on Job, pp. 102-103: CO 33:280: ”Or il nous faut noter en premier lieu que quand l’Escriture parle de ces benedictions temporelles, elle signifie ce qui advient communement, et non pas tousiours. Et au reste il nous faut faire comparaison d’un plus grand bien à un moindre. Quand Dieu permet que les siens soyent retirez de ce monde bien tost, c’est pour leur profit.”

269

those who had testified to their faith with martyrdom and are persecuted by tyrants.250 He warned the doubtful, pointing out, “our salvation is unalterable, 251 because Good has made His decrees of which cannot be changed.” And again: ”It is impossible for ever the chosen should be turned out of 252 the way of salvation.” The principle that there is an inseparable knot between God’s Justice and our salvation expressed best in Sermon 30. The slaughter of Job’s children made Calvin uncomfortable, until he recalled God’s salvific intentions for them: We know that sometimes God takes even those of this world by violent means, who He has chosen and ordained to salvation howbeit that he handles them after such a fashion, as the chastisement which He sends them turns to their welfare. Also men’s bodies must perish for a time, that their souls may be saved for ever.253

However, Calvin’s dialectical ability was deeply challenged, when he 254 was confronted with the difficult text of Job 18: 17-19. How then can the statement “Our Lord will root out the wicked, so as He will not leave 255 one of their race,” be interpreted in view of the fact that “Our Lord 256 does often suffer even His own children to be barraine?” 250 Sermons on Job, pp. 102-103: CO 33:281: “Ils ne laissent pas d’estre aimez et favorisez de luy quand il permet qu’ils tombent ainsi en une mort violente: comme ceux qui sont persecutez par les tyrans ont une mort plus precieuse beaucoup. Car ils presentent un sacrifice qui est plaisant à Dieu: et ce luy est une offrande de bonne odeur, quand il voit que Sa parolle est seellee par le sang des martyrs.” 251 Sermons on Job, p. 424: CO 34:363: ”nostre salut n’est point variable, puis qu’ainsi est que Dieu en a fait Son decret qui ne se pourra changer.” 252 Sermons on Job, p. 222. CO 33:591: “Il est impossible que les esleus soyent jamais destournez du chemin de salut.” 253 Sermons on Job, p. 139: CO 33:376: “Nous savons que Dieu quelques fois par un moyen violent de ce monde ici les premiers ceux qu’il a esleus et ordonnez à salut, et les traitera en telle façon que le chastiement qu’il leur envoye leur sera converti à salut. Ainsi il faut que les corps perissent pour un temps, afin que leurs ames soyent sauvées éternellement.” 254 “The memory of him perishes from the earth. And he has no name among the renowned. He is driven from light into darkness. And chased out of the world. He has neither son nor posterity among his people, Nor any remaining in his dwellings.” 255 Sermons on Job, p. 321. 256 Sermons on Job, p. 321.

270

Calvin, after referring to the general principle that “such manner of cursing are often turned into blessings unto God’s children,” turned his attention to the eschatological hope: Yet are they not therefore left blessed of God. For they have an everlasting fatherhood in heaven, in that it pleases God to join them not only with all the saints and faithful ones, but with the Angels also.257

This statement can only be understood by keeping in mind Calvin’s deep conviction that, in spite of afflictions, God loves His elect and “He will give them a gladsome end.”258 This reassurance reoccurred innumerable times and with differing overtones in many sermons: “If God works after such a manner towards His, all shall turn to their welfare, they shall make their profit even with advantage, of that which seemed to tend to their destruction.”259 He warned repeatedly “if God should leave us at random without any chastisement, it would be our utter undoing, and we should be much more marred.”260 261 In the light of “this fatherly loving kindness” Calvin reasserted his conviction that “God will chastise gently and after a mild fashion and 262 His mercy shall never be withdrawn, from us.” In Sermon 22, having in mind the suffering of the persecuted church, he wrote:

257 Sermons on Job, p. 321: CO 34:87-88: ”Nous voyons donc que quand les fideles ne laisseront point d’enfans apres leur mort, ils ne laisseront pas d’estre benis de Dieu pour cela: car ils ont un parentage continuel au ciel, quand il plaist à Dieu de les conioindre non seulement avec tous ses saincts et fideles, mais avec les Anges aussi.“ 258 Sermons on Job, p. 139: CO 33:374: “Dieu en nous affligeant ne laisse pas de nous aimer: voire, et qu’il procurera nostre salut, de quelque rigueur qu’il use envers nous: que toutes nos afflictions seront adoucies par sa grace, et qu’il y donnera une issue desirable.” 259 Sermons on Job, p. 148: CO 33:399: “Dieu besongne envers les siens d’une telle façon, le tout leur sera tourné à salut, ils feront leur profit et advantage de ce qui sembloit tendre à leur perdition.” 260 CO 33:177. 261 “Douceur paternelle” in CO 33:337; CO 34:322, 620; CO 35:395 and 492. 262 Sermons on Job, p. 330: CO 34:111: “Dieu nous chastiera doucement, et d’une façon temperée, et que iamais sa misericorde ne sera eslongnee de nous.”

271

Let us remember the doctrine that is set down here, how God will deliver us from famine, in the time of death, that He will save us from the sword in the time of war and that He will defend us from wild beasts.263 264

The love of God embraces “also our children.” Calvin’s positive attitude toward suffering found expression whenever he used the 265 euphemism “God visits us,” signifying that the chastisement of God is always linked to His paternal love, as he wrote in Sermon 35: “God visits His own whom He loves: but that is after a fatherly manner, and 266 He always moderates His rigour.” Because of his belief in God’s love for His elect, Calvin was able to look at suffering with an accepting attitude and to consider “our afflictions will be sweet and amiable to us when we can go after that fort 267 unto God,” or when “we perceive them to tend to our salvation and 268 welfare.” In Sermon 21 he went so far as to consider it a “privilege,” 269 But in other occasions he when God makes us to feel His hand,” stated that, in view of the fact that God uses afflictions to a good end, “it is much better for us that these troubles should happen, than if we should 270 always live in peace and rest.” In the midst of suffering, believers have to keep their trust in God alive and not fall into the temptation which Satan would have them believe, namely, that God has left them alone. Satan tries to convince them that the eye of God is not upon them. This was the reason why Calvin repeatedly portrayed Job’s friends as 263 Sermons on Job, p. 100: CO 33:275: “Dieu nous delivrera de famine en temps de sterilité, qu’il nous delivrera de glaive en temps de guerre, qu’il nous gardera des bestes sauvages.” 264 Sermons on Job, p. 382: CO 34:249. 265 For instance: CO 33:169, 220, 272, 338, 365 and 378. 266 Sermons on Job, p. 163: CO 33:437: “Il est vray que Die visite les siens, lesquels il aime: mais c’est d’une façon paternelle, il modere tousiours sa rudesse.” 267 Sermons on Job, p. 126: CO 33:341: ”les afflictions douces et amiables, quand nous pourrons aller ainsi à Dieu.” 268 Sermons on Job, p. 179: CO 33:478: ”quand nous cognoissons qu’elles tendent à nostre salut.” 269 Sermons on Job, p. 95: CO 33:262: ”Cognoissons donc que Dieu nous fait un bien special, et que c’est un privilege qu’il ne donne qu’à ses enfans, quand il nous fait sentir sa main pour nous humilier sous icelle.” 270 Sermons on Job, p. 698: CO 35:377: “Nous sommes contraints de confesser, qu’il vaut beaucoup mieux que ces troubles adviennent, que si nous estions tousiours en paix et en repos.”

272

driving Job to despair with their interpretations of the retributive character of suffering. Instead of employing passive resignation, Calvin preferred to believe that the inexplicable and tragic events of human life were meaningful, in accordance with God’s will. He warned: “Let us understand that God has foreseen what is good for us to endure and that 271 our afflictions befall us not without His good pleasure.” In an undoubtedly autobiographical confession Calvin wrote: Lord, Thou are righteous. Although I’m not able to attain to the reason of Thyne intent, it ought to suffice me to know that Thou does not anything, but rightly and indifferently.”272

In the light of these considerations, one element emerges as unquestionable, namely the inseparable knot between God’s Justice and our salvation as Calvin made clear when He wrote that “God has foreordained what he will have done, both in respect of the everlasting 273 salvation of ourselves, and also in respect of this present life.” In order to demonstrate that the sufferings of the believers are neither purposeless nor fortuitous, in Sermon 38 Calvin advanced two arguments. 274 1) God does not have “any cause to destroy his workmanship.” God does not profit “to do us harm and to punish can us wrongfully.” He based this argument on the following a fortiori consideration: “If men being evil of themselves do not evil, but to their own profit, can God who is the fountain of all goodness and the rule of all right, be moved, without having any profit by 275 it?

271 Sermons on Job, p. 124: CO 33:377: “nous cognoissions que Dieu a preveu ce qu’il nous est bon de souffrir, et que les afflictions ne nous adviennent point sans son bon plaisir.” 272 Sermons on Job, p. 325: CO 33:97: ”Et bien, Seigneur, Tu es iuste: encores que ie ne puisse point comprendre la raison de Ton conseil, il me doit suffire de savoir que Tu ne fais rien sinon en droiture et equité.” 273 Sermons on Job, p. 423. 274 Sermons on Job, p. 178: CO 33:475-476: “Car quand Dieu affligera les hommes, s’adresse-il à ses ennemis? Il s’adresse à sa facture, car nous sommes l’ouvrage de ses mains, il nous a creez et formez. Destruira-il donc ce qu’il a fait?” 275 Sermons on Job, p. 178: CO 33:475-476: “Si donc les hommes estans malins ne font point de mal qu’à leur profit: Dieu qui est la fontaine de toute bonté, qui est la

273

2) God hates evil and therefore “He will never clear the intent of the wicked that is to say He will never show Himself to allow 276 it. Whilst Martin Luther was obsessed by the preoccupation of being saved and how to attain eternal salvation, Calvin was preoccupied by a fear of the apparently haphazard and meaningless course of existence. Everything is ruled by God, otherwise life would be unbearable. The French Reformer tried to mitigate the sometimes harsh reality of his time and to render suffering bearable. In summing up the questions with which Calvin struggled, Theodore Minnema wrote: Calvin in his experience of affliction fought off one of its gravest temptations, the response of nihilism or meaninglessness. Suffering, in order to be usefully faced, must be meaningfully interpreted.277 278

In spite of his many diseases, the French Reformer maintained that God tenderly cared for him and he tried to persuade all those who suffered that God would convert evil to good. Instead of denying the reality of suffering, he tried to make it acceptable. regle de toute droiture, pourra-il estre incité à nous mal-faire, et à nous affliger iniustement, sans qu’il y ait profit?” 276 Sermons on Job, p. 179: CO 33:477: “Et Dieu veut-il ainsi esclairer le conseil des meschans? Se veut-il mettre de leur part? Veut il participer à leur corruption et ordure?” 277 T. Minnema, “Calvin’s interpretations of human suffering” in Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin, ed. David E. Holverda (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 141. 278 In a letter written in 1564 to H. Bullinger Calvin gave a short report of his various diseases: “For though the pain in my side is abated, my lungs are nevertheless so charged with phlegmatic humors that my respiration is difficult and interrupted. A calculus in my bladder also gives me very exquisite pain for the last twelve days. Add to that the anxious doubts we entertain about the possibility of curing it, for all remedies have hitherto proved ineffectual; exercise on horseback would have been the best and most expeditious method of getting rid of it, but an ulcer in my abdomen gives me excruciating pain even when seated or lying in bed, so that the agitation of riding is out of the question. Within the last three days the gout has also been troublesome. You will not be surprised then if so many united sufferings make me lazy. ”Selected Works of John Calvin, Tracts and Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983) VII, p. 362. CO 20:282-283.

274

Anna Case Winters contested Calvin’s conclusion ”that God’s purposes in using evil are always good and just,” on the basis of the assumption that this argument would be non-verifiable. She wrote: The fact is, we cannot see things from God’s perspective or know the final outcome of things. If only is not a strong defence.”279

In order to support her point of view A. C. Winters quoted Institutes I.17.1. Unfortunately the phrase attributed to Calvin was never written by him at least as A. Case Winters quoted it. On the contrary he wrote: It is, indeed, true that if we had quiet and composed minds ready to learn, the final outcome would show that God always has the best reason for his plan: either to instruct his own people in patience, or to correct their wicked affections and tame their lust, or to subjugate them to self-denial, or to arouse them from sluggishness; again, to bring low the proud, to shatter the cunning of the impious and to overthrow their devices.280

The difference is patent. The condition for Calvin was not “If only we could see from God’s perspective or could know the final outcome of thing, so would we be able to recognize God’s good reason,” but “If we had quiet and composed minds ready to learn,” then and only at this point “the final outcome would show that God always has the best reason for his plan.” Calvin deemed impossible that men could see from God’s perspective or know the outcome of things. He quoted I Corinthians 13 repeatedly in order to stress the difficulty to recognize the traces of God’s Providence in a history marked by blood. The best expression of Calvin’s attitude is the phrase that he pronounced before he died “Seigneur, tu me piles, mais il me suffit que c’est ta main.”281 He felt that 279 Case Winters, God’s Power, p. 73. 280 ICR I.17.1: CO 3:250: “Vray est que si nous avons les esprits quoys et rassis, pour apprendre à loysir, l’issue finale monstre assez que Dieu a tousiours bonne raison en son conseil de faire ce qu’il fait, soit pour instruire les siens à patience, ou pour corriger leurs affections perverses, ou pour domter la gayeté trop grande de leurs appetits, pour les matter à ce qu’ils renoncent à eux mesmes, ou pour esveiller leur paresse: soit à l’opposite pour abbattre les orgueilleux, aneantir les ruses et cautelles des meschans, ou dissiper leurs machinations.” 281 CO 21:44.

275

Satan could do nothing without God’s authorization and that we should thank God that his power is limited.282 Satan attempts to drive us to despair by letting us to believe “that God has forgotten us, because He does not relieve us speedily and at the very moment.”283 In the Harmony on the three Evangelists, Calvin warned against this temptation, since, he pointed out, “nothing is more unreasonable than to limit His love to any point of time. God has, indeed, promised that He will be our Deliverer; but if He sometimes winks at our calamities, we ought patiently to endure the delay.”284All suffering is sent by God not only because of His retributive Justice, but also because He loves us. Whilst being tormented, the believers should comfort themselves with the assurance that they suffer nothing except what God has ordained. In the Sermons on Job Calvin dwelled extensively on this concept and stated that men would be “in wretched case,” if they did not know that God loves them.285 The idea underlying these considerations seems to echo Irenaeus’ perspective who regarded suffering as a necessary prerequisite for spiritual growth and development. This stance has nothing to do with passive resignation of the Stoic philosophy towards an impersonal entity ruling the universe. On the contrary it is the positive acknowledgement that whatever God has ordained is by definition right and that He “does not anything without reason.”286 Calvin reaffirmed innumerably the conviction287 that “God holds Satan and all His whelps in a Lyam and that they can not onely not stir one finger against us, but also not intend or think anything without God’s 282 CO 33:61. 283 Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. XVI, pp. 306-307. CO 45:771: “Hoc, ut paulo ante dixi, acerrimum tentationis telum habet Satan, dum fingit Deum nostri esse oblitum, quia non mature etin ipso articulo succurrat.” 284 Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. XVI, pp. 306-307: CO 45:771: ”Ergo hoc argumentum tanquam vitiosum repudiare convenit,non amari a Deo quos videtur ad tempus deserere: imo nihil magis absurdum est quam ad singulos temporis articulos restringere eius amorem.” 285 Sermons on Job, p. 261. 286 Sermons on Job, p. 32: CO 33:102: “Dieu ne fait rien sans raison.” 287 See ICR III.8.11:” Hence Christian exhortations to patience are of this nature, whether poverty, or exile, or imprisonment, or contumely, or disease, or bereavement, or any such evil affects us, we must think that none of them happens except by the will and Providence of God; moreover, that every thing he does is in the most perfect order.”

276

ordinance.”288 The confidence that the suffering of believers is not gratuitous, but part of God’s plan, turned out to be a source of “great comfort”289 and nurtured his unceasing optimism prompting him to say: “God has means (which are incomprehensible to us) whereby to succour His servants.”290 For Calvin it was unimaginable to think that something could happen by chance or that human beings could be tossed by fate. Susan Schreiner emphasized this stance: While it may seem harsh to allow for no contingency in the world or to say that the tree falls on one’ head is Divinely willed, that was the price Calvin was willing to pay in order to remove humanity from an unpredictable universe. He did not fear evil in itself so much as an evil that was irrational, uncontrolled, and without purpose. Consequently, he thought it better for God to decree the evils that beset us than to make human beings the victim of a blind fortune or chance under the control of no Divine power.291

In the Commentary on Genesis 32:24 Calvin seemed to echo Luther’s conception of revelation sub contraria specie, when he wrote that God “fights against us with his left hand, and for us with his right hand.”292 Therefore he invited the believers to be patient and to endure suffering, since when “God scourges us, yet He ceases not to give us some taste of His goodness.”293 As a man of order, Calvin feared chaos and contingency. Consequently, he instructed the believers to “have

288 Sermons on Job, p. 294: CO 34:15: “Dieu tiens la bride à Satan, et à tous les siens, et que non seulement ils ne puissent remuer un doigt contre nous.” 289 Sermons on Job, p. 212: CO 33:591: “Au reste notons que ceste doctrine nous apporte grande consolation, moyennant que nous la puissions appliquer à nostre usage.“ 290 Sermons on Job, p. 67: CO 33:189: “Dieu a des moyens qui nous sont incompréhensibles pour secourir aux siens.” 291 S. Schreiner, The Theatre of His Glory (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1991), p. 35. 292 Commentary on Genesis, Vol. I, p. 196. CO 23:442: “apposite et proprie dicemus sinistra manu ipsum contra nos luctari, dextera autem pro nobis.” 293 Sermons on Job, p. 57: CO 33:165 : “Notons donc en premier lieu, toutes fois et quantes que Dieu nous envoye quelques troubles et fascheries, il ne laisse pas cependant de nous faire gouster sa bonté.”

277

imprinted” in their hearts the Providence of God in order “to stand steady and constant”294 in their calling. When we see things so shuffled together in the world, as we know not on which side to turn us, we may not therefore cease to be peaceable and quiet, assuring ourselves that God orders and guides all things in such wise, as there is nothing that can hinder the welfare of the faithful, seeing that He has once taken them into His protection.295

In the light of the above considerations, the first line of Calvin’s vindication of Divine Justice ends up in the so called aesthetic theory. If God causes or permits evil in order to convert it to a good end, then two important consequences are doomed to arise, namely: 1) Evil contributes toward the realization of good ends which otherwise would be unattainable. 2) There is no authentic evil and genuine evil. To negate that “all things which God does are good and rightful, 296 although we know not the reason why He does them,” would be tantamount “to pull God out of heavenly seat and spoil Him of His 297 majesty and let himself in His room and place.”

294 Sermons on Job, p. 60: CO 33:173: ”Et quand nous aurons ceste Providence de Dieu bien imprimée en nos cœurs pour dependre du tout d’icelle, encores que nous soyons agitez de beaucoup de troubles en ce,monde: voila un bon fondement, qui fera que nous demeurerons fermes, et constans en nostre vocation pour servir à Dieu selon sa volonté tout le temps de nostre vie.” 295 Sermons on Job, p. 60: CO 33:173: “Et quand nous verrons les choses si confuses au monde, que nous ne saurons de quel costé nous tourner, que nous ne laissions pas pourtant d’estre paisibles, et en repos, sachans que Dieu dispose et conduit tellement toutes choses, qu’il n’y a rien qui puisse empescher le salut de ses fideles, puis qu’une fois il les a receus en sa protection.” 296 Sermons on Job, p. 610: CO 35:212: ”tout ce que Dieu fait, est bon et equitable, encores que nous ne cognoissions point la raison pourquoi.” 297 Sermons on Job, p. 384: CO 34:256: ”Bref, quiconque n’acquiesce à la Providence de Dieu en toute humilité, confessant universellement que tout ce qui procede de lui est bon et iuste: celui-la entant qu’en lui est veut arracher Dieu de Son siege celeste,et le despouiller de Sa maiesté, et se veut comme mettre en son lieu et en Sa place.”

278

Against any temptation in this direction Calvin urged the believers “to humble themselves before God and admit all His doings for good and 298 well done.” Initially, when considered from a partial perspective, the reality of evil seems to be genuine and definitive. Only later, when considered from a wider context, it becomes evident that the prima facie evil is only provisional. The treatise on The Secret Providence of God represents the culminating point of Calvin’s theological evolution, when he emphasized that he considered Augustine’s statement to be not completely 299 exhaustive. To say that in evil there is nothing positive did not mean for Calvin that evil does not exist or that the experience of suffering is the outcome of our imagination. As John Hick rightly pointed out, “it is not permissible to dismiss the privative analysis of evil as a philosophical theory which explains that experience away by denying 300 that evil is real.” Just the opposite: evil remains a tragic reality that destroys and kills. If one reads the Confessions, one cannot help but recognize that Augustine did not have the slightest intention of minimizing the tragedy of evil. His statements that “evil is absence of good” aimed to state unequivocally that “iniquity is not a substance, but a perversion of the will.” In other words, it was precisely in order to defend the monopoly of God’s power that Augustine felt obliged to reject any possibility that evil could have an ontological status independently from God. What God created is intrinsically good, whereas evil is only a deformation or a “Depotenzierung.” In this perspective shall be interpreted the words “absence of good,” which simply point to the contingency of evil rather to its appearance. Calvin held the same perspective. He never held that evil is a 301 positive reality, even recognizing that sin is enmity against God. He 298 Sermons on Job, p. 708: CO 35:403: ”ils doivent estre admonnestez de s’humilier devant Dieu, et recevoir pour bon et bien fait tout ce qui procede de Lui.” 299 “But I will not say with Augustine which, however, I readily acknowledge to have been truly said by him: ‘In sin or in evil, there is nothing positive,’ for this is an acuteness of argument which, to many, may not be satisfactory.” Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 233. CO 8:353. 300 J. Hick, Evil and the God of Love, p. 181. 301 J. Cadier hold the opposite thesis, when he wrote that “pour Calvin… le mal es une réalité positive, le pèche est une inimitié contre Dieu, une révolte, un offense, qui

279

used the privative conception of evil only as starting point and not as ending point of His Theodicy, whose goal was mainly to combat the dualism. There is no multiplicity of makers. Even though making frequent use of the word evil, he always avoided any hypostatization of it and excluded any metaphysical dualism. Evil remains for him naughtiness, as he emphasized in Sermon 4: The naughtiness which is in the Devils proceeds of themselves, when they became apostatize and separate themselves from the fountain of righteousness. Likewise whereas sin is in mans nature: it is not of God’s putting in by creation.302

Therefore, evil represents a perversion of the will and does not have an autonomous and enduring reality, but only an instrumental and provisional value. All the various attempts of the French Reformer to explain the sense of evil can be reducible after all to the concept that in the end evil will be converted into good. In the light of such 303 eschatological and finalistic perspective the Augustine’s statement that Calvin repeatedly quoted acquires its full significance: “For as the God of Goodness, He would not suffer evil to be done at all, unless, as 304 the God of Omnipotence, He could, out of that evil, bring good!” Calvin was able to uphold the privative conception of evil shared by his great master Augustine only by recognizing the parasitic and temporary nature of evil that exists only in view of something else that cannot be mérite condamnation. “in Calvin et Saint Augustine, quoted by Lange Van Ravenswaay, Augustinus Totus Noster: Das Augustinverstandnis bei Johannes Calvin. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), p. 37. Cadier misunderstood Calvin. The French Reformer did not’ hold that evil is a positive reality, if with these words one means to attribute an ontological status to evil. 302 Sermons on Job, p. 16. CO 33:60: ”Il nous faut tousiours reserver cela, que la malice qui est aux diables procede d’eux, quand ils ont esté apostats pour s’eslongner de la fontaine de iustice, qu’ils ont quitté Dieu, et se sont destournez de luy. Voila comme ils ont esté pervertis, et n’y a eu que mal en eux: comme quand le peché est en la nature des hommes, ce n’est pas que Dieu l’y ait mis de creation.” 303 Enchiridion, p. 100. 304 Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 200 in CO 9:297: “Nec sineret bonus fieri male, nisi omnipotens de malo facere posset bene.” See also Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 290: “Nor, as the God of goodness, would He permit a thing to be done evilly, unless, as the God of Omnipotence, He could work good even out of the evil done.” in CO 9:297: ”Nec sineret bonus fieri male, nisi omnipotens etiam de malo facere posset bene.”

280

than good. The process that led Calvin to this conclusion was different from that of Augustine. Whereas the latter came to the same conclusion starting essentially from philosophical considerations, Calvin’s starting point was rooted in the Bible. Without God’s revelation, it would be unavoidable to conclude that evil has an ontological status. It is only sub specie aeternitatis that it becomes evident that evil has no positive function in itself. Rebus sic stantibus, the Augustinian privative conception of evil that Calvin reworked, was employed not merely as a solution to the problem of evil, but essentially as an argument against any attempt to answer to the problem of theodicy with a dualistic solution. The fact that the same sentence occurred in the Second Helvetic Confession, article VIII confirms, in our opinion, that Calvin’s stance was shared inside Protestant Reformation.

5.5 General evaluation of Calvin’s defense of God One conclusion can surely be gleaned concerning the content and the meaning of this “first line of Defence” of God’s Justice. In the light of the above mentioned considerations, it seems unquestionable that the answers proposed by Calvin as to why people suffered and the wicked triumph, are not only theoretical arguments, but also practical suggestions for making God’s actions comprehensible and acceptable to the faithful. His way of doing theology was more pastoral than theoretically oriented, as is confirmed by the use of the locution “to 305 306 really profit,” in reference to the book of Job and to its doctrine. Under this perspective, Calvin’s Theodicy turns out to be of great topicality, since one of the most difficult threats confronting the modern secularized world is not the existence of suffering, but its apparent purposelessness. We can ignore why God caused or permitted suffering but we cannot ignore that nothing takes place without God’s will, which is by definition right. We are not called to explain why God is the ultimate cause of evil, but to trust Him. 305 CO 33:21,370. 306 CO 33:213, 443, 495, 519, 647; CO 34:140; CO 35:438.

281

Herein lays one of the most important features of his theology. For Calvin was clear that human beings could cope with evil far better if they have some theological understanding. The knowledge that “those who persecute the believers are cursed of God,” whereas “their afflictions are 307 blessed,” has turned out to be a source of “inestimable comfort” in time of persecution. It is worth noting that Calvin used the word “to know” intentionally. For him it was not only a question of faith, but of knowledge as well. Whereas Thomas Aquinas, when asked whether theology were a theoretical or practical science, answered that it was 308 both, but emphasised the first feature, Calvin held the opposite to be true and showed little interest in abstract questions. His main goal was the edification of the Christian community and therefore he paid little attention to those issues which were not aimed at achieving this goal. This pragmatic goal found its highest expression in Sermon 95. After having stressed that “he that has the charge and office to teach 309 ought to have good respect what his hearers are to whom he speaks,” he further illustrated his opinion with an amusing example: It is all one as if a man came to a physician, and desired a medicine for some disease and the physician should go discourse and debate of his art in general terms and so the poor sick man should yield up his ghost in the mean while, whereas he might easily have been cured if he had been helped out of hand.310 311

Repeatedly, he invited his listeners to “apply the doctrine to our use.” Nevertheless, although the experiences of the persecuted church of his 307 Sermons on Job, p. 81: CO 33:225: ”Voila donc une consolation inestimable que peuvent avoir les fideles quand on les opprimé, et qu’on les tormenté iniustement, c’est de cognoistre, que ceux qui les persecutent ainsi sont maudits de Dieu. Et au reste, cognoissons aussi à l’opposite, que nos afflictions sont benites..” The same concept is echoing in CO 33:297 and in CO 34:128. 308 Summa Theologica, Ia, q. 1, art. 1. 309 Sermons on Job, p. 445: CO 34:420: “celuy qui a la charge et office d’enseigner, doit bien regarder quels sont les auditeurs ausquels il parle.” 310 CO 34:423-424: “C’est comme si on venoit à un medecin, et qu’on luy demandast remede pour une maladie:et s’il alloit traitter de son art en general, et qu’il en disputast, et le povre malade rendroit l’esprit cependant, là où il eust peu estre restauré si on y pust remedié soudain: et tous ces propos dequoyauront-ils servi?” 311 Sermons on Job, p. 444: “appliquer la doctrine à nostre usage.” There are 56 references to this statement: CO 33:122, 140, 159, 182, 223, 226, 242, 266, 302, 322, 334, 338, 385, 388, 399, 440, 478, 524, 560, 571, 577, 591, 602, 640, 646,

282

time as well as the situation in Geneva may have influenced his Sermons 312 Why? on Job, Calvin only occasionally made references to them. Susan Schreiner has suggested that: One of the reasons Calvin did not more explicitly recount the tragic moment of the Reformation had to do with the exegetical principle he applied to the Joban text. Expounding only the literal sense, Calvin did not practice typology and therefore did not make Job a prophet of Christ or a type of the suffering, martyred, or exiled church.313

These considerations are not convincing! The fact that Calvin rarely made allusions to the events of his day is far from being significant, inasmuch as it represents the common denominator of quite all of his works. In fact, Calvin was an extremely reserved man and unwilling to make any reference to his problems, as he had once written to Cardinal 314 Sadoleto. However, even independently of his personal attitude, it is noteworthy that Calvin was reluctant to interpret the book of Job only in light of the tragic events of his time. Job was, for him, not only the personification of the persecuted church, but also of all those who, in very different contexts of time and place, had suffered unjustly and 672, 706; CO 34:6, 16, 60, 64, 262, 324, 345, 357, 416, 434, 480, 715; CO 35:31, 72, 87,108, 146, 266, 284, 314, 331, 332, 342, 392, 402, 420, 504. 312 T. Dekker, following the research of William Naphy, Calvin and the consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press, 1994), has highlighted some of these “rare remarks.” He wrote: “Preaching in September 1554 on Job 23, Calvin refers to how honest men can barely walk the streets without being shouted at and abused. (CO 34:377) Preaching the following month on Job 29, Calvin speaks of those in authority as filled with pride. (CO 34:563) The promotion of Calvin’s opponents in the elections of 1553 and 1554 brought forth from Calvin a charge that they were ‘rascalles’ and ‘nothing at all.’ (CO 34:161) In an otherwise rare moment, Calvin refers in three consecutive Sermons to a particular incident that he had witnessed in which a ‘strumpet’ had been imprisoned, only to be given ‘great Tartes’ by way of a seeming reward. ‘What a dealing is that?’ Calvin asks? (CO 34:143)” in Calvin’s Teaching on Job, p. 32. 313 S. Schreiner, Where shall Wisdom be found? Calvin’s exegesis of Job from medieval and modern perspectives (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 7. 314 CO 5:389: “De me non libenter loquor. Quoniam tamen prorsus silere non pateris, dicam, quod salva modestia potero.”

283

without reason. The emphasis upon the supratemporal dimension of Job’s experiences ensured the success of these sermons, which were read by men of all generations who recognized themselves either in Job or in Calvin. Fritz Büsser summed up the impression he had upon reading Calvin’s Sermons on Job: La grande, la profonde raison de la faveur dans les Sermons sur Job ont joui dans le monde chrétien, c’est l’intensité de la piété … Dieu toujours Dieu, ne voir que Lui, Sa puissance, Sa justice, Sa miséricorde, s’abaisser, s’anéantir en Sa présence, ne vivre que de Lui et par Lui et pout Lui, c’est la note dominante, exclusive des ces discours; cette piété intense est le secret de leur vertu.315

5.6 The excluded lines of defense This chapter would be incomplete, without considering the lines of defense which Calvin ruled out de facto. The first is that suffering could have a redemptive meaning. According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church human suffering, when accepted and offered up in union with the Passion of Jesus, can remit the just punishment for one’s sins or for the sins of another. The most recent and authoritative example of this kind of interpretation is the Apostolic Letter Salvifici doloris. The point of departure of the Papal document is represented by a verse of Col. 1:24, where the Apostle Paul wrote: I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church.

After having analyzed some biblical texts, the Pope goes so far as to identify the suffering of Christ with human suffering by attributing to the latter a salvific meaning. The Redeemer suffered in place of man and for man. Every man has his own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished. He is called to share in that suffering through which all human suffering has also been redeemed. In bringing about the 315 F. Büsser, Calvins Urteil über sich selbst (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1950), p. 84.

284

Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ.( V:19)

The consequence of this perspective turns out to be that suffering is no longer the consequence of the faith in Christ, but has in itself a redemptive meaning. The discovery of the salvific meaning of suffering in union with Christ transforms this depressing feeling. Faith in sharing in the suffering of Christ brings with it the interior certainty that the suffering person “completes what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”; the certainty that in the spiritual dimension of the work of Redemption he is serving, like Christ, the salvation of his brothers and sisters.

But what does this statement mean? Although the Pope firmly denies that “the Redemption achieved by Christ is not complete,” a doubt remains, when he writes that it “remains always open to all love expressed in human suffering,” in the sense that Christ “did not bring it to a close.” This doubt is not dispelled when the Pope to further clarification of his thought writes: Yes, it seems to be part of the very essence of Christ’s redemptive suffering that this suffering requires to be unceasingly completed.

The French Reformer dealt with this interpretation both in The Institutes and in the Commentary on Colossians. In the former, by examining the question of indulgencies and the merits of the martyrs, he gave a completely different interpretation to the text of Col.1:24: Now, when Paul adds “for the church,” he does not mean for redemption, for reconciliation, or for satisfaction of the church, but for its upbuilding and advancement.316

The second was the exclusion of the principle of plenitude of Augustinian-Thomistic theodicy, according to which God created an extensive diversity of creatures, which necessarily have varying abilities

316 ICR II.5.4.

285

and qualities, since the Divine Goodness could not be adequately represented by one creature alone.317 The third was related to the role played by Christ in the wider context of Calvin’s vindication of God’s Justice. In his Ph. D dissertation 318 P. Miln, taking inspiration from W. Niesel, emphasized on many 319 occasions “the intensely Christocentric nature of the Sermons on Job” and tried to substantiate this assumption, by demonstrating that “it is only by an imitation of Christ that we are enabled to live the Christian 320 life.” There is a kernel of truth in what Miln pointed out. Undoubtedly, Christ represented a constant reference point in the Sermons on Job. It needs only to be remembered the innumerable times 321 322 Calvin contended that Christ is “our Advocate,” “our Redeemer” 323 and “the eternal Word of God,” emphasizing that “all the treasures of 324 wisdom and knowledge are laid up in Him. His task is “to reconcile us 325 with God our Father.” 326 Even eschatological hope is strictly connected with Him. In Sermon 89, in response to the question: “who dares open his mouth to 327 plead against the heavenly judge?,” Calvin answered:

317 Quoted by J. Hick, Evil and the God of Love, pp. 94-95. 318 W. Niesel, Theologie Calvins (München: Chr. Kaisser Verlag, 1957), p. 235: “Jesus Christus beherrscht nicht nur den Inhalt, sondern auch die Form des Calvinistischen Denkens.” 319 P. Miln, Hommes d’une bonne cause: Calvin’s Sermons on the book of Job (Ph.D Diss., University of Nottingham: The British Library, 1989), p. 98: “Whilst dealing with an Old Testament theme, Calvin is still able to proclaim the centrality of Jesus Christ. Christian life must be centred upon the person and the life of Christ. We return, therefore, to the intensely Christocentric nature of the Sermons on Job.” 320 Miln, Hommes d’une bonne cause, p. 125. 321 CO 33:69; CO 34:43, 344, 346; CO 35:506. 322 CO 34:38, 389 and 617. 323 CO 34:411. 324 Sermons on Job. p. 649: CO 35:247:”tous les thresors de sagesse et d’intelligence sont cachez en luy.” 325 CO 35:371. 326 CO 33:33: “Dieu nous purge de toutes nos ordures et infections, comme il nous l’a promis au nom de notre Seigneur Iesus Christ, iusques à ce qu’il nous ait retirez des souillures, et pollutions de ce monde, pour nous conioindre avec ses Anges, et nous faire participans de ceste felicité eternelle, laquelle nous devons maintenant aspirer.”

286

It stand us then in hand to have Jesus Christ for our advocate and He in pleading our case alleges not our deserts, ne sets Himself in our defense to say that God does us wrong in punishing us, but He alleges the amends that He Himself has made, and that forasmuch as He has released us our debts, we be now quit before God.328

Yet the continuous references to Christ are far from implying that Sermons on Job are Christocentric, or that the person of Christ represents the heart of Calvin’s vindication of the Justice of God. Christ is present but His presence plays more a formal, than a substantial role. This element is particularly evident in the first Sermon in which Calvin anticipated the arguments for his vindication of God. On the one hand, 329 he emphasized the “pure doctrine of Christ” and the fact that humans 330 are called to be inspired by Christ, reminding believers that their lives 331 are hidden in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the French Reformer failed to address the essential question: How had the revelation in Christ modified the vindication of God’s Justice and how would believers be able to look at Job’s sufferings in a different way? Undoubtedly, the themes of justification through faith and of free salvation were present, but only in the background, whereas the Reformer’s answers to the anguishing problem of human suffering were given quite exclusively from the viewpoint of the Old Testament. As T. Derek observes: 327 Sermons on Job. p. 417: CO 34:344: “qui osera ouvrir la bouche pour plaider contre le Iuge celeste?” 328 Sermons on Job. p. 417: CO 34:344: “Il faut que nous ayons Iesus Christ pour nostre advocat: et lui, en plaidant nostre cause, n’allegue pas nos merites, il ne s’oppose pas pour dire, que Dieu nous fait tort quand il nous punira: mais il met en avant la satisfaction qu’il a faite, et que puis qu’il nous a acquitez de nos dettes, maintenant nous sommes absous devant Dieu.See also CO 34:43: “Et mesmes voila nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, auquel est donnee toute puissance de iuger, qui est pour maintenir nostre cause, il est nostre advocat.” 329 CO 33:23-24: “Or par cela nous voyons quand nous avons un bon fondement, qu’il nous faut regarder de bastir dessus, en sorte que tout responde, comme Sainct Paul dit, (1. Cor. 3:10) qu’il bastit bien, puis qu’il a fondé l’Eglise sur la pure doctrine de Iesus Christ.” 330 CO 33:30: “Et pourquoy? s’il y a rondeur, il faut qu’il y ait droiture, c’est à dire, si l’affection est pure au dedans, quand nous conversons avec les hommes, nous procurerons le bien d’un chacun, tellement que nous ne serons point adonnez à nous, et à nostre particulier, mais nous aurons ceste equité, que Iesus Christ dit ester la reigle de vie, et toute la somme de la Loy, et des Prophetes, que nous ne facions à aucun sinon ce que nous voudrions qu’on nous feist.” 331 CO 33:159, 402: “Nostre vie est cachée en Iesus Christ.”

287

Calvin in many instances preached entire sermons, even successive sermons, without ever seeing a need to focus on Christ as the fulfillment and scope of Scripture. Over a third of these sermons fail to mention Christ at all. Barely over a fifth of the sermons find Calvin concluding his message with a Christological focus. Seventeen sermons, just over a tenth, allude to passages of Scripture cited by Jesus in the Gospels. In fact, only a handful of sermons have what we might term an extensive Christological focus.332

Was there any precise theological reason for this? S. Schreiner has suggested that the reasons why Sermons on Job were not particularly 333 Christocentric “depend on its pagan setting.” In fact in the opening Sermon Calvin made clear that Job was from the Land of Uz. In my opinion, the reasons why Christ played a secondary role in the sermons are essentially threefold. First, one has to consider that Calvin’s interpretation of the book of Job was centred on the question of Theodicy (how is it possible to justify belief in an Omnipotent and Righteous God in the presence of so much evil that exists in the world?) rather than a soteriologic question (how can I be saved?). In other words, instead of asking how it is possible to be saved, Calvin challenged the notion of God’s Justice. It is not by chance that the theme of “Justice” occurs 744 times. Fully aware that Job had not known the revelation of Christ, Calvin refused to apply the New Testament to the book of Job in a retroactive manner. Herein lays the reason why it is difficult to find as many warnings against the attempts to know God apart from Christ in Sermons on Job, as in Commentary on 334 the First Letter of the Apostle Peter. This lack of interest in 332 T. Derek, Calvin’s Teaching on Job, p. 333. R. Stauffer, after having quoted Calvin’s Commentary on John 5:39, wrote: “Les sermons ou retentit le même accent christologique sont peu nombreux.” In Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 109. 333 S. Schreiner, “Calvin as an interpreter of Job,” in Calvin and the Bible (Cambridge: University Press, 2006), p. 68. 334 J. Calvin, Commentaries, on the first epistle of Peter, Vol. XXII. 53: “Since God is incomprehensible, faith could never reach to Him, except it had an immediate regard to Christ. Nay, there are two reasons why faith could not be in God, except Christ intervened as a Mediator: first, the greatness of the Divine glory must be taken to the account, and at the same time the littleness of our capacity. Our acuteness is doubtless very far from being capable of ascending so high as to comprehend God. Hence all knowledge of God without Christ is a vast abyss which immediately swallows up all our thoughts. A clear proof of this we have, not only

288

soteriologic concerns also explains why Calvin, instead of proclaiming God’s grace and reconciliation in Jesus Christ, pointed to God in His triune fullness in order to vindicate His Justice which had been brought into profound questioning by human suffering. Secondly, Calvin assumed that God, as He is in Himself, is different from the God as was revealed in Christ. C.J. Kinlaw wrote: Calvin’s God is mysterious, ineffable, ceaseless, active and utterly free. The urge to flee to Christ can be a psychological and spiritual sedative only for those who have not realized that the hidden, inscrutable God is the one with whom we have everything to do. This may lead us to distrust the entire basis of our knowledge of God. If God’s accommodating revelation serves the hidden God, can we have certainty of any knowledge of God apart from God’s inscrutability?335

Unquestionably, Calvin did not employ the New Testament to interpret the book of Job. He argued and reasoned quite exclusively from the point of view of the Old Testament. Therefore, the most important feature of Sermons on Job was not its Christocentricity but its Theocentricity, as Viguié pointed out: Ces pages sont pleines de Dieu, ne respirent que Lui; c’est Dieu qui nous doit mener, diriger, inspirer, que dis-je? Il est le maitre absolu, c’’st Lui qui nous mène, in the Turks and the Jews, who in the place of God worship their own dreams, but also in the Papists. Common is that axiom of the schools, that God is the object of faith. Thus of hidden majesty, Christ being overlooked, they largely and refinedly speculate; but with what success? They entangle themselves in astounding dotages, so that there is no end to their wanderings. For faith, as they think, is nothing else but an imaginative speculation.” CO 55:226: “Nam quum incomprehensibilis sit Deus, nunquam ad eum perveniet fides, nisi in Christum recta se conferat. Imo duae sunt rationes cur nulla possit esse fides in Deum, nisi Christus quasi medius interveniat. Nam primo consideranda est divinae gloriae magnitudo, et simul ingenii nostri tenuitas. Multum certe abest quin acies nostra tam alte conscendere possit, ut Deum apprehendat.Omnis itaque cogitatio de Deo extra Christum immensa est abyssus quae sensus omnes nostros protinus absorbeat Huius rei luculentum exstat specimen non in Turcis modo et Iudaeis, qui sub Dei titulo somnia sua adorant: sed etiam in papistis.Tritum est illud scholarum axioma, Deum esse obiectum fidei. Ita de abscondita eius maiestate, praeterito Christo, prolixe et argute philosophantur :sed quo successu? Miris deliriis se intricant, ut nullus sit errandi finis. Fidem enim nihil esse putant nisi imaginariam speculationem.” 335 C. J. Kinlaw, “Determinism and the Hiddenness of God in Calvin’s Theology,” Religious Studies 24.4 (1988): 509.

289

nous dirige, nous inspire. Il nous prend ä Lui, nous fait siens, nous marque de son sceau, nous garde pour la vie éternelle.336

It would be an exaggeration to say that Christ is substantially absent in 337 Sermons on Job, yet one conclusion can be drawn with certainty, that 338 a consistent christological focus is not sustained. As Richard Stauffer reminds his reader: “Au contraire de Luther qui est attaché au principe en vertu duquel le Christ est dominus Scripturae, Calvin ne cherche pas 339 toujours à voir en Jesus le scopus du texte qu’il étudie.” Undoubtedly, Calvin had difficulty in elevating Christ to be the main interpretative key of the Old Testament. Thirdly, since the Sermons on Job did not focus on human salvation, but rather the centrality of God’s Justice, one can understand the scarce incidences of the doctrines of Election and Predestination. A critical investigation will not support the conclusion that “Job’s position is basically a faith in God’s gracious, unconditional Election.”340 First of all, the word Predestination with all its derivates did not occur at all, while the word Election occurred only twenty times.341 Even when this concept appeared to be taken into account, the French Reformer’s attention was turned in quite another direction.342 Most of the time, the 336 Viguié, “Les Sermons de Calvin sur le livre de Job.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du Protestantisme Français, Vo. 31 (1982), pp. 506-507. 337 The sermons in which Christological notions are present are 41, 42, 43, 52 and 71. 338 In his book A Life of John Calvin (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1990), p. 149, Alister McGrath contends that “Jesus Christ forms the central feature of Calvin’s theology.” 339 Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 303. 340 Dekker, Sermons from Job (Ed. Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker 1980), XXXIII. 341 CO 33:408, 463, 502, 503, 535; CO 34:362; CO 35:150, 207, 212, 239, 470 and 471. 342 This is particularly evident in Sermon 134, in which, according to Richard Stauffer, the Reformer “parlant du mystere de la predestination qui releve au premier chef du conseil secret, invite les croyants à ne pas rechercher les mobiles qui guident Dieu dans ses choix.”Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 109. When analyzing this text one cannot help but acknowledge that Calvin’s intention was not to deal with the problem of predestination, but simply to answer to the eternal question why evildoers triumph and the innocent perish. As a matter of fact, in commenting on the biblical text of Job 34 :31, Calvin wrote: “Comme s’il disoit, que Dieu tient les cordeaux en sa main pour conduire les hommes à son plaisir: et s’il luy plaist de nous punir pour nos pechez, nous n’avons nulle replique

290

problem of election was not dealt within the context of soteriology, but rather within the context of the incomprehensibility of God343 and of the liberum arbitrium.344 Calvin constantly refused to make God a partaker of human suffering. Since Predestination does not represent the center of Calvin’s concern, one can better understand why his Sermons on Job are not focused on Christ. As a matter of fact, when Calvin decided to locate Predestination within a more Christological setting, it was unavoidable for him to put Predestination and Christ in the background. In this chapter we have mentioned the texts in which Calvin seemed to echo the intuitions of the Theologia Crucis of M. Luther. Nevertheless, it would be reckless to conclude that “Calvin holds to Theologia crucis,” as H. Selderhuis has suggested.345 B.A. Gerrish summed up the status quaestionis fittingly. After having distinguished between “the Hiddenness of God in His revelation (let us call it Hiddenness I) and the Hiddenness of God outside His revelation (Hiddenness II),” he comments: The interesting question with regards to Hiddenness I is whether Calvin could follow Luther into the sharpest paradoxes of the theologia crucis, which culminate 346 in the thought of the Deus crucifixus.

343

344 345 346

qu’il ne faille passer condamnation:s’il nous supporte, mesmes qu’il nous vueille du tout espargner, qui est-ce qui y resistera? qui estce qui le pourra empescher de nous faire grace?Il est vray que ceci est estrange de primeface au sens humain: car nous demandons: Veu que Dieu xì’accepte point les personnes, pourquoy pardonne-il plustost à l’un qu’à l’autre? Pourquoy supporte-il un meschant, quand on le voit estre desbordé du tout?” CO 35:194-195. For example, in Sermon 31 Calvin wrote: “Quand l’Escriture nous parle de son election, qu’il choisit ceux que bon lui semble, qu’il reiette aussi les autres, qu’il dispose du genre humain à son plaisir : aussi quand il afflige les bons et les laisse là opprimez, que nous voyons les choses tant confuses au monde, là Dieu se cache, c’est à dire, qu’il ne se monstre pas à nous en telle façon, que selon nostre sens nous puissions apprehender sa iustice, sa bonté, et vertu, et sagesse: et toutesfois si faut-il que nous lui rendions la gloire qui lui est deue.” CO 33:463. For instance in Sermon 33: CO 33:407. H. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), p. 188. B.A. Gerrish, To the unknown God: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God,” Journal of Religion 53 (1973), p. 280.

291

There were two reasons why Calvin rejected what Ronald Goetz has simply, and in a sense rightly, dubbed it the “new orthodoxy.” 347 Firstly, there was the desire to defend a principle which starting from Tertullian348 represents the common denominator of Christian teaching, that is to say that “God is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable”349. Secondly Calvin held that every anthropomorphism which attributes to God bodily organs and human passions is nothing other than condescension to our weakness in order “to accommodate the knowledge of Him to our slight capacity.”350 Calvin made use of the principle of accommodation whenever the Scriptures seemed to attribute human passions to God; emotions like jealousy, repentance, et cetera, which he constantly refused to interpret in a literal sense.351 He maintained that it is impossible for God to change or that He can be sorrowful or sad, since this would imply “either that He is ignorant of what is going to happen, or cannot escape it, or hastily and rashly rushes into a decision of which He immediately has to repent.”352 Biblical texts describing God as 347 R. Goetz, “The Suffering God: The Rise of a New Orthodoxy,” The Christian Century 103/13 (1986), 385. 348 Tertullian stated that Praxeas “had expelled prophecy and brought in heresy, and exiled the Paraclete and crucified the Father.” 349 Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter II.1. 350 ICR I.13.1. 351 In The Institutes the French Reformer taking into consideration some biblical texts concerning God’s repentance, refused to interpret them in a literal sense and resorted to the principle of the Divine accommodation. He wrote: “Que signifie donc ce mot de Repentance? dira quelcun. Ie répond qu’il a un mesme sens que toutes les autres formes de parler, lesquelles nous descrivent Dieu humainement. Car pource que nostre infirmité n’attouche point à sa hautesse, la description qui nous en est baillée se doit submettreà nostre capacité, pour estre entendue de nous. Or le moyen est, qu’il se figure, non pas tel qu’il est en soy, mais tel que nous le sentons. Combien qu’il soit exempt de toute perturbation, il se dit estre courroucé contre les pecheurs. Pourtant comme quand nous oyons que Dieu est courroucé, nous ne devons pas imaginer qu’il y ait quelque commo tion en luy, mais plustost que ceste locution est prise de nostre sentiment, pource qu’il monstre apparence d’une personne courroucée, quand il exerce la rigueur de son iugement; ainsi1) sous le vocable de Penitence, nous ne devons concevoir sinon une mutation de ses oeuvres, pource que les hommes en changeant leurs oeuvres tesmoignent qu’elles leur desplaisent.” CO 3:267-268 352 ICR I.17.12: CO 2:165: “Si enim nemo sciens ac volens se in poenitentiae necessitatem coniicit, Deo poenitentiam non tribuemus, quin aut ignorare dicamus

292

repentant or sorrowful, according to Calvin, did not depict God as He truly is, but only as He appears to us. Using once again the principle of accommodation, Calvin interpreted some biblical passages which employed anthropomorphism, to suggest that God accommodates Himself to us like a nurse lisps to a young child.353 Calvin did not believe God could experience real grief over God’s creation because it is not in God’s nature to change. Resisting any humanization of God, Calvin steadfastly maintained that “God is not subject to passions; and we know that no change takes place in Him.”354 Therefore if God is immutable, He cannot suffer, and feel death,”355 as Calvin stated clearly in The Institutes.Yet in order to safeguard the reality of the Incarnation, the French Reformer made a clear distinction between the divine and human nature of Christ, in the sense that only the latter suffered.356

353

354 355

356

quid futurum sit, aut effugere non posse, aut praecipitanter et inconsiderate ruere in sententiam cuius statim poeniteat.” ICR I.13.1: “For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to “lisp” in speaking to us?” CO 2:90: “Quis enim, vel parum ingeniosus, non intelligit Deum ita nobiscum, ceu nutrices solent cum infantibus, quodammodo balbutire?” Other references can be found in Ford Lewis Battle, “God was accommodating Himself to human capacity,” in Interpreting John Calvin (Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Books, 1996), pp. 124125. Calvin, Commentaries on Hosea, Vol. XIII, 88. 42,401: CO 42:443: “Nam semper illud habendum est, Deum immunem esse ab omni passione.” ICR II.12.3 : CO 3:526-527: “En somme, d’autant que Dieu seul ne pouvoit sentir la mort, et l’homme ne la pouvoit veincre, il a conioint la nature humaine avec la sienne, pour assuiettir l’infirmité de la premiere à la mort, et ainsi nous purger et acquitter de nos forfaits: et pour nous acquerir victoire en vertu de la seconde, en soustenant les combats de la mort pour nous.” ICR II.14.2: “In so far as he is God, He cannot increase in anything, and does all things for his own sake; nothing is hidden from him; he does all things according to the decision of his will, and can be neither seen nor handled. Yet he does not ascribe these qualities solely to his human nature, but takes them upon himself as being in harmony with the person of the Mediator. But the communicating of characteristics or properties consists in what Paul says: “God purchased the church with his blood”[Acts 20:28 p.], and “the Lord of glory was crucified” [1 Corinthians 2:8 p.]. John says the same: “The Word of life was handled” [1 John 1:1 p.]. Surely God does not have blood, does not suffer, can not be touched with hands. But since Christ, who was true God and also true man, was crucified and

293

A meaningful example of the above mentioned distinction can be found in the text of John 11:33, where is written that Christ “groaned in His spirit and was troubled.” In admitting that Christ “gives proof that He has sympathy, not only for Lazarus, but also for the general misery of the whole human race,” Calvin wrote: Accordingly, when he is about to raise Lazarus, before granting deliverance or aid, by the groaning of his spirit, by a strong feeling of grief, and by tears, he shows that he is as much affected by our distresses as if he had endured them in his own person.357

Distancing himself from the reductive interpretation of Augustine, according to which Christ would be apathetic even in his human nature, he stressed forcefully that: The Son of God, having clothed himself with our flesh, of his own accord clothed himself also with human feelings, so that he did not differ at all from his brethren, sin only excepted. In this way we detract nothing from the glory of Christ, when we say that it was a voluntary submission, by which he was brought to resemble us in the feelings of the soul.358

These principles had to come back in the Sermons on Job, where Calvin on one hand denied that God could be changeable in His purposes,359 and on the other stated that “our Lord Jesus Christ was not affectionless.”360 People’s suffering, crying and dying does not involve the suffering, crying and dying of God. It is also worth noting that Calvin defended God’s impassibility on the basis of the so-called principle of “extracalvinisticum” according to which, the Incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity maintained all essential Divine properties, including impassibility and immutability,

357 358 359 360

294

shed his blood for us, the things that he carried out in his human nature are transferred improperly, although not without reason, to His divinity.” CO 3 :547. Commentary on John, p. 439. Commentary on John, p. 440. Sermons on Job, p.53: CO 33:156: ”Dieu est-il muable en son conseil?” See also CO 34:455. Sermons on Job, p.50: CO 33:149: “Nostre Seigneur Iesus n’a point esté impassibile.“

and therefore, could not be “confined within the narrow prison of an earthly body.”361 Of course Calvin could be criticized, but it is very rare to find inconsistencies between his theological presuppositions and his vindication of God’s Justice. If God “disposes of all His creatures, He holds all things in His hand, and nothing happens in this world by chance, but all things according to His will,”362 and “governs all things by His Providence,”363 then everything that occurred had its genesis in God alone and it is preposterous to ask if God had caused or simply permitted evil. If God is working universally, then there is no plurality of decision-makers. In this scenario the concept of a God who suffers with us, even though He could eliminate the causes of suffering, turned out to be, in Calvin’s opinion, utter nonsense. Realizing that the idea of a suffering God implied the notion of a limited God, Calvin never hesitated to stress God’s Omnipotence, as David Ray Griffin wrote, “without obfuscation.”364 The foregoing discussion reveals, unquestionably that the common denominator of Calvin’s “first line Defence” of God’s Justice was his desire to find reasons that would justify suffering. In his opinion, no worse evil could exist, than which is irrational, uncontrolled, and without purpose. To believe that human beings are subjected to blind forces of chance was intolerable to him. If God is good and just, then, so Calvin argued, suffering must have a meaning. Employing this perspective, the Reformer took care to explain the purposes of suffering, which are reducible to the following three categories: the retributive, the educative, and the curative. Calvin made use of this interpretation’s key extensively, sometimes even at the cost of forcing the meaning of the text. What mattered more, for him, was to convey to all his listeners the reassuring image of a God

361 ICR II.13.4. For further references see Paul Helm, “The Extra” in John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 58-92. 362 Sermons on Job, p. 584: CO 35:69: “dispose de toutes ses creatures il tient tout en sa main, et rien n’adviendra en ce monde de cas d’aventure, mais c’est selon sa volonté.” 363 Sermons on Job, p. 584: CO 35:69: “gouverne tout par Sa Providence.” 364 This is the title of chapter 10 of the book of D. R. Griffin God, Power & Evil (Louisville-London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), p. 116.

295

365

who loves those whom He afflicts and bring them to eternal salvation. At the same time, he was fully aware that all the above-mentioned arguments belonged to a so-called “first line Defence” which could not exhaust the vindication of God’s Justice. It was certainly true, he argued, that when God punishes evildoers, this is derived from His revealed Justice, but what might explain the fact that bad things happen to good people? In response to this question, Calvin, for the first time, in Sermons on Job, developed the concepts of “double justice” and of “double wisdom,” as we will see in the next chapter.

365 CO 33:85.

296

Chapter VI The “second line of Defence” of God’s Justice: The Deus Absconditus

O my God, Thy determinations are incomprehensible and forasmuch as I am not able as now to know any more by reason of the rudiment and infirmity of my understanding: I will wait patiently till Thou make me perceive the cause why. So Lord, when I shall have tarried in this sort like a poor blind foul, Thou wilt open my eyes and make me perceive whereunto these things tend, and what shall be the end of them, and I shall profit better by them, than I do now. Sermon CXXXIII on Job

6.1 The Deus Absconditus The aforementioned arguments which, in Calvin’s opinion, were aimed to build up a preliminary Defence of God’s Justice, placed the French Reformer in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the opinions of those who, in the end, were condemned, as Susan Schreiner aptly remarks: Like previous commentators, Calvin feels compelled to rescue what he considers the incontrovertible moral truth taught by Job’s companions. He too is convinced that one cannot deny the teachings in such statements as Job 4:7-8 (“think now, I pray you, who that was ever innocent perished? Or were the upright ever cut off?”), 4:17 (“can man be more just than God? Can man be more pure that his Creator?”), and 8:3 (“Does God pervert justice? Or does the Almighty abolish what is right?”). Calvin adopts the traditional principle formulated by Gregory to defend the truth of 1 these verses.

1

S. Schreiner, Where shall Wisdom be found? Calvin’s exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 99.

297

These considerations are confirmed at the beginning of the first sermon, wherein Calvin made a basic distinction that echoed throughout his subsequent sermons: Job maintained “a good quarrel, but did handle it ill,” whereas his friend “set forth an unjust matter, but did convey it 2 well.” Thus, to the question “How is it that Job maintains a case which is good?” he answered: It is that he knows that God does not always afflict men according to the measure of their sins, but that he has His secret judgments, of which He does not give us an account, and yet we must wait until He may reveal to us why He does this or that. He was, then entirely persuaded that God does not always afflict men according to the measure of their sins, and by that he has testimony in himself that he was not a man rejected by God, as they wished to make him believe. This is a case which is good and true, though it is poorly pleaded; for Job here now throws himself off balance and uses excessive and exaggerated propositions, so that he shows that he is desperate in many respects. And he is even so heated that it seems that he wishes to resist God. So here is a good case that is pleaded badly. Now on the contrary those who sustain the poor case, that God always punishes men according to the measure of their sin, speak beautiful and holy sentences; there is nothing in their propositions that we ought not to receive as if the Holy Spirit had pronounced it; for it is pure truth, these are the foundations of religion, they discuss the providence of God, they discuss His Justice, they discuss the sins of men. Here, then, is a doctrine which we have to receive without contradiction, and yet the result that these people try to put Job into despair and to destroy him 3 completely is bad.

2

3

298

Sermons of Maister Iohn Calvin, upon the Booke of Job, translated by Arthur Golding (London: Henry Bynneman, 1574; facsimile reprint: Edinburgh/Carlisle, Pa: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1993), p. 1. Sermons from Job by John Calvin, selected and translated by Leroy Nixon (Grand Rapids, Michigan, WM.B. Eerdmans Co., 1952). p. 5: CO 33:23-24: “C’est qu’il cognoist que Dieu n’afflige pas tousiours les hommes selon la mesure de leurs pechez: mais qu’il a ses iugemens secrets, desquels il ne nous rend pas conte, et ce pendant qu’il faut que nous attendions iusques à ce qu’il nous revele pourquoy il fait ceci, ou cela. Il a donc tout ce propos persuadé, que Dieu n’afflige point tousiours les hommes selon la mesure de leurs pechez. Voila une cause qui est bonne et vraye, cependant elle est mal deduite: car Iob se iette ici hors des gonds et use de propos excessifs, et enormes, tellement qu’il se monstre un homme desesperé en beaucoup d’endroicts. Or au contraire ceux qui soustiennent ceste mauvaise cause, que Dieu punit tousiours les hommes selon la mesure de leurs pechez, ont de belles sentences, et sainctes, il n’ya rien en leurs propos qu’il ne

And yet despite his willingness to accept the fact that God “will in the 4 end turn all our troubles into joy and glory” and “all our miseries to our 5 welfare and salvation,” Calvin was deeply embarrassed, when he recalled “the good men burned and put to open shame and God’s children perish with the wicked, as they be carried to the gallows.”6 Is it not true that whenever the righteous come to a bad end and God does not punish the wicked “we are in the dark and God seems to be hidden?”7 In Sermon 15 he tried to meet this objection, by assuming that “there is a great difference between to perish and to be afflicted.” Punishments and afflictions, although seemingly deadly, are provisional events that do not involve the righteous perishing or being rooted out.8 Calvin ended the discussion with an appeal the inscrutability of God, who “has means, which are incomprehensible to us, to succour His servants.”9 He felt the same deep discomfort whilst commenting on Job 27:1310 19 in which it is said that the wicked “are not buried honourably,” because God utters His curse upon them. Does this statement mean that God’s children are cursed, when they lie unburied? The French Reformer firmly denied this conclusion. After pointing out that “the heaven shall

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

nous faille recevoir,comme si le Sainct Esprit l’avoit prononcé: car c’est pure verité, ce sont les fondemens de la religion, ils traittent de la Providence de Dieu, ils traittent de sa iustice, ils traittent des peschez des hommes. Voila donc une doctrine, laquelle nous avons à recevoir sans contredict, et toutesfois le but est mauvais, que ces gens icy taschent à, mettre Iob en desespoir, et l’abysmer du tout.” Sermons on Job, p. 132: CO 33:58: “Convertira toutes nos afflictions en ioye, et en gloire.” Sermons on Job, p. 464: CO 34:471: “toutes nos misères à bien et à salut, que ce nous seront autant d’aides pour nous avancer à la vie éternelle.” Sermons on Job, p. 473: CO 33:189: “Autant en est-il, quand nous voyons.» les bons estre bruslez, estre mis en opprobre extreme, et que les enfans de Dieu periront avec les meschans, voire quant aux corps, qu’on les trainera au gibet.” Sermons on Job, p. 426. Sermons on Job, p. 66: CO 33:189: “Car les afflictions ne seront point tousiours pour perdre les hommes, comme nous avons desia traitté en partie. Mesmes les afflictions seront si grieves quelquefois qu’il semblera qu’elles soyent mortelles. Que faut-il? Que nous concluyons ce que nous avons monstré par ci devant, puis que Dieu s’attribue cest office de retirer du sepulchre, que nous ne doutions point quand nous aurons bien enduré, que nous ne soyons secourus de Luy.” Sermons on Job, p. 67: CO 33:189: “Dieu a des moyens incomprehensibles pour secourir aux Siens.” Sermons on Job, p. 472: CO 34:492: “ne sont point ensevelis honorablement.”

299

serve for a tomb for all those who were martyred,” he asked: “For can a 11 man find a more honourable tomb than the heaven?” These arguments betray a deep anxiety. Calvin was forced to acknowledge that the sufferings of the righteous, however they might be interpreted in a wider context, were and remain a great “stumbling block 12 that troubles us very sore.” In Sermon 125 the anguishing question about the ultimate meaning of suffering was raised with unmistakable accents: Why could God provide no better mean for our welfare than by tormenting us? Behaved it Him to send us to death that He might call us unto life? Surely it is an incredible manner of proceeding if a man debate it according to his own reason: and he will think it but a foolishness that God should kill us in pardoning us. For what are the afflictions? Signs of His wrath: and we know that all diseases are the messengers of death and that all the sorrows which we conceive are drownings of us. But our Lord sends us sorrows, sicknesses and torments and holds us in them as upon the rack, till we can no more and till we faint in such wise as our life draws to the grave. For these words concern not the small afflictions wherewith we are accustoms; but they concern God sending of us to great extremities, as there remains no more hope in us. And how is that must God cast us into the bottom of 13 death, to the end to draw us out again?

All these questions found their final answer in the same sermon, when Calvin implicitly acknowledged that the arguments he had previously developed in his first line of defence were inadequate to explain why people suffer and far from an exhaustive vindication of God’s Justice. 14 God, he pointed out, “has hidden His countenance from us” and, “as in the winter time the trees have neither flours nor leaves, nor any freshness 11

12

13

14

300

Sermons on Job, p. 473: CO 34:494: “Cependant cognoissons que le ciel servira de sepulture à ceux qui sont ainsi tyrannisez, aux innocens, di-ie, qui sont mis en opprobre par les meschans, et par les persecuteurs, et que quand ils auroyent les sepultures les plus honorables du monde, ce ne seroit rien au prix du bien et du privilege que Dieu leur fait. Car sauroit-on trouver une sepulture plus honorable que le ciel?“ Sermons on Job, p. 643: CO 35:235. The words “scandale” and “scandals” occur often in the Sermons on Job; See for example CO 33:135, 326, 412, 477, 614, 715, CO 34:369, 371, 391, 397, CO 35:232, 256, 264 and 269. Sermons on Job, p. 588: CO 35:80: “Il est vrai que ceci sera trouvé fort estrange du sens charnel. Car Dieu ne pourroit-il mieux prouvoir à nostre salut qu’en nous tormentant ainsi? Faut-il qu’il nous mene à la mort pour nous appeller à la vie?” Sermons on Job, p. 590: CO 35:85: “Dieu a caché son visage.”

15

in them, so our life is hidden in His hands.” Whilst suffering we have to pray to God “to make us feel His goodness which as yet is unknown to 16 us.” Calvin frequently used the expression “it seems that God is 17 asleep,” in order to describe the human reaction to times when God does not execute justice in the world and leaves the wicked unpunished. By pointing to the partial character of the Divine revelation, Calvin argued that only in the Last Day God will give a final and definitive answer to the problem of human suffering. In the meantime “God keeps His secrets to Himself,” and therefore “we must not be inquisitive of the 18 things which God lifted not to disclose unto us.” Although Calvin had already repeatedly insisted on God’s Hiddenness, it was in the whirlwind speech especially that he found the basis to justify his insights. It is worth mentioning that in answering Job, God neither charged him with sins, nor assumed the various explanations given by his friends, namely that through suffering He intended to punish, to test, to cure to educate. A completely different perspective emerged. Instead of answering Job’s questions on the reasons of his suffering, God changed the subject of discussion and laid bare Job’s incapacity to fathom the Divine Hiddenness. Calvin took on and developed these elements which turned out to become constitutive of his Theodicy. 19 He urged the believers to be armed against such stumbling blocks 20 and not to be discouraged. Repeatedly he asked: “Now, if this

15

16

17

18 19

Sermons on Job, p. 590: CO 35:86: “comme nous voyons que les arbres en hyver n’ont ne fleurs ne fueilles, ne vigueur aucune: mais que la vie en est retirée au dedans: aussi faut-il que nostre vie soit cachee en la main de Dieu.” Sermons on Job, p. 590: CO 35:85: “Et ainsi donc quand nous gémissons, et que nous sommes en perplexité et angoisse: que nous prions Dieu qu’il lui plaise nous faire sentir sa bonté qui nous est maintenant incognue.” Sermons on Job, p. 170: CO 34:216: “Il semble donc que Dieu soit comme endormi.” See also: CO 33:221, 448; CO 34:147, 154, 221, 229, 263, 347, 369, 381, 383, 391, 394; CO 35:142, 222, 243, 251. Sermons on Job, p. 706. CO 34:371: “Que faut-il donc? que nous soyons armez contre tels scandales: et que quand Dieu ne se declare point Iuge, et qu’il semble plustost qu’il soit là enfermé au ciel, et qu’il se donne du bon temps, et qu’il ne se vueille point empescher de nos affaires: toutes fois nous tenions ceci pour conclu, qu’il ne laisse pas de faire son office: voire, mais c’est d’une façon qui nous est secrette et incognue.”

301

happened to Job, who was constant above others, alas, what shall 21 become of us?”

6.2 The Hiddenness of God In an article entitled “To the Unknown God” Brian Gerrish states that while “Luther’s doctrine of the Deus Absconditus has been subjected to intense study in more than a dozen books and articles devoted directly to the theme, surprisingly there is no such body of literature on what Calvin 22 thought about God’s Hiddenness.” Gerrish goes on to state that Calvin scholars “have been sceptical about the genuine unity of the various motifs that have been clustered under the common rubric of God’s Hiddenness. More likely,” he adds, “the problem has simply been neglected, at least in its full scope; and it would require a major monograph even to assemble the relevant sources and shape the problematic for an adequate, comprehensive analysis.” Some years before T. H. L. Parker had already noted that “the concept of Deus 23 Absconditus is as native to Calvin’s theology as it is to Luther’s.” Keeping in mind the basic distinction traced by Paul Althaus between the Hiddenness of God apart from Christ, with the Mystery of

20

21

22 23

302

CO 34:340-341: “Or ceci nous est declare, afin que quand nous voyons de tels exemples, nous ne soyons point troublez (comme il a este dit) mais plustost qu’estans premunis contre un tel scandale, nous cognoissions que nostre Seigneur permet que les choses soyent ainsi enveloppees afin que nous tendions à l’heritage auquel il Nous appelle: que nous ne facions point ici nostre nid, comme si nous y avions un repos certain: mais plustost que nous apprenions d’estre pelerins en ce monde.” Sermons on Job, p. 328. CO 34:105: ”Si cela est advenu à Iob qui estoit constant par dessus les autres, helas! que sera-ce de nous?” The same question is echoed in CO 33:155, 287, 353, 498; CO 34:93, 105, 351; CO 35:137, 221, 450. B. A. Gerrish, ”To the unknown God’: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God,” Journal of Religion 53 (1973), p. 263. T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1959), p. 11.

24

God in Christ, the idea of the Divine Hiddenness outside His revelation is of central importance in understanding Calvin’s attempt to vindicate God’s Justice before those who “presume to subject the tribunal of God 25 to their own understanding.” In order to emphasize the mystery of God in his Latin tracts, Calvin used different words: arcanus, absconditus, and occultus. According to Brian Gerrish, these terms “tend to be used 26 interchangeably” and could be translated, respectively in “secret,” “hidden” and “concealed.” Therefore, if one wishes to grasp the nuances of his vocabulary more fully, it is necessary to seek a deeper meaning for the terms he employed in French, his mother language. Although a comprehensive analysis of these expressions is outside the scope of the present essay, these elements are unquestionably important: 1) Instead of using three words, Calvin used only two: “secret” and “cache.” 2) The use of the term “cache” was by far more frequent than “secret” (206 times as opposed to 45, respectively). 3) The word “secret” was Calvin’s preference when he spoke of Divine attributes such as: His Justice, His Wisdom, His Will, His Virtue, His Providence, His Power (inexplicably not His Majesty) as well as some other qualities. 4) With the term “secret” Calvin most often meant “not visible” in 27 contraposition to “visible.” 24

25 26 27

I owe this reference to John Dillenberger, God Hidden and Revealed: The interpretation of Luther’s Deus Absconditus and its significance for religious Thought (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1953), pp. 58-59. Homer C. Hoeksema, Calvin’s Calvinism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1996), p. 34. B. Gerrish, “To the unknown God: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God,” The Journal of Religion 53. 3 (July, 1973), p. 282. This is particularly clear in Sermon 48 where he wrote: “Il y a ici trois choses mais il y en a deux visibles qui maintienent les Princes: et la troisieme est secrette. Les deux choses visibles sont, la force et la prudence. Voila un Roy qui domine: comment est-ce qu’il a authorité? S’il est sage, ou bien s’il a conseillers expers, que les choses soyent bien conduites, qu’ils advisent de pres à ses affaires, et qu’ils y prouvoyent, voila un moyen. Le second est, quand un Roy aura gens, qu’il aura grandes munitions de guerre, qu’il sera bien allie qu’il aura forteresses en son pays. Voila donc les deux choses que nous appercevons, qui sont pour maintenir les royaumes, les principautez, les estats en ce monde: c’est assavoir la force et la prudence. Or Dieu renverse la force, et ainsi ce n’est plus rien: il ostera la sagesse à ceux qui sont bien entendus, et les voila tous eslourdis, tellement qu’ils ont moins

303

5) Calvin employed the word “cache” in respect to a wide range of concepts and things making it difficult to find the common denominator. In particular, he spoke of human feelings and behaviours such as malice, vengeance, rebellion, hypocrisy, mistakes, hope, patience, bitterness, arrogance, the fear of God, and terror. Significantly, in directing people’s attention to Christ, 28 he wrote that our life is ‘hidden’ in Him. 6) Given the plurality of contexts, the meaning of the term “cache” is sometimes ambiguous. In Sermon 95 Calvin seemed to 29 consider “cache” synonymous with “imperceptible.” If this were the meaning, it would follow that the sense of this word was broader than that of “secret.” 7) He applied the word “cache” to some of the attributes of God, 30 employing it when he spoke of His Majesty, and of His 31 Justice, but inexplicably, he did not use it to speak of His Providence and His Will. Sometimes, though, the words “secret” and “cache” were used in an interchangeable manner. This happened especially with the attributes of God’s Justice, Wisdom and Virtue: For instance the word “justice” was 32 described indifferently as “secrette et cache” and the same 33 34 happens with the words “sagesse” and “vertu.” What prompted Calvin to take recourse to the concept of Deus Absconditus? In response to this question many answers have been given. Unlike previous theologians who started from within an

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

304

de sens que les petis enfans. Il y a la troisieme chose qui est secrette au monde: c’est assavoir, que Dieu imprime une maiesté aux Princes, qu’ils sont honorez, et mesmes qu’on ne saura point pourquoy: comme il est dit en Daniel Que quand Dieu avoit voulu establir ceste grande monarchie de Chaldee, il avoit donné crainte et frayeur à toutes creatures.” CO 33:597. CO 33:159, 402: “nostre vie est cachée en Iesus Christ.” “Il y en a une autre qui est cachee de nous, que nous ne pouvons pas appercevoir, qu’on appelle le Pole Antarticque.” CO 34:430. For example see CO 33:458. For example see CO 33:456, 496. CO 33:471. “Secrette” in CO 33:580 and 602; “cachee” in CO 33:529, 585-586, 587, 622; CO 34:609. “Secrette” in CO 33:391; CO 34:109, 427; “cachee” in CO 33:757.

exploration of mysticism to develop the notion of Deus Absconditus, 35 (and contrary to some recently posited scholarly theses), Calvin had no sympathy towards mysticism, as it is clear from the first treatise he wrote on the doctrine of soul’s sleep. Karl Barth pointed out: In Calvin the distinction between faith and mysticism is the beginning, the starting point. It is so because for him faith must be free at once for life, for ethos, for the glorifying of God in thinking, willing and doing. Nothing is more intolerable for him than an intermediate state, where the issue is not obedience.36

In The Institutes he stigmatized the lucubration of the work of the Pseudo-Dionysius De Coelesti Hierarchia: But if anyone examines it more closely, he will find it for the most part nothing but talk. The theologian’s task is not to divert the ears with chatter, but to strengthen consciences, by teaching things true, sure, and profitable.37

Between God and humanity there is an insurmountable abyss that no human being can afford to overstep. Any pretension about being able to reach a mystical identification with God independently of His revelation is consequently ruled out, since this would imply the nullification of any distinction between God and His creature. Calvin repeatedly warned against the risk of being engaged in 38 39 40 “extravagant,” “foolish,” “vain speculations.” Any earthly knowledge of God is doomed to remain necessarily limited. Through 35

36 37

38 39 40

Recently Dennis Tamburello in his Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994) has tried to demonstrate the close relationship between the concept of unio mystica used by the French Reformer and the medieval mysticism of Bernard of Clairvaux. See also Carl A. Keller, Calvin Mystique (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2001). K. Barth, The Theology of John Calvin (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), p. 151. ICR I.14.4. CO 3:195: “mais si quelcun espluehe de plus pres les matières, il trouvera que pour la plus grand part il n’y a que pur babil. Or un Théologien ne doit pas appliquer son estude à delecter les oreilles en iasant, mais de confermer les consciences en enseignant choses vrayes, certaines et utiles.” CO 35:480. CO 34:523 and CO 35:520. CO 33:625; CO 34:353,515.

305

God’s revelation believers are granted the knowledge that is necessary for salvation and it is useless to seek to know more. The principle of Sola Scriptura, originally intended by the Reformers to circumscribe the power of the Roman Catholic Church, also functioned as a restriction on any form of mystical yearning. Although in some passages, starting from 41 the Catechism, we encounter the expression “to repose,” or “to rest 42 ourselves in God,” the context shows clearly that what Calvin had in mind was not an ontological identification with God, but only “to wait 43 44 for help at His hand,” and “to walk in His obedience.” The second reason why Calvin employed the notion of “Divine Hiddenness” was the desire to avoid any form of scholastic intellectualism. His theology was without any pretension of undertaking a demonstration of God’s existence. According to Calvin, humans are unable to understand God, much less demonstrate His existence. Calvin has often been charged with having over-intellectualized Christian 45 faith. William Bouwsma in his essay writes that “the assumption that 41 42 43 44 45

306

CO 5:335: “Haec igitur praecipua vitae nostrae cura et sollicitudo sit oportet, Deum quaerere et ad eum omni animi studio adspirare, nec alibi nisi in ipso acquiescere.” CO 34:11, 133, 191, 249, 404 and 603; CO 35:249, 315 and 458. Sermons on Job, p. 514: CO 35:604: CO 35:604: “d’attendre salut de Lui.” Sermons on Job, p. 675: CO 35:315: “à cheminer en son obeissance.” According to M. Ferdinand Brunetière, Calvin has intellectualized religion and reduced it to a form which can appeal only to the reasonable, or rather to the reasoning man. “In that oratorical work which he called The Institutes,” M. Brunetière wrote: “If there is any movement . . . it is not one which comes from the heart. . . and- I am speaking here only of the writer or the religious theorizer, not of the man - the insensibility of Calvin is equalled only by the rigor of his reasoning …. The religion, according to Calvin, consists essentially, almost exclusively, in the adhesion of the intellect to truths all but demonstrated, and commends itself by nothing except by the literalness of its agreement with a text - which is a matter of pure philology - and by the solidity of its logical edifice - which is nothing but a matter of pure reasoning” To Calvin, he adds, “religious truth attests itself in no other manner and by no other means than mathematical truth. As he would reason on the properties of a triangle, or of a sphere, so Calvin reasons on the attributes of God. All that will not adjust itself to the exigencies of his dialectic, he contests or he rejects . . . Cartesian before Descartes, rational evidence, logical in contradiction are for him the test or the proof of truth. He would not believe if faith did not stay itself on a formal syllogism. From a ‘matter of the heart’, if I may so say, Calvin transformed religion into an ‘affair of the intellect.’ Discours de combat, 1903, pp. 135-140. I owe this quotation to Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of God,” from The Princeton Theological Review, vii 1909, pp. 381-436.

the mind is adequate to grasp the world as it actually is inclined him 46 toward an intellectualized Christianity that he never relinquished.” Undoubtedly he was essentially a rationalist and repeatedly attached 47 importance to doctrine. In the Institutes he wrote: Doctrine is not a matter of talk but of life. It is not grasped by the intellect alone, like other branches of learning. It is received only when it fills the soul and finds a 48 home in the inmost recesses of the heart.

Even in his homiletic production and more specifically in the Sermons on Job the references to the importance of doctrine which “is much more 49 50 precious than persons” are numerous. But what kind of doctrine did Calvin have in mind? Undoubtedly he did not have in mind a corpus of theoretical statements. In this respect it is noteworthy what he pointed out just at the beginning of the Sermons on Job, when he wrote that beyond the experience of Job one ought “to regard the doctrine which is 51 comprehended in this book,” which he summed up as follows: 1) Although the devil “brings us the afflictions, they proceed and are sent by God.”52 2) “God does not always afflict men according to the measure of their sins; but he has His secret judgements of which He does not give us an account.”53 3) One “has to wait until God may reveal to us why He does this or that.”54

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

53

W. Bouwsma, John Calvin: a Sixteenth Century Portrait, p. 98. In the Corpus Reformatorum this word in French recurs more than 8000 times, whereas in Latin approximately more than 7000 times. ICR III.6.4. Sermons on Job, p. 367: CO 34:208: “la doctrine est beaucoup plus précieuse que ne sont pas les personnes.” The word “doctrine” recurs around 865 times. H. Dekker, Sermons from Job, p. 4: CO 33:22: “Or cependant outre l’histoire nous avons à regarder la doctrine qui est comprise en ce livre.” Sermons from Job, p. 4: CO 33:22: “Or en premier lieu nous avons à noter quant à nos afflictions, combien que Dieu les envoye, et qu’elles procedent de luy, toutesfois que le diable cependant nous les suscite.” Sermons from Job, p. 5: CO 33:23: “Dieu n’afflige pas tousiours les hommes selon la mesure de leurs pechez: mais qu’il a ses iugemens secrets, desquels il ne nous rend pas conte.”

307

Only by having in mind these premises, one can understand why Calvin was never tired to emphasize the utility of the doctrine, which is good, since it contributes to our instruction. He pointed out repeatedly that God “has not put us forth as oxen and dogs, but as reasonable creatures, who 55 bear His image,” “recognize Him and render to Him what belongs to 56 57 Him.” It is significant that one of the words that occurred often was “raison,” as in Sermon 103, when he wrote: God has not put men in this world to deny them any intelligence, for He does not wish them to be like asses or horses, He has endowed them with reason and has not wished them to understand.58

He made extensive use of this instrument which represents an 59 “inestimable benefit and privilege” in interpreting the Scripture. Given certain principles, the deductions that logically follow must have been necessarily true. All his theology was permeated by a geometric precision. Bernard Cottret comments: His thought remained permeated with the rigor, the geometry, the fascination, and the memory of the law. The God of Calvin, like the later one of the philosophers, was equipped with a square and compass. 60

54 55

56

57 58

59

60

308

Sermons from Job, p. 5: CO 33:23: “il faut que nous attendions jusques à ce qu’il nous révèle pourquoy il fait ceci, ou cela.” Sermons from Job, p. 49: CO 33:146: “Dieu nous a ici mis en ce monde, afin que nous fussions ses enfans: il ne nous v a pas mis comme des veaux, et des chiens, mais comme créatures raisonnables qui portons sa figure.” Sermons from Job, p.15 : CO 33:31: “Dieu a voulu avoir des créatures raisonnables, qui le cogneussent, et l’ayans cognu, luy rendissent ce qu’il luy appartient.” See also CO 33:146, 212; CO 34:412, 419, 424; CO 35:22, 237. Around more than 600 times. I owe this quotation of William Bouwsma John Calvin, p. 99: CO 34:523: “Dieu n’a point mis les hommes en ce monde pour les priver de toute intelligence: car il ne veut point qu’ils soyent semblables à des asnes, ou à des chevaux, il les a douëz de raison, et a voulu qu’il fussent entendus.” Sermons on Job, p. 716: CO 35:424: “Nous avons raison et iugement, que tant plus sommes nous tenus à Dieu, lequel nous a donné un bien et un privilege inestimable.” B. Cottret, Calvin a Biography, p. 298. The author also quotes the 147 Sermon on Job, where Calvin wrote: “The Divine architect has established such proportion and measure that the earth will remain in its place.” In CO 35:368.

Just as he would have reasoned on the properties of a triangle or a sphere, so Calvin, “Cartesian” before Descartes, conceived the task of the theologian. One wonders if his distinction between the two realms, the forum conscientiae and the forum externum, had a strong resonance 61 with Descartes’ distinction between res cogitans and res extensa. However, he never considered faith to be a merely intellectual assent to certain doctrinal statements. His rationalism was more formal than a 62 philosophical rationalism, as John Leith cautions: Calvin’s theology is not rationalistic in the Stoic or 18th century sense. It is not a rationalism of material, but of form in which the dogmatic material appears, by which they are bound together and in which they are expressed and systematized.63

Although Calvin tried to express his convictions in rational terms, he never hinted that human logic, by itself, and independently of Divine revelation, could attain a perfect knowledge of God. “The learning of 64 God,” he stressed, “surmounts all capacities of man.” He exhorted: Let us content ourselves with that which the Scripture tells us. Let us tarry the coming of the latter day, at which time we shall know no more by parcel meal, nor as it were in dimness but we shall the behold the things face to face which are showed us now as it were in a glass.65

Human capacities are weakened by the Fall. Whenever he spoke of the necessity to “submit himself to reason,” he meant not the human but the

61 62 63

64 65

I owe this remark to Dr. Torrance Kirby. B. Cottret writes that “many of Calvin’s works, and not the least important, are permeated with rationalism.“ In Calvin A Biography, p. 281. “Calvin’s Awareness of the Holy and the Enigma of His Theology: What Is Reformed Calvinist Theology?” in Pilgrimage of a Presbyterian: Collected Shorter Writings, ed. Charles E. Raynal (Louisville: Geneva Press, 2001), p. 172. Sermons on Job, p. 118: CO 33:323: “Car la doctrine de Dieu surmonte toute capacité humaine.” Sermons on Job, p. 33: CO 33:105: “et cependant nous avons à nous contenter de ce que l’Escriture prononce…. et combien que nous ne le comprenions pas, attendons que ce dernier iour soit venu, auquel nous ne cognoistrons plus en partie, ne comme en obscurité (ainsi que dit sainct Paul 1. Cor. 13,9. sv.) mais nous contemplerons face à face ce qui nous est maintenant monstré comme en un miroir.”

309

66

reason that “proceeds from God.” He jealously defended the mystery of God, and in order to safeguard His wholly Otherness, insisted that we 67 are not in position to understand God’s Wisdom which is “infinite.” 68 He stressed that God dwells in unapproachable light, that His height is 69 70 infinite, His majesty too high. He repeatedly encouraged the believers to be “sober, knowing the final measure of our understanding 71 and the infinite highness of God’s majesty.” Faith in God is not merely an intellectual issue for Calvin, but also an experiential one. He asked provocatively: What shall we have gained by knowing curiously what the Being and what the glorious Majesty of God is, if in the meantime we understand not that things of Him which we ought to feel by experience and which He declares unto us?72

Calvin deemed it impious to try and pierce the veil which God has drawn over His face and to go beyond His revelation. The fact that God has given us the light of understanding does not mean that we can inquire 73 into God’s secrets. The French Reformer repeatedly warned his 66

67 68

69 70

71 72

73

310

Sermons on Job, p. 117: CO 33:319: “C’est une grande vertu que se rendre docile, c’est à dire de s’assubietir à raison: car sans cela il faut que les hommes se desbordent comme en despit de Dieu. Qu’ainsi soit, c’est le principal honneur que Dieu demande de nous, que ce que nous cognoissons estre de luy soit receu sans aucune replique, qu’il soit tenu bon et iuste, et qu’on s’y accorde. Or est-il ainsi que toute verité et raison procede de Dieu.” Sermons on Job, p. 204. CO 33:371: “Il est dit que ses conseils sont un abysme: il est dit, qu’il habite une clarté inaccessible, que nous ne pouvons pas atteindre si haut que de savoir ce qui est en luy.” CO 33:622: “adorer sa hautesse qui est infinie.” CO 35:432: “Et puis quand nous pensons que la majesté de Dieu est encores eslevee par-dessus tous les cieux, d’une si longue distance que nous n’y pouvons point parvenir.” Sermons on Job, p. 649: CO 35:245: “il nous faut estre sobres cognoissans la petite mesure de nostre esprit, et la hautesse infinie de la maiesté de Dieu.” Sermons on Job, p. 238: CO 33:372: “Car qu’aurons nous gaigné, quand nous aurons cognu subtilement que c’est de l’essence de Dieu et de sa maiesté glorieuse, et cependant que nous ne comprendrons pas ce que nous devons sentir de luy par experience,et ce qu’il nous declare?” CO 34:522: “Et nous voyons que ceux qui n’ont point entendu un seul mot de latin, afin de s’abbrutir ainsi parlent latin, Mitte arcana Deì c’est à dire, qu’il ne se faut point enquerir des secrets de Dieu.”

listeners not to try to overstep the limits that are intrinsic to human nature and to “content the fond curiosity of those that advance themselves against God, but rather to learn to confute them after the 74 manner of S. Paul’s speech, saying: who art thou o man?” For Calvin it was absolutely clear that human reason and understanding are able to “discern the things that concern and belong here to this earthly life,” but not “to mount up into heaven and to enter into God’s secret 75 determination.” Instead of believing that revelation depends on reason, he held the opposite. The role of reason is essential, but it can not work without God’s revelation. The Augustinian mottos of credo ut intelligam and intelligo ut credam were implicit in Calvin’s theology. And yet he steadily refused to oppose faith to reason. He asked: “Will you sheet up God in so small room as your foolish brain is?” The only way to know God is by faith and not by reason, that is to say, “to send up our witters 76 thither, to honour the incomprehensible greatness that is in Him.” The question of Calvin’s attitude towards the ontological proof of Anselm or the cosmological five ways of Thomas Aquinas has often been discussed. Undoubtedly, the French Reformer was not a mere 77 fideist, as T.H.L. Parker suggests. On the contrary he held that a sense 78 of a Divinity is engraved in the hearts of men and that “the knowledge

74

75

76

77 78

Sermons on Job, p. 222: CO 33:590-591: “Si nous la voulons savoir, n’est ce pas comme rompre par force la muraille que Dieu avoit mise? Il nous met la barre pour dire, Vous ne passerez point outre: et si nous le faisons, n’est-ce point despiter Dieu que cela? Ainsi donc, que nous ne prenions point trop de peines pour contenter la folle curiosité de ceux qui s’eslevent ainsi contre Dieu: mais plustost apprenons de les rembarrer à la façon et au stile de sainct Paul, Qui es tu homme?“ Sermons on Job, p. 478: CO 34:506: “Ainsi donc apprenons, que combien que nostre esprit soitsuffisant pour discerner ici bas de ce qui compette et concerne la vie terrienne: ce n’est pas à dire que nous puissions monter iusques au ciel, entrer aux conseils estroits de Dieu, et enclorre en nostre sens et en nostre cerveau ce que nostre Seigneur cache par devers soy.” Sermons on Job, p. 712: CO 35:414: “Veux-tu icy enclorre Dieu en une si petite mesure commeest ton fol cerveau? Il nous faut monter en haut, et eslever là nos esprits pour adorer ceste grandeur incomprehensible qui est en Luy.” Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1959). It needs only to remind the axiom that Calvin laid dawn in his Opus Magnum, when he wrote: “We advance as incontrovertible that there is in the human mind a certain awareness of a Divinity.”

311

of God shines forth in the fashioning of the universe and the continuing 79 government of it.” On the other hand, God’s revelation, far from satisfying futile questions, has the sole purpose of telling humans what they need to know for salvation, while responding to the anguishing existential problems which stemmed from suffering. Although Calvin did not quote the famous dictum of Melanchthon Hoc est Christum cognoscere, beneficia eius cognoscere, this motive is well present in his theology. Since to know God is to know the benefits that God grants to human beings, only those who seek those benefits can truly be said to know God. Charles Partee points out: Calvin is more concerned with the knowledge of God, than the being of God. That is, Calvin is not interested in speculations about God in Himself, but in God, as revealed in His word. Calvin is concerned with God-for-us. Thus to know God is to know His relationship to us, as it is revealed and to refuse to search for a hidden God. Of course, God-revealed-in-us implies God-sovereign in Himself, but Calvin rejects the attempts to go behind or above God’s revelation.80

There is a kernel of truth in this statement, although Partee’s references 81 do not always seem pertinent. Even in recognizing that God has 82 created us “as reasonable creatures,” Calvin went to great lengths to warn believers not to be engaged in vain speculations. In Sermon 57 he 79 80 81

82

312

See the title of ICR I.5. C. Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1977), p. 29. To support his point of view Charles Partee quotes two texts of Calvin’s Institutes, namely I.5.1 and I.4.4 (CO 3:156,17f), but unfortunately both references are not relevant. In the first, Calvin, far from condemning the search for a hidden God, stressed on the contrary the incomprehensibility of His essence and His hidden majesty. (CO 3:59-60). In the second text, the speculations the French Reformer had in mind were related not to the hidden God, but to the time or order in which the Angels were created and in this precise context he invited his readers in reading the Scriptures to direct their inquiries and meditations to those things which tend to edification, not to indulge in curiosity, or in studying things of no use. The French translation sounds: “Nous devons aussi tenir une autre reigle, c’est qu’en lisant l’Escriture nous cherchions continuellement et meditions ce qui appartient à l’édification, ne laschant point la bride à nostre curiosité, n’a un desir d’apprendre les choses qui ne nous sont point utiles.” CO 3:195. Sermons on Job, p. 49.

sharply criticized the papist theologians, because they wanted to go beyond what God established and they forgot that “our true wisdom is not to desire to know more than that which God shows us in His 83 school.” He rejected any theoretical knowledge of God which held no implications for the life of the knower. He asked “What avails it, in 84 short, to know a God with whom we have nothing to do?” He asserted that knowledge of God should lead the knower to have fear, and show reverence toward God and to seek every good from God and then, having received, to give credit to God alone. Although contrary to theoretical peculations, the French Reformer 85 and some adopted and reworked some philosophical insights 86 philosophical distinction. The notion of Deus Absconditus never became an article of faith for him, though he believed it was unavoidable to speak of it. Contrary to 87 Hunter’s interpretation, Calvin was neither “an agnostic,” nor slid into agnosticism and he was firmly convinced that only in the most hidden recesses of God’s will is it possible to find answers to the many “whys” of human existence. He wrote: There is in the book of Job, a Divine and remarkable distinction made between that wisdom of God which is unsearchable, and the brightness of which holds all human nature at an immeasurable distance, and that wisdom which is made manifest to us in His revealed and written Law. In the same manner you, if you did not thus confound all things, ought to have made a distinction between that wonderful and 83

84 85

86 87

Sermons on Job, p. 266: CO 33:709: “Voila quelle est nostre vraye sagesse, c’est, que nous ne desirions point de plus savoir que ce que Dieu nous monstre en son escole.” ICR I.2.2: CO 2:35: “Quid denique iuvat Deum cognoscere quocum nihil sit nobis negotii?” It needs only to remind the concepts of the universal Sensus divinitatis and of Providence: the former taken from the Roman philosopher Cicero and the latter from Seneca. Recall the distinction between necessitas consequentis and necessitas consequentiae. “Calvin’s doctrine of God is indeed a compound of very definite assertions and a pronounced agnosticism. Occasionally he leaves one with the impression that the God of revelation might turn out to be something quite different from the God of reality. Ultimate inscrutability characterises both His nature and the purposes and principles of His Providence and government.” In The Teaching of Calvin: A Modern Interpretation, 2nd edn., (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1950), p. 48.

313

profound Justice of God, which no human capacity can comprehend, and that rule of justice which God has prescribed for the regulations of the lives of men, in His revealed Law.88

Calvin’s central idea was that the hidden purposes of God are working in the lives of his faithful and that the hidden, rather than the revealed God, can give a final and definitive answer to the problem of Theodicy. Dekker illustrates this point well: One of the most distinctive features of Calvin’s entire pastoral theology is his accent on the hidden in God, and the final mystery of all His dealings with His children. He has no better comfort to offer to troubled spirits than the unrevealed purposes of a God of sovereign grace. The present writer is of the opinion that the incomprehensibility of God, and the final inscrutability to man of all His doings, constitute the leading thought in Calvin’s preaching on Job.89

Even when the Reformer seemed concerned with other issues, the notion of God’s Hiddenness represented the common denominator of his 90 Sermons, not only whenever he tried to explain why the righteous suffered more grievously than evildoers, but also when he attempted to vindicate God’s Justice.

88

89 90

314

“The Secret Providence of God” in Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 327. ”Sicuti in libro Iob (28, 27 sq.) distinctio notatu digna statuitur inter sapientiam Dei impervestigabilem, a qua arcetur humanum genus, et eam quae in lege nobis tradita est, sic te quoque, nisi omnia confunderes, potius distinguere oportuerat inter profundam illam iustitiam et admirabilem quae humanis mentibus non capitur, et iustitiae regulam quae regendae hominum vitae in lege praescripta est.” CO 9:310. H. Dekker, Sermons from Job, trans. Leroy Nixon (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. xxx. Thomas Derek wrote: “Thus, in over sixty of the Sermons (almost 40%), Calvin directly resorts to an analysis of this issue, sometimes to explain why some suffer more than others, sometimes to defend God’s Providence against attack, sometimes to indicate what is at the heart of Christian piety: a submission in quiet, humble reverence to the God whose ways we may not comprehend.” In Calvin’s Teaching on Job (London: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), p. 153.

6.3 The Loci, where the Hiddenness of God can be perceived Calvin’s opposition to rational speculations on the inscrutability of God did not prevent him from trying to understand and deepen the contexts in which the Hiddenness of God could be perceived and assessed. Calvin deemed that the contexts in which the Hiddenness of God is particularly evident are three, namely: 1) In His essence. 2) In His creation. 3) In His modus operandi. Let us examine them in detail. The first form of Hiddenness occurs when men are not able to effectively understand who God is in His essence, as Calvin remarked: But by the knowing that is spoken of here, it is meant that we cannot comprehend God in such wise as He is in His majesty: we come far short of that: it is enough for us that we have some little taste of it; we be not able to comprehend the infinite light that is in Him; it suffices that we have some little sparks thereof. Thus when we see in what wise God is known: namely in that our capacities is too small to conceive and comprehend Him. Yet notwithstanding his meaning is not to be utterly hid from men: for he shows Himself enough to be honoured at their hands… For as for His substance or being that is invisible and hidden from us.91

The expression Calvin used most often to stress the distance between God and man was “that the sensual man comprehends not the secrets of

91

Sermons on Job, p. 670-671: CO 35:304: “Mais quand il est ici parlé de cognoistre, cela s’entend que nous ne comprenons pas Dieu tel qu’il est en sa maiesté: il s’en faut beaucoup: il suffit bien que nous en ayons quelque petit goust : nous ne sommes point capables de comprendre ceste clarté infinie qui est en luy, il suffit bien que nous en ayons quelques petites étincelles. Voila donc comme Dieu n’est point cognu. Voire d’autant que nostre mesure est trop petite pour le comprendre et l’enclore: mais tant y a qu’il ne veut point estre caché aux hommes: car il se monstre assez pour estre adoré d’eux…. Car de son essence, elle est invisible, elle nous est cachee.”

315

92

God,” whereas the only proper attitude, would be “reverence and 93 humility.” In Sermon 150 the French Reformer wrote: Our Lord’s secrets belong to Himself, therefore we must not be inquisitive of the things which God lifted not to disclose unto us, but be contended to be taught here by the mean that He has ordered and in the meanwhile let God alone with His secrets without assaying to reach above Him, and glorify Him, knowing that we be not yet come to the perfection of beholding Him face to face, but that it behoves us first to be transformed into His image, which thing shall not be fully done, till He has ridden us clean of all our fleshly imperfections.94

This imperative not to climb too high was reiterated often: Let us suffer God to school us and let us be good scholars to Him. Let us let Him alone with His secrets, that is to say, let us hold us contended with the doctrine that he has set down unto us… and let us pass no further.95

Calvin made sarcastic remarks about human efforts to cross the border established by God: What are thou? And what is God? He is thy creator and does thou set thyself to dispute of His works, as if thou were his fellow? And what presumeth thou to do? Hast thou anything in thee, wherefore thou shouldest enter into so deep matters and

92 93 94

95

316

Sermons on Job, p. 679: CO 35:326 and CO 35:483: “que l’homme sensuel ne comprend pas les secrets de Dieu.” CO 35:484. Sermons on Job, pp. 706-707: CO 35:398: “Le Seigneur nostre Dieu a ses secrets: que nous n’enquerions point de ce que Dieu ne nous a point voulu reveler: contentons nous d’estre ici enseignez par le moyen qu’il a ordonné: et cependant laissons à Dieu ses secrets, n’attentons rien par dessus: glorifions-le, sachans que nous le sommes point encores parvenus à ceste perfection-la de le contempler face à face: mais qu’il faut que nous soyons transfigurez premierement en son image, ce qui ne sera point en perfection, iusques à ce qu’il nous ait despouillez de toutes nos imperfections charnelles.” Sermons on Job, p. 706: CO 35:397-398: “Souffrons que Dieu face office de maistre entre nous, et que nous luy soyons bons disciples: et cependant laissons-luy ses secrets, dit-il, c’est à dire, contentons-nous de la doctrine qu’il nous a proposee.. et ne passons point plus outre.”

make all things subject to thy judgments? Where are thou become wretched creature?96

On other occasions he made recourse to images in order to emphasize once again the same concept, when he wrote that “Man is a pot of brittle 97 earth, a vessel full of all filth and naughtiness.” In Sermon 34 Calvin had the opportunity to better clarify his point of view concerning the essence of Divine revelation by pointing out that God could be discernible only “by His works and not in His substance, “since, he stressed: In His substance we shall never see Him. Nevertheless we know Him after such a sort, as we be constrained to see that His hands has passed that way. Thus we see the record which He yields us of His presence. God then passes before us, that is to say, He makes us to perceive His power which spreads itself in such wise through all the world, as it is hard at hand with us: and yet notwithstanding He is invisible.98

For Calvin it was absolutely clear that God can not be understood in His infinite essence, but only: By His virtues, where through He communicates Himself unto us and chiefly in that He tells us His will and teaches us what manner of one He is and shows us how 99 we ought to walk, and how our life ought to be ruled.

96

97 98

99

Sermons on Job, p. 384: CO 34:256: “Qui es tu? Et qui est Dieu? C’est ton Createur: et tu t’adresses à Lui pour disputer de Ses oeuvres, comme si tu estois son pareil? Et que presumes-tu? As-tu de quoi, que tu entrés ainsi haut, et que tu vueilles tout assuiettir à ton sens? Où en es-tu povre creature?” Sermons on Job, p. 691. Sermons on Job, p. 158: CO 33:426: “Par ses oeuvres, non point en son essence: car en son essence nous ne le voyons iamais. Or cependant nous le cognoissons d’une telle sorte, que nous sommes contraints de voir que sa main y aura passé. Voila comme un tesmoignage qu’il nous rend de sa presence, Dieu donc passe devant nous, c’est à dire qu’il nous fait sentir sa vertu laquelle s’espand par tout le monde tellement qu’elle nous est prochaine: et toutesfois il est invisible.”See also Sermons on Job, p. 671 : CO 35:304. Sermons on Job, p. 375: CO 34:230: “Nous cognoissons Dieu principalement sous les vertus par lesquelles il se communique à nous, et principalement quand il nous declare sa volonté, quand ii nous enseigne quel il est, et qu’il nous monstre comme nous devons cheminer, et comme nostre vie doit estre reglee.” See also CO 35:452.

317

In this perspective the world becomes a looking glass in which we can 100 “behold His infinite glory, wisdom, power and mighty.” Even other attributes, like God being wise of heart and mighty of strength, were interpreted not literally, but as general metaphors of a reality which transcends our limited understanding. From these considerations an important consequence follows: If the knowledge we can attain of God is deeply existential and practical more than theoretical and abstract, then the only proper attitude is to adore what one cannot grasp. It is for this reason that a deep sense of astonishment towards the mystery and the otherness of God permeates the prayer of the French Reformer. Towards the mysterium tremendum of God, one should not cross the limits established by God, as he repeatedly cautioned: “Lord, although Thy judgments be as a deep gulf: 101 yet will not we presume to encounter them.” The second form of Hiddenness occurs when human beings are not able to recognize the traces of God, although the universe can be 102 “a regarded as “a picture, which clearly points out to its Creator,” 103 104 105 theatre,” “a mirror “ and “a book written in big letters.” Although nature indisputably points to the presence of God, the human 100 CO 35:368: “Pourquoy c’est que Dieu nous propose la terre comme un miroir? C’est afin que nous y puissions contempler sa gloire, sa sagesse, sa vertu, et puissance infinie.” 101 Sermons on Job, p. 325: CO 34:98: “Seigneur, combien que ce soyent des abysmes profonds que tes iugemens, si est-ce que nous ne presumons point de venir au contraire.” 102 CO 33:570: “Ce bel ordre que nous voyons entre le iour et la nuict, les estoilles que nous voyons au ciel, et tout le reste, cela nous est comme une peinture vive de la maiesté de Dieu.” 103 Sermons on Job, p. 202: “Certainly God has set us in this world as on a great stage, to behold His works ad to confess that He is wise, righteous and almighty yea even after a wonderful manner.” CO 33:539: “Et de fait Dieu nous a mis en ce monde, afin que nous soyons comme en un grand theatre pour contempler ses oeuvres,pour confesser qu’il se monstre et sage, et iuste, et puissant, voire d’une façon admirable.” 104 CO 35:315: “C’est pour le moins, qu’estans eu ce monde nous ayons les yeux ouverts pour considerer les oeuvres de Dieu qui sont et prochaines de nous, et faciles à voir, encores que nous ne soyons point gens lettrez ni subtils: car les plus idiots apperçoivent l’ordre de nature estre tel, que là, ils voyent la maiesté de Dieu comme en un miroir.” In the Institutes the universe was defined as a “speculum.” CO 2:49.

318

reaction is quite often marked by 108 109 roughness, deafness and blindness.

106

hebetudes,

107

stupidity,

105 CO 33:428: “Il est vray que c’est desia une brutalité trop grande à nous, que le ciel et la terre, et tout l’ordre de nature ne nous suffise point pour nous monstrer que c’est de Dieu. Car voila un livre escrit en assez grosses lettres.”In the Institutes the universe was also defined as a “spectaculum.” In CO 2:45. 106 “Qui est donc cause que nous sommes ainsi abbrutis, et que nous ne cognoissons pas ce qui est de Dieu? Et c’est d’autant que nous ne regardons pas à ce qui nous est tout visible et patent. Chacun dira pour s’excuser, O ie ne suis point clerc, ie n’ay point esté en l’escole. Ouy bien: mais il faudroit apprendre seulement des bestes brutes: la terre qui ne parle point, les poissons qui sont muets, ceux-la nous pourront enseigner de Dieu: non pas tout ce qui en est, mais pour en donner quelque intelligence. Or est-il ainsi que nous sommes du tout hébétez: il faut donc conclure qu’il ne tient qu’à nostre ingratitude, et que nous ne daignons pas ouvrir les yeux pour contempler ce que Dieu nous monstre. Voici un passage qui est bien digne d’estre observé.” CO 33:570. See also: CO 33:211, 285, 394, 415, 428, 715, CO 34:145, CO 35:311-312, 329, 334, 485. 107 CO 35:429: “Car nous sommes hardis, voire pour nous despiter contre Dieu, quand sa gloire ne nous est point cognue. Et c’est nostre stupidité, qui nous donne une telle audace, car d’autant que nous mettons un voile devant nos yeux, qui nous empesche de contempler la gloire de Dieu, chacun s’abbrutist ainsi. Voila pourquoi nous sommes orgueilleux: car si nous apprehendions que c’est de Dieu, il est certain que nous serions tous abbatus, qu’on ne verroit plus ni orgueil ni outrecuidance aux hommes.” CO 35:461: “Or si nous estions bien sages, il ne faudroit point sortir hors de nous pour contempler la maiesté de Dieu: mais il faut que les hommes soyent renvoyez aux bestes à cause de leur ingratitude, quand ils ne cognoissent point Dieu selon qu’il se declare en eux.” See also CO 33:64, 571, 594, CO 34:94, 202, CO 35:177, 198, 201, 288, 391. 108 CO 35:396: “Quand nous voyons une telle chose, d’autant plus que Dieu se declare privément à nous, nous avons iuste raison de le glorifier: et ne le faisans pas, nous ne saurions excuser nostre ingratitude en façon que ce soit. N’est-ce pas grand’ chose que nous voyons à l’oeil les miracles de Dieu (il «nous les monstre au doigt: c’est une chose qui ne se voit point seulement une fois en la vie, mais tous les iours il recommence) et cependant nous n’y pensons point droitement? Nous foulons l’herbe au pie: et nous ne daignons pas ietter l’oeil iusques là pour dire, Benit soit Dieu qui fait ainsi fructifier la terre. Au reste que nous avisions quant et quant à nostre rudesse et stupidité.” 109 CO 35:379-380: “Nous voyons que le soleil ne sort iamais de son chemin, tellement que quand tout cela sera bien marqué, on trouvera qu’en tous les iours de l’année il y a diversité:….: et neantmoins quand l’ordre est ainsi gardé, et n’est-ce point une chose qui nous doit ravir en estonnement, pour nous faire adorer la maiesté incomprehensible de nostre Dieu? Ouy, si nous n’estions pires que bestes brutes. Nous avons Ies yeux, et nous n’en voyons goutte: Dieu fait resonner ses creatures

319

In Sermon 148, commenting on Job 38:6, the French Reformer employed poetic expressions in order to better illustrate the effects of human deafness: Be these words God betokened, that as soon as the stars were made, it was a sette song or melodies to glorify Him. Not that the stars sung, not that they be sensible creatures, but for so much as God did therein set out his own greatness, goodness power and wisdom: it is all one as if He had spoken lowd and shirle. Do we then lift up our eyes to heaven? We must needes heare the melodies as the stars, according as they began to sing at the creation of the world. And surely such melodies ought to right to waken us and to stir us up to sing the Lords prayer and to glorify Him. Yea though we were stark deaf, yet ought we to give ear to the melodious songs and to receive them: for behold, even the angels of heaven are provoked to do so. But we be to blockish in that behalf, insomuch that when we lift up our eyes to heaven to behold the stars, we consider not too what purpose they should serve us.110

These words ought not to be interpreted as expression of sentimentalism, since no one was less sentimental than Calvin. Rather they find their justification in the wider context of Calvin’s general perspective: God has revealed Himself not only in the person of Jesus Christ, but also in human nature and in the universe. Although such knowledge of God in itself does not bring about salvation, it renders human beings completely 111 inexcusable. muettes, d’autant que sa gloire est là imprimee: mais nous n’oyons rien de ceste melodie-là.” 110 Sermons on Job, p. 695: CO 35:369: “Par ces mots Dieu signifie, que si tost que les estoilles ont esté faites, ç’a esté comme un chant ordonné, et une melodie pour le glorifier. Non pas que les estoilles chantent, non pas aussi qu’elles soyent creatures sensibles : mais pource que Dieu y a manifesté sa grandeur, sa bonté, sa vertu, et sagesse, c’est autant comme s’il parloit haut et clair. Dressons-nous donc les yeux au ciel? Nous devons ouir la melodie des estoilles, comme elles ont commencé de chanter dés leur creation: et il est certain qu’une telle melodie nous devroit bien resveiller pour nous soliciter à chanter les louanges du Seigneur, et à le glorifier. Ouy, si nous n’estions plus que sourds, il nous faudroit bien recevoir, et prester l’aureille de nostre coeur à tels chants, et si melodieux: car voila mesmes les Anges de paradis qui sont incitez à ce faire. Mais nous sommes par trop stupides en cest endroit, tellement qu’en levant les yeux au ciel pour contempler les estoilles, nous ne regardons point dequoy elles nous doivent servir.” 111 Calvin, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. XIX, p. 19: “Faith is not conceived by the bare observation of heaven and earth, but by the hearing of the word. It follows from this that men cannot be brought to the saving knowledge of

320

The third form of Hiddenness occurs when God’s Justice is openly contradicted by the seemingly confused experiences of history. Among them Calvin enumerated the many incongruities of life: the suffering and 112 113 114 the anguish of the church, the success, the triumph, and the 115 the scandals of the persistent existence of impunity of the wicked, 116 117 118 evil and injustice, the fact that God regards neither good nor evil,

112 113

114

115

116

117

118

God except by the direction of the word. Yet this does not prevent them being rendered inexcusable even without the word, for, even if they are naturally deprived of light, they are nevertheless blind through their own malice.“ CO 48, 327-8: “Atqui fides non ex nudoet coeli et terrae intuitu concipitur, sed ex verbi auditu. Unde sequitur, non posse, nisi verbi directionead salvificam Dei notitiam homines adduci. Neque tamen hoc obstat, quo minus etiam absque verbo reddantur inexcusabiles, qui tametsi naturaliter luce privati, propria tamen malitia caecutiunt, quemadmodum docet Paulus primo ad Rom. Capite.” CO 35:142. CO 34:263: “En somme quand nous voyons ici les meschans estre à leur aise et en prosperité, et qu’ils font leurs triomphes: il est vray qu’il ne se peut faire que nous ne soyons tentez, et n’ayons quelque pointe là dedans: Et comment? Qu’est-ce que ceci veut dire, que Dieu soit là au ciel oisif, qu’il semble qu’il dorme, qu’il ne prouvoye point aux choses d’ici bas?” CO 34:147: “S’il advient que les meschans soyent eslevez, mesmes qu’ils dressent la teste iusques aux nues, sachons qu’il ne faut point que nous soyons troublez pour cela, comme si Dieu estoit endormi, comme s’il ne regardoit plus au monde, et qu’il n’en eust plus de soin.” CO 34:221: “Quand donc nous ne voyons point que nostre Seigneur reprime les meschans, et qu’il les corrige s’ils ont failli, ni aussi à l’opposite qu’il donne secours aux bons: il est vrai que ceci nous pourroit bien fascher: car nous ourrions concevoir quelque chagrin et ennui en nous, pour demander à Dieu pourquoy c’est qu’il dissimule (car il semble qu’il soit endormi) mais si est-ce qu’il ne faut point ue nous soyons si hastifs ne si bouillans.” See also CO 34:347 and CO 34:394. CO 34:369: “Vray est que Iob en a tenu icy devant long propos: mais nous savons que c’est un tel scandale, et si grand, que nous en sommes troublez à chacune ìois: ie di, les plus parfaits. Si le mal continue, et que Dieu n’y mette point de remede, chacun se tormenté, et dispute-on, comment il est possible que Dieu soit si patient, et comme il dissimule tant, et qu’il semble qu’il soit comme endormi quand il permet ainsi tout.” CO 33:281: “S’il (Dieu) dissimule, et qu’il attende les pecheurs en patience, il nous semble qu’il soit endormi, et ne gouverne plus le monde, qu’il laisse aller les choses sans qu’il y vueille remedier.” CO 33:488: “Nous voyons que nostre esprit nous pousse à cela, que si les choses ne vienent à nostre pbantasie, il nous semble que tout se tourne par fortune, et que Dieu ne regarde plus en ce monde, ou bien que Dieu ne face point son office, ou qu’il soit comme endormi, ou qu’il ne luy chaille ne de bien ne de mal.”

321

119

120

or He tests the patience of believers and hides men’s rights. It was especially when he reported the cries of those who, persecuted and oppressed, asked to be vindicated that Calvin’s prose reached its apex: We are amazed when we behold the state of the world. Why? If (?) it were in us, there is none of us all but he would dispose things clean otherwise. We see here the contraire in that Job says expressly that men cry from out of the city, as if he should say, I will not speak of unknown faults, but of the injuries that are notorious, which are known over all the cities, every street rings of them, every man speaks of them. And they that are so misused make such outcries, as many may be witnesses of the wrongs that are done them. Behold, the very necessity of them is so extreme, as it appears plainly, that it is high time to help them now or never, for they be ready to run out of their wittes: and yet of all the while. God makes no countenance that He is minded to help them: it should seem that their crying is in vain, and that it is but lost time for men to resort unto God. When men see this, what shall they say? But that God works not after our manner, and that all our wittes must needs be dazzled at it?121

For Calvin was absolutely clear that the Divine modus operandi is in itself incomprehensible, since “He does not always utter a present reason 122 in His works.” Calvin’s contemplation of the notion of Divine concealment, recorded in some of his autobiographical confessions, conveys a deep 119 CO 34:381: “Il est vrai qu’il cognoist tout: mais cependant il se cache, c’est à dire, il ne monstre pas qu’il vueille avoir le soin de ceux qui sont affligez pour les secourir: car il esprouve leur patience pour un temps.” 120 CO 34:449. 121 Sermons on Job, p. 431: CO 34:383: “Nous sommes confus quand nous voyons l’estat du monde. Pourquoi? Si c’estoit à, nous, il n’y auroit celui qui ne voulust disposer les choses tout autrement…. Nous voyons ici le contraire, quand notamment Iob dit, que les hommes crient de la cité: comme s’il disoit, Ie ne parlerai point des fautes qui sont incognuës mais on voit les iniures toutes notoires, cela est cognu par toute une ville, les ruës en seront pleines, chacun en saura parler: et ceux qui sont ainsi affligez crient, tellement qu’il a beaucoup de tesmoins de l’iniure qui est faite, voila la necessité mesmes qui est si extreme, qu’on voit qu’il est temps de les secourir ou iamais, car ils sont comme au bout de leurs sens: et cependant Dieu ne fait pas semblant de les vouloir aider: il semble qu’ils ayent crié en vain, et que c’est temps perdu que les hommes ayent eu leur recours à Dieu. Quand on voit cela, que dira-on? sinon que Dieu ne besongne point à nostre guise, et qu’il faut que tous nos sens soyent là comme esblouys?” 122 Sermons on Job, p. 87: CO 33:242: “Car Dieu n’a point une raison presente tousiours en ses œuvres.”

322

123

124

sense of agitation and even of despair. These feelings ought not to be overlooked. During Calvin’s time the Hiddenness of God was perceived more intensely and tragically than today, since it involved the disintegration of all the values that informed Christian society. Today, as we experience an ongoing process of secularization, men are more used to living etsi Deus non daretur. It was within this context of seeming disintegration that Calvin carefully emphasized the deep sense of uncertainty which stems from the acknowledgement that the world is engulfed by a flood of iniquity. Whenever injustice seems to reign, and we cannot perceive His 125 protection, God is perceived as hidden. Then we fall into the 126 temptation of thinking that He has forgotten us. Vice versa, when “God grants us the grace to see that He governs all things, and to perceive a fair and well disposed order, then is it as though His 127 countenance shone upon us as the sun.”

123 CO 34:540: ‘‘Pour exemple, si nous sommes en guerre, ou que nous soyons tormentez de famine ou de peste: nous voila comme en la nuict, le visage de Dieu nous est caché, nous ne savons de quel costé nous tourner.” 124 CO 35:455: “C’est le regard de Dieu: comme à l’opposite quand il nous tourne le dos, quand il se cache de nous, il faut que nous soyons comme perdus et desesperez: car il n’y a rien où l’homme puisse se reposer, sinon quand il cognoist que Dieu a le soin de lui. Cependant donc que Dieu daigne avoir l’oeil sur nous, il y a de quoi nous esiouyr, nous sommes asseurez qu’il nous maintiendra, et qu’il ne nous faut rien craindre : mais si Dieu nous met en oubli, nous sommes estonnez, et non sans cause: car nous sommes comme exposez en proye à Satan, cent mille morts nous environnent, et n’y a point de remede.“ 125 CO 33:740: “Au reste cognoissons si quelquesfois Dieu nous faisse, et qu’il se retire, et qu’il se cache tellement que nous n’appercevions point son secours, et que nous ne puissions point estre asseurez de sa protection.” 126 CO 35:458: “Il nous semble bien, que Dieu nous ait oubliez, quand nous sommes en quelque danger, et mesmes que nous sentons les coups, bref, que nous voyons la mort presente: et que cependant nous ne voyons point que Dieu nous vueille tendre la main: nous crions alors, Helas! Seigneur, où et-tu? comment m’as-tu oublié?” 127 Sermons on Job, p. 629; CO 35:193: “Dieu nous fait la grace de contempler qu’il gouverne tout, et que nous voyons un bel ordre et bien disposé, alors c’est comme si sa face luisoit sur nous comme un soleil.”

323

6.4 Causes resulting in the Hiddenness of God In analyzing the contexts in which the Hiddenness of God could be perceived, Calvin was compelled to examine its causes more deeply. He maintained that the incomprehensibility of God and the fact that He remains, despite all our efforts to penetrate His mystery, a Deus Absconditus, are caused by: 1) Humanity’s ontological limitation. 2) The restriction of God’s revelation. 3) The active concealment of God. Whereas the first aspect of God’s Hiddenness depends upon human ontological limitation, the second and third aspect have to do with the 128 Since each cause fact that God decides to hide Himself from us. requires a distinct approach, let us start with the first aspect. It is worth noting that the starting point of Calvin’s reflections on this theme was not represented by vague speculations about God’s essence, but by a simple acknowledgement of the incapacity of the human mind to comprehend Divine Justice. Susan Schreiner has hit the mark, when she writes: Central to [Calvin’s] exegesis is the recognition of the noetic or perceptual limitations of the human mind trapped in the disorder of human history. Calvin’s constant concern with the failure of the mind to know God, which dominates the first book of the Institutes, permeates his Sermons on Job. Confronted with the disorder of history, the mind’s eye squints and strains to see Divine Justice but cannot penetrate or transcend the present confusion which hides providence from its limited and fallen view. Calvin finds the heuristic key to the book of Job in 1 128 Hermann Selderhuis recently singled out another similar criterion that can be summed up as follows: “First of all, God is hidden in part because we as human beings simply cannot know God exhaustively. Here the Hiddenness is connected with our humanity. Secondly, we also obscure God through our sins, creating a kind of smoke screen between him and ourselves. Here the Hiddenness of God is due to our being sinners. Lastly, and most importantly, God’s Hiddenness is the result when God deliberately conceals Himself from us. Here Hiddenness originates in God’s being God.” Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), p. 180.

324

Corinthians 13:12 [‘Now we see in a mirror, dimly’]. He repeatedly cites this verse to describe the difficulty of perceiving providence in the midst of history. Caught within the turmoil of earthly events, the believer now sees God’s providence only as through a mirror dimly.129

Undoubtedly the theme of human ontological limitation in the light of the above heuristic key represents the common denominator of Calvin’s preaching. Any knowledge of God that humans could attain is necessarily partial and fragmentary. In order to better clarify this concept, Calvin made a very important distinction between the things here below which concern the present life and the things that pertain to everlasting life. Whereas the former are knowable, the latter, he cautioned, “are frail and utterly blind,” since 130 “our reason and understanding extend no further.” Instead of being knowable, God remains hidden, concealed, and incomprehensible. The metaphor of the mirror strengthens this notion. The smooth glass mirror we have today was unknown in Calvin’s time. Mirrors were of hammered metal and since the smoothness was irregular, the image that appeared in the mirror had only a vague resemblance to reality. So the mirror was, in Calvin’s opinion, a perfect metaphor for the human’s limited perception of God. Employing various expressions and with different emphases, Calvin relentlessly underscored human beings’ limitations in knowledge and insight. Before God “we are here with brute beasts, with worms, and with things so bad and evil, as there seems to be an infinite distance 131 132 133 between us and heaven,“ “rude and grossed” “ignorant an idiot,”

129 S. Schreiner, “Through a Mirror Dimly, Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” Calvin Theological Journal 21 (1986), pp. 175-193. 130 Sermons on Job, p. 479: CO 34:509: “nostre raison et intelligence ne s’estend point plus loin qu’aux choses d’icy bas, et qui concernent la vie presente: mais quand nous voulons monter iusques au royaume des cieux, et nous enquerir de ce qui appartient à la vie eternelle, là nous defaiilons, et y sommes du tout aveugles.” See also CO 34:506. 131 Sermons on Job, p. 483: CO 34:520: “nous sommes icy parmi les bestes brutes, parmi les vermines, parmi les choses qui sont si basses, et si pesantes, qu’il semble qu’il y ait une distance infinie entre nous et le ciel.” 132 CO 33:57: “rude et grossiers.” 133 CO 33:722: “ignorans et idiots.”

325

134

135

136

“frail and fragile,” “poor blind,” “too gross and “too infirm,” 137 heavy to mount to high,” “We are but threescore our fourscore years in the world: I speak of the eldest sort: and what then our 138 understanding?” he asked himself. For Calvin it was clear that this ontological limitation was a consequence of the Fall. Contrary to the opinion shared by W. Bouwsma, Calvin did 139 not consider human creatureliness in itself guilty, or creaturehood as a 140 trouble. Dissociating himself from any form of dualism, the French Reformer firmly denied “that the substance (as men term it) of our bodies and of ourselves is an evil thing, for we are God’s 141 and attributed their situation to the dreadful workmanship” consequences of original sin. Before the Fall, Adam’s situation was absolutely different: He was created to be immortal and therefore was 142 not subject to death; He was also free from suffering and from the 143 limitations that mark our present condition. It was only original sin 144 which created an insurmountable barrier between God and man. In order to emphasize the infinite distance between God and His creatures, Calvin often resorted to the image of the sun and asked:

134 135 136 137 138

139

140 141

142 143 144

326

CO 34:442: “trop infirmes.” CO 35:47: “caduques et fragiles.” CO 33:290: “povres aveugles.” Sermons on Job, p. 655: CO 35:262: “trop rudes et trop pesans, pour monter si haut.” Sermons on Job, p. 633: CO 35:203: “Nous sommes seulement soixante ou quatre vingts ans en ce monde, ie parle des plus vieux: et quelle donc peut ester nostre intelligence?” “He (Calvin) saw guilt in creatureliness itself, guilt shared even by human beings created in God’s image before the Fall, guilt towards the Father even on the part of his good children, guilt in existing.” W. Bouwsma, John Calvin: a Sixteenth Century Portrait, p. 42. S. Selinger, Calvin against Himself: An Inquiry in intellectual History (Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books, 1984), 68. Sermons on Job, p. 274: CO 33:728: “que la substance (comme on appelle) de nos corps, et de nos ames soit une chose mauvaise, car nous sommes créatures de Dieu.” CO 33:515. CO 33:730. CO 35:238.

If we are not able to look upon the Sun, but our eyes shall be dazzled, I pray you how shall we behold the glory of God in full perfectness?145

In Sermon 69 Calvin assumed once again the image of the sun. Sharply criticizing those “who lift up themselves against God’s secret and incomprehensible judgments and say: It is impossible for this to enter into my head,” he asked: “Well my friend, if you are blind, is the sun 146 therefore dark and shines it not? In order to understand God’s judgments, he warned, we should “mount above the world and look unto the things that as yet are hidden 147 from our eyes.” However, Calvin was perfectly aware that God’s Hiddenness has to do not only with human ontological limitations, but also with God’s decision “to manifest Himself unto us in part, to the end we should not 148 be left untaught in the things that are good and expedient for us.” In Calvin’s opinion God’s revelation has been partial from two points of view: the quantitative and qualitative. From the quantitative point of view, the revelation of God does not exhaust God’s true ontological nature. In fact, as he wrote in the last version of The Institutes, the Scriptures do not describe God in regards to His inner life (non quis sit 149 apud se) but as He reveals Himself to humanity (sed qualis erga nos). 150 Humans will never know God as He is, but will know Him only if God decides to manifest Himself and tell them what is useful for

145 Sermons on Job, p. 35: CO 33:111: “Si nous ne pouvons regarder le soleil, que nos yeux n’en soyent esblouys, ie vous prie comment contemplerons nous la gloire de Dieu en sa perfection?” 146 Sermons on Job, p. 326: CO 34:99. 147 Sermons on Job, p. 316: CO 34:72. 148 Sermons on Job, p. 581: CO 35:62: “Dieu se manifestant à nous en partie, ne veut point faire que nous ne soyons enseignez de ce qui nous est bon et propre.” 149 CO 2:3: “Ubi animadvertamus eius aeternitatem, magnifico illo nomine bis repetito, praedicari; deinde ommemorari eius virtutes, quibus nobis describitur non quis sit apud se, sed qualis erga nos; ut ista eius agnitio vivo magis sensu, quam vacua et meteorica speculatione constet.” CO 03,115: “En apres que ses vertus nous sont racontées par lesquelles il nous est demonstré non pas quel il est en soymesme, mais tel qu’il est envers nous: tellement que ceste cognoissance consiste plus en vive experience, qu’en vaine speculation.” 150 CO 35:452: “Voila donc Dieu qui nous est incognu en soy.”

327

151

152

salvation. God is “invisible in Himself and in His essence.” In order to better explain this concept, Calvin used the image of a palace into which it is not possible to enter “with a frantic boldness, but with all 153 reverence.” Consequently, God’s indescribable and impenetrable essence must be distinguished from that aspect of God by which He revealed Himself through His works and attributes. The distinction between God in Himself and God in His revelation is more a noetic that an ontological distinction. Perhaps the best example of Calvin’s opinion regarding this can be found in his Commentary on the Letter to Romans when he wrote: “No idea can be formed of God without including His eternity, power, 154 wisdom, goodness, truth, righteousness, and mercy.” Humans know only in part. Calvin made this point particularly clear in Sermon 34, 155 whilst commenting the text of Job 9:11-12: How is it that God utters or shows Himself unto us? By His works and not in His substance; for in His substance we shall never see Him. Nevertheless we know Him after such a sort, as we be constrained to see that His hand has passed that way. Thus we see the records which He yields us of His presence. God then passes before us, that is to say, He makes us to perceive His power which spreads itself in such wise through all the whole word, as it is hard at hand with us; and yet notwithstanding he is invisible, that is to say, although the said uttering and

151 CO 33:57: “Nous ne cognoistrons Dieu tel qu’il est, mais nous le cognoistrons en telle mesure qu’il lui plaira de se manifester à nous, c’est à dire, selon qu’il cognoist qu’il nous est utile pour nostre salut.” 152 CO 33:570: “Comme sainct Paul aussi en parle au premier chapitre des Romains (v. 20), … Dieu (est) invisible en soy et en son essence.” 153 Sermons on Job, p. 672: CO 35:309: “Venons à ce palais: et n’y entrons pas d’une audace furieuse pour comprendre tous les secrets de Dieu.. il faut bien que nous venions au devant de luy avec toute reverence, et que nous ne passions point nostre mesure.“ 154 Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the apostle to the Romans, Vol. XIX, p. 71. CO 49:24: “Concipi Deus non potest sine sua aeternitate, potentia, sapientia, bonitate, veritate, iustitia, misericordia.” “Nous cognoissions en partie.” CO 33:201, 426; CO 34:348, CO 35:192. See also CO 35:34: “Car de son essence, elle est invisible, elle nous est cachee: mais il desploye ses vertus en telle sorte qu’encores que nous fussions aveugles, si est-ce que nous y pouvons tastonner, comme aussi sainct Paul use de ceste similitude au dixseptieme des Actes (v. 27).” 155 “If He goes by me, I do not see Him; If He moves past, I do not perceive Him; If He takes away, who can hinder Him? Who can say to Him What are You doing?”

328

showing of Himself be according to nature, yet have not we full knowledge thereof, neither are we able to comprehend it.156

This distinction between God Himself and the God of revelation has made some people question whether Calvin assigned God two wills. “Does the electing, inscrutable will of God override and thus undermine 157 God’s revelation in Christ?” asked C. J. Kinlaw. Although in the Sermons on Job there is a passage that seems to 158 incline in this direction, ”a righteousness that is in His secret will,” Calvin held God’s will is one and simple. The inscrutability of God’s will is nothing other than a result of our natural imbecillitas, as he made clear in his last version of The Institutes: Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.159

Since God is totaliter aliter (wholly other), it is utterly impossible to confine Him within the narrow boundaries of His revelation. Keeping in mind Calvin’s concern for emphasizing the mystery and transcendence of God, one then understands his adamant refusal not only to localize

156 Sermons on Job, p. 159: CO 33:426: “Comment est-ce que Dieu se monstre? Par ses oeuvres, non point en son essence: car en son essence nous ne le voyons iamais. Or cependant nous le cognoissons d’une telle sorte, que nous sommes contraints de voir que sa main y aura passé. Voila comme un tesmoignage qu’il nous rend de sa presence, Dieu donc passe devant nous, c’est à dire qu’il nous fait sentir sa vertu laquelle s’espand par tout le monde tellement qu’elle nous est prochaine: et toutesfois il est invisible, c’est à dire ceste manifestation-la encores qu’elle soit selon nostre nature, si est-ce que nous n’en avons point de cognoissance pleine.” 157 C.J. Kinlaw, “Determinism and the Hiddenness of God in Calvin’s Theology,” Religious Studies 24.4 (1988) pp. 497-510. 158 Sermons on Job, p. 222: CO 33:590: “Et ainsi quand la raison d’un fait de Dieu ne nous est point revelee, sachons que c’est une iustice qui est en sa volonté secrette, laquelle surmonte ceste regle qui nous est manifeste et cognue.” 159 ICR I.18.2: CO 2:171: “Neque tamen ideo vel secum pugnat, vel mutatur Dei voluntas, vel quod vult se nolle simulat; sed quum una etsi smplex in ipso sit, nobis multiplex apparet: quia promentis nostrae imbecillitate, quomodo idem diversomodo nolit fieri et velit, non capimus.”

329

God’s presence, but also to enclose God in this world, as is clear from 160 Sermon 85. Convinced that the biblical God defies definition, the French Reformer stressed that God’s revelation is not exhaustive even from the qualitative point of view, since God decides to accommodate Himself to humanity’s finite and sin-blurred perceptions. The principle of Divine accommodation, as the German theologian Otto Weber pointed out, became one of the most important elements of Calvin’s theological work: Jamais personne n’a autant mis l’accent sur le principe d’accommodation que Calvin. Il n’est pas exagéré de dire que sa conception de la Révélation est déterminée par son idée d’accommodation, qui est en même temps un motif directeur de son exégèse.161

The starting point for the concept of Divine accommodation rests in God’s transcendence. Since human reason is unable to “enclose God’s mighty power, righteousness and wisdom within the state of the present 162 world, so as it might be discerned,” God adapts Himself to human measure and understanding, as Calvin made clear in Sermon 123: God manifests Himself unto us in part, to the end we should not be left untaught in the things that are good and expedient for us. Nevertheless He knows our capacities and according thereunto reveals His will unto us referring in the meanwhile unto

160 CO 34:294: “Quand donc nous venons à concevoir ceste maiesté incomprehensible qui est en Dieu, ceste hautesse inestimable:il faut que nous soyons estonnez pour nous humilier, et n’estre plus ainsi eslevez comme nous estions. Voila l’intention d’Eliphas. Dieu (dit-il) n’est-il point là haut au ciel? Pourquoi est-ce qu’il parle ainsi du siege de Dieu, sinon pour le discerner d’avec les creatures, et les choses de ce monde? Vrai est que Dieu (comme il est d’une essence infinie) n’est pas enclos au ciel, sa maiesté est par tout espandue, il remplit aussi bien la terre (comme il est declaré). Les cieux ne te comprenent point, (disoit Salomon en dediant le temple) et Dieu lui mesme en son Prophete Isaie dit (66:1), Le ciel est mon throne royal, et la terre est mon marchepied. Dieu donc n’est point enclos au ciel: mais ce n’est pas sans cause toutes fois que l’Escriture en parle ainsi.” 161 O. Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) vol. 1, 415, note 52. 162 Sermons on Job, p. 467: CO 34:480: “enclore la puissance et iustice et sagesse de Dieu en l’estat present du monde tel comme il se peut apercevoir.”

330

Himself, the things that we could not comprehend, because they pass our understanding.163

In accommodating Himself to humanity, God employs two different approaches. The first is that of a babysitter. In talking to us “God allies Himself to our rudeness, he talks familiarly with us, yea and he lisps 164 (after a sort) as a nurse would do with her little babies” 165 The second is that of a mother who takes care of her “young babies.” David Whright highlighted the fact that “the revealed God is always still for Calvin the partly hidden God. We must make do with the prattling of 166 God until hereafter he speaks to us face to face.” Revelation is not only an adjustment God makes to accommodate the capacities of human mind and heart, but involves also, as Richard Stauffer recognized, “une 167 transfiguration et même une espèce de denaturation.” God 168 Calvin insisted on the general condescends to human rudeness. 163 CO 35:62: “Or il nous faut observer, que Dieu se manifestant à nous en partie, ne veut point faire que nous ne soyons enseignez de ce qui nous est bon et propre: mais si est-ce qu’il cognoist nostre capacité: Dieu donc nous revele sa volonté selon nostre portee: cependant il se reserve à soi ce que nous ne comprendrions pas, pource qu’il surmonte nostre entendement.” 164 Sermons on Job, p. 706: CO 35:398: “Dieu s’accommode là à nostre rudesse, il parle familierement avec nous: mesmes il beguaye (par maniere de dire) comme feroit une nourrisse avec ses petis enfans.”. I owe this quotation to R. Stauffer in Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 55. 165 Sermons on Job, p. 133: CO 33:361: “Y a-il rien qui nous doive plus inciter à aimer nostre Dieu, que quand nous cognoissons qu’il descend ainsi à nous, et qu’il nous appastelle (par maniere de dire) tout ainsi qu’une mere ses enfans.” I owe this quotation to R. Stauffer in Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 55. 166 D. Whright, “Calvin’s Pentatheucal Criticism: Equity, Hardness of Heart, and Divine Accommodation in the Mosaic Harmony Commentary.” Calvin Theological Journal 21 (1986): 33-50. I owe this quotation to R. Ward Holder, John Calvin and the grounding of Interpretation (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2006), p. 48. 167 R. Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 22. 168 CO 33:57 “Pour exprimer cela, l’escriture use d’une façon qui est convenable à nostre rudesse, car nous sommes tant infirmes, que nous ne comprendrons iamais la maiesté de Dieu ainsi haute qu’elle est, nous ne pourrons point parvenir iusques là. Il faut donc que Dieu descende pour estre comprins de nous, c’est à dire, qu’il ne se monstre point selon sa gloire, qui est infinie, mais selon qu’il voit quel est nostre sens, qu’il s’y accommode.”

331

incapacity of human mind to attain the absolute, utilising the traditional formula: finitum non est capax infiniti. Taking a cue from a text of the Book of Job, the French Reformer stated that “God should not show Himself such a one as He is in His own infinite Being (for then should we swallowed up) but such as we may 169 conceive Him, and such as we may bear.” Parallel to this accentuation of the partial and accommodating character of Divine revelation, Calvin directed his attention to another and more mysterious Hiddenness, namely, that which results solely from decision of God who, in fact, desires a secret dominion. God always reserves still some part to Himself, insomuch that He keeps the causes of things hidden and secrets in His own mind, whereinto it is not for us to presume 170 to enter as now. Our God keeps His secrets to Himself.

Calvin used various expressions to emphasize this activity of Divine 171 “God concealment: “God does not always show His countenance,“ 172 173 174 hides Himself,“ “God hides His face,” and “His countenance,” 175 “God turns His back to us,” “God hides His secrets from the wise men 176 and great men of the world, and opens them to the little ones,” “His 177 countenance is louring towards us, and we are not able to behold it.”

169 Sermons on Job, p. 35: CO 33:111: “Dieu ne se monstre pas tel, qu’il est en son essence infinie (car nous en serions engloutis) mais qu’il se monstre tel que nous le concevions, et tel que nous le pouvons porter.” 170 Sermons on Job, p. 706: CO 35:397-398: “Dieu se reserve tousiours (comme il a esté dit) quelque partie à Soy: voire tellement qu’il a les causes occultes et cachees en Son conseil, ausquelles il ne nous faut point maintenant presumer d’entrer. ..Pourquoy ? Car nostre Seigneur a Ses secrets.” 171 Sermons on Job, p. 371: CO 34:220: “Dieu ne monstre pas toujours Sa face.“ 172 CO 33:463, 464, 740, CO 34:381, 386, 610; CO 35:192, 455 and 458: “Dieu se cache.” 173 Sermons on Job, p. 619: CO 33:653, CO 35:192: “Dieu cache sa face.” 174 Sermons on Job, p. 591: CO 35: 85-86, 190, 191, 193, 194: “son visage.” 175 Sermons on Job, p. 592: CO 33:123, 257; CO 34:459, CO 35:93, 455: “Dieu nous tourne le dos.” 176 Sermons on Job, p. 217: CO 33:357: “cache ses secrets aux sages du monde et aux grands, et les revele aux petis.” 177 Sermons on Job, p. 592: CO 35:93: “son visage nous est obscur, et que nous ne le pouvons pas contempler.”

332

God seems to sleep, “as though had given up His office and were no 178 longer the judge of the world.“ Maybe the best expression of God’s concealment was Calvin’s metaphor of the sun shining behind the clouds. Many think it is absent, but it is only hidden. The pastoral dimension of this image emerges with great clarity in Sermon 79 which is worth quoting in its entirety: As for example, when it is fowled weather we see not the sun; and yet we not so unwise but we know well enough that the sun shines still above the clouds. If a man should ask a little child where the sun is: he is quite gone, would he say. For he is not so far learned as to know that the light which we have come of the sun whatsoever let is betwixt the farne and us. But we know by experience, that the sun keeps his ordinary course after he is up, notwithstanding that the clouds do take away the light of him from us: The sun shines, but the weather is not so fair and calm that we can see him where he is hidden. So also when our Lord sends troubles into the worlds, and we see iniquities run abroad unbridled, overflowing all things as a waterflut and we perceive not that God is minded to withstand it, but rather seems to let all things go too havocked, so as good men are born down and God makes no countenance to succour them, although they fight and groan to Him: I say when we see all this: it behoves us to have a higher reach than our own motherwort and to be fully resolved that God will yet still assist us. And also, forasmuch we see he suffers not the world to be utterly overwhelmed but holds it still by a secret bridle, so as He restrains the wicked and all things pas not into blushed and murder: let us assure ourselves that God reigns still, although it be after 179 a dark manner.

178 CO 33:456, CO 34:65, 229, 496; CO 35:498: “comme si Dieu avoit quitté son office, qu’il ne fust plus iuge du monde.” 179 Sermons on Job, p. 371: CO 34:220: “Comme quand le temps est troublé, nous ne verrons point le soleil: mais nous ne sommes pas si despourveus de sens, que nous ne sachions bien que le soleil luit tousiours par-dessus les nues. Si on demandoit à un petit enfant, Où est le soleil? Il n’y en a plus, diroit-il: car il n’est pas instruit iusques là, de savoir que la clarté que nous avons vient du soleil, quelque empeschement qu’il y ait entre deux. Or nous qui avons par usage cela tout resolu, que le soleil fait son circuit ordinaire, quand il est levé, encores qu’il y ait des nues qui nous empeschent de le voir, nous ne laissons pas de dire, Le soleil luit, mais le temps n’est pas clair ne serain que nous appercevions ce qui est caché. Ainsi quand nostre Seigneur envoye des troubles en ce monde, et que nous voyons l’iniquité qui se transporte comme sans bride, qui est comme un deluge qui s’espanche par tout, et que nous n’appercevons pas que Dieu y vueille resister, mais qu’il semble que toutes choses vont là comme à l’abandon: que les bons sont opprimez, et combien qu’ils souspirent et gemissentà Dieu, qu’il ne fait point de semblant de les secourir:

333

Likewise, when God is hidden: men are confused in the world, inasmuch they don’t see neither reason nor purpose in what is done. On the opposite, when God gives us grace to see that He governs everything and we see things in good order and well disposed, then it is as if His face shone on us like a sun.

For Calvin it was undoubtedly clear that God is discernible in His creation, but at the same time remains a Deus Absconditus. God rules the universe, although His Providence is not always visible. Although the universe reflects the glory of God, as Susan Schreiner points out, history 180 “is awash in blood.” The tension between a God, who is at the same time present and hidden, revealed and concealed, led to the seemingly contradictory statements. Sometimes in the heat of the preaching Calvin went to the point of stating that the providence of God could be easily discernible in 181 the realm of history, although only in the light of the secret 182 providence of God it is possible to know that the wicked are bridled. Some of the Divine attributes that the Reformer examined on the basis of God’s revelation were later discussed under the presupposition of God’s Hiddenness. These included justice, wisdom, goodness, glory, majesty, and judgement. This element explains how it was possible for Calvin to arrive at seemingly contradictory conclusions. “Job maintained a good quarrel, but handled it poorly and his friend set forth an unjust matter, 183 Job was sound, but blasphemed God. The but conveyed it well.” contradiction touched Calvin himself, who at one and the same time served as the lawyer for God and for Job.

180 181 182 183

334

quand, di-ie, nous voyons tout cela, il nous faut avoir une raison plus haute que nostre sens naturel. Et nous faut lors resoudre, que tant y a que Dieu nous assiste encores: et aussi veuqu’il ne permet pas que le monde soit du tout abysme, mais qu’il y a encores quelque bride secrette, qu’il retient les meschans, que nous voyons que tout n’est pas en sang, et en meurtres: cognoissons que Dieu domine, encores que ce soit d’une façon obscure.” S. Schreiner,“Through a mirror dimly, Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” in Calvin Theological Journal 21 (1986): 183. “Can we deny the providence of God?.. No it is impossible” in Sermons on Job, p. 722. See for instance the Sermon 149. Sermons on Job, p. 12.

This apparent inconsistency can be understood only in the wider context of the perspective of the French Reformer. If one only considers God’s revelation, one has to admit that Job was unjustly punished by a God who infringed upon their alliance. On the other hand, if one considers the fact that revelation does not exhaust God’s mystery, then everything finds its proper solution: Job remained innocent, and at the same time, imperfect. God is just, although His Justice cannot be measured according to human standards.

6.4 The double justice and the double wisdom In the attempt to overcome this tension between contradictory statements, Calvin felt forced to define the word “Justice” more fully. What does it mean to say that God is just? What is the starting point and what are the parameters of human reflection upon these words? Is the Justice of God reducible to the narrow limits of human perception? In order to answer these questions Calvin felt compelled to better clarify his thoughts. He denied that God’s Justice could “consist in the knowledge that we have of it, or that can enter into men’s brain,” since it “consists in 184 itself, ” nor would he admit the possibility that it can be measured “by 185 our senses.” Calvin ruled out also that God’s Justice could be interpreted after the manner of the pagan philosophers, who deem “it is a life well ruled 186 in all virtuousness,” since, he wrote, “we must step yet further: that is 187 too wit, to another righteousness which is not in men.”

184 Sermons on Job, p. 164: CO 33:440: “La iustice de Dieu ne consiste pas en la cognoissance que nous en avons, et qui puisse entrer au cerveau des hommes. Elle consiste en soy.” 185 Sermons from Job, p. 222-223. 186 Sermons on Job, p. 199: CO 33:529: “C’est une vie bien reglee selon toute vertu.” 187 Sermons on Job, p. 199: CO 33:529: “Il faut venir plus loin, c’est assavoir, à une autre iustice qui n’est point aux hommes, et ne s’y en trouvera point une seule goutte.”

335

This gnosiological distinction between a justice that can be understood and another which is doomed to remain hidden, accompanied by the 188 conviction that Divine Justice is “known in two ways,” paved the way for the concept of “double justice.” It is no wonder that this theme, as R. 189 Stauffer argues, found particular expression in Sermons on Job, since it was especially in this Book that Calvin found it necessary to defend God’s Justice . As we have seen in the previous chapters, Calvin already had an opportunity to deal with the problem of God’s Justice in The Sermons on Job. In Sermon 30, while analyzing the text of Job 3:2 with the questions “Does God subvert judgment? Or does the Almighty pervert justice?” he answered without the slightest indecision: Here we put in mind to yield Got the honour of being the fountain of all equity and right, and that it is impossible that he should do anything that is not good and right.”190

This conviction was reiterated numerous times and defended even when the circumstances might have led to different conclusions. Yet, despite these unequivocal statements, Calvin was aware that the question of how God’s Justice might be maintained was far from being answered, since the problem raised at the beginning of the book of Job had remained unsolved: Why did Job suffer? Calvin was caught in a dilemma. If Job was innocent, then his suffering was unjust and his charges against God absolutely justified. If Job were guilty, then God’s Justice had been maintained, but Satan would win the wager with God. The terms of the problem were further aggravated by two further 191 and conflicting assertions: on the one hand, the innocence of Job and 192 on the other, Job’s confession of sin. Calvin was able to get out of this 188 Sermons on Job, p. 163: CO 33:437: “notons que ce sans propos se rapporte à la cognoissance evidente des hommes. Nous avons desia dit ci dessus, que la iustice de Dieu se cognoist doublement.” 189 R. Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 118. 190 Sermons on Job, p. 137: CO 33:371: “Ici nous sommes admonestez d’attribuer à Dieu cest honneur, qu’il est la fontaine de toute equité et droiture, et qu’il est impossible qu’il face rien, qui ne soit bon et iuste.” 191 See Job 1:8 and Job 42:8. 192 See Job 39:33, 40:4 and 42:1-6.

336

seeming impasse by taking recourse to the concept of the “double Justice ” of God. The starting point of this reflection can be found in Sermon 6, when he commented on Eliphaz’s statement: “Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker? If He puts no trust in His servants, If He charges His angels with error.”193 After having pointed out that even the angels are fault creatures,” he wrote that “the good things that are in all the creatures, are small in estimation of 194 that which is in God who is utterly infinite. In Sermon 37 Calvin went into more detail by distinguishing between two kinds of justice: The righteousness which is contained in God’s law, is a righteousness that is bounded within the measures of man’s capacities. We do rightly call it perfect righteousness, and so may we name it; yea and the Scripture terms it perfect righteousness, howbeit but in respect of us, that is too in respect of creatures…The righteousness then is such a righteousness, as Angel and men ought to yield unto God, by obeying Him and pleasing Him. But yet for all this, there is another high righteousness in God: that is to say a perfect righteousness, whereunto we be not able to attain, neither can we be able to near it, until we be made like unto Him, and have the function of the glory that is hidden from us as yet and which we see not 195 but as it were in a glass and darkly.

The notion of “double justice,” implied in Sermon 37 was deepened, when Calvin countered the “justice revealed in the law” with another

193 See Job 4:17 194 Sermons on Job, p. 74: CO 33:207: “les biens qui sont aux creatures sont en mesure petite au pris de ce qui est en Dieu, qui est du tout infini.” 195 Sermons on Job, p. 171: CO 33:459: “Ainsi donc la iustice mesme qui est contenue en la Loy de Dieu, est une iustice qui est compassee à la mesure des hommes. Nous l’appellerons bien iustice parfaite,et la pourrons nommer ainsi: et l’Escriture la nomme iustice parfaite: voire au regard de nous, c’est à dire, au regard des creatures. ... Ceste iustice-la donc est une iustice que les Anges et les hommes doivent rendre à Dieu, pour luy obeir et complaire... Mais tant y a qu’il y a encores une iustice plus haute en Dieu, c’est-à-dire une perfection, à laquelle nous ne pouvons pas attaindre, et de laquelle nous ne pouvons pas approcher, iusques à ce que nous soyons faits semblables à luy, et que nous ayons contemplé ceste gloire, qui maintenant nous est cachee, et que nous ne voyons sinon comme en un miroir, et par obscurité: alors nous serons bien autre chose que nous ne sommes maintenant.”

337

196

197

“incomprehensible,” higher justice that he termed “hidden,” 198 199 200 “secret,” “more perfect,” “which goes beyond our intelligence,” 201 and “more high.” 196 CO 33:496: “Nous voyons donc maintenant, comme il y a double iustice en Dieu, l’une c’est celle qui nous est manifestee en la Loy, de laquelle Dieu se contente, pource qu’il luy plaist ainsi: il y a une autre iustice cachee qui surmonte tous sens et apprehensions des creatures.” Compare CO 33:613: “Il y a double iustice en Dieu: c’est assavoir, celle qui nous est manifestee par la Loi, et celle qu’il tient cachee.” 197 CO 33:590: “La iustice à laquelle nous devons estre reglez et suiets, est par dessus nous: mais la volonté de Dieu est encores par dessus: ainsi que nous avons desia traité, qu’il y a double iustice de Dieu: l’une est celle qu’il nous a declaree en sa Loy, selon laquelle il veut que le monde se gouverne: l’autre c’est une iustice incomprehensible, tellement qu’il faut par fois que nous fermions les yeux quand Dieu besongne, et que nous ne sachions point comment ne pourquoy. Et ainsi quand la raison d’un fait de Dieu ne nous est point revelee, sachons que c’est une iustice qui est en sa volonté secrette, laquelle surmonte ceste regle qui nous est manifeste et cognue.” 198 CO 34:96: “Dieu a double iustice en soy. L’une est celle qu’il nous a declaree en sa Loy. Or ceste iustice-là nous est toute notoire et cognue: c’est nostre regle. Mais il y en a encores une autre en Dieu plus haute, qui nous est secrette et cachee. Car quand nous aurions accompli toute la Loy (ce qui est impossible: mais le cas posé qu’ainsi fust) si est-ce que nous n’avons point satisfait à Dieu selon sa iustice parfaite: mais nous l’aurons contenté selon qu’il veut que nous le servions, voire selon nostre portee humaine.” 199 CO 34:333-334: “Dieu combien qu’il soit tousiours iuste, a neantmoins deux especes de iustice. L’une, c’est celle qu’il nous a declaree par sa Loy: ie di iustice pour traitter les hommes, et pour les iuger. Si donc Dieu nous adiourne devant son siege, et que là il nous traitte selon la regle de sa Loy, voila une espece de iustice…. Or il y a une autre espece de iustice qui nous est plus estrange: c’est quand Dieu nous voudra traitter non point selon sa Loy, mais selon qu’il peut iustement faire. Quand nostre Seigneur nous baille nostre leçon en sa Loy, et qu’il nous commande de faire ce qui est là contenu: combien que cela surmonte toutes nos vertus, et que nul homme mortel ne pourroit venir à bout d’accomplir ce que Dieu nous commande: toutes fois si est-ce que nous lui devons encores plus, et sommes obligez, et la Loy n’est pas une chose si parfaite n’exquise, que ceste iustice infinie de Dieu, suivant ce que nous avons desia veu, que selon icelle il trouveroit iniquité en ses Anges, et le soleil ne seroit point clair devant lui. Voila donc comme il y a une iustice plus parfaite que celle de la Loy.” 200 CO 34:447: “Ainsi nous voyons qu’il y a double iustice en Dieu: l’une qui nous est toute notoire, pource qu’elle est contenue en la Loy, et qu’elle a aussi quelque conformité à la raison que Dieu nous a donnee: l’autre qui passe toute nostre intelligence: nous ne la comprenons point donc sinon par foy, et faut plustost que nous l’adorions comme une chose qui nous est cachee, attendans que le dernier iour

338

Prompted by the biblical texts, Calvin was compelled to analyze the dialectical character of God’s Justice , and came to the conclusion that Job’s integrity was related only to “revealed justice,” by which God sets the measure of what He requires from human beings; establishing the criteria for “righteousness.” In light of this conclusion, Calvin stated that Job’s claim to righteousness referred not to the higher and therefore unknown Justice of God, but to a lower revealed justice. Job knew well enough that he was a wretched sinner, and he was not so blinded with pride, as to bear himself in hand that he was thoroughly righteous, and that God did but byte at him without cause. But his meaning was that if God would handle him after the ordinary manner which he set forth in His law, which is to bless such as serve Him, and to deal gently with them, so as they may well feel Him their good father, after that manner and according to that rule, He could well answer before Him. And so his meaning is, that God uses His own prerogative of a righteousness which is secret and hidden form me and deals not with him any more by the order of His law, but by another consideration which men cannot hold of nor 202 reach unto with all their reason.

Calvin pointed out that Job was not afflicted because he had been an evil 203 man, as the Prologue in the Book of Job made clear. God’s decision to punish Job was a result, not of Job’s sins, but of God’s hidden justice. This recourse to the concept of hidden justice became necessary only when Calvin came to realise that even if Job had been found innocent according to revealed justice, God could have condemned him anyway vienne, auquel nous verrons face à face ce qui nous est maintenant obscur et caché.” 201 CO 33:459, 498, 633, 726. 202 Sermons on Job, p. 413: CO 34:335: “Iob cognoissoit bien qu’il estoit un povre pecheur, il n’estoit pas si aveuglé d’orgueil, qu’il se fist à croire qu’il estoit du tout iuste, et que Dieu n’eust que mordre sur lui: mais il entend que si Dieu le vouloit traitter à la façon commune, c’est à dire, comme il a declaré en sa Loy, qu’il benira ceux qui l’auront servi, et les traittera si doucement, qu’ils pourront bien sentir qu’il est un bon Pere: en ceste façon et suivant ceste regle, il respondroit bien devant lui. Ainsi il veut dire que Dieu use à son endroit d’une iustice qui est secrette et cachee aux hommes, qu’il ne le traitte plus selon la forme de sa Loy, mais qu’il a quelque consideration que les hommes ne peuvent pas apprehender, et qui surmonte toutes leurs pensees, et tous leurs sens.” 203 CO 33:501: “Dieu n’afflige iamais les siens qu’il n’ait iuste raison, voire combien qu’il n’ait point esgard à leurs pechez comme Iob, il est certain qu’il est affligé non point comme un meschant.”

339

according to His hidden justice. In Sermon 37 the conviction that God could condemn not only men but also the angels on the basis of hidden justice and independently of revealed justice was expressed with 204 particular clarity. Even in stressing the mysterium tremendum of God, Calvin was fully aware of the fact that this statement might put the notion of God’s reliability at risk, and might also increase a deep sense of insecurity in all believers. It was for this reason that he resolutely denied the possibility that God could condemn men and the angels according to His secret Justice , since what matters is not what God could do in theory, but what 205 God had promised to do concretely. In Sermon 88, coming back to the concept of accommodation, Calvin highlighted once again the idea that men, through the observance of the law, although imperfect in 206 comparison with the higher Justice of God, could be accepted by God. Trusting in the mystery of the hidden Justice of God, which is not always 207 208 visible, the believer must glorify His incomprehensible judgements, and confess that God “is righteous, notwithstanding that we know not 209 wherefore He does it.” Although it can seem that God afflicts men 210 Calvin pointed out that this phrase could be “without cause,” understood only in the context of our limited knowledge and “in respect 211 of that we perceive.”

204 CO 33:560: “Si nous avons ceste pureté la devant Dieu selon la Loy, c’est à dire, que nous eussions accompli ce que Dieu commande là (ce qui est impossible aux hommes) nous ne pourrions pas encores subsister devant luy. Mais prenons le cas, que Iob fust comme un Ange, qu’il peust suffire envers Dieu selon la iustice de la Loy: si est-ce que selon ceste iustice secrette qui est en Dieu, il se trouveroit tousiours redevable. Car ii est dit que les Anges mesmes ne pourront pas subsister devantl uy, s’il veut entrer en conte avec eux. Iob donc entend en ce passage, que quand il n’y auroit que toute pureté en luy: ie di mesmes selon la iustice de la Loy: il n’y auroit qu’ordure et infection quand il se viendroit presenter devant Dieu.” 205 CO 33:461. 206 CO 34:334. 207 CO 33:445: “La iustice de Dieu n’est pas tousiours apparente.” 208 CO 34:591. 209 Sermons on Job, p. 140: CO 33:377, 503: “encores que nous ne sachions point, pourquoy c’est qu’il le fait.” 210 Sermons on Job, p. 163: CO 33:437: “Sans propos.” 211 Sermons on Job, p. 163: CO 33:438: “au regard de ce que nous entendons.”

340

I have told you heretofore, that God’s Justice is known two ways. For sometimes God punishes the sinners that are notorious to the world ward. Also God’s Justice is known in his secret judgments, when we see God smites and torment such folk as had no notable faults in them, but rather they had some virtues in them.212

Calvin rejected the idea of Job’s friends, that the reasons for Divine Justice are always discernible. Instead, he made a very clear distinction: Whereas the universe clearly makes known Divine judgements, human history reveals a more disturbing image. The distinction between the “revealed” and the “hidden” Justice of God enabled Calvin to solve all those cases in which the Divine Justice was challenged, the foremost having been that of the suffering of innocents. Whilst the chastisement of the wicked derives from His revealed justice, so he argued, the suffering of the innocent has to do 213 with the highest and hidden Justice of God. Another example of this reasoning was related to the text of Job 21:16-21. Here Calvin tried, at first, to defend God’s decision, employing the assumption that all even children deserve judgment, inasmuch as “they cannot say: we are guiltless; for they are found faulty 214 before God as well as their fathers.” In the end, however, he was forced to take recourse to the conclusive argument, that the natural incapacity of the human mind to fathom God. After all, God “has a peculiar fashion in His doing, which is sometimes strange unto us,” and the consequence is the necessity to “humble our minds and say: Lord we will like well of it, what so ever Thou shall do although it be not 215 agreeing to our fantasy.”

212 Sermons on Job, p. 163: CO 33:437: “Nous avons desia dit ci dessus, que la iustice de Dieu se cognoist doublement. Car aucunesfois Dieu punira les pechez qui sont tout notoires aux hommes .... La iustice de Dieu se cognoist aussi en ses iugemens secrets, quand nous voyons des personnes où il n’y avoit point des vices notables, mesmes où il y avoit quelques vertus: Dieu les afflige et les tourmenté.” 213 CO 33:437-438. 214 CO 34:249-250: “Ainsi donc les enfans sont tellement punis pour leurs peres, que c’est une iuste vengeance sur eux-mesmes aussi: ils ne peuvent pas dire, Nous sommes innocens: car ils sont trouvez coulpables devant Dieu comme leurs peres.” 215 CO 33:250: “Dieu qui a sa façon, laquelle nous est aucunesfois estrange: si faut-il que nos esprits soyent humiliez, pour dire, Seigneur, nous trouverons bon tout ce que tu feras, encores qu’il ne soit point conforme à nostre phantasie.”

341

Closely associated with the notion of “double justice” is the idea of “double wisdom,” which, as R. Stauffer points out, “ne se retrouve nulle 216 part dans son oeuvre.” The basis of it is more or less the same: There is a wisdom that we can know and understand, since it was revealed in the Bible and there is another, unfathomable wisdom, as Calvin highlighted in Sermon 46: There is in God a secret wisdom which surmounts all the capacities of man and whereunto we cannot attain as yet. True it is that God’s wisdom is not divers and in sundry sorts as in respect of itself: (for His wisdom is a thing inseparable and such as cannot be divided or parted). But in respect to God is wise after two sorts: that is to wit we may say there are two particular kinds of God’s wisdom, howbeit but in respect to ourselves. And how is that? There is the wisdom which is contained in His word, the which He imparts in such wise unto us, as we become wise by receiving the instruction that He giveth us, and that is the wisdom which He communicates to His creatures: and moreover there is that wisdom which He keeps still in Himself. 217

216 R. Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin, p. 108. 217 Sermons on Job, p. 218: CO 33:479-480: “Il y a une sagesse en Dieu, secrette et qui surmonte tout esprit humain, et à laquelle nous ne pouvons encores parvenir. Il est vray que Dieu, quant à soy n’est point sage en une sorte et en l’autre : (car c’est une chose inséparable, et qu’on ne peut point diviser ne partir, que la sagesse de Dieu) mais quant à nous et à nostre regard, Dieu est sage en deux sortes, c’est assavoir, que nous pouvons dire qu’il y a deux especes de la sagesse de Dieu, voire quant à nous. Et comment cela? Il y a ceste sagesse qui est contenue en sa parole, laquelle il nous communique tellement, que nous sommes sages quand nous avons receu l’instruction qu’il nous donne. Voila donc la sagesse de Dieu, laquelle il communique aux creatures: et puis il y a ceste sagesse laquelle il retient en soy. Et qu’est-ce cela? C’est ce conseil admirable, par lequel il gouverne le monde pardessus tout ce que nous concevons. Voila Dieu qui dispose les choses que nous trouvons bien confuses quant à nostre sens. Quand les tyrans dominent, ainsi qu’il en sera parlé cy apres, qu’il y a des meschans qui seduisent les povres gens, qui menent les ames en perdition, et que les autres sont sauvez: tout cela se fait par le conseil admirable de Dieu. Or si nous enquerons quelle est la raison de tout ceci, nous voila en un tel abysme, qu’il faudra que tous nos sens soyent engloutis. Voila donc une sagesse que Dieu retient vers soy, laquelle il ne communique point aux hommes; comme aussi il est impossible d’y parvenir.”

342

6.5 The eschatological hope “Calvin,” as David Holwerda points out, “has never been famous for his eschatology.”218 Is it not true that he refused to write a commentary on the book of Revelation? A careful analysis of the French Reformer’s works reveals this caricature to be groundless. As Martin Schulze demonstrated in his important book Meditatio futurae vitae, eschatology played a leading role in Calvin’s theology, since “it determined his whole interpretation of Christianity.”219 In fact Calvin turned the Christian’s attention toward the future, stressing that hope was of central importance. He regarded the present life of Christians, with all its travail and groaning, as unfulfilled, unless our redemption culminates in the resurrection and eternal felicity. T.H.L. Parker points out this element when he described Calvin’s perspective as an “unrealized eschatology, that is to say, the final triumph of Christ and His Church has not yet come but lies still in the future.”220 The belief that “God governs, and all things are directed by His guidance and providence”221 demonstrates a dynamic vision of history. An eschatological vision was necessary to his perceptions of the sovereignty of God. This eschatological vision found its best corollary in the belief in 222 immortality which, in Calvin’s opinion, was not taken into account by Job’s friends, who thought that Job was punished because he was a 223 sinner. In a very significant passage, in commenting on the text of Job Calvin asked: And therefore we may not make it a general rule, that the wicked are punished in this world; for then it needed not to reserve any judgment to the latter day. What 218 “D.E. Holverda, “Eschatology and History: A Look at Calvin’s eschatological vision,” in Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 110. 219 I owe this quotation to T.H.L. Parker, The Oracles of God (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1972) p. 101. 220 T.H.L. Parker, The Oracles of God, p. 101. 221 Sermons on Job, p. 372: CO 34:222: “Dieu gouverne, et que tout est sous sa conduite et son conseil.” In Sermon 145 Calvin wrote also: “Tout est sous la main de Dieu, et que rien ne se fait que par Sa volonté, et disposition.” In CO 35:334. 222 This word recurs 30 times. 223 See for example CO 34:61.

343

should become of the immortality of men’s souls? What should become of the hope that we have of the resurrection? All that should come to nothing.224

Given this perspective one can understand why the notions of “double justice’ and “double wisdom,” however central they are, do not exhaust the vindication of God’s Justice, since in Calvin’s opinion the tension between revealed and hidden justice could not be prolonged indefinitely. Only in the last day the mysterium iniquitatis will we receive a definitive answer, our partial vision be superseded by sight and “we shall behold 225 God face to face. Calvin held that the difficulty of perceiving providence in the disorder of human history is not eternal, but temporary, in the sense that in the last day full knowledge will be disclosed. Now we know only in 226 part, but, he affirmed, “at the last day we shall know all things” and 227 we will be able “know all the secrets of God.” In the last day “the 228 things which are now out of order shall be set in order” and 229 “perfection,” “that which is now as it were buried, shall be made very 230 231 manifest,” and “all things shall be disclosed.” And with even more hopeful and enthusiastic accents he stressed the miracle that would occur in that day when “my body laid in the grave shall be restored again at the 232 last day,” and “we shall have full knowledge of the things which we

224 Sermons on Job, p. 401: CO 33:302: “Et pourtant il ne faut point que nous facions une regle generale que les meschans soyent punis en ce monde: car il ne faudroit point qu’il y eust iugement reservé iusques au dernier iour. Que deviendroit l’immortalité des ames? Que deviendroit l’esperance que nous avons de la resurrection? Tout cela seroit aneanti. Ainsi donc Eliphas pervertit tout, quand il veut faire une regle generale de certains exemples que Dieu a donné.” 225 Sermons on Job, p. 388: CO 34:266: “nous contemplerons nostre Dieu face à face.” 226 Sermons on Job, p. 201: CO 33:534: “au dernier iour toutes choses nous seront cognues.” 227 CO 33:721. 228 CO 34:69. 229 CO 34:189. 230 CO 34:255. 231 CO 34:311 and 494. 232 CO 34:130.

344

233

know as now but in part” and “we shall see Him face to face in His 234 glory and majesty.” The affirmation of the transitory nature of the present situation reached its heights in Sermon 32. Here Calvin, after having pointed out that “our life is hidden in Jesus Christ and that we shall not see the true and perfect manifestation of it, until our Lord Jesus come from heaven,” 235 used a very poetic expression. He compared the apparent situation of the precariousness of human life to the state of nature during the winter which awaits the coming of the spring. Likewise our life is now hidden in Christ and in the hands of God, but its meaning will be disclosed to us at the coming of Christ. The expression “hidden in Christ” recurs at other 236 times and represents the proof that the Sermons on Job, although lacking Christological foundations, are still turned in the direction of Christ. The reason thereof has to be searched in the fact that an eschatological perspective would be, in Calvin’s opinion hardly justifiable without a strong Christological focus. Often Calvin used the image of a pilgrimage and insisted on the fact 237 we ought to learn “to be as Pilgrims and wayfarers in this world,” and 238 “wanderers.” And yet, for Calvin, the transitiveness of the present life did not imply that God had to remain hidden forever. Although our life remains hidden in Christ and in God’s hands, the tension between the revealed and the hidden Justice of God has to remain temporary until the last day.239 Then, Calvin pointed out, “the wicked will be deprived of the blessing that God has promised especially to the faithful”240 and they will be “afflicted,”241 “excluded,”242 “exterminated,”243 “ruined,”244 233 Sermons on Job, p. 568: CO 35:28: “nous aurons pleine revelation des choses que nous cognoissons maintenant en partie.” 234 Sermons on Job, p. 369. CO 34:216: “nous verrons Dieu face à face en sa gloire et en sa maiesté.” 235 Sermons on Job, p. 159. 236 CO 33:402, 675 and CO 34:414. 237 CO 34:397. See also CO 34:151, 261: “d’estre pelerins en ce monde, d’estre errans.” 238 CO 34:490 and CO 34:397: “vagabons.” 239 CO 34:447. 240 CO 34:170. 241 CO 35:91. 242 CO 35:381.

345

“defeated,”245“confused,”246 “destroyed,”247 even if it “may seem that they should continue in their state for ever.”248 The possibility that the wicked might be pardoned249 or have peace,250 is completely excluded: “God will turn all their miseries, and put them to open reproach and shame before all men.”251 This comforting assurance, in Calvin’s opinion, should infuse the confidence “that forasmuch as they be Christ’s 252 member, they cannot perish.” In all the Sermons on Job there is a deep echo of protest against injustice and it is not by chance that one of most prevalent terms is “vengeance.” In Calvin’s opinion this word, not to be confused with “vindictive,”253 rather than having a negative meaning, refers to God and to His last judgment which Calvin described as horrible,254 but just.255 It was a judgment directed not toward the righteous, but against “the 256 257 wicked,” “His enemies,” “upon those that despise Him and lift up 258 themselves against Him,” “upon the unbelievers and stubborn

243 CO 34:156 and 201. 244 CO 34:74: “Dieu attende les meschans, et qu’en fin il les prenne par le talon pour les precipiter en ruine.” 245 CO 34:310. 246 CO 35:559. 247 CO 35:460. 248 CO 34:155: “il semble qu’ils doivent tousiours demeurer en leur estat.”It is quite impossible to quote all the sentences that Calvin used. For instance the sentence “Dieu ne laisse pas les meschans impunis” recurs 6 times, namely in CO 34:76, 89, 139, 145, 201, 215. The sentence “Punir le mechans” recurs 11 times, namely in CO 33:75, 195, 231, 404, 756; CO 34:186, 189, 200, 218, 307, 395. The sentence “chastie les mechans” recurs 2 times: CO 34:301 and 311. 249 CO 35:197: “Car là il ne pardonne pas, mais il nourrist les meschans, comme on engraisse les boeufs et les porceaux, afin de les tuer.” 250 CO 34:498. 251 CO 34:177: “Dieu convertira le tout à mal, et les exposera en opprobre et diffame envers tous.” 252 CO 33:160: “qu’estans membres de Iesus Christ ils ne peuvent perir.” 253 CO 35:226. 254 CO 33:261, 375, 761, CO 34:264, 280, 380, CO 35:177, 251, 290. 255 CO 33:75, 204, 304, CO 34:88, 400. 256 CO 33:740, CO 34:196, 369, 468. 257 CO 34:366. 258 Sermons on Job, p. 82: CO 33:229: “sur ceux qui le mesprisent, et qui s’eslevent à l’encontre de Luy.”

346

259

persons,” “upon those that continue will fully in disobeying of God’s 260 law,” “upon them that try to lift up themselves after that sort against 261 Him by casting forth pride and presumptuous words," “upon those 262 that have not sought to be at peace with Him.” In a moving passage Calvin described the lesson that believers might take from this teaching: For there we see how He has executed His vengeance upon all such as were given to cruelties, robberies, and other extortions: and therewith how he hath punished whoredome and other filthiness, when thy reigned over fore; and finally we see how He has punished perjures and outrages when men’s pride has exceeded so far, as it could no longer be born. 263

Calvin understood that his arguments might raise further questions, such as why does God not punish the wicked now? Why does one have to wait until the last judgment? He answered these objections, by making recourse often to the 264 authority of Augustine. If God were to punish every sin in the moment it happened, it would seem as if nothing would be left for the final judgment: For if He should punish all the sins of men, we would think the end to be come already, and we would no more hope that our Lord Jesus Christ should gather us up to Himself. So then it is needful for us that God should leave many faults

259 Sermons on Job, p. 83: CO 33:232: “sur les incredules et rebelles.” 260 Sermons on Job, p. 92: CO 33:343: “sur ceux qui persevereront obstinement à desobeir à la Loy de Dieu.” 261 Sermons on Job, p. 13: CO 33:371: “sur ceux qui taschent de s’eslever ainsi contre luy, qui iettent paroles d’orgueil et de presomption.” 262 Sermons on Job, p. 276: CO 33:735: “sur tous ceux qui n’ont point cerché d’avoir paix avec Luy.” 263 CO 34:146: “Car nous voyons comme il a exercé vengeance sur tous ceux qui s’estoyent adonnez à cruautez, à rapines, et autres extorsions: apres, comme il a puni les paillardises, et autres infections quand elles ont par trop regné: nous voyons puis apres comme il a puni les pariures, les cruautez, qu’il n’a peu porter l’orgueil des hommes.” 264 ICR I.5.10: “There is a well-known passage in Augustine (De Civitat. Dei, lib. 1 c. 8), “Were all sin now visited with open punishment, it might be thought that nothing was reserved for the final Judgment; and, on the other hand, were no sin now openly punished, it might be supposed there was no divine Providence.”

347

unpunished, also it is needful that the good should be afflicted and seem to have lost their labor in serving God.265

The fact that God would delay judgment until the last day did not mean that He would not punish the wicked while they lived here on earth. For Calvin it was absolutely clear that God ruled and governed the universe and history. In fact, if He had not punished some sins within a person’s lifetime, one might have been tempted to believe that there was to be no final judgment. Even so, Calvin maintained that it was not possible to establish a general rule that God punishes evildoers and delivers the righteous, since there might be judgements which we find incomprehensible:266 And therefore we may not make a general rule, that the wicked are punished in this world, for it t needed not to reserve any judgment to the latter day. What should become of the immortality of men’s souls? What should become of the hope that we have of the resurrection? All that should come to nothing.267

In Sermon 76 he wrote: True it is that when the faithful are afflicted by God’s hands, they always relieve themselves with hope that their miseries shall not endure forever, according as it is promised them that God’s wrath endures but the turning of a hand, but His mercy shall last towards them forever. So then the faithful may and ought well to comfort themselves, because they know that God will make them to spring again. And the

265 Sermons on Job, p. 165: CO 33:443: “Car s’il punissoit tous les pechez des hommes nous estimerions estre desia venus iusques à la fin, ii n’y auroit plus d’esperance que nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ nous deust recueillir à soy. Ainsi donc nous avons besoin que Dieu laisse beaucoup de fautes impunies: il est besoin aussi que les bons soyent affligez, et qu’il semble qu’ils ayent perdu leurs peines en servant à Dieu.” 266 Sermon 97 answered the same question : “Il est vray que cela ordinairement se voit durant ceste vie presente: mais non pas tousiours, il n’en faut pas faire une regle generale qui n’ait nulle exception, ce seroit par trop assuiettir Dieu.” CO 34:445. 267 Sermons on Job, p. 401: CO 34:302: “Et pourtant il ne faut point que nous facions une regle generale que les meschans soyent punis en ce monde: car il ne faudroit point qu’il y eust iugement reservé iusques au dernier iour. Que deviendroit l’immortalité des ames? Que deviendroit l’esperance que nous avons de la resurrection? Tout cela seroit aneanti.”

348

Holy Scripture uses often this similitude that although they be cropped yet their root is left still in the ground.268

The eschatological vision of the French Reformer was destined to have significant consequences for his defence of God. In fact, if the knowledge that one has of God is partial and incomplete, so also any human attempt to vindicate God’s Justice will be partial and fragmentary. It is for this reason that Calvin’s Theodicy, however exhaustive, cannot be understood independently of his eschatological vision. Since the believer knows only in part, only in part he would be able to defend God’s Justice. Exactly, as it took place in the book of Job, 269 on the last day, only then would God vindicate “His own honour,” 270 271 272 “His own glory,” “worship,” and “His own right.” It is for this reason that instead of responding “to the problem of evil with an eschatology, rather than a theodicy,” as Theodore Plantinga 273 claimed, Calvin’s emphasis on the notion of Deus Absconditus can be rightly understood only in the light of a Theodicy that reaches its climax and conclusion in an eschatology. This conviction that our miseries will not last forever and the meaning of life will be revealed to us in the last day found wonderful expression in Sermon 53: True it is that we be subject to many miseries in so much that he which knows his own fate ought to sight and grone continually so long as he is in this world. But God has appointed it an end, and when he calls us to Himself, then is the good and

268 Sermons on Job, p. 363: CO 34:198-199: “Vray est que les fideles, quand ils sont affligez de la main de Dieu, se relevent tousiours de ceste esperance, que le mal ne sera point perpetuel: comme ils ont la promesse, que si l’ire de Dieu a duré pour une minute de temps, sa misericorde continuera envers eux sans fin. Voila donc les fideles qui se peu vent bien consoler, et le doivent faire, sachans que Dieu les fera germer derechef: comme aussi l’Escriture saincte use souvent de ceste similitude, qu’encores qu’ils soyent coupez, la racine demeure en terre.” 269 Calvin, Commentaries on Amos, Vol. XIV, 387. 270 Calvin, Commentaries on Zephanias, Vol. XV, 284. 271 Calvin, Commentaries on Daniel, Vol. XII, 380. 272 Calvin, Commentaries on Haggai, Vol. XV, 331. 273 T. Plantinga, Learning to live with Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 135.

349

sure rest. God makes us partakers of His own life, which is endless. If we have had 274 a hope of the heavenly life then should we perceive that this world is nothing.

In the light of this strong eschatological hope that permeates the whole of his theology, Calvin’s yearning found its best expression in the following prayer that we present as the conclusion to this research. O my God, Thy determinations are incomprehensible, and forasmuch as I am not able as now to know any more by reason of the rudeness and infirmity of my understanding: I will wait patiently till Thou make me to perceive the cause why. So Lord, when I shall have tarried in this sort like a poor blind foul, Thou will open mine eyes, and makes me perceive whereunto these things tend, and what shall be the end of them, and I shall profit better by them, than I do now. 275

274 Sermons on Job, p. 250: CO 33:664-665: “Nos maux ne dureront pas tousiours: la brefveté de ceste vie ne nous doit pas fascher alors, mais plustost consoler… Dieu ne veut pas que nous languissions ici tousiours: il est vrai que nous y sommes suiets à beaucoup de povretez, en sorte que celui qui cognoist bien sa condition, doit tousiours gemir et souspirer cependant qu’ilest au monde: mais Dieu y a mis fin, et quand ilnous appelle à soy, voila un bon repos et seur. Ii n’est point question là que nous ayons une vie egale à ceste-ci en longueur de temps: mais Dieu nous fait participans de sa vie propre, qui est immortelle. Et pourtant consolons-nous quand nous avons dequoi nous resiouir en la brefveté de nostre vie, que nous avons matiere d’estre patiens, et de ne nous point fascher par trop. Et pourquoi? Car si nous avons ceste esperance de la vie celeste, alors nous cognoistrons que ce monde n’est rien. Et si nous y sommes quelquesfois faschez, et bien, nous gemirons, mais il y aura consolation quant et quant, pource que nous serons certains que Dieu nous amenera à une bonne fin, quand il nous recueillira à son repos eternel. Voila donc comme nous avons à noter ceste doctrine, si nous en voulons bien faire nostre profit.” 275 Sermons on Job, p. 579: CO 35:56: “O mon Dieu, Tes conseils sont incompréhensibles, i’attendray patiemment que Tu me faces cognoistre pourquoy, quand ie ne puis pour le present cognoistre d’avantage pour ma rudesse, et l’infirmité de mon Esprit. Ainsi, Seigneur, apres que i’auray demeuré ici comme un povre aveugle, Tu m’ouvrira les yeux, Tu me feras sentir où ces choses tendent, quelle en doit estre l’issue, et i’y profiterai mieux qu’à present.”

350

Bibliography

Primary Sources Calvin Institution de la Religion Chréstienne. Edited by Jacques Panier. Paris: Société d’Edition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1961. Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by Wilhelm Baum, Edward Cunnitz, and Edward Reuss. 59 vols. Brunsvigae: Schwetschke, 1863-1900. Ioannis Calvini Opera Selecta. Edited by Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niesel. 5 vols. Münich: Kaiser Verlag, 1926-74.

Translations Calvin, John. Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines. Ed. Benjamin Farley. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1982. Calvin’s Tracts and Treatises. Translated by Henry Beveridge. 3 vols. Reprinted. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958. Calvin’s Commentaries. The Calvin Translation Society. 22 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979. Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia. Edited and translated by Ford Lewis Battles and André Malan Hugo. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969. Calvin, Jean. Sermons sur le livre de Job. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill, translated by Ford L. Battles. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics, vols. 20-21. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. Instruction in Faith. Translated by P.T. Fuhrmann. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949. Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters. 7 vols. Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Book House, 1948-81.

351

Secondary Sources on Calvin Balserak, Jon. Divinity Compromised. A study of Divine Accommodation in the Thought of John Calvin. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag, 2006. Barth, Karl. The Theology of John Calvin. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Mi/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1922. Battles, Ford Lewis. Interpreting John Calvin. Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Books, 1996. Bieler, André. The Social Humanism of Calvin. Translated by Paul T. Fuhrmann. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1961. Bouwsma, William. John Calvin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Breen, Quirinus. John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism. New York: Archon Books, 1968. Brogi Stefano, I Filosofi e il Male, Storia della teodicea da Platone ad Auschwitz, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2006. Büsser, Fritz. Calvins Urteil über sich selbst. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1950. Cadier, Jean. Calvin: l’Homme que Dieu a dompté. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1958. Calvetti, Carla. La filosofia di Giovanni Calvino. Milan: Società Editrice Vita e Pensiero, 1955. Cottret, Bernard. Calvin: A Biography. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000. Davies, Horton. The vigilant God: Providence in the thought of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Barth. New York: Peter Lang, 1992. Davis, Thomas J. The Clearest Promises of God: The Development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching. New York: AMS Press, 1995. DeKoster, Lester. Light for the City: The Preaching of John Calvin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. De Kroon, Marijn. The Honor of God and Human Salvation. Edinburgh & New York: T&T Clark, 2001. Derek, Thomas. Calvin’s Teaching on Job: proclaiming the incomprehensible God. London: Christian Focus Publications, 2004. Dillenberger, J. God Hidden and Revealed: The interpretation of Luther’s Deus Absconditus and its significance for religious thought. Philadelphia: Muhlenberger Press, 1953. Doumergue, Emil. Jean Calvin, les hommes et les choses de son temps. Lausanne: G. Bridel & Co., 1989-1927. ———. Calvin, le Prédicateur de Genève. Genève: Labor & Fides, 1909. Dowey, Edward A. Jr. The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994. Engel, M.P. Calvin’s Perspectival Anthropology. Atlanta: Scholar’s Press 1988. Gamble, Richard C. Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, 9 vols. New York: Garland Publishing Co., 1992. Ganoczy, A. Le Jeune Calvin. Genèse et Evolution de sa Vocation Réformatrice. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1966.

352

———. The Young Calvin. Translated by David Foxgrover and Wade Provo. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. Harkness, Georgia. John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics. New York: Abingdon Press, 1958. Helm, Paul. John Calvin’s Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Hoogstra, J.T., ed. John Calvin, Contemporary Prophet. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1959. Hunter, A. Mitchell. The Teaching of Calvin: A Modern Interpretation, 2d., rev. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1950. Gerrish, B.A. “To the Unknown God: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God.” The Old Protestantism and the New. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Hesselink, John. Calvin’s concept of the Law. Allison Park, Pennsylvania: Pickwick Publications, 1992. Higman, Francis. The Style of John Calvin in His French polemical Treatises. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. Hill, Joseph. John Calvin Suffering, Understanding the Love of God. Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2005. Hoeksema, Homer C. Calvin’s Calvinism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed free Publishing Association, 1996. Holder R. Ward. John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Hunter, Mitchell. The Teaching of Calvin: A Modern Interpretation. Westwood, New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1950. Keller, Carl A. Calvin Mystique: Au Cœur de la Pensée du Réformateur. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2001. Kirby, Torrance. “Stoic and Epicurean? Calvin’s Dialectical Account of Providence in the Institute.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 5.3 (2003): 309-322. Klempa, William. “John Calvin on Natural Law” in John Calvin and the Church, ed. Timothy George. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990. Leith, J. H. John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian life. Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1989. Jacobs, P. Prädestination und Verantwortlichkeit bei Calvin. Neukirchen: Kr. Moers, Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1937. Jones, Serene. Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Nashville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Le Maire, J. De l’influence de L’Université d’Orléans sur la conversion de Calvin. Bulletin, Société archéologique et historique de l’Orléanais, 1959-60. Mancuso Vito, Il Dolore innocente. Mondadori, Milano, 2008. McDonnell, Killian. John Calvin, the Church and the Eucharist. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. McKim, Donald K. Calvin and the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. McGrath, Alister E. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. ———. Luther’s Theology of the Cross. Oxford & Cambridge: Blackwell, 1985. McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

353

Miln, Peter. Hommes d’une Bonne Cause: Calvin’s sermons on the book of Job. PhD Diss., University of Nottingham, 1989. Millet, Olivier, Calvin et la Dynamique de la Parole. Etude de Rhétorique Réformée, Genève: Editions Slatkine, 1992. Minnema, Theodore. Calvin’s Interpretation of Human Suffering, in Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin,David E. Holwerda, ed. Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976. Monda, Davide. La carne, lo spirito e l’amore. Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 2005. Muller, Richard. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Mullet, Michael A. Calvin. London: Routledge, 1989. Murray, John. Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty. Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Book House, 1960. Naphy, William. Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994. Neuser, Wilhelm H. Calvin. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1971. Niesel, W. The Theology of Calvin. Translated by Harold H. Knight. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956. Parker, T.H.L. Calvin, an Introduction to his Thought. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1995. ———. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. ———. The Oracles of God. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2002. ———. Calvin’s Preaching. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992. Partee, Charles. Calvin and Classical Philosophy. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. Potter, George Richard. John Calvin. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983. Puckett, David L. John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Rainbow, J. H. The Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of limited Atonement. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications, 1990. Reardon, P.H. “Calvin on Providence: The Development of the Insight.” Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (1975): pp. 517-534 Reynolds, Blair. The Relationship of Calvin to Process Theology as seen through His Sermons. Lewiston, NY: Edward Mellen, 1993. Richard, Lucien. The Spirituality of John Calvin. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975. Scholl, Hans. Der Dienst des Gebetes nach Johannes Calvin. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1968. Schreiner, Susan. The Theatre of His Glory: Nature and the natural order in the thought of John Calvin. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991. ———. Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Calvin’s Exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Schweizer, Alexander. Die protestantische Central dogma in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der Reformierten Kirche. Zuerich: Orell, Fuessli, 1854

354

Selderhuis, Herman J. Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academy, 2007. Selinger, Suzanne. Calvin against Himself: an Inquiry in Intellectual History. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1984. Smits, Luchesius. Saint Augustin dans l’œuvre de Jean Calvin. Assen: Van Gorcum 1957. Sprenger, P. Das Rätsel um die Bekehrung Calvins. Neukirchen: Erziehungsvereins, 1960. Stauffer, Richard. L’humanité de Calvin. Neuchâtel et Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1964. ———. Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans la Prédication de Calvin. Bern: Peter Lang, 1978. Steinmetz, Thomas. Calvin in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Stickelberger, Emanuel. Calvin. Cambridge: the Lutterworth Press, 2002. Strong, A. “La pensée de Calvin sur la Providence Divine au temps ou il était refuge à Strasbourg”, Revue d’Histoire et de philosophie 22, 1942. Tamburello, Dennis E. Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Taward, George H. The Starting Point of Calvin’s Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Tillich, Paul. A History of Christian Thought. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Torrance, T. F. Calvin’s Doctrine of Man. London: Lutterworth Press, 1952. ———. The Hermeneutics of John Calvin. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988. ———. “Calvin and the Knowledge of God.” The Christian Century 81 (1964): 696699. Tosto, Francesco Diego. Calvino punto di convergenza. Roma: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2003. Van Ravenswaay, Lange. Augustinus Totus Noster: Das Augustinverstandnis bei Johannes Calvin. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Viguié, Ariste. “Les Sermons de Calvin sur le livre de Job.” Bullettin de la Societé de l’histoire du Protestantisme Français 31 (1982): pp. 506-507. Vinay, Valdo. Ecclesiologia ed Etica Politica in Giovanni Calvino. Brescia: Edizioni Paideia, 1973. Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacraments. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1953. ———. Calvin’s doctrine of the Christian life. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1959. Walker, Williston. The Organizer of Reformation Protestantism, 1509-1564. New York: Schocken Books, 1996. Warfield, B.B. Calvin and Augustine. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974. Wendel, François. Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought. Translated by Philip Mairet. Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1987. Willis, David. “Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin’s Theology.” in The Context of Contemporary Theology, Essays in honour of Paul Lehmann, ed. A.J. McKelway and E. David Willis. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974.

355

Wyatt, Peter. Jesus Christ and Creation in the Theology of John Calvin. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1996. Zachman, Randall C. The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Zachman, Randall C. Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.

Other Secondary Sources Ahern, M. B. The Problem of Evil. New York: Schocken, 1971. Arts, Herwig. God, the Christian, and Human Suffering. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1993. Beker, J. Christian. Suffering and Hope. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Brightman, E. S. A Philosophy of Religion. London & New York, 1947. Brogi, Stefano. I filosofi e il male, Storia della Teodicea da Platone ad Auschwitz. Milano: Franco Angeli s.r.l., 2006. Buttrick, George. God, Pain and Evil. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966. Carmody, John. Living with God in Good Times and Bad. New York: Crossroad, 1996. Carson, D. A. How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. Crenshaw, James, ed. Theodicy in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Feinberg, J. S. Theologies and Evil. Washington: University Press of America, 1979. ———. Deceived by God? A Journey Through Suffering. Wheaton: Crossway, 1997. Fiske, John. The Beginnings of New England; or the Puritan Theocracy in Its Relation to Civil Liberty. Boston and New York: Mifflin & Co., 1889. Fitch, William. God and Evil: Studies in the Mystery of Suffering and Pain. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. Forsyth, P. T. The Justification of God. London: Independent, 1948. Frankl, Viktor. Man’s Search for Meaning. New York: Washington Square Press, 1963. Geach, P. T. Providence and Evil. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Geivett, Douglas. Evil and the evidence of God: the challenge of John Hick’s theodicy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995. Griffith, David Ray. God, Power, and Evil, a Process Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976. Hall, John Douglas. God and Human Suffering, an Exercise in the Theology of the Cross. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986. Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Horton, Davies. The Vigilant God, Providence in the thought of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Barth. New York: Peter Lang, 1992.

356

Hughes, Philip. Hope for a Despairing World: The Christian Answer to the Problem of Evil. Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1977. Inbody, Tyron L. The Transforming God: An Interpretation of Suffering and Evil. Louisville: WJK, 1997. Jevne, R. It All Begins With Hope. San Diego: Lura Media, 1991. Kierkegaard, Sören. “Joyful Notes in the Strife of Suffering.” Christian Discourses. New York & London: Oxford University Press, ET 1939. Kreiner, Armin. Gott im Leid. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder Verlag, 1997. Küng, Hans. Credo: The Apostles’ Creed explained for Today. London: SCM Press, Ltd, 1992. Kushner, Harold. When Bad Things Happen to Good People. New York: Avon Books, 1981. Lewis, C. S. A Grief Observed. New York: Seabury, 1964. ———. The Problem of Pain. New York: Macmillan, 1962. Lüdemann, Gerd. The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible. Louisville: WJK, 1997. Madden, Edward, and Peter Hare. Evil and the Concept of God. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas, 1968. McCloskey, “God and Evil.” in God and Evil: Readings on the Theological Problem of Evil, ed. Nelson Pike. Englewod Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964. McGrath, Alistair. Modern Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994. ———. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1993. ———. Suffering and God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Murphree, Jon Tal. A Loving God and a Suffering World. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1981. Page, Syd. The Powers of Evil. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Peterson, Michael. Evil and the Christian God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982. Pike, Nelson. God and Evil. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Plantinga, A. God, Freedom and Evil. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Plantinga, Theodore. Learning to live with Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Richmond, Kent. Preaching to Sufferers: God and the Problem of Evil. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988. Schaff, Philipp The Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1983. Schaeffer, Edith. Affliction. Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1978. Schemmer, Kenneth E. Between Faith and Tears. Nashville: Nelson, 1981. Schilling, S. Paul. God and Human Anguish. Nashville: Abingdon, 1977. Shoulson, S. Milton and the Rabbis, Hebraism, Hellenism and Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Soelle, Dorothe. Suffering. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Tillich, Paul. The History of Christian Thought. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Varillon, F. La souffrance de Dieu. Paris: Centurion, 1975. Wayle, John. Christian Answer to the Problem of Evil. New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1936.

357

Weber, Max. “The Hidden God of Calvinism.” In The social psychology of the World Religion, eds H.H. Gerth and C. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946. Wenham, John. The Enigma of Evil. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985. ———. The Goodness of God. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1974. Winters, Anna Case. God’s Power: Traditional Understandings and Contemporary Challenges. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/J. Knox Press, 1990. Yancey, Philip. Where Is God When It Hurts? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

358