In God's Custody: The Church, a History of Divine Protection; a Study of John Calvin's Ecclesiology based on his Commentary on the Minor Prophets 9783666569227, 9783525569221, 9783647569222

Citation preview

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Reformed Historical Theology Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Wim Janse, Elsie McKee

Volume 12

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Frederik A.V. Harms

In God’s Custody: The Church, a History of Divine Protection A Study of John Calvin’s Ecclesiology based on his Commentary on the Minor Prophets

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-525-56922-1

© 2010, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen / www.v-r.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu § 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany. Druck- und Bindung: b Hubert & Co, Göttingen. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Contents Contents Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................

9

Introduction ............................................................................................

11

1.1

Statement of the Thesis .........................................................

11

1.2

Current State of Calvin Scholarship ......................................

12

1.3

Methodology and Outline .....................................................

14

Part One: Calvin in Context: 1555–1559 1. The Historical Context of Calvin’s Exegesis ...................................

19

1.1

Bridging Biblical Text and Contemporary Situation .............

19

1.2

Important Events .................................................................... 1.2.1 Geneva: Victory and Consolidation....................... 1.2.2 Contributing Factors .............................................. 1.2.3 Peace of Augsburg (1555) ..................................... 1.2.4 Treaty with Bern Renewed (1558)......................... 1.2.5 Câteau-Cambrésis Treaty (1559) ...........................

21 21 22 24 26 27

1.3

Church in Germany ................................................................

28

1.4

Church in France .................................................................... 1.4.1 Dispatch Ministers to France ................................. 1.4.2 Letters to Women Imprisoned in France ............... 1.4.3 French Refugee Church: Frankfort ........................

29 30 30 31

1.5

Personal Issues ....................................................................... 1.5.1 Health History........................................................ 1.5.2 Minor Prophets Lectures .......................................

32 32 34

1.6

Education ............................................................................... 1.6.1 Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541)........................... 1.6.2 Influences ............................................................... 1.6.3 Opening of the Academy (1559) ...........................

37 37 39 40

1.7

Conclusion..............................................................................

41

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

6

Contents

Part Two: Calvin’s Ecclesiology in his Minor Prophets Commentary 2. Scripture ...........................................................................................

45

2.1

Introduction ............................................................................

45

2.2

The Bible as Foundation ........................................................

46

2.3

God as Author and Authority of Scripture.............................

48

2.4

Unity of Scripture...................................................................

51

2.5

Revelation and Accommodation............................................

54

2.6

Inspiration of Scripture ..........................................................

59

2.7

Sufficiency of Scripture .........................................................

65

2.8

Conclusion..............................................................................

66

3. Election ............................................................................................

67

3.1

Introduction ............................................................................

67

3.2

Eternal Election......................................................................

67

3.3

Divine and Human Will .........................................................

70

3.4

General and Special Election .................................................

73

3.5

Double Predestination ............................................................

75

3.6

Election as Unchanging .........................................................

79

3.7

Election a Mystery .................................................................

81

3.8

Assurance: Certainty of Faith and Salvation..........................

82

3.9

Conclusion..............................................................................

87

4. Covenant ..........................................................................................

88

4.1

Introduction ............................................................................

88

4.2

Place and Relationship to Election.........................................

88

4.3

One Covenant.........................................................................

90

4.4

Christ as Mediator ..................................................................

92

4.5

Mixed Membership ................................................................

94

4.6

Israel and Church ...................................................................

96

4.7

Law and Covenant.................................................................. 100

4.8

New Covenant: Stability ........................................................ 102

4.9

Conclusion.............................................................................. 107

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Contents

7

5. Church and Kingdom ......................................................................... 109 5.1

Introduction ............................................................................ 109

5.2

False Assurance...................................................................... 109

5.3

Church and Kingdom Restoration.......................................... 111

5.4

Spiritual Nature of the Kingdom............................................ 112

5.5

Davidic Kingdom ................................................................... 114

5.6

Kingdom of Christ ................................................................. 116

5.7

War in the Kingdom............................................................... 119

5.8

Kingdom and Church: Schism and Reunion.......................... 124

5.9

Conclusion.............................................................................. 128

6. Church Office and Administration ..................................................... 130 6.1

Introduction ............................................................................ 130

6.2

Church Government: Spiritual ............................................... 131

6.3

Order of the Church ............................................................... 134

6.4

Authority and Limitation of Church Office ........................... 137

6.5

Accountability of Office-Bearers........................................... 142

6.6

Office of the Pastor ................................................................ 145

6.7

Divine Discipline ................................................................... 6.7.1 Necessity: Church is Weak .................................... 6.7.2 Character of Discipline: Paternal ........................... 6.7.3 Motive: Divine Protection ..................................... 6.7.4 Purpose: Remedial ................................................. 6.7.5 Method: Gradual ....................................................

6.8

Conclusion.............................................................................. 160

150 151 153 154 155 157

7. Worship .............................................................................................. 162 7.1

Introduction ............................................................................ 162

7.2

True Worship ......................................................................... 162

7.3

Rule for Worship.................................................................... 164

7.4

Worship is Spiritual ............................................................... 167

7.5

Piety........................................................................................ 172

7.6

The Holy Spirit....................................................................... 176

7.7

Character of Worship ............................................................. 177 7.7.1 New Priesthood...................................................... 177 7.7.2 Prayer ..................................................................... 178

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

8

Contents

7.7.3 7.7.4 7.7.5 7.7.6 7.7.7 7.8

Certainty of Faith ................................................... Preaching and Sacraments as Aids ........................ Baptism .................................................................. Lord’s Supper......................................................... Good Works ...........................................................

179 181 184 185 188

Conclusion.............................................................................. 191 Part Three: Calvin’s Ecclesiology in Light of the History of Exegesis on the Minor Prophets

8. Ecclesiology in Early and Medieval Exegesis on the Minor Prophets ...................................................................... 195 8.1

Introduction ............................................................................ 195

8.2

Early Church (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyr, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind) ................. 195

8.3

Medieval Church (Rupert of Deutz, Nic. Of Lyra, Denis the Carthusian)............................................................. 199

9. Sixteenth Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets ........................ 204 9.1

Calvin’s Principles and Practice in the Interpretation of Scripture............................................................................. 9.1.1 Introduction............................................................ 9.1.2 Preface to the Minor Prophets Commentaries: a brief comparison.................................................. 9.1.3 Calvin’s Principles and Practice in his exegesis of the Minor Prophets ........................................... 9.1.4 Conclusion .............................................................

204 204 206 210 214

9.2

First and Second Generation Exegetes (Luther, Bucer, Zwingli, Melanchthon) ................................. 215

9.3

Third Generation Exegetes (Pareus, Piscator, Daneus) ......... 218

9.4

Conclusion.............................................................................. 220

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 222 Bibliography ........................................................................................... Primary Sources ............................................................................... Translations ....................................................................................... Secondary Sources ............................................................................

229 229 230 231

Index ....................................................................................................... 242

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Over the course of my life I have had the privilege of knowing numerous individuals who have been a genuine inspiration to me. Unfortunately only some of them I can mention here. I begin by thanking God for my parents (Hans and Marie) who instilled in me a love for God and his Church. Ma, I look back on the wonderful times we could share while I was able to stay with you occasionally in Zwolle during the last three years. Thanks for coming along with me in the early hours on Sunday mornings to travel to churches where I had opportunity to preach. I thank my two brothers Jan and Luc and sister Carien and their respective spouses for their encouraging words and getting us ready to celebrate this day at last. It is beyond dispute that I should mention my wonderful wife and friend Brenda. Without your unshakable confidence in my work I would not have been able to stay and finish the course. Next I hasten to mention our two children Jackie and Derek whose lively spirits kept me from becoming too absent minded at numerous dinner times. I thank my mother-in-law Muriel Green profusely for opening her home to our family and enduring so graciously our intrusion into her privacy these last several years. I confess that it has always been a sheer joy for me to spend time in theological libraries. No matter which library I have visited (in the United States, Germany or Holland) to collect research materials the staff members have always been very kind and helpful. Here I mention with gratitude the expert help I received at the Meeter Center (Calvin College) in Grand Rapids (USA). I cannot thank Dr. Paul Fields enough for his assistance in tracking down bibliographical details. At this point I reserve a special word of thanks for Mrs. Thea Van Halsema and the family of her late husband Dr. Dick Van Halsema who graciously fund the fellowship grant designed for pastors in ministry (the Emo F. Van Halsema scholarship). As one of its recipients I am grateful to you. I also acknowledge with gratitude the assistance I received from the library staff at the Johan À Lasco library in Emden, Germany. Thanks to a scholarship I received from this institution I was able to locate primary sources in order to survey the works of Reformed and Post-Reformation commentators on the Minor Prophets. The hospitality I enjoyed while staying in Emden was heart-warming. Next, I mention my friend Jason Zuidema who responded so quickly and willingly to my appeal for assistance in getting the manuscript ready for

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

10

Acknowledgements

publication. This leads me next to acknowledge the friendly support I received from editorial staff members Tina Grubel and Christoph Spill at Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. It was a sheer pleasure to work with you as well. At this point I am going to simply list a number of people who in the past or in more recent times have meant a great deal to me. I acknowledge the helpful counsel I received from the following persons: Drs. Jon Balserac, Lyle Bierma, Wim de Greef, Richard Muller, Frans Van Liere, and again Jason Zuidema. In addition, I wish to thank the members of my reading committee Prof. Dr. Arie Baars, Dr. Erik de Boer, Prof.Dr. Eric Peels, and Prof. Dr. Annie Noblesse-Rocher. I thank you for your careful, learned and expert criticims that helped improve the quality of my study. I thank you deeply. Others who have also played an important part in my life (past or present) are Dr. Dale Cooper, my brother-in-law and expert missionary Rev. Bill Green Jr. (Th.M.), Mrs. Lien De Groot, Dr. Dick Van Halsema, Rev. and Mrs. Ray Lanning, Prof. Dr. Willem van’t Spijker, Dr. and Mrs. Bill Ural (M.D.), Prof. Dr. Wim Velema Of particular importance to me is my co-promotor Dr. Erik De Boer. I thank you for your encouragement as you too read and examined my study, giving insightful comments and challenges along the way. I now conclude giving acknowledgements to honour you Professor Dr. Herman Selderhuis for being willing to be my promotor. Your scholarship, wonderful positive outlook, and guidance were indispensable. In our correspondence you stated ever so tersely, yet precisely what I needed to know to make progress in my studies. It was a sheer privilege for me to have worked under your tutelage. Thank you also for the practical ways in which you helped me to reach this moment of celebration. The greatest and supreme praise is reserved for God who gave me the desire to pursue this study and the stamina to finish it. May the results of this study presented here aid Christ’s Church in its calling to be restored as well as established in this day. If anything, this study has engraved in my mind the conviction of Calvin that God continues to defend and keep his Church no matter the trials she faces and the divine discipline she is still called to endure until at last…she enters into her eternal perfection. Brenda, to you and our parents I dedicate this study.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Introduction Introduction Statement of the Thesis

Statement of the Thesis This study focuses on Calvin’s ecclesiology based on his commentary on the Minor Prophets in the Old Testament. This topic places therefore a limit on what this study does and does not intend to evaluate. The primary emphasis is not on Calvin’s method and practice of exegesis as a commentator of scripture. The study at hand purports to show from Calvin’s commentary on the Minor Prophets (MP) the reformer’s ecclesiology. Stated differently, the objective is to analyze Calvin’s view of the nature and practice of the church in his sixteenth century context in the light of scriptural indicatives and imperatives he finds for his insights and conclusions in the biblical text. Justification for this topic is based on the fact that no singular study of Calvin’s ecclesiology has yet appeared that is based exclusively on one or more of the reformer’s biblical commentaries. Furthermore, since the study at hand concentrates on the Minor Prophets—and the biblical-historical reality it represents of a divided kingdom—Calvin’s commentary offers the potential benefit of understanding more closely how and why Calvin views the presence of the church in the Old Testament period as analogous to the sixteenth century ecclesial context. In fact, this study argues the position that the reformer understands the need of the reformation of the church in his own sixteenth century historical circumstances (political and ecclesiastical) to be a reflection of the church that needed to be restored during the age of the Minor Prophets. The reformer gives particular consideration for the twofold division of the Davidic kingdom (David and Jeroboam) suggesting a parallel to the schism that is embodied in the Reformation and the Roman Church in the sixteenth century.1 Through his view of the unity of scripture and of biblical history Calvin believes that the lessons taught to ancient Israel apply readily to the church in his own day. This parallelism gives Calvin’s ecclesiology its dynamic character—one which Calvin shares for much of the same —————

1 This observation is tempered by the recognition that Calvin does not strictly identify the kingdom of Jeroboam (ten tribes) with the Roman Catholic Church and the kingdom of David (Judah and Benjamin) with the church under the aegis of the Reformation doctrines in light of the fact that the kingdom of Judah also ended in the Babylonian exile despite the return 70 years afterwards.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

12

Introduction

reason with Luther2—and it sets him apart to some degree as a commentator from the exegetical tradition as well as most exegetes from his own era. In the past the question concerning the “central dogma”3 in Calvin’s theology has proven to be difficult to establish given the various answers that scholars have offered. Some have argued in response that there is no single theme around which Calvin organizes the whole of his theology. In light of the difficulty to pinpoint such a central theme which controls Calvin’s theology it is good advice to remember Karl Barth’s admission to Eduard Thurneysen, namely that Calvin appears to him like “a cataract, a primeval forest, a demonic power, something directly down from Himalaya, absolutely Chinese, strange, mythological; I lack completely the means, the suction cups, even to assimilate this phenomenon, not to speak of presenting it adequately.”4 Even if the doctrine of the church is also not the sole organizing principle that unites all of Calvin’s theology, the promotion of the church’s restoration and ongoing reformation is the main purpose behind all his labors. Calvin’s commentary on the prophetic writings in the Minor Prophets indicates that the reformer’s ecclesiology can be viewed like a prism through which one observes the interconnectedness between Calvin’s ecclesiology in service to the rest of his complex theology. This thesis depicts to us Calvin’s sense that the history of ancient Israel is analogous to the church in Calvin’s own time. Even more forcefully, ancient Israel is the Old Testament manifestation of the Church of all times preserved under the guardianship of its covenant keeping God and Christ its ruler. Consequently, the church’s history is for Calvin a testimony of God protecting and defending his church against forces both from without and within.

Current State of Calvin Scholarship Current Sta of Calvin Scholarship The literature on Calvin studies has burgeoned to the point that it becomes more difficult to stay abreast of it.5 When we limit ourselves to just one —————

2 Compare Avis, ’The True Church’ in Reformation Theology, SJT 30 (1977): 319–45. Author quotes from Luther’s Against Hanswurst (1541) “our lot is like that of the ancient church, and in this we are beyond measure like it, so that we may well say that we are the true ancient church, or at least its companions and copartners in suffering” (Ibid., 322f). 3 On this subject see for example, Gerrish’s lecture “Calvin’s Eucharistic Piety,” in Calvin and Spirituality. Paper presented at the 10th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society, May 18–20, 1995 (Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 1998): 54–55. 4 Quoted in Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), n.p. 5 For a useful literature overview of various aspects of research of Calvin’s works consult W. van’t Spijker Calvin. Biographie und Theologie (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001),

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Current Sta of Calvin Scholarship

13

aspect of Calvin’s theology—his ecclesiology—a somewhat surprising picture emerges. In the last one hundred years much has been written about a number of aspects of Calvin’s theology. However, among this vast body of literature relatively few major studies have been devoted to his ecclesiology.6 Given the current emphasis and interest in publishing more specialized studies on Calvin—especially about his biblical commentaries,7 sermons,8 correspondence,9 as well as studies that place Calvin in his sociopolitical context (Graham, Kingdon, Olsen, Naphy)—it is not surprising that with this diversification of competing topics in current Calvin research the reformer’s ecclesiology is not studied more. Given the absence of major ————— 101–03, 109, 115, 121, 131, 142, 156, 169, 185, 203–04, 219–20. Also consult the annual literature overviews produced in the Calvin Theological Journal. 6 See J.P. Richel in his study Het Kerkbegrip Van Calvijn (Utrecht: Libertas Drukkerijen, 1942), 9. Author suggests that so much was being published on Calvin’s ecclesiology since Th. Werdermann complained of its paucity, that instead one might think that “wij van het goede niet te veel krijgen.” Note the following selection from among the most significant studies on Calvin’s ecclesiology that were produced between WWI and WWII until shortly after Vatican II: (E. Doumergue, Jean Calvin: Les hommes et les choses de son temp, vol. 5 (Lausanne: G. Bridel, 1917); R.S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (Edinburgh and London: Oliver And Boyd, 1953); G.S.M. Walker, Calvin and the Church. In Calvin’s Ecclesiology: Sacraments and Deacons, ed. R.C. Gamble, 120–38 (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1992); A. Ganoczy, Ecclesia Ministrans: dienende Kirche und kirchlicher Dienst bei Calvin (Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1968); J. Staedtke, Johannes Calvin: Erkenntnis und Gestaltung (Göttingen: Musterschmidt Verlag, 1969); B.Ch. Milner, Jr. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church (Leiden: Brill, 1970); F. Wendel, Calvin, the Origins and Development of his Religious Thought, trans. Philip Mairet (New York: Harper and Row, 1965); W. Niesel, The Theology of John Calvin, trans. Harold Knight (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1980); H. Scholl, Calvinus Catholicus (Herder: Frieburg/Basel/Wien, 1974). Monographs of more recent date are two studies that concern Calvin’s views of church polity: H.M. Höpfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, repr. 1985); H.A. Speelman, Calvijn en de Zelfstandigheid van de Kerk (Kampen: Kok, 1994). On the subject of the sacraments see: W. F. Dankbaar, De Sacramentsleer van Calvijn. Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1941; B. A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993); G.P. Hartvelt, Verum Corpus. Een Studie over een Centraal Hoofdstuk uit de Avondmaalsleer van Calvijn (Delft: W.D. Meinema, 1960); Ph. W. Butin, Reformed Ecclesiology: Trinitarian Grace according to Calvin (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1994). 7 While the scholarly interest in Calvin’s exegetical method and use of late medieval tradition is growing, there are still relatively few efforts made to relate the reformer’s exegesis to his ecclesiology. Three notable exceptions are E. A. McKee, “John Calvin on the Elder Illuminated by Exegetical History,” in Calvin Studies IV (paper presented on Calvin Studies at Davidson College and Davidson College Presbyterian Church, Davidson, North Carolina, 1988, 135–43; D. C. Steinmetz, “Luther and Calvin on Church and Tradition,” in Michigan Germanic Studies 10.1–2 (1984): 98–111; P. Wilcox, “The Restoration of the Church” in Calvin’s “Commentaries in Isaiah the prophet,” in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 85 (1994): 68–95. 8 De Boer, John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical Studies in John Calvin’s ‘Sermon Inédits’ especially on Ezekiel 36–48 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004); W.H. Th. Moehn, God Roept ons tot zijn Dienst. Een Homiletisch Onderzoek naar de Verhouding tussen God en Hoorder in Calvijn’s Preken over Handelingen 4:1– 6:7 (Kampen: Kok, 1996). 9 See Selderhuis, Calvijn een Mens (Kampen: Kok, 2008).

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

14

Introduction

works on Calvin’s ecclesiology also in recent times the question may be asked if Calvin’s ecclesiology retains any usefulness for the church in the early 21st century. The answer to this question will be left to the judgment of the readers of this study. There are two studies, already quite old, which deserve to be mentioned at this point. Both seek to analyze Calvin’s view of the church drawing from both Calvin’s Institutes but also many of his biblical commentaries. They are P.J. Richel’s study Het Kerkbegrip Van Calvijn (1942) and Charles B. Milner. Jr.’s Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church (1970). Neither of these studies jeopardize the need for this present study based on the fact that they are not only somewhat dated but also give evidence of particular prejudices that color these authors’ insights and evaluation of Calvin despite the fact that both authors present an otherwise dependable and thorough work.

Methodology and Outline Methodology and Outline The method chosen to pursue this study represents a combination that is both historic and systematic. The outline of the dissertation readily suggests this approach. The bulk of the research (Part Two) treats the ecclesiology of John Calvin in his commentary on the MP in a systematic or topical way. However, that systematic section is sandwiched between two parts that are historical in nature. Part One sketches the life and circumstances under which Calvin lived and worked by the time he lectured on the MP from circa 1556–1558. Part Three concludes this study by comparing Calvin’s view of the church with the history of exegesis on the MP beginning with the Early Church to the late medieval period and beyond it to cover commentators who lived during and shortly after Calvin’s lifetime (1509–1564). The objective is to trace any possible lines of influence, departure, or parallels between Calvin and the exegetical tradition (ancient, medieval, and contemporary) relevant to the ecclesiology found in these authors. The main portion of the study is located in Part Two, and includes chapters one through six. The first chapter shows the way Calvin viewed the nature and authority of the prophetic writings which God entrusted to the ancient prophets and which they and the church officers in Calvin’s day were called to preach and teach faithfully. The second chapter concerns the ecclesiological important question of election and adoption—especially from texts in Hosea and Malachi—and how Calvin employs a double aspect of these intimately-related concepts. Closely associated with previous two topics (Scripture and election) follows Calvin’s discussion in chapter three of the role of the covenant in the life of ancient Israel and how it serves as

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Methodology and Outline

15

the historical embodiment of God’s unchanging decree which is both eternal and gratuitous. Here too the reader is confronted with the reformer’s proclivity to distinguish dialectically the covenant as consisting in an inner and outer element or nature. If these first three topics have served to build the foundation for Calvin’s conception of the church, the last three topics can be seen as the external edifice placed in time and history. This means that in the fourth chapter Calvin’s stress on the church in the biblical metaphor of a kingdom draws the reader of Calvin’s commentary into the reality that the church must be thought of in terms of its one and permanent head, the typical king David— representing the permanent rule of Christ—to which the church is united. It is God (through Christ) who protects and preserves his church throughout history until the final consummation. In chapter five the contours of Calvin’s view of the church are drawn in terms of the church’s official ministry (offices). Here one finds an almost exclusive emphasis by the reformer on the main duty of today’s “priests” and “prophets” to instruct and interpret scripture and the call to live by it. In his MP lectures Calvin evidently feels no particular compunction to say anything at all about the offices of elders or deacons. Finally, the sixth chapter caps the interests of Calvin himself in showing forth what Calvin deemed to be the true worship of God. The church today is still called to the same obedience of faith, and the impulse for it is located in the restoration of the church through Christ’s first advent. Following the final chapter on the history of exegesis of the MP—which suggests both lines of continuity and discontinuity with the history of exegesis all the way up to Calvin’s own time period—the reader will find a summary of the entire study. In it are noted the main points of conclusion regarding Calvin’s ecclesiological ideal. As for the English translation of Calvin’s Latin commentary on the Minor Prophets in the Calvini Omnia edition the present author assumes responsibility for them. However, the modern English edition by the Calvin Translation Society (Baker, 1993) has served as basis and comparison.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Part One: Calvin in Context: 1555–1559

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

1. The Historical Context of Calvin’s Exegesis Historical Context Bridging Biblical Text and Contemporary Situation This chapter aims to place Calvin in his own context during the time period when Calvin lectures on the Minor Prophets. Given the reality that Calvin seldom speaks about himself directly in his theological writings and biblical commentary, to understand the reformer’s context may enable the reader to glean further insight into his complex personality and his penchant toward complex thought as it relates to the ecclesiology he encounters in the Minor Prophets.

1.1 Bridging Biblical Text and Contemporary Situation Calvin offers his lectures to his students on the Minor Prophets during the years 1556–1558.1 About that time certain significant political events took place in and outside Geneva that may well have colored some of the reformer’s applications of the biblical text especially as it relates to Calvin’s skepticism toward the reliability of the state as the church’s defender. While it may be difficult to ascertain the direct degree of influence these (and other) developments had on the reformer’s exegesis, his application of the biblical text to the political and ecclesiastical situation (local and international) in his day is a distinguishing feature in his Minor Prophets commentary. It is Calvin’s identification of the church in his day with the church he recognizes in the Old Testament prophets that help one to understand Calvin’s dynamic ecclesiology as encountered in his commentary on the Minor Prophets.2 While it is true that Calvin reveals little autobiographical information to his readers and listeners3 it would be a mistake to perpetuate the idea that Calvin does not reveal much about himself just because he does not do so explicitly in the bulk of his writings. In other words, it can be argued that by ————— 1

Gilmont: 1997, 376. For a lucid discussion on the strands of influence see Balke: 1992, 94–110. One could mention, for example, the acrimonious events surrounding Calvin’s father’s death and burial in Noyon that stem from his excommunication earlier by ecclesial authorities; See also McGrath: 1986, 58– 78. 3 Compare Nijenhuis: 1994, 4. Author focuses especially on Calvin’s reticence to speak about his “sudden conversion” experience “subita conversione ad docilitatem subegit” which the reformer mentions in his preface to the Psalms commentary (CO 31, 21). 2

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

20

Historical Context

reading between the lines one can still gain additional understanding about the reformer.4 Even when Calvin retains his normal use of the third person plural pronoun in his lectures on the Minor Prophets, he nevertheless intimates what his personal sentiments are. This often occurs in the context of his views about church ministry. By bridging the ancient text with his own time period in his exegesis Calvin reflects his own labor as God’s servant as analogous to the life of an ancient prophet. An example where Calvin reads the situation of a text into his own life is found in his commentary on Hosea 1:1. There the reformer clearly hints at his own struggles that stem from his ministry in the church of Geneva. Calvin indirectly identifies with Hosea and projects onto the prophet his own propensity toward weakness and discouragement given the opposition he and his colleagues encountered especially between 1541 and 1555: From this it shows with how great and with what invincible strength and staying power the Holy Spirit endowed (Hosea). For example, when God uses our service for 20 or 30 years this appears as very taxing on us, especially when we have to fight with the ungodly as well as those who do not willingly take up the yoke but instead resist us with defiance. Then we long to be freed and become like soldiers who have completed their time of service. So when we see that the prophet persevered for such a long time he ought to be an example to us of patience so that we will not despond even if God does not deliver us from our burden.5

As an interpreter of the Bible, Calvin frequently indicates his commitment to respect the original intent (consilium) of the biblical prophet.6 This does not mean for Calvin that there is no overlap between the historical situation of the Bible and that of his own time. As T.H.L. Parker has written, Calvin’s concern is to point out the historical context of the prophets themselves by which the ancient text is bridged by himself and his contemporaries.7 By contemporary standards one could argue that Calvin regularly reads his insights into the biblical text that the latter strictly speaking does not discuss or demand. Calvin connects without hesitation his contemporary —————

4 Compare with Selderhuis: 1997, 12. Author references Bouwsma: 1988, 5. Another source in Calvin’s writings is his sermons in which he frankly shares his sentiments about the spiritually poor condition of the church in Geneva. For examples consult Sermons on Micah (Calvin), translated by B. Reynolds. In Texts and Studies in Religion, vol. 47 (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990). These sermons were delivered between Nov.12, 1550 and Jan.10, 1551. We note especially the following sermons dated: Nov. 12, 1550 (Micah 1:1–2); Nov. 27, 1550 (Micah 2:8– 11); Jan.10, 1551 (Micah 7:10–12). 5 Comm. Hos. 1:1, CO 42, 199–200. John Budé in his address to “the Christian Reader” indicates that such opposition did not entirely cease after the 1555 victory. See the preface of Budé’s letter to the Christian reader: (Ioannes Budaeus Christianis L.S.) in Ioannis Calvini Praelectiones in Duodecim Prophetas (quos vocant) Minores. Genevae: Ioannem Vignon, 1610. 6 See for example, Comm. Hos 8:5, CO 42, 368; Comm. Joel 3:1–3, CO 42, 582. 7 Parker: 1986, 205–06.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Important Events

21

situation with the ancient text and this is due to his view of (biblical) history which spans the ages from creation to consummation with the first advent of Christ as the pivotal reference point. Even so, Calvin’s insights are consistently supported with biblical argumentation.

1.2 Important Events Important Events As stated, Calvin lectures on the Minor Prophets sometime between 1556 and 1558.8 On the heels of the crucial victory Calvin and his fellow pastors obtained as a result of the early 1555 city council elections in Geneva, Calvin’s lectures are presented in that context of relative political stability. Until that year Calvin’s ministry in Geneva—since his return from Strasbourg in 1541—has been characterized by regular opposition and distrust between the city government and the Reformed company of pastors they have hired. The year 1559, when Calvin’s lectures on the MP9 are published marks the pinnacle of Calvin’s success as the reformer of the church in Geneva. This is the year that Calvin becomes a citizen in Geneva, and more significantly, the newly organized and established Geneva Academy opens its doors for students from all across Europe. Finally, 1559 is also the year in which Calvin publishes his final edition of his Institutes as well as a publication of his revised commentary on the prophet Isaiah.10 1.2.1 Geneva: Victory and Consolidation With regard to the local political situation in Geneva one observes that from the year 1555 the Reformation in Geneva begins to consolidate.11 In addition to the political election results several months earlier, the decisive defeat of the Perrinists faction, following their May 1555 uprising12 means that the nearly continuous opposition against Calvin became markedly less disruptive.13 Thus it may be said that the year 1555 proves to be a “decisive year”14 ————— 8

Parker: 1986, 29. The Latin title of the 1559 commentary on the Minor Prophets is: Ioannis Calvini Praelectiones in Duodecim Prophetas (quos vocant) Minores. Ad Serenissimum Suetiae et Gothiae Regem. Reconditam harum Commentationum Doctrinam Facile Commonstrabunt Indices in Calce Operas Adiecti, Genevae 1559. Vol. 42–44 in Calvini Opera (CO). 10 De Greef: 1995, 187–94. 11 Naphy: 1994, 231. 12 Parker: 1987, 149–50. 13 The root cause for this prolonged opposition to Calvin in the matter of granting the church autonomy in handling church disciplinary matters may well have been fed by Geneva’s civil 9

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

22

Historical Context

beginning with the city’s General Council’s decision in January 1555 to formally grant the church’s governing body (Consistory15) the competency to exercise excommunication. According to the Register of the Company of Pastors, on January 24, 1555, “Sr. Amblard Corne, the first Syndic, announced to the ministers in full Council that God had been victorious, and that both the Council of 60 and the Council of 200 had resolved that the Consistory should retain its status and exercise its accustomed authority, in accordance with the word of God and the ordinances previously passed.”16 This decisive victory is consolidated further by the already alluded to annual city council election results in February, tipping the balance—albeit narrowly—into the Calvinists’ favor. The importance of these two events must not be missed. From 1555 on, Calvin and the other Reformed pastors along with those who support him on the city councils were in a much better position to influence the course of direction that church reform would take in the future. Calvin’s growing faction makes sure to purge17 the city counsel of Libertines18 having them filled with men supportive of their cause. 1.2.2 Contributing Factors What factors contribute to Calvin’s survival and church-political achievements in Geneva? In retrospect one can note that even before 1555 Calvin is given support by the city governors in the various conflicts Calvin has been involved in (Trolliet, Bolsec, and Servetus) as well as granting the Consistory the right to excommunicate citizens19 from the sacraments.20 But their support of the reformer had been tacit at best. ————— government which prior to the city’s vote favoring the Reformation cause had not had jurisdiction over the clergy. See Cameron: 1991, 27. 14 Monter: 1967, 85. 15 According to Cameron this church governing body did not begin to operate until 1542. See: 1991, 226. 16 Hughes: 1966, 305. 17 Parker: 1987, 149. Calvin’s supporters purged the three councils from the Libertines, while granting citizenship to a growing number of French refugees, giving those with voting rights a voice at subsequent city council elections. See Van Veen: 2006, 62. 18 It is important to distinguish these political Geneva based Libertines” from the “spiritual Libertines.” For a helpful discussion as to the complex nature of the Anabaptists, see Balke: 1981, 1–5; See De Greef: 1984, 156–57. 19 The outcome of this issue in January 1555 was the result of a protracted dispute by the city Council with the Libertine Philipe Berthelier. See Parker, 1987, 146–48. 20 With reference to the matter of the Lord’s Supper, The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva states without ambiguity that the church elders (commis) have the right to cause members to abstain from participation. See Hughes: 1966, 47–49.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Important Events

23

An additional vital factor is the burgeoning number of foreigners finding asylum in Geneva causing the city population to grow exponentially. This influx of refugees21 from France especially gives Calvin’s faction the numerical support that finally tipped the scale in their favor. Jean Rilliet contributes this change of political power to the admission of mostly French refugees who became bourgeoisie so that over time the old citizens of Geneva begin to lose their longheld dominion.22 The admission of refugees23 estimated to have been nearly 500024 presented major challenges for a city whose size by 1537 was 10,300.25 Among those who come to Geneva to seek asylum are people who are well educated, as well as artisans with financial resources.26 Many of these compatriots of Calvin are able to buy their citizenship which also benefits the city’s economy.27 The result is that the influence of Calvin and the Reformed church consistory grows more rapidly than before 1555.28 The influx of refugees into Geneva peaks in 1559.29 For those who came to Geneva for refuge but were without means, the Bourse française “functioned as a welfare fund and as refugee agency.”30 One can well understand the need for such a fund in light of the claim made by Parker that “in 1557 the refugees outnumbered the inhabitants,” suggesting major social and economic challenges for the city of Geneva.31 In short, the city was filled to capacity. All of these historical conditions coupled with the heavy emphasis on godly behavior by the pastors of Geneva through prescribed daily biblical instruction in both the —————

21 Naphy: 1994, 208; Naphy: 2004, 37n.17. Here Naphy shows that in 1555, 127 persons were admitted as bourgeoisie. When we add to this 144 who were added in 1556 the total of 271 for the years 1555–1556 compares starkly with 269 who gained citizenship rights in 1543–1554. 22 Rilliet: 1963, 215. Author notes: “Leur admission à la bourgeoisie menaçait de dépossér les anciens habitant de leur prépondérance.” 23 Monter: 1967, 82. Author claims that around 1550 the first great influx of religious refugees came to Geneva. 24 Graham: 1971, 105. Graham used the figure 4,776 representing the names of incoming family heads, thus not counting the names of their wives and possible children, recorded in the Book of Habitants for the years 1542–1560. See also: Naphy: 1994, 32; Dillenberger: 1975, 8. Dillenberger asserts that “Approximately one-third of Geneva’s inhabitants at one time were refugees.”; van’t Spijker: 2001, 196. 25 Graham: 1971, 105. Picot: 1978, 9. This source suggests that by 1589 there were 15,000 inhabitants; Parker: 1987, 169. Parker asserts there were 10,000 inhabitants around 1537; See Bouwsma: 1988, 19; De Greef: 1989, 23. 26 Van’t Spijker: 2001, 184; Naphy: 2004, 34; Dankbaar: 1982, 127–28. 27 Parker: 1987, 126. 28 Naphy: 2004, 37.n17. 29 Monter: 1967, 109. 30 Olsen: 1989, 38. This burse was also used to pay those who copied Calvin’s sermons and lectures by hand, as well as pay for printed materials and the colporteurs who distributed them in France, 48–50. 31 Parker: 1987, 169.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

24

Historical Context

church and school helps to explain Calvin’s low assessment of the Genevan populace’s compliance that one encounters in the MP commentary. The failed May 16 revolt proved, however, to be the “turning point”32 in Calvin’s local reform efforts as well as exerting his influence across Europe. Still, this 1555 victory does not mean that Calvin is able from then on to easily realize his ideal for church reform and restoration. Despite this much more stable situation Calvin reveals his basic distrust of the Genevans’ faithfulness to God and warns of what happened to the ancient Jews who claiming to be “the peculiar possession and heritage of God” (peculium et haereditas Dei) nevertheless were corrupt and fell prey to abusive leaders.33 Just because God at this time governs the Genevan citizens through “pious magistrates and faithful pastors” this does not mean that “what happened to the Jews might not soon happen to us, so that wolves will rule over us, as indeed experience has proved even in this our city.”34 For Calvin there is never a time to rest in self complacency (as he thinks the Roman Church is guilty of) because life is uncertain and people are by nature unstable. Calvin certainly is still aware that the electoral reconfiguration that favors his supporters does not put them together in a secure position when after the 1555 elections the scale tips favorably toward Calvin’s supporters by a single vote in the Senate.35 Still, with this rearranged shift in political balance following 1555, Geneva emits a signal to Calvin’s opponents and also its neighbor Bern asserting greater independence. Partnership with Bern will be based on greater equality and independence. 1.2.3 Peace of Augsburg: 1555 Calvin does not mention specifically the Peace of Augsburg (1555) in his MP lectures when he presents his critical and skeptical opinions about princes and their politically motivated alliances. This peace agreement was initiated by the Holy Roman Empire (favoring the Roman Church) in order to restore political and military stability as well as church unity. Partners who sign it were the various Protestant princes of the former Schmalkald League on September 25, 1555 at the city of Augsburg. In essence this accord is political in nature, not religious or theological.36 The Emperor’s ————— 32

Monter: 1967, 87. See Kingdon: 1956, 119. Comm. Mic 3:1–3, CO 43, 320. 34 Ibid. 35 Naphy: 2004, 34. 36 The New Cambridge Modern History (NCMH), vol. 2. ed. G.R. Elton (Cambridge: University Press, 1962), 185. 33

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Important Events

25

earlier defeat of the Schmalkald League (1546) had been accomplished with the help of the Bishop of Rome (Pope Paul III).37 The subsequent “Interim settlement” (1548) had proven unsatisfactory to the Lutherans as well as the Catholics.38 The Peace of Augsburg in 1555 recognizes the Augsburg Confession and allows for German princes to govern their respective territories based on their Lutheran or Catholic faith commitments. This agreement benefits the Lutherans and Catholics but leaves out the interests of Calvinists, Zwinglians, and Anabaptists who—living in German territories—are at the mercy of either Lutheran or Catholic sentiments. The treaty’s grace period allows one to relocate to a new area depending on one’s religious commitment, Protestant (i.e. Lutheran) or Catholic. For those who were Protestant but not Lutheran by confession, the treaty supplies no protection. Some of the former places of refuge for Reformed believers become inhospitable to them. Calvin responded already to the Interim (1548), with his Interim adulterogermanum, cui adiecta est: Vera christianae pacificationis et Ecclesiae reformandae ratio,39 arguing that Charles ought to initiate a thorough reform of the church before anything else. In his lectures on the Minor Prophets, Calvin reiterates such a need for complete reformation of the church. By 1543 already, the reformer addresses the Emperor in his now famous Supplex Exhortatio ad invictim Ceasarum Carolum Quintum. Calvin opines that the urgent question of church reform needs to be addressed first and foremost or else there will not be an empire for him to leave to his children.40 Calvin understands well the European, including the German,41 political and church landscape. The reformer must have realized how this arrangement would jeopardize the lives of Reformed believers living in Lutheran territories, given the militancy of the ultra-Lutherans vis-à-vis Calvin and the Zwinglians. The treaty’s principle: Ubi unus dominus ibi una sit religio, more popularly known also as cuius regio, eius religio42 had to have (and in fact did have) an adverse effect on the Reformed (refugee) churches in the German towns and cities.

—————

37 NCMH, 355–58. The Pope withdrew his troops from those of Charles V in January 1546, fearing that given Charles’ military successes the Council of Trent, already declared not acceptable to the Protestants at the Diet of Regensburg (1546), would become a tool for Charles’ own imperial agenda. 38 NCMH, 356. To the Lutherans because of the Interim’s Catholic bias, and to the Catholics because it failed to reintegrate the Protestants into the unity of the Church of Rome. 39 De Greef, 1989, 151; CO 7, 545–674. 40 Dankbaar: 1982, 156–58; CO 6, 532. 41 De Greef: 1989, 73. 42 The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (OER) (Oxford, 1996), 1: 92; NCMH, 358.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

26

Historical Context

A conference at Worms in 1557 meant to restore unity between Rome and Lutheranism fails.43 As has been noted the treaty of Augsburg ends the German phase of the Reformation.44 Furthermore, it means that the Reformation as such failed in its original intent to reform the one church.45 Positions on doctrine and liturgy become hardened. In addition, the treaty does nothing to resolve the remaining disputes between the German Lutheran theologians with Calvin and other Reformed leaders.46 There exists a mere semblance of peace between the two legally-recognized church communions (Catholics and Lutherans). As Oberman observes, “German Protestantism, content with the Peace of Augsburg and preoccupied with preserving the balance of power within the Empire, is ill-prepared to be the bold ally Calvin needs in the battle for Europe’s soil and soul.”47 Without the leadership of Luther (d. 1546) and due to the extreme Lutheran theologians’ (“gnesio-lutherans”) distrust of their own theologian Melanchthon, but even more of the reformers Bullinger and Calvin, the Lutheran faction proves unable and perhaps unwilling to further unify the Reformation movement. The Peace of Augsburg removes for the Lutheran leaders the urgency to seek unity with the followers of Zwingli (Bullinger) and Calvin. The historical need for ecumenicity has effectively died. Lutheranism turns inward—especially after 1557 (Worms)—concerned as it is to preserve itself, not merely against Rome, but oddly against fellow Protestants in the Swiss Cantons. In Germany the process of the Reformation has ended for all practical purposes.48 1.2.4 Treaty with Bern Renewed: 1558 Geneva’s renewal of its treaty with Bern stands as a symbol to the emancipation of Geneva as a free and independent city committed to the Reformation.49 This new treaty is no longer subject to expiration at a certain —————

43 Selected Works of John Calvin. Tracts and Letters (1554–1558), vol. 6, 1983, 335–6. Among the Lutherans were those who wanted to see the Zwinglian doctrine condemned. This revealed the deep rift in the evangelical camp, and Melanchthon caught in the middle left the conference early, 355. 44 OER, 1: 93. 45 Nijenhuis: 1994, 25. 46 NCMH, 222. The author notes: “The year 1555, with the Peace of Augsburg, saw both in appearance and fact the stagnation and putting-to-sleep of the great religious disputes in Germany.” See also Oberman: 2006, 102. Oberman concludes: “the whole of Lutheranism had fallen asleep.” 47 Oberman: 2006, 102. 48 OER, 1: 93. 49 For a brief but helpful summary describing the relationship between Bern and Geneva see Cameron: 1991, 224–26.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Important Events

27

date. For the dynamics inside Geneva this treaty gains in importance because it effectively ended the Libertines long held aspirations to see Geneva join the Swiss confederacy. The renewed political and military threat of the Duchy of Savoy and the ever lurking ambitions of France prompt Bern to choose for a renewed treaty with Geneva. In the end Bern agrees to separate their demands for rehabilitation of the Perrinists from treaty renewal with Geneva. Basel plays the role of arbiter in the negotiations between the two cities. Siding with Geneva on the issue of the Perrinists—refusing them rehabilitation—Bern finally concedes.50 However, this treaty with Bern has mostly local benefits, because in the same year a different treaty is signed which had far more serious effects on the Reformation and its need to become more united. The Peace of Augsburg is achieved followed by the abdication of the German Emperor Charles V who signs it. The German phase of the Reformation comes to an end with this peace agreement.51

1.2.5 Câteau-Cambrésis Treaty: 1559 A different occasion for discomfort to the cause of the Protestant Reformation at large is yet another peace treaty signed in April 1559 between the kings of Spain and France.52 Their signatures ratify a treaty (Câteau-Cambrésis) already agreed to the year earlier. Both monarchs agree to collaborate in repressing the Reformation.53 On June 2, the Edict of Ecouen declares war on Protestantism which it declares heretical and an enemy to the Catholic faith.54 Nevertheless, the first national synod of the Reformed churches in France meets in secret in Paris on 25 May 1559,55 thus formally establishing the formidable presence of the Protestant Reformation in France. Its rapid diffusion throughout certain parts of France means that by 1558 an estimated 34 churches are established with ministers to serve them. The convert to the Reformation, Admiral Coligny ————— 50

Monter: 1967, 108–09. NCMH, 3. 52 See Theodore Beza’s comments in his description of Calvin’s life, in Ioannis Calvini Vita, CO 21, 156. 53 De Greef: 1989, 63. 54 NCMH: 225 (“…nous ne voullons aulcunement estre troubles par les damnés enterprises des hérecticques ennemys de nostre dicte foy et religion.”). 55 Van Veen: 2006, 71; Parker: 1975, 174. Author notes this synod’s adoption of the Confessio Fidei Gallicana “was against Calvin’s wishes.” It should be noted that Calvin’s main concern had to do with the timing of this public declaration, not its content. 51

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

28

Historical Context

claims—according to Catherine de Médicis—that the number of ministers has grown by 1561 to 2150.56 Calvin considers the timing to organize the French Reformed churches nationally as too hasty and not in the least because of his awareness that with the support of Henry II (France) the Duchy of Savoy is renewing his claim on the territory of Geneva and surrounding parts. This renewed threat from Savoy is confirmed by the efforts to reinforce the city walls.57 Beza records that despite this danger to Geneva’s independence coming from the aforementioned treaty and also the Duchy of Savoy, it does not thwart Calvin from prompting the Geneva Council to move ahead with the plans to build and open a new school.58

1.3 Church in Germany Church in Germany Stähelin observes based on Calvin’s correspondence that the reformer is well informed about the developments in Germany.59 Calvin’s Minor Prophets commentary confirms Calvin’s cognizance of political developments in Europe generally.60 An example of the reformer’s political awareness is found in his commentary on Habakkuk 2:15–16. In it Calvin argues that his contemporary situation is a reflection (in speculo) of the condition of the church which the prophet serves.61 Betraying his skeptical view of political treaties which—according to Calvin—ultimately do not provide the safety they are supposed to guarantee, the reformer further opines concerning the so called “free cities” (urbes liberas) in his own day that they need to withstand those invitations that invite them to join a treaty. In this regard the example of the king of Babylon who promised Israel security serves as warning. Calvin believes that the deceptive way in which ancients allowed themselves

————— 56

NCMH: 224–25. This source fails to provide any source reference on which this claim was made or can be tested on its merits of demerits. Compare Parker: 1975, 174. Author suggests that by this time there may have been as many as 50 organized churches in France. Parker too does not substantiate his claim. 57 Dankbaar: 1982, 141. 58 CO 21, 156–57. 59 Stähelin: 1863, 10. 60 Calvin’s knowledge of the histirical-political conditions in Europe is traceable in his dedicatory letters to his respective commentaries. 61 Calvin’s argument and analogy between the political treaties made in ancient times and in his own generation are based on the assumption by Calvin that the prophet Habakkuk speaks of the king of Babylon when the entire prophecy never mentions him.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Church in France

29

to be lured into political treaties—which they would later come to regret— happens also in his own day all across Europe.62 The above reference supports the notion that Calvin realizes that the struggle for church unity and reform is closely intertwined with the political and military conditions that prevail in Europe. Just as all other free cities, Geneva is not impervious to the political maneuvering by territorial princes and neighboring city-states that can jeopardize its hard-fought freedom.

1.4 Church in France Church in France Between 1555 and 1559 Calvin shows his growing concern for the churches in France. In a letter to Bullinger dated Aug. 31, 1557 Calvin mentions “what miserable trepidation has prevailed over the kingdom of France.”63 In a letter to Melanchthon dated Sept. 6, 1557 Calvin highlights the dangers involved for believers of the evangelical confession in France who meet for worship in secret.64 By 1559 Calvin thinks the situation has become much worse and anticipates a bloody confrontation unless God provides a solution.65 Signs of persecution are the precursor to suffering that ensues especially with the beginning of the “Wars of Religion” (1562–1589) in Calvin’s homeland. What should be the response of those who leave the Catholic Church by their acceptance of the Gospel as taught by the reformers and the religious persecution this provokes? The reformer argues that a Christian (presumably in the context of France) has two options. In a situation of conflict with the civil government regarding faithfulness to true religion, this means one could either take up one’s cross of suffering or go into exile for the sake of avoiding religious idolatry (not suffering primarily).66 Effectively, this cuts off the position of the “Nicodemites”67 who are reformed in their theology generally speaking and with regard to the Lord’s ————— 62

See Comm. Hab 2:15–16, CO 43, 551, 552–53: “Et haec metaphora diligenter notanda est: quia hodie quoque velut in speculo idem cernimus quod hic propheta docet…Quantum ad urbes liberas attinet, Ecce vos trepidatis assidue: Iam si lateatis sub umbra mea, erit vobis optima securitas. Talis propinatio hodie in tota fere Europa cernitur.” 63 CO. 16, 596. 64 Cf. CO.16, 604: “…ubi sacras piorum conventus qui illic non sine maximo vitae discrimine clam aguntur frequentavit.” See Tracts and Letters, vol. 6, 352. 65 In a letter to Bulinger dated Oct.3, 1559, in CO 17, 654–56. See Tracts and Letters, vol. 6, 355-56. 66 See van’t Spijker: 2001, 218. See Calvin’s letter to Melanchthon, #263, dated: June 18, 1550) in Tracts and Letters, vol. 5, 1983, 275. 67 See Comm. Hos. 4:15, CO 42, 290.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

30

Historical Context

Supper in particular, but refuse to leave the Church of Rome. This does not appear to be an option for Calvin. 1.4.1 Dispatch of Ministers The training of pastors in Geneva becomes a means to support the rapid growth of newly established evangelical churches in France or French congregations in exile. Apart from a minister sent to the Duchess of Ferrara (Italy) in 1554, the correspondence of Calvin indicates that between 1555 and 1558 newly trained ministers are dispatched to churches across France as well as the French Church of Frankfort. Parallel with the intensification of religious persecution past 1555 there is a corresponding increase of pastors being sent to France. To the quickly growing church in Paris, Geneva sends five new ministers between 1557 and 1558. The Register of the Company of Pastors gives a more complete account of the number of men who were sent as pastors to France. Dankbaar notes that on the basis of these registers between 1555–1563 at least 88 ministers who are trained either in Lausanne or Geneva enter France to minister as pastors at local churches or move about as itinerant pastors.68 1.4.2 Letters to Women Imprisoned in Paris On the night of September 4, 1557 a secret meeting place of Christian worshippers is violently interrupted at Reu-St-Jacques (Paris).69 Mistreated by mobs on the streets and no better off in their prison dungeons, some of those taken prisoner are women. Among them are several women of high social standing. Always pressed for time, Calvin still labors to write letters to a number of women prisoners encouraging them to be strong in their faith. He urges them not to deny their faith in Jesus Christ, but “since we have a common salvation in him, it is necessary that all with one accord, men as well as women, should maintain his cause.”70 The reformer then encourages these women to take to heart the prophecy of Joel’s teaching that they too—just like men—possess the Holy Spirit and possess the rest of the gifts —————

68 Dankbaar: 1982, 152. Also, Lewis: 1985, 43. Author references in footnote 26 the author Kingdon: 1957, 5–42. 69 De Greef : 1989, 62. 70 CO 16, 632–34 (September 1557): “Puisque nous avons un salut common en luy,il est necessaire que tous d’un common accord, tant homes que femmes, soustiennent sa querelle,”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Church in France

31

necessary to maintain the glory of God.71 The reformer points out the examples of women in the Bible who display a “marvelous constancy” (merveilleuse constance) surrounding Christ’s death and resurrection.72 In his letters Calvin displays pastoral sensitivity and concern for these women as he calls them to confide in God’s protection. Calvin’s correspondence with these female believers in France reveals his biblical perspective that women no less than men must endure the spiritual battle the church faces. While women do not hold office in Calvin’s concept of the church—except for an ancillary role by which in the city of Geneva women (deaconesses) function alongside male deacons in caring for the poor and sick73—the reformer does not discourage them from showing outward fidelity to their newfound faith. Obedience to the gospel trumps all other lines of dependence whether on spouses, the church, or state. When one places this historical situation of women suffering equally alongside their male counterparts within the specific context of Calvin’s ecclesiology one could argue that Calvin’s correspondence reveals a greater concern with the indiscriminate call to obedience of faith than with the conventionality of women as the “weaker sex” (mulieribus imbelles) which along with children ought to be treated differently from men whether it be in their home or in wartime.74 Women (like men) are called to endure suffering for the sake of the gospel. 1.4.3 French Refugee Church: Frankfort In 1556, Calvin responds to the internal dissensions that plagued the French congregation in Frankfort, Germany. Initially Calvin sends letters in the hope that they will help to restore the peace in that church. Letters to a member of the Senate in Frankfort, John Clauberer75 indicate that Calvin’s previous communication with them is not achieving the effect intended. In a —————

71 CO 16, 633: “…qui est bien signe qu’il communique semblablement ses autres graces necessaires, et qu’il ne destitue ne fils ne filles, ne hommes ne femmes, des dons propres à maintenir sa gloire”. 72 CO 16, 633. 73 Compare John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.3.9. (McNeill: 1960), 1061–62. 74 Compare Calvin’s commentary on Micah 2:9, CO 43, 312; An example in Calvin’s Minor Prophets’ commentary suggesting the reformer’s denial of women holding teaching offices in the church is Zechariah 13:5, CO 44, 351. On the role of women performing official ecclesiastical ministries such as administering baptism Calvin states his opinion that it is unbecoming for women to perform baptism when death of a newborn infant seemed imminent (Inst. 4.3.20–1). 75 Calvin had first met Clauberer at the conference of Ratisbon and maintained friendly relations with him since that time. See Calvin’s two letters dated 28 February, 1556, in CO 16, 48–50; see also 24 June, 1556, CO 16, 203–07.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

32

Historical Context

letter addressed to this congregation Calvin reveals his awareness that the church is divided in two factions following the death of its pastor, Vauville. One faction argues that the new minister, Poulin should resign because he had not been elected with proper procedure. The other faction demands that Poulin be retained. Calvin clearly takes the side of those who wish to retain the new pastor and argues against the others that “(church) affairs are never conducted with such perfection as to leave nothing to be desired.”76 Calvin explains the rule laid down by the Holy Spirit by which persons must be reconciled to one another. He writes: “It is that each should yield and give up his right, so that we should seek rather to edify our neighbor in his eternal interests, rather than consult our own selfish desires.”77 The same refugee church continues to deal with internal strife as is seen from yet one more letter Calvin wrote 23 February 1559. Calvin notes in it the fact that Satan has again stirred up new troubles among them. Then the reformer urges the leadership to apply a solution for those who by their insistence threaten the ruin of the church (la ruine de lEglise) and should that fail he counsels the church to apply “the usual remedy, namely that of excluding them from your society” (dy pourvoir par le remede ordinaire: cest quils soyent exclus de vostre compagnie).78 On top of this recurrence of sowing disunity by the same people as before, Calvin notes that what he finds most distressing is that the two pastors in Frankfort are at variance (en debat lun avec lautre). It is bad enough when private persons (particuliers) are at odds with one another. However, how much worse it must be “when the messengers of peace are at war?”79 These comments illustrate Calvin’s view of the church with respect to the need to maintain harmony and unity in the local church by exercising both grace and a judicious common sense when dealing with matters that affect the life and stability of the church.

1.5 Personal Issues Personal Issues 1.5.1 Health History Until recent times the medical history of Calvin has received scant attention.80 Except for Calvin’s letters to friends and acquaintances and the ————— 76

CO 16, 55. CO 16, 56. 78 See Tracts and Letters 1559–1564, vol. 7, (1983), 21; Cf. CO 17, 441. 79 CO 17, 441. 80 Several notable exceptions are Wilkinson: 2001, 51–75; Bouwsma: 1988, 29–31; Cooke: 1988, 41–52; Goodloe IV: 1990, 103–17; Dankbaar: 1982, 143–46. 77

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Personal Issues

33

biographical statements by Beza81 and Colladon82 his other writings reveal far less about his bodily health condition. In this light any attempt at labeling Calvin’s mental health is even more precarious.83 There can be little doubt that John Calvin’s prolonged and debilitating struggles with his own health are reflected in his commentary on the Minor Prophets. The regular references to pain, sickness, and the remedies for them—spawned by comments regarding Israel’s spiritual degeneration and God’s discipline for that—suggests a certain confluence between Calvin’s work as a careful exegete and his own personal health experience. John Calvin’s dominant concern as a pastor and teacher was to execute his calling84 and so to be useful85 for the reform of the church in service to God. Already in a letter to Farel, dated April 1546 Calvin admits that his constant pains keep him from doing hardly anything.86 The reformer’s poor health condition will only worsen, gradually, during the last ten years of his life. His admissions about the debilitating effects his illness has on his work output make it all the more amazing how the reformer accomplished the large volume of writings in his relatively short span of years, dying at the age of 54.87 François Budé who also fled to Geneva from Paris gives an account of the overall condition of John Calvin’s health. In Budé’s “Letter to the Christian Reader” in Calvin’s commentary on the Minor Prophets Budé expresses his amazement at what Calvin accomplished despite his serious physical limitations.88 Speaking of the reformer’s ceaseless work by means of his small body (corpusculum) Beda notes that it is nothing less than a miracle. God must have looked on Calvin with nothing but kindness (divina non modo benignitate) because the reformer’s body was “by nature weak, violently attacked by frequent diseases, and then exhausted by immense labors…” And in addition to this—argues Budé—Calvin was

————— 81

72.

Ioannis Calvini Vita, in CO 21, 156. For Beza’s entire biography of Calvin see CO 21, 119–

82

Vie De Calvin Par Nicalas Colladon, CO 21, 117 (Colladon: CO 21, 51–117). Contra Selinger who without supplying clear documentation asserts that Calvin’s “particular psychological type…veers to the neurotic.” Ibid.: 1984, 7. See also Dankbaar: 1982, 229. Author makes the same claim that Calvin’s personality reveals his “neurotische natuur” but weakens his allegation by his own admission that Calvin stayed in control of his mental faculties. 84 Bouwsma: 1986, 50–1. 85 CO 12, 784. In this letter to his friend de Falais, Calvin felt “almost ashamed to live so uselessly” (“…tellement que iay preque houte de vivre ainsi inutile.”). 86 CO 12, 784. 87 See McNeill’s summation of Calvin’s manifold and diverse activities in his essay “John Calvin: Doctor Ecclesiae.” In: McKim, 1984, 20. 88 See Comm. Hosea, Prolegomena, (CO 42) and CTS, xxvi. 83

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

34

Historical Context

“pierced by the unceasing stings of the ungodly and distressed and tormented by all kinds of reproaches.”89 Thus for most of his active career in Geneva, Calvin lives with various physical illnesses and the intermittent pains associated with them.90 What were these illnesses that plagued Calvin so much of his adult life? Cooke mentions the following: gout, which was considered a form of arthritis; kidney stones; chronic pulmonary tuberculosis (‘consumption’); quartan fever91; intestinal parasites, hemorrhoids, irritable colon (today called ‘spastic bowel syndrome’); and migraine headaches.92 Calvin knew that he was not immune from these types of physical sufferings and that these merely represented the reality of the sufferings the church in this world must go through until the final return of Christ. 1.5.2 Minor Prophets Lectures In his lectures on the Minor Prophets Calvin—as stated earlier—rarely makes a direct reference to the illnesses that plague him. Except for a rare comment that tells us Calvin suffers from a troubling headache while lecturing on Amos 3:13–14 the lectures generally give few hints about the personal circumstances under which he continues to labor. The following morning Calvin’s opening remark before his students is: “One thing escaped me yesterday: pain in my head prevented me...” 93 This almost total absence of direct reference to himself in his lectures on the Minor Prophets does not mean, however, that the subject of health and sickness does not surface in them. To the contrary, Calvin makes frequent use of health and sickness metaphors (for example: remedy, physician, cure, incurable) as a means to illustrate the biblical teaching regarding God’s method of dealing with Israel and Judah’s spiritual decline and impending demise. The question of interest is whether Calvin uses these word pictures because he finds them in the biblical text itself or because his personal life condition prompts him. It is clear that the reformer utilizes these metaphors when he encounters them—directly or indirectly—in the biblical text itself. —————

89 See Comm. Hosea, Prolegomena, (CO 42) and CTS, xxvi. Colladon remarks about Calvin that Calvin “did not spare himself at all, working far beyond what his powers and regard for his health could stand,” in Parker: 1992, 62. 90 Cooke: 1988, 47. 91 Cf. Calvin’s address to the Reader in his Institutes (Battles: 1960), 3n.1. (“Last winter when I thought the quartan fever was summoning me to my death…”). Battles notes in the footnote that Calvin’s illness lasted from October 1558 to May 1559. 92 Cooke: 1988, 41–52. 93 CO 43, 50.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Personal Issues

35

Consequently, one can argue that Calvin responds to a particular text’s health-related word pictures based on his personal familiarity with health issues (and his doctors’ prescriptions to combat them) when he relates the spiritual malaise of the ancient church to the church in his own day. This claim can be illustrated from Calvin’s commentary on Hosea 5:13 which states: “When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah saw his wound, then Ephraim sent to Assyria and sent to King Jareb; Yet he cannot cure you, nor heal you of your wound” (NKJV). Here follows Calvin’s commentary: For the ungodly are blind to the causes of evils, and only attend to their present grief. They are like intemperate men, who, when disease seizes them, feel heat, feel pain in the head, and other symptoms, at the same time there is no concern for the disease, neither do they inquire how they procured these pains for themselves, that they might seek fit remedies (italics mine).94

In his commentary on Joel 2:14, Calvin offers an insightful comment which suggest his personal experience with the methods his doctors applied when treating his illnesses. The method and goal of treating an illness is not merely palliative according to Calvin. Pain is the symptom of a disease and so pain itself has remedial purpose. The Jews, according to Calvin, should not be told first that God was ready to pardon them. Doing this the people would “…not be sufficiently touched by the fear of God.”95 Instead, it is first necessary “to create in them a desire for the grace of God, that they might by degrees gather courage, and yet not immediately rise to confidence…”96 For the Jews to be healed they need to repent. Calvin suggests that this is inevitably a painful process: “two steps in repentance are necessary. The first step is when men feel how grievously they have offended (God). Here sorrow is not to be immediately removed...”97 Calvin explains how the first step of repentance prepares for the second step in which God shows that he reconciles himself to the sinner. Calvin’s commentary on the same text continues, elaborating on the “second step” God uses as though he were a physician: For the physician does not immediately ease pain, but considers what is more necessary. Perhaps he will increase it, for a thorough purging may be needful. The prophets of God do the same when they observe trembling consciences, they do not immediately apply soothing consolations, but on the contrary show that [people] ought not, as we have already said, to trifle with God… and to set before them his terrible judgment, that they may be more and more humbled. The second step is,

—————

94 CO 42, 313–15. The italicised words reveal how Calvin can describe pain since he experienced it himself regularly. 95 Comm. Joel 2:14, CO 42, 546–47. 96 Comm. Joel 2:14, CO 42, 546–4. 97 Comm. Joel 2:14, CO 42, 546–4.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

36

Historical Context

when the Prophets cheer the minds of men, and show that God now willingly meets them, and desires nothing more than to see men willing to be reconciled to him.98

In a word, Calvin understands God’s healing of sin in his people to include the first step of painful contrition or consciousness of wrongdoing to God before assuring them of his favor through reconciliation towards them. In one more example Calvin combines the reality of human sickness and healing to yet another metaphor (sunlight) which he finds in the biblical text and applies it to Christ. Commenting on Malachi 4:299 Calvin notes: “God has always given light to his church, but Christ brought the full light, according to what Isaiah teaches us… This can be applied to none other but Christ.”100 The commentary then goes on to relate the spiritual healing Christ brings for ancient Israel. Speaking to the healing power of Christ (“the Sun of Righteousness”) it is hard to avoid the thought that Calvin does not inject some personal reflections based on his own familiarity with his physical ailments. Notice how the reformer appreciates the benefit of daytime sunlight as opposed to the night which “is a kind of burden” (Nox enim est nobis instar oneris):101 There is nothing, we know that is more cheering and healing than the rays of the sun, for a stench would soon overwhelm us, even within a day, were not the sun to purge the earth from its dregs. Without the sun there would be no reprieve. We also feel a sort of relief at the rising of the sun. …when the sun sets, we feel as it were a heaviness in all our limbs. The sick are delighted in the morning and experience a change from the influence of the sun because it brings to us healing in its wing.102

From these statements by Calvin it is evident that he views the painful struggles the church faces as a result of God’s disciplinary dealings with his people through the prism of his own experience with suffering. ————— 98

Comm. Joel 2:14, CO 42, 546–47: “Medicus enim non stadium leniet dolorem sed videbit quid magis expediat: forte magis augebit, quia necessaria erit acrior purgation: Sic igitur faciunt etiam prophetae Dei, quum vident trepidas conscientias, non statim adhibent blandas consolations, sed potius ostendunt non esse ludendum cum Deo quemadmodum iam deximus…ut sibi proponent terribile Dei iudicium, quo magis ac magis humilientur. Hic est secundus gradus est quum prophetae exhilarant animos, et ostendunt Deum iam occurrere ultro et nihil magis appetore quam ut videat homines velle reconciliari.” 99 The text Calvin comments on is: “But to you who fear my name the Sun of Righteousness shall arise. With healing in His wings…” (NKJV). 100 CO 44, 490. 101 CO 44, 491. 102 CO 44, 491: “Scimus nihil magi salubre esse solis radiis: quia foetor nos obrueret exiguo tempore, hoc est, intra diem unum, nisi sol purgaret terram suis faecibus. Deinde sine sole nulla esset respiratio. Quin etiam sentimus levationem in solis ortu. …ubi sol occubuit, sentimus quasi gravedinem in omnibus membris: et aegroti etiam exhilarantur mane, et sentient aliquid mutationis ex propinquo solis afflatus, nempe quia advehit nobis sanitatem in alis.”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Education

37

1.6 Education Education 1.6.1 Ecclesiastical Ordinances: 1541 Upon Calvin’s first and second stay in Geneva it is apparent that the system of schooling leaves much to be desired. The existing school (Collége de Rive) had been floundering. According to Walker “The school continued; but so inefficient was its instruction, that Genevan parents who desired a thorough education for their sons, had to send them to other cities.”103 For this and other reasons the opening of the new Academy in Geneva forms the crown on Calvin’s work in that city.104 This new institution is the fruit of the vision embedded in The Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541) drafted soon upon Calvin’s return from Strasbourg. An educated population serves the need for both church and society. Calvin’s view of a society as a Christian commonwealth105 stimulates his ambition to design a school which would best serve the interest toward the formation of a godly society. Furthermore to consolidate and advance the reformation in Geneva, Calvin realizes the need to educate the citizens of Geneva. The establishing of the Academy for Geneva’s young is a means to the greater purpose for Calvin, namely, “so that the church is not left desolate to our children, it will be necessary to build a college for the purpose of instructing them, with a view to preparing them both for the ministry and for the civil government.”106 The securing of the future of the church and society, and in this order,107 is the controlling motive behind this new institutional endeavor realized in 1559. The 1541 Church Ordinances indicate that Calvin envisions a close connection between the restoration108 of the church and the need for ————— 103

Walker: 1969, 361n.3. Walker: 1969, 359, 367. 105 Höpfl: 1982, 152–71; Walker: 1969, 367. Incidentally, when Calvin refers to the “world” he means ordinarily the same Christian commonwealth. 106 CO 10, 21. Compare Hughes: 1966, 35, 40–41; Maag: 1993, 133. 107 See Wallace: 1988, 100. 108 Bouwsma: 1988, 241n.45. Note Bouwsma’s point that at least as late as 1543 Calvin’s preferred use was “restitution” and “restituere” as compared with “reformation”, citing an unpublished paper by M.H. Rienstra. The Minor Prophets lecture on Zechariah 2: 21–24 (cf. CO 44, 121) reveals that when Calvin speaks of the renewal of the church he favors the phrase “ecclesiam instauret” or “ecclesiam restituere” and their cognates. Calvin elects the word “reformat” to describe the effects of spiritual regeneration (“regeneratio spiritualis”) that the church’s renewal will produce when this passage is fulfilled with the first coming of Christ and the subsequent preaching of the gospel until today. On Calvin’s preferred use of restoration more than reformation with reference to Calvin’s ecclesiology in his commentary on the prophet Isaiah, see Wilcox: 1994, 68–95. 104

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

38

Historical Context

educational reform. In Calvin’s Minor Prophets commentaries the aspect of teaching is central to his understanding of the prophetic office and true religion generally speaking. Calvin can not conceive of the restoration of the church in his day apart from the central role of instruction of its members in the Bible. The church’s pivotal role in realizing this element of the restoration of the church and society is underscored by Naphy when he claims that “catechism and Consistory form the core of Geneva’s religious education totally overshadowing the efforts of the state and private schools and tutors.”109 The education of the populace serves the ultimate interest of the church and Christian commonwealth. Calvin understood the vital importance of education from the beginning when he began to minister in Geneva in 1536. Calvin intends that his first edition of the Institutes of 1536 (still viewed a “catechism”110) be used as a tool to educate the common people. By 1539 the Institutes has tripled in size and is from then on to be used more specifically as a theological handbook for theology students.111 In its place Calvin produces a catechism (1537) for the benefit of not only the church in Geneva “recently reborn in the gospel” but also for the “other churches everywhere.”112 It is clear that Calvin thinks of education as the vehicle to create unity of doctrine between all the churches. In his own words: “Because we know it befits us especially that all churches embrace one another in mutual love, there is no better way to attain this than for all parties to work out an agreement and testify to it in the Lord.”113 Therefore, in Calvin’s mind the church is called to spearhead the responsibility to teach the young people of Geneva—with the state’s approval and support—in order to ensure the interests of both church and state. The Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541) authored by Calvin serves as the foundation for the organization and discipline of the church in Geneva. The opening paragraph of this Church Order states what Calvin considers are the church’s main responsibilities. It betrays an outlook in which the church without apology asserts its public position in society in Calvin’s time: 1. The preservation of the holy Gospel. 2. The church properly maintained. 3. The instruction of the young. ————— 109

Naphy: 1993, 126. Van’t Veer: 1942, 36f. 111 De Greef: 1989, 182–83. 112 Hesselink: 1997, 1. 113 Hesselink: 1997, 1. 110

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Education

39

4. Administering the hospital for the care of the poor.114 When we compare the above statements with the MP commentary’s heavy emphasis on the teaching responsibility of office bearers in the church before and after Christ’s first advent it is clear that the instruction of the people of God constitutes one of the essential and abiding features in Calvin’s ecclesiology. 1.6.2 Influences Calvin’s renaissance-humanist training explains his careful exegesis of the Bible through careful attention to philology and grammar, the study and use of Christian and secular sources, a prominent regard for historical context,115 as well as practical usefulness. It is not surprising to find Calvin travel to Strasburg in 1556116 to benefit from Johannes Sturm’s insights on education in light of the new school Calvin intends to see established in Geneva as part of the plan for the reformation of the Christian society in that city. In Sturm the reformer encounters a combination of the ideals of humanism which appear to have been adopted in the educational principles and practices of the Devotio Moderna with its emphasis on practical “piety” (pietas) and “wisdom” (sapientia).117 While the exact degree of dependence of Calvin on Sturm is difficult to ascertain, one recognizes in Calvin the same strains of humanist ideals that characterize the Strassburg educator’s philosophy of education. In this regard it should be noted that Calvin’s conversion from the Catholic religion to the evangelical doctrine and life did nothing to distance him from his humanist training subsequently.118 Or as Warfield notes Calvin does not “cease to be a ‘man of letters,’ any more than he ceased to be a man.”119 What Calvin does not adopt is humanism’s optimist anthropology120 and the reformer transforms this through a biblical epistemology, notably ————— 114

Hughes: 1966, 35. One should note here that in addition to the influence from his humanist training Calvin also accepted (critically) influences from the patristic, contemporary reformed, and also medieval and (late) scholastic sources. For this see Muller: 2001, 43–62; also Schär: 1979, 228; Jones: 1995, 62. 116 See De Greef: 1989, 58–60. This visit coincides with a trip into Germany to mediate in a dispute in the French refugee church in Frankfort. 117 See Torrance: 1988, 72–79; Oberman: 1981, 46. 118 Breen: 1968, 166; See also Battles Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s ‘De Clementia.’ With introduction, translation, and notes by F.L. Battles and A. Malan Hugo. Published for Renaissance Society of America (Leiden: 1969), 59; L.W. Spitz: 1971, vol. 2, 559. 119 Warfield: 1956, 4. 120 Van’t Spijker: 1986, 83, 86, 89. 115

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

40

Historical Context

utilizing the doctrine of divine accommodation to the weakness of all humans, especially the ungodly.121 Bouwsma’s assessment contains a good measure of truth regarding the influence Erasmus had on Calvin when he claims that “Calvin was thus fully Erasmian in his insistence that Christianity is in essence not a set of dogmas but a way of life, and his own teaching was directed to the promotion not so much of theological understanding as of practical piety.”122 Like the school in Strasbourg, the Academy also consists of two departments. On the preparatory level the schola privata (Gymnasium) is divided in seven classes. During those years students are taught to read, write, and receive instruction in Latin, Greek, and philosophy. After graduating to the higher level of learning, the schola publica (University) students study theology and courses in the liberal arts. Over time the private school is considered the collége, like its predecessors (Collége de Versonnex established in 1429 later named the Collége de Rive) and the public school is known as an académie.123 1.6.3 Opening of the Academy (1559) By 1558 the city fathers have agreed to locate a building site for the new school. With the help of the sales of the Perrinist real estate, as well as other fundraising efforts, monies are collected to purchase this new site.124 Upon completion of the first building in 1559 the Academy opens on June 5 with great ceremony, nearly coinciding with the signing of the Treaty of CateauCambrésis between France and Spain.125 The entire building is completed by 1562. Calvin was in the privileged position to welcome faculty from the Academy in Lausanne. Particularly Beza and Viret had been proponents of Calvin’s view of ecclesiastical discipline. Their attempt in March 1558 to press for the church’s right to excommunicate in their city of Lausanne is eventually punished in January 1559, by the government of Bern, under whose jurisdiction Lausanne exists.126 Thus Calvin is able to attract Beza, ————— 121

See Balserac: 2006, 56. Bouwsma: 1986, 55. 123 See Olsen: OER, vol. 2, 163; Kampschulte: 1899, vol. 2, 337–40. Author notes the Genevan Academy’s curriculum was imitated by Jesuits as well. Quoted in Walker: 1984, 228. 124 Parker: 1987, 151. 125 Monter: 1967, 114. 126 Monter: 1967, 112; Maag: 1993, 133f.; Walker: 1969, 362–64. J. Staedtke: 1969, 73. Author notes that the city government of Bern expelled more than 40 of the Lausanne pastors most of whom ended up seeking refuge in Geneva. 122

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Conclusion

41

Cordier, Viret, as well as other instructors and students.127 On 21 March and 22 May 1559, the Genevan Little Council endorses the names of the professors as proposed by the city ministers to work at the new Academy. Among others were Antoine Le Chevalier, assigned to teach Hebrew, François Bérauld as professor of Greek, and Jean Tagaut as professor of philosophy.128 Theodore Beza, also formerly from Lausanne, becomes professor of theology alongside Calvin and is named Rector at the new Academy.129 For some years Geneva has already been training and dispatching ministers to France in particular. The new institution established in 1559 gives Geneva further name recognition and leads to dramatic growth in student enrollment during the next decade. The first year 280 students are registered for the seventh grade alone. The public school enrolled 162 in the first three years, many of whom came from France and other nations in Europe.130 Subscription to the city’s adopted statement of confession by those enrolled as students is required during the college’s early years.131 Tuition is free but the school does not confer degrees upon completion.132 By the year 1564 nearly 1200 students are enrolled in the schola privata and 300 in the schola publica.133 Due to the large number of students from 1562 onwards Calvin and Beza begin to lecture in a room in the old church “Notre-Dame-la-Neuve” nearby St. Pierre. This lecture room is referred to as the ‘l’Auditoire.’134 Just about five years before his death, the opening of the Geneva Academy crowns135 the work by Calvin to reform the life of the Christian republic of Geneva.

1.7 Conclusion Conclusion The Minor Prophets commentary indicates that Calvin’s attention is directed mostly toward the church in its universal or communal aspect. While there are hints of particular adverse conditions relative to the church inside Geneva the Reformer’s generally outward perspective may well be one effect of the process of consolidation on the heels of the 1555 defeat of ————— 127

Raynal: 1990, 127. See Borgeaud: 1900, 42. 129 Maag: 1993, 134; Walker: 1969, 363–64. 130 See Borgeaud: 1900, 51; Monter: 1967, 112–13; van’t Spijker: 2001, 189. 131 Van’t Spijker: 2001, 189. 132 Walker: 1969, 365–66. 133 Borgeaud: 1900. 63; Olsen: 1996, 163; Dankbaar: 1982, 140; De Greef: 1989, 50; Walker: 1969, 367. 134 Dankbaar: 1982, 140. 135 Staedtke: 1969, 74. 128

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

42

Historical Context

political uprising against Calvin and his cause in Geneva. Historical conditions in Europe at Calvin’s time of lecturing on the Minor Prophets help to explain the reformer’s view of the church in his day as being in need of divine protection against political and ecclesial forces exacerbating the church’s division and threatening the progress of the Reformation movement in Western Europe. By historical precedent the geo-political upheaval at the time of the Minor Prophets’ ministry toward a divided church provides Calvin with the framework within which he explains the plight of the church of his own sixteenth century context. This organic linking of the church’s ancient (redemptive) history with his own time period is a result of Calvin’s understanding of promise and fulfillment of the prophetic text as they apply to the immediate time after Israel’s return from Babylon as well as Christ’s own first advent. However, Calvin rarely applies the text to Christ’s final return and consummation of all things. Attention for the eschaton is consistently left for the prayers with which the reformer ends his lectures. Stated differently, eschatological rest functions for Calvin as the ultimate goal (rather than impulse) behind the church’s perpetual necessity for renewal and restoration.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Part Two: Calvin’s Ecclesiology in his Minor Prophets Commentary

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

2. Scripture Scripture Introduction

2.1 Introduction The goal of this chapter is to show how Calvin’s doctrine of scripture in his commentary on the Minor Prophets informs his understanding of the church. For Calvin the church is born of the preaching and teaching of the revealed will of God in scripture. To this cause of serving the “public good of the church” Calvin devotes himself in what little “spare time” he has left due to his other numerous responsibilities.1 Calvin can not think of a better way to use what little time he sees left in the day than to give himself to the work of interpreting the Bible. In fact, the reformer’s main ambition is to do this kind of work the rest of his life because of its usefulness to the church.2 In defense of the newly restored (evangelical) church’s unimpressive outward conditions, Calvin appeals per analogy to the entire history of the church (and Kingdom of God). Often the church is barely recognizable and offensive to its people.3 This picture of the church’s perpetual struggle to overcome its weak condition by virtue of God’s protection characterizes Calvin’s view of the church in his commentary on the Minor Prophets. This dismal state of the church recorded in scripture the Genevan pastor and teacher sees reflected in the state of the church in his own day. Importantly, this condition of a lack of external prosperity of the (restored and reformed) church serves for Calvin as proof of authenticity of the restored (and reforming) Christian church in distinction from the Roman Catholic Church. The external weakness of the ancient church serves for the reformer as a mirror in which he recognizes and validates the (restored) church in his own time.4 This “kerygmatic analogy” (H.J. Kraus)5 or —————

1 See Calvin’s dedication of his Minor Prophets commentary to King Gustav of Sweden (CTS, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), xix; in CO 17, 447. 2 Ibid., xix. 3 See Calvin’s comments in his Concerning Scandals (Grand Rapids: 1978), 28; Cf. De Scandalis CO 8, 23. 4 Viewing the biblical text as though it were a mirror reflecting contemporary conditions is not unique to Calvin but can be found also in M. Luther. See Bornkamm: 1969, 11–12, 16; See also Ganoczy: 1976, 49. 5 See Muller: 1990, 71–76. Muller’s reference is to the work by H.J. Kraus “Calvin’s Exegetical Principles,” trans. K. Crim, Interpretation 31 (1977): 8–18; van Veen, 2006, 94). Author

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

46

Scripture

parallel Calvin observes between these two historical contexts helps to explain why Calvin can so freely apply the biblical to his own circumstances. As Muller puts it: The strict promise/fulfillment model, in which the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament, coupled with the idea of an extended meaning of the text which encompasses the entire kingdom of God, provided Calvin with a structure of interpretation within which both a grammatical-historical reading of the text and a strong drive toward contemporary application can function.6

With the Israelites’ history serving as divine example, and the unity between the church in the old and new testaments, the ancient text of the Minor Prophets applies to the present too, since the first advent of Christ serves as the hermeneutical point of reference for the entire church whether it exists before or after Christ’s incarnation. This perspective on the essential unity of redemptive history helps to explain why Calvin transits naturally from the Bible to the situation in his own day.7

2.2 The Bible as Foundation The Bible as Foundation Calvin clearly sees the written word of God as the principal means by which the church needs to be restored in terms of the obedience of faith. Therefore, fundamental to Calvin’s view of the church is that it is born of the ministry of the divine word. The reformer’s belief that “[i]t is the gospel which constitutes the church, and not the church that determines the gospel,”8 is axiomatic. The struggle between the authority9 of the church and the individual’s right to interpret the Bible comes to a climax in Luther and Calvin. Questions about the right to interpret scripture and the correct interpretation and understanding of scripture come to a head with the Reformation claims of sola scriptura10 and the hermeneutical principle of ————— explains that it is Calvin’s presupposition to consider the Bible directly applicable to the contemporary situation given that for the reformer it is divinely inspired. 6 Muller: 1990, 71; See Greidanus: 1999, 134; Oberman: 1991, 7. Note the author’s caution not to misconstrue Calvin’s direct application to contemporary adversaries as the reformer’s “personal opinions” for Calvin views himself as “adjudicator.” We must keep this in mind when-as Oberman correctly observes regarding Bouwsma’s study of Calvin’s biblical commentaries-that the Reformer espouses “interpretations not required or not immediately following out of the scriptural text.” (Ibid., 19). 7 Muller: 1990, 76. 8 Gerrish: 1967, 162. Author summarizes Calvin’s thoughts in his On the Necessity for Reforming the Church (1543). 9 Ganoczy: 1976, 53–55. See also Ocker: 2002, 122. 10 See Bray: 1995, 164. Author observes that Calvin’s approach to the principle of “sola scriptura” is not identical with Luther’s.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

The Bible as Foundation

47

analogia fidei11 whereby texts that are clearer must guide the interpretation of those texts whose meaning is more concealed. Confirming the exclusive authority of scripture was integral to Calvin’s objective to help restore12 the church’s government and worship. The Roman church denied the Reformation’s insistence on scripture’s authority over the church regarding the interpretation of scripture. In his written response to the conclusions made by the Council of Trent Calvin leaves no doubt what his opinion is regarding Trent’s denial of interpreting scripture independent of the magisterial authority of the Roman Church.13 Calvin addresses this question about the relationship between church and scripture also in his biblical commentaries of the Minor Prophets. His commentaries generally reflect the sentiment according to one Calvin scholar that Calvin radicalized more than Luther the Reformation principles of claritas scripturae and sola scriptura.14 In essence, Calvin debunks the papal claim that the Roman institution deserves exclusively the title “church”. The native of France accomplishes this by insisting that scripture—not the hierarchy or Magisterium of the Roman church—has final authority over the word by linking scripture to the person and work of the Holy Spirit.15 In short, the church ought to place itself under the word rather than above it.16 Scripture judges tradition and church, instead of the other way around.17 There can be no certitude of faith—vis-a-vis the uncertainty upon which the Roman Church bases it doctrine according to Calvin—unless as Susanne E. Schreiner argues, the reformer makes “certitude itself the test of doctrinal or exegetical authority.”18

————— 11

Ganoczy: 1996, 47. Calvin’s preferred choice for the church’s renewal and restoration is restitute, CO 42, 218; restitutione, CO 44, 159; restituat, CO 42, 516, and instauraverit, CO 42, 597, as compared with the word ‘reform’ (corriget, CO 42, 232, suggesting Calvin’s ambition that true church reform means restoring it to the biblical and early Church example. Compare Wilcox: 1994, 68–95. 13 See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, with the Antidote (1547) (Acta Synodi Tridentinae), in CO 7, 418. This concerns Calvin’s reply to the Second Decree of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent (1546). See also Tracts and Letters, vol. 3, Grand Rapids: 1983, 76–77; Compare Newport: n.d., 61–64; Diestel: 1981, 233. 14 See Ganoczy: 1996, 55–56. 15 See Godfrey: 1996, 38. 16 Van Veen: 2006, 105. 17 Muller: 1993, 52. Compare Berkouwer: 1959, 188, 191; Stuhlmacher: 1977, 32–33. On Calvin’s guarded appreciation for the authority of the church fathers, see Réveillaud: 1958, 25–45. 18 Schreiner: 1996, 214. It is due to Calvin’s understanding of the progression of divine revelation from its shadowy to its clearer form leading up to and since Christ’s first advent respectively that explains also why Calvin likes to stress the greater stability which the new covenant fulfilled in Christ possesses in comparison with the period when ancient Israel lived under the old covenant. 12

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

48

Scripture

Because the church was in need of total reformation, not just half,19 which Calvin argues would satisfy the officials in the Catholic Church, submission to the authority of the written word of God is essential. The church’s only authority—being spiritual—is that of the word it is called to preach and teach.20 Or in the language used in the Institutes, the authority of scripture precedes the very existence of the church and consequently the church is grounded upon scripture (Book I.7.2).21 Calvin grounds his appeal for church reformation in the Old Testament Minor Prophets and their teaching of God’s law. Consequently, the church in the sixteenth century is part of the same history unfolding in the MP. It is within that united history that “God is at work as though it were a theatre.”22

2.3 God as Author and Authority of Scripture God as Author and Authority of Scripture Calvin’s lectures on the Minor Prophets make clear that God is the actual and primary author of the prophets’ messages.23 For example, Calvin comments about the prophet Malachi that he “makes [God] the author of this prophecy.”24 This is not to say that Calvin views the prophets as entirely passive recipients of the divine revelation.25 Any acknowledgement that God accommodates himself using prophets and their personality and circumstances does not negate the fact that—for Calvin—God is the actual author of the prophetic words spoken to the ancient church.26 When it comes to the postexilic prophet Haggai Calvin distinguishes between the human and divine author. However, it is only to explain the ————— 19

Comm. Zech. 13:5, CO 44, 351: “Reformatio dimidia…”. Van Veen: 2006, 107. 21 See Battles: 1960, 75. 22 Fischer : 1986, 86. Compare De Scandalis, in CO 7, 32. Unlike his popular “mirror” metaphor, Calvin rarely mentions this “theatre” metaphor in his Old Testament and New Testament commentaries (Comm. Isa 40:21 and Hos 12:3–5). 23 Comm. Nah 1:1, CO 43, 437; Comm. Zech 8:20–22, CO 44, 254: “…Deum esse autorem huius vaticinii…”; Comm. Obad 1:1, CO 43, 178, 179: “Praefatur Obadias se nihil humanum affere…” And: “…prophetam…statuere Deum autorem…hac lege olim prophetas loquutos esse, ut tamen solus Deus audiri vellet in populo suo.”; Comm. Zeph 1:1, CO 44, 2: “…et Sophoniam…sed tantum interpres fuerit coelestis doctrinae.”; Comm. Hag 1: 12, CO 44, 94. 24 Comm. Mal 3:1, CO 44, 462: “...facit huius prophetiae autorem”. See also Comm. Mal 4:4, CO 44, 494. Here Calvin speaks of God as the author of Moses’ law (“Interim vero sibi plenam autoritatem vendicat Deus…” “…scilicet Deus se hic faciat autorem legis…”). 25 Compare Ganoczy, 1996, 53n.60. Author notes that given Calvin’s emphasis on the divine activity, the human author plays a nearly meaningless role (“…ist der menschliche Autor nahezu bedeutungslos.”). 26 See Puckett: 1995, 48.n24. Author references Calvin’s commentary on Amos 3:3–8, CO 43, 40. 20

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

God as Author and Authority of Scripture

49

way this prophet functions in his capacity as God’s minister.27 The prophet’s role in receiving and communicating the words from God is subservient to God who alone is its author.28 Revealing a realistic view of the fallen condition of humanity, including those God calls to office as a prophet, Calvin can admit freely that God alone must be the author, because prophets themselves are “vain and false” (vanos esse et mendaces) as such, and need to be “ruled by the Spirit of God and sent by him” (regentur Dei spiritu, et ab eo missi sunt). The prophets are obligated to teach the people only what God delivered to them, “that God alone might be heard among the people” (ut tamen solus Deus audiri vellet in populo suo).29 That Benjamin B. Warfield describes Calvin as the “theologian of the Holy Spirit”30 deserves merit, not in a small part based on the reformer’s organic link between scripture (God’s revealed will) and the church as the result of the Spirit’s power. So, for example, when it comes to the application of a given text, Calvin argues that people do not follow the right course unless “the Lord directs them…both by his word and by his Spirit.”31 Calvin’s lectures on the Minor Prophets show that the Spirit’s role was not limited to be the divine author of scripture.32 The reformer also recognizes the importance of the Holy Spirit33 when He makes the prophets his “instruments” (interpositum)34 or “organs” (organa).35 Likewise, the prophets were more than men who just received the divine words. As interpreters of Moses’ law (Calvin argues their ministry added no new revelation to the law) the prophets were obligated to faithfully transmit the words of God’s revelation (law) to instruct the people. Calvin views his own official calling similarly, namely to interpret scripture faithfully and to aim to discover the intent of the text and the mind of its original author. It —————

27 Comm. Hag 1:12, CO 44, 94: “sed tantum distinguit inter Deum autorem doctrinae et ministrum”. 28 Comm. Zeph 1:1, CO 444, 2. 29 Comm. Obad 1, CO 43, 179; see also Comm. Mic 1:2, CO 43, 284. 30 Warfield: 1956, 21. 31 Comm. Jonah 1:5, CO 43, 212: “…nisi Dominus ipsos et verbo suo et spiritu diriget…” 32 See Comm. Mic 3:4, CO 43, 322, where Calvin admits that the holy Spirit raises the believer’s heart to heaven and is the author of faith and repentance; see Comm. Mal 3:16, CO 44, 481: (“…et cordis conversio singulare est spiritus sancti donum.”); In Comm. Zech 12:10. Calvin mentions the Spirit’s role as illuminator of our minds and who turns our hearts to God (CO 44, 335): “…sed interiorem sensum fidei, cuius autor est spiritus. …qui est mentes nostras illuminat, ut percipient Dei bonitatem: ipse est etiam qui corda nostra inflectit”. On the same text Calvin additionally makes reference to Christ as author of the prophetic word in an effort to debunk the argument of those who deny Christ’s hypostatic union with his Father (CO 44, 336). 33 Comm. Joel: 1:1–4, CO 43, 518. 34 Comm. Mal 1:1, CO 44, 395. 35 Comm. Hos 9:8, CO 42, 395; see Joel 1:1–4, CO 43, 518.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

50

Scripture

may well be that Calvin’s close identification with this singular duty of the prophetic ministry explains foremost why the reformer strives after brevity and lucidity in biblical exegesis. To point out the sense in which Calvin sees how the prophets participate in the Holy Spirit’s employment of them, the reformer refers variously to both the Holy Spirit’s intention (consilium36 spiritus sancti) and the prophet’s intention (consilium prophetae).37 Calvin asserts direct involvement by the Spirit in the prophetic ministry when he states that the prophet Jonah spoke with the voice of the Holy Spirit.38 The Holy Spirit closely identifies with the person of the prophet, through whom He was able to become Israel’s “guide and teacher.”39 One sees this also, for example, when Calvin explains the biblical text that the Holy Spirit “declares” (pronuntiat) what the prophet Amos states concerning God’s laws.40 Calvin accuses the ancient Israelites of restraining the Spirit (fraenum…spiritui sancto), when they were limiting the prophet’s freedom to speak (certis pactis loqueretur), and thus they effectively rejected the word of God (reiicere verbum Domini). However, Calvin immediately applies his insight to the papacy, arguing that they totally suppress the freedom to prophecy (Et in papatu hodie quasi in totum supprimitur libertas prophetandi).41 Calvin does not think the Catholic Church is literally silencing all those who sought to minister the word of God. Still, the real question is whether a servant of God is given the liberty to faithfully teach (pure doceant). Anything less means the same as “rejecting [the prophets’] doctrine entirely” (prorsus reiiceretur eorum doctrina).42 Since God is scripture’s sole author Calvin insists He also maintains exclusive rights to its —————

36 The words used in CTS (Baker, 1983) “design”, “intention”, and “object” are consistently derived from one word Calvin used: “consilium.” 37 Comm. Hos 2:18, CO 42, 247; Amos 2:4–5, CO 43, 20; Compare Muller: 1990, 68. Calvin aims to arrive as closely as possible to “the prophetic Spirit,” see Calvin’s dedicatory letter to King Gustav in his MP commentary, in CO 17, 447; CTS, xix. Interestingly, Calvin’s assistants who prepared the spoken lectures into commentary format themselves claim to have followed Calvin’s words literally. Parker believes that besides Budé and Jonvillier, Raguenier may also have helped these men. See Parker: 1987, 153. That these men were meticulous in their attempt to faithfully transcribe Calvin’s spoken words can be seen from Budé’s letter prefacing the Minor Prophets commentary, in CO 42, n.p.; Cf. CTS, xxiv. Their method seems to suggest a certain analogy with how Calvin believed the prophets too wrote down only what God inspired them with. 38 Comm. Jonah 2:8–9, CO 43, 244: “…spiritus sanctus per os Ionae…” 39 Comm. Hab 3:1, CO 43, 564: “…sciret spiritum sanctum sibi esse ducem ac magistrum opera ipsius prophetae”. 40 Comm. Amos 2:4–5, CO 43, 21. 41 Comm. Amos 2:9–12, CO 43, 33. 42 Ibid.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Unity of Scripture

51

authority rather than relinquishing it when he commissions priests and later the prophets to teach it to the people of God.

2.4 Unity of Scripture Unity of Scripture Calvin’s ability to recognize and identify the chosen people of God in the Old Testament as the church results from the reformer’s view of the unity of Scripture.43 This belief is not unique to any of the reformers—including Calvin—since their belief about the unity of scripture and its authority is preceded by traditional theologians.44 To Calvin the Old Testament period represents the “youth of the church” where the New Testament age expressed the church’s adulthood.45 This theological perspective reflects Calvin’s sense of history progressing from lesser to greater. Importantly, this serves as a hermeneutical principle guiding the reformer’s exegesis, especially as it concerns his ecclesiology.46 As Parker has noted, “the relationship between the biblical testaments is in no way peripheral to [Calvin’s] theology…”47 In fact, without recognizing the importance Calvin attaches to the organic unity between the Old and New Testaments one also fails to appreciate his doctrine of the church. 48 The reformer locates the church’s covenantal origin to Abraham’s offspring, whom he viewed as “first-begotten in the church, even after the coming of Christ.”49 Clearly, for Calvin the church does not commence in the New Testament. For Calvin Israel is the (one) church as God’s elect ————— 43

See Balke: 2003, 58–59; Reventlow: 1997, 124. Author notes that while Luther also finds the church located in the Old Testament it is Calvin who expands its definition beyond Luther’s “ecclesiola” by viewing the ancient people in its universal manifestation as the “church.” The explanation for this is that (unlike Luther) Calvin thinks of the relationship between God and man not individualistically but ecclesiastically, according to Nijenhuis: 1958, 275. 44 McKee: 1989, 163f. See also Diestel: 1981, 278. 45 See Calvin’s comments in his Institutes 2.11.1–2, 5; 2.11.13. Compare Gassmann: 1968, 125. 46 Mckee: 1989, 154–72; compare also Gamble: 1988, 178-94. 47 Parker: 1986, 44. 48 Puckett: 1995, 37. The author speaks of the “prominent role the unity of scripture played in Calvin’s thought.” On the subject of Calvin’s view about the relationship between the two testaments see also Parker: 1986, 42–55.; Cramer: 1926, 25, 39; Compare Calvin’s own statement in: Inst. 2.11.1, CO 2, 329: “Ego vero libenter recipio quae in scriptura commemorantur differentias; sed ita ut nihil constitutae iam unitati derogent.” Compare Battles: 1960, 449–50. 49 Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 219. Compare Comm. Joel 3:17, CO 42, 597; Mal 1: 2–6, CO 44, 403. However, Calvin also speaks of God adopting his church after the Fall. See Calvin’s dedicatory address to Duke Henry of Vendomme in his commentary to Genesis, in which Calvin states how God after the fall of humanity “adopted to himself a church.” Cf. CO 20, 119: “ecclesiam sibi Deus adoptaverit.”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

52

Scripture

already before Christ’s first advent. In Christ the church’s organic unity is knit and kept together. Calvin’s view of the unity of scripture is founded upon the unity of God’s gracious covenant.50 At this point the Genevan reformer’s ecclesiology shows a divergence with that of Luther, who draws a sharper distinction between the Old and New Testaments due to his more radical law-gospel distinction.51 Note the way Calvin explains his understanding of the agreement and difference between law and gospel in his commentary on Habakkuk 2:4 through an appeal to Paul’s teaching in Romans 1: 1–32: Therefore, even though there is a complete concord between the law and the gospel— as God who does not contradict himself is the author of both—yet as to the cause of justification the law is at odds with the gospel in no other way than light with darkness. For the law promises life to those who serve God and this promise is conditional, dependent on the merits of works. The gospel also does indeed promise righteousness under condition but not with respect to the merits of works.52

Calvin, however, views the differences between the two testaments of the Bible as comparative.53 It is in a gradual sense that God’s salvation (in Christ) is less manifest in the Old Testament (law) when compared with the New Testament (gospel).54 The explanation for this lies in Calvin’s hermeneutic of promise and fulfillment instead by which the faithful (fideles) during the Old as well as the New Testament periods both view Christ’s first advent as primary reference point.55 Quoting Calvin’s Institutes (2.6.2.) Parker makes the same point in the following way: “the blessed and happy state of the church always had its foundation in the ————— 50

See Horton: 2002, 151; Wolf: 1958, 38–54, van’t Spijker: 2001, 211. Compare Lillback: 2001, 72; Torrance: 1988, 159; Mülhaupt: 1959, 10. 52 Comm. Hab. 2:4, CO 43, 531: “Quamvis ergo optime conveniat inter legem et evangelium, sicuti Deus, qui secum non pugnat, utriusque est autor, tamen quoad iustificandi effectum, pugnat lex cum evangelio, non aliter quam lux cum tenebris. Nam lex promittit iustiam cultoribus Dei: haec est conditionalis promissio, quae pendet a meritis operum. Evangelium autem promittit quidem sub conditione iustitiam: sed non respicit ad operum merita.” 53 See Neuser: 1994, 43-44; van’t Spijker: 2001, 211: “...mehr Geist, mehr Erkenntnis, mehr Gewissheit.”; This harmony between the two biblical testamentary periods does not intend to discredit the reformer’s own opinion that the New Testament worship of God trumps that of the worship taking place under the law. See Comm. Mal. 1:14. In his prayer introducing his comments on this text Calvin confesses that worship after the law through Christ is now “far more excellent.” in CTS, 510. 54 This comparative difference also is reflected in what Calvin asserts about the contrast he notes between the law and gospel. The “wonderful power” (“mirificam virtutem”) exhibited at the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, made room for the “fuller power” (“plenior tamen virtus refulsit in Christi adventu”) when Christ came, argues the reformer. Cf. Comm. Hag 2:1–5, CO 44, 102– 03; 2:6–9, CO 44, 105. 55 Compare Muller: 1990, 76. 51

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Unity of Scripture

53

person of Christ.”56 In short, Calvin regards the presence of Christ and his kingdom as central not just in the New but the Old Testament as well.57 Therefore, it is not that the Old Testament, according to Calvin, contains the promise of salvation, whereas the New Testament represents its fulfillment. Rather, “promise (promissio) … for [Calvin] means promising the fully present salvation” in the Old Testament context.58 Consequently, the Old Testament was in principle no less representative of the kingdom of Christ than the New Testament, except in degree and splendor. For Calvin the church in the Old Testament is the “Israelite church”59 as compared with the church under the New Covenant, made up of Jews as well as Gentiles, thus joining those who belong together on the basis of God’s secret election. This union in “true religion” did not occur before God first excluded the Jews by way of punishment.60 With this hermeneutical approach to the Old Testament text combined with his use of the rhetorical devices like “synecdoche” and “complexus”61 Calvin compares the church’s reduced62 state under the prophets with the church in his own day. The reason is that the latter church was just as obviously in need of acute restoration as the former. It is characteristic of his lectures on the Minor Prophets that Calvin frequently draws parallels between the life of the degenerated (prolapsus) people of God in ancient biblical times and the experiences of the church in his own day, including warnings as to what might happen to the city Geneva if the church there would not heed the Old Testament’s warnings.63 As an example of this close parallel, the Picardian native explains Amos 6:13 to mean that the Roman church’s papacy’s false pretense that it is the “true church” (legitima

————— 56

Parker: 1986, 45. See Inst. 2.6.1. “For Christ not only speaks of his own age, but comprehends all ages when he says: ‘This is eternal life, to know the Father to be the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.’” (John 17:3) 58 Neuser: 1994, 44: “Denn erstens ist bei ihm Verheissung (“promissio”)...Zusage des vollen gegenwärtigen Heils.” 59 Comm. Hos 2:4, 5, CO 42, 230: “Israelitica ecclesia”. 60 Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 419. By “exclusion” Calvin means that the Jews no longer hold the exclusive privilege as a chosen people called to worship God. Calvin cautions his readers to note that the prophets’ announcement of the worship of God being extended to Gentiles is intended at times to honor the Jews while at other times to reproach them. 61 See Muller: 1990, 75, 73. For example, where Calvin mentions both inside one remark, see Comm. Nah. 3:16, CO 43, 488. 62 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 217. 63 For one such example, see Comm. Mic 3:1–3, CO 43, 320: “Nam idem posset statim nobis contingere quod Iudeis, ut scilicet inter nos dominentur lupi, quadmadmodum etiam experiential plus satis in hac urbe monstravit.” 57

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

54

Scripture

ecclesia) follows the same pattern of “careless contempt” (securum contemptum) exuded by ancient Israel. 64

2.5 Revelation and Accommodation Revelation and Accommodation A growing consensus among Calvin scholars suggests the important role that divine accommodation plays in Calvin’s works, particularly his biblical commentaries.65 As such, Calvin’s use of accommodation in exegesis is not unique to him but was used throughout exegetical history.66 To understand Calvin’s view of scripture from his lectures on the Minor Prophets, it is important to realize that the reformer views the sacred text—including its use of literal or figurative language forms—as a medium by which God accommodates himself to the compromised capacity of human beings to know God.67 Behind this teaching lies Calvin’s commitment to the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God.68 Scripture is then not only verbally69 inspired by God but also authoritative because of the way it was received and communicated with absolute faithfulness by the prophets through God’s Spirit. The prophetic words from God were delivered quasi de manu in manum to the people.70 Against the papistae Calvin wants there to be no uncertainty about the utter reliability of scripture and its concomitant ————— 64

CO 43, 116–117. For several important examples of literature dealing with Calvin’s doctrine of divine accommodation see Dowey: 1952; Gamble: 1994, 95n.25; Balserac: 2006; See also Cramer: 1926, 87. Author places the link between Calvin’s teaching of God’s accommodation in his selfrevelation to the reformer’s humanist training; Wright: 1997, 3–19; Zachman: 2006, 209-10. 66 See Balserac: 2006, 185, 190. 67 See Institutes 1.13.1 where Calvin explains the use of anthropomorphisms in Scripture as divine accommodation, comparing God as a “nurse” who speaks a kind of baby language, far below his own exalted nature. Authors who highlight divine accommodation in conjunction with human weakness, see for example: Balserac: 2006, 168–83; Battles: 1984, 21–42; Moehn: 1996, 269–70; Opitz: 1994, 108–13; Wallace: 1953, 1–5. 68 Gerstner: 1982, 394. The author writes “This accommodation by which God speaks to us in our language, according to our perspective, is not an accommodation to human error but to human levels of understanding.”; Compare also Dowey: 1952, 3–4; Wallace: 1953, 1–2. 69 In a comment on Hosea 4:1–2—in CO 42, 265–66—Calvin comments that what the prophets recorded in writing is not a literal (i.e. complete) account of what they spoke but “summaries and heads” (“summas et capita”) of the things they repeatedly spoke to the people. However, this admission does not negate the basic deduction from Calvin’s overall statements that he considered the bible to be verbally inspired. See Muller: 1993, 63. Author notes “the dynamic elements in Calvin’s doctrine in no way undermine but perhaps even rest on his identification of Scripture as verbally inspired Word of God…” 70 Comm. Joel 1: 1–4, CO 42, 517; See also Hos 1: 2; 9:8, CO 42, 202; 394; Mic 2:11, CO 43, 315: “…sed tantum bona fide de manu in manum traderent quod acceperant a Deo.”; Zech 7:13, CO 44, 230; Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 239: “…ac tradat de manu in manum”; Mal 4:4, CO 44, 494: “…quequadmodum de manu in manum.” 65

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Revelation and Accommodation

55

authority since these men “truly and faithfully handed down what they had received from the Spirit of God.”71 It is on this basis that Calvin argues that when God’s ministers administer his word, God’s people today ought to receive it without question (sine controversia).72 No less significant, God’s revelation of himself to the prophets bridges the epistemological chasm between Creator and creature.73 It is difficult to imagine Calvin’s theology without the principle of divine accommodation operative in his Minor Prophets commentary.74 The task at hand is to trace what might be the implications of scripture as divine accommodation as it pertains to Calvin’s ecclesiology, not in the least his view of worship (word and sacraments).75 God makes himself known to Israel by the law and so his majesty remains no longer hidden, argues Calvin. The need for this revelation is that people (‘we’) would otherwise be lost. In short, “by his works and by his word”76 the veil shrouding God’s incomprehensible majesty is lifted. God’s works of discipline and wrath confirm his spoken word by the prophets. Nothing in the natural order falls outside the “special providence of God” (specialem Dei providentiam).77 Or, at least Calvin’s definition of divine revelation is not limited to the written word but includes his providence (works of creation and providential care, including chastisements) and vice versa.78 Does Calvin assert that God accommodates himself to our limited capacity to know him because we are creatures or because we are fallen creatures? The answer Calvin gives in his lectures on the Minor Prophets

—————

71 Comm. Hag 1:12, CO 44, 94: “nempe se fideliter et per manus tradere quod a spiritu Dei acceperant.” 72 Comm. Hag 1:12, CO 44, 95. 73 Compare Hesselink: 1988, 294. Author applies this same link specifically to God’s revealed law. See also Dowey: 1952, 4. 74 Klauber and Sunshine: 1990, 11. The authors state: “Beyond its role as a tool of scriptural exegesis, accommodation is a central feature of Calvin’s entire approach to theology. …Accommodation is also the governing principle behind God’s decrees…” 75 Witvliet: 2000, 148-49. Author calls attention to the need for Calvin scholars to study how the concept of (divine) accommodation pertains to the reformer’s theology of worship. 76 Comm. Hab 2: 20, CO 43, 562; See also Comm. Joel 2:12–13, CO 43, 546: “And as we do not apprehend God such as he is, he is therefore described to us in such a way as we can comprehend, according to the measure of our infirmity,”; Also see Comm. Zeph 3:6–7, CO 44, 56. 77 See Comm. Amos 4:9, CO 43, 62. Calvin argues that when rain and drought take place in and out of season, these are tokens (“signum”) or evidence (“testetur”) of God’s love and displeasure (respectively) toward his people; Compare Comm. Jonah 1:6, CO 43, 215. 78 Whether or not Calvin embraces “natural theology” is a matter that falls outside the scope of the brief discussion at hand. On Calvin’s alleged acceptance of natural-law theory see Schreiner: 1991, 73–95.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

56

Scripture

includes both of these reasons.79 The latter reason (human nature is sinful) Calvin seldom states specifically but he presupposes it throughout. 80 God’s use of prophets—who are mortals—as his instruments is a sign of his accommodating, condescending love. These persons are “agents of his Spirit” (spiritus eius organa). God speaks to his people continuously and “as it were, from mouth to mouth” (quasi ore ad os).81 Likening the prophets also to “celestial ambassadors” (quasi coelestes legati) it is as if God himself were visibly present (perinde ac si ipse appareat visibili forma).82 The reformer also appeals to divine accommodation when he wants to safeguard God’s immutability when God’s word suggests that God can change his will or repents of doing something he has said he would bring about. Commenting on Jonah 3:10 Calvin leaves no doubt: “God is always like himself, and is not subject to any of our feelings” (Deum perpetuo similem esse sui, neque admittere ullos nostros affectus).83 Calvin’s intent to discover the plain meaning of a biblical text seems to have been influenced by his conviction that faithful teaching of the Bible fosters knowledge of God which is similarly straightforward and steady. While allegorical explanations are appealing to many they “are not solid enough.”84 Therefore, to have true faith one needs to have a true knowledge of God, which in turn requires knowledge of God’s word based on solid interpretations. This interdependent link between true faith and knowledge of God Calvin highlights in his commentary on Zechariah 2:9. The reformer explains that there are two kinds of knowledge (duplex esse genus scientiae), namely, the knowledge of faith (scientia fidei) and experimental knowledge (scientia experimentalis). The latter seems to be organically related to the former and is dependent upon it. That is, argues Calvin, knowledge of faith means that the godly know for certain that God is true (pii certo statuunt, quoniam Deus verax est); whatever he promised is beyond doubt (quidquid promisit esse indubium). But, this same knowledge penetrates through the visible world in order to know the things that are ————— 79

See Dowey: 1952, 4; Bouwsma: 1982, 193. Compare also Pitkin: 1999, 7. Author points to Calvin’s understanding of faith as “knowledge” but not as mere cognition but “illumination” by the operation of the Holy Spirit. This is necessary, the author argues, because in a fallen world “the problem that faith corrects is not so much the ignorance of finite human nature but the blindness of sinful human nature.”; van Eck: 1992, 123. 80 McKim: 1984, 51–53; Steinmetz: 1991, 142–56; Balserac: 2006, 96. Author answers this question in the affirmative, when he concludes “Such accommodation—a necessity even for unfallen humanity—has become all the more essential for fallen beings.” 81 Comm. Amos 2: 9–12, CO 43, 31. 82 Comm. Amos 2: 9–12, CO 43, 31. 83 Comm. Jonah 3:10, CO 43, 261. 84 Comm. Zech 14:4, CO 44, 365: “multis placent …parum firmae sunt.”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Revelation and Accommodation

57

hidden (Romans 8:24) as the apostle Paul teaches. Given Calvin’s Christological interpretation of this text in Zechariah, the reformer concludes “that the faithful will know that Christ has been sent by the Father, that is, by its actual results or by experience.”85 One concludes that Calvin’s emphasis on a stable faith and knowledge of God’s favor is particularly important to Calvin since he believes that the Catholic Church in his time left people in a state of uncertainty. Finally, what is Calvin’s attitude toward the use of allegory, especially in terms of finding Christ in the Minor Prophets? As was shown above, Calvin as a rule does not favor allegorical interpretation.86 It is the reformer’s belief that prophets use allegory to accommodate human weakness.87 In a comment on Zechariah 5: 1–4, Calvin favors—with some qualification— the Jewish interpretation88 contra Jerome’s allegorical explanation, on the basis that inquiring about the width and breadth of the flying scroll Zechariah saw in his vision “seems not to be much connected with the main subject.”89 Given Calvin’s adherence to the grammatical-historical exegesis of a text, he thinks one should not find Christ in a text too soon. This reticence to locate Christ in a text is what created suspicions against him, notably the Lutheran Aegidius Hunneus who accuses Calvin of being a Judaizer in his Old Testament exegesis.90 In modern times this debate has led K. Barth and D.L. Puckett to observe a certain tension in Calvin’s commentaries.91 Calvin —————

85 Comm. Zech 2:9, CO 44, 162: “tunc scituros fideles Christum esse missum a patre, nempe ipso effectu, vel ipsa experientia.” Calvin refers to the promise as being fulfilled in history rather than experiential faith as if it were an affection. As such the question of the believer’s appropriation of divine grace through faith is still not a clear concern in Calvin’s MP commentary. 86 Puckett: 1995, 106–13; 132n.4, 5; Hansen: 2002, 343–54. 87 See Comm. Amos 9:15, CO 43, 176: “…quia stylum accommodabant ad captum rudis et infirmis populi…” In using similitudes in his word God transforms himself to accommodate to human limitations because God does not speak “loquitur pro sua maiestate.” In Comm. Hos 12:10, CO 42, 469. 88 In must be noted that generally Calvin does not speak with approval of the rabbinical exegetical tradition other than their expertise in lexicological issues and their generally more historical approach to the biblical text. See Puckett: 1995, 60–61; 82–88. Note especially page 83n.5. Ironically, the following example taken from Calvin’s comments on Amos 2:1–3 (CO 43, 17–18) charges the Rabbis with their own bent to interpret allegorically. Calvin speaks of rabbis’ “usual way” (“suo more”) in inventing fables (“fabulam”) finding allegory (“allegoriam”) when there is no history (“nulla historia”). 89 Comm. Zech 5:1–4, CO 44, 195: “quia non videtur multam facere ad summam rei.” 90 Puckett, 1995, 1, 4–6, 53, 55–56, 105,139–40. 91 Barth: 1995, 390. Barth speaks of a “remarkable tension” in Calvin “between his wellknown basic view that Christ speaks already in the OT and the great caution with which he critically tests each individual OT passage to see whether and to what extent, either more closely or more remotely, it can carry a reference to Christ.” Besides Puckett’s admission of tension in Calvin, he concludes that “Calvin’s Jewish contemporaries, however, would have viewed the

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

58

Scripture

refuses to see Christ immediately in a text when this is not warranted by a literal-historical reading of it.92 Thus, instead of allegorizing, said Calvin, “one should simply accept what the prophet says.”93 Calvin consistently looks for the “plain meaning” (sensus plenior or sententia plenior)94 or plain exposition (plenior expositio)95 of a text. Even when allegorical interpretation is legitimate Calvin argues that the simpler meaning (simplicior sensus) ought to be given first. This order of prioritizing means “God will deliver victory to his church against the whole world.”96 It also means that Calvin allows for allegorical interpretation provided exegetical conditions are met. When it comes to Calvin’s use of typology in connection with the MP lectures the reformer’s appeal to this is not widespread and limited to select biblical figures97 as well as ceremonial (temple) worship and its priestly officebearers.98 It is hardly true that Calvin uses typology to explain what is actually allegorical to him.99 Rather, Calvin knows well the difference between allegorical and typological exegesis. Nowhere in the texts researched in the MP commentary will the Reformer link typology (unlike his references to allegory) with the doctrine of divine accommodation. Instead, Calvin applies restraint and relates the typological worship and office in the ancient church almost exclusively to Christ in his office as king (David/Zerubbabel) and in his mediatorial role as (high) priest (Levitical priests/Joshua).

————— matter quite differently. To them his exegesis would have virtually been indistinguishable from that of other Christians.” See Puckett: 1995, 139. 92 For examples consult Calvin’s comments on Hosea 11:1 (CO 42, 432); Amos 5:24 (CO 43, 95). 93 Comm. Amos 2:1–3, CO 43, 18; Also Comm. Hos 2:19–20, CO 42, 251. 94 Comm. Hos 6:3, CO 42, 323 and Hos 13: 4–5, CO 42, 480. 95 Comm. Hos 6:8, CO 42, 334. 96 Comm. Zech 9:16, CO 44, 283. 97 Calvin views as types (or shadows) of Christ (“figura Christi”) in as far as they represent him the following persons: king David: Comm. Hos 8:4, CO 42, 365; 11:1, CO 42, 433; Comm. Mal 3:1, CO 44, 461; the prophet Jonah: Comm. Jonah 1:1–2, CO 43, 203; the post-exilic governor Zerubbabel (Comm. Zech 3:6–7, CO 44, 174; 4:1–6, CO 44, 186; highpriest Joshua: Comm. Zech 3: 1–2, CO 44, 168; 3: 6–7: “imago Christi,” CO 44, 174 ; 6:9–11, CO 44, 212. In a comment on Hosea 11:1 Calvin says that not only David…but also his posterity are “types of Christ” (Comm. Hos 11:1, CO 42, 433. 98 See Comm. Hab 2:20, CO 43, 563; Comm. Joel 2:15–17, CO 42, 552. 99 On this particular point see Puckett: 1995, 114n.57f.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Inspiration of Scripture

59

2.6 Inspiration of Scripture Inspiration of Scripture To be sure Calvin’s view of the nature and authority of scripture has evoked strong and occasionally unhelpful responses from some and more tempered and well argued ones by others.100 Given the divergence of positions with respect to Calvin’s doctrine of scripture, the growing attention for Calvin’s exegetical theory and practice and the foundational place scripture takes in Calvin’s ecclesiology, the Reformer’s commentary on the Minor Prophets is one promising source to recover insights about his beliefs regarding the nature and authority of scripture as the word of God. What past Calvin scholarship may not have appreciated enough is Calvin’s (pre-critical101 though not uncritical) approach to scripture and his unreserved acceptance of it as God’s inspired words. The reformer belongs still to that pre-Enlightenment era in which the consensus exists among both Catholic and Protestant theologians that the Bible is sacred and divinely inspired because its author is not man but God. Hence no extensive treatises were produced as apologies to defend the orthodox doctrine of the nature and authority of sacred scripture until the neo-scholastic period.102 Calvin inherited a high regard for the Bible from the church tradition that preceded him.103 Granted that the history of biblical exegesis does not at all times (especially during the early Middle Ages) reflect this high view of scripture in terms of quality of biblical interpretation104 Calvin no doubt —————

100 The gamut of theological bias against Calvin’s teaching verbal inspiration extends from the nineteenth century Farrar (1886, 345) who boldly claimed: “A characteristic feature of Calvin’s exegesis is its abhorrence of hollow orthodoxy…” to Barth (1995, 391) who more carefully opined that “we should (not) view the doctrine of verbal inspiration, which is obviously in the background here, in the rigid and mythological way in which people usually see it.” McNeill (1960, Inst. 1.6.2n.5) argues that Calvin’s language “is not of a mechanical verbal dictation, but of an impartation of divine truth that enters the hearts of the Scripture writers.”; See also McNeill’s footnotes in Inst. 4.8.8.n.7 and 4.8.9n.9. On the other end are those who assert strongly that Calvin did teach verbal inspiration, such as Polman: 1959, 97–112; Godfrey: 1996, 29–39. Those who are supportive of biblical inerrancy in relation to Calvin’s view of scripture contribute to the anthology Inerrancy, edited by N.L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982). 101 For a discussion and evaluation of this term as employed by Frey in his book The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974); also see Stroup: 1990, 160–63; Muller and Thompson: 1996, 335-45; Muller: 1990, 68–82; Horton: 2002, 174–75; Reventlow: 1997, 129; Balserac, 2006, 185. 102 Compare Muller: 1993, 53. 103 Ocker: 2002, 123. “Medieval theologians always assumed that scripture was the word of God, yet they could not imagine the text apart from human agents. They therefore explained biblical authorship in ways that encompassed both human and divine activity within a theological frame.”; McNally: 1986, 7–10; Preus: 1982, 357–58; Muller: 1993, 53. 104 McNally: 1986, 38. Author cites an example of this from an eighth-century manuscript Ioca monachorum . In queston and answer format the author asks for example: “Who died but was never born? Adam. Who gave but did not receive? Eve. Milk….Who spoke with a dog? Peter….Who was the first woman to commit adultery? Eve with a serpent. McNally explains this

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

60

Scripture

realizes that despite poor exegesis the Bible generally had been held in high esteem, throughout the medieval era.105 Nevertheless, Calvin profiles himself as a commentator who is both independent106 and yet critically appreciative of the Early Church period more overtly than the Medieval Church time period and its tradition of finding multiple layers of interpretation of the biblical text which taken together were deemed to constitute its spiritual meaning (sensus spiritualis).107 Evaluating Calvin’s lifelong preoccupation as expositor of scripture one concludes that the reformer’s exegesis has contributed not only to the church’s ministry and government (in Geneva and beyond) but also stimulated the equally necessary task of reforming the church’s practice of interpreting scripture as a pre-condition for the ongoing restoration of the church by sticking as closely as possible to the original intention of the biblical author.108 As Calvin himself admits in his preface to the commentary on the prophet Hosea, his exegetical endeavors are intended to “edify the children of God” by preserving “genuine simplicity” (CO 17, 446). Even so, it must be agreed that the common notion that Calvin’s exegetical practice—of interpreting the biblical text according to its literal (i.e. historical) meaning—seals a break with medieval tradition of exegesis can not be upheld without qualification.109 Because the Bible was as such still beyond dispute Calvin sees no need to elaborate on his understanding of the reception and delivery—or the mode of inspiration110—of divine revelation.111 And yet, given the notion that God deposits his revelatory truth directly (“hand-to hand”112) to the prophets the reformer’s comments suggest that he viewed the spoken ————— “low point” because “in a sense it was divorced from the true spirit and method of the patristic tradition.” 105 McNally: 1986, 7–10; Ocker: 2002, 122–123. 106 Cf. Steinmetz: 1995, 210. 107 See Kraus: 1982, 9–16. 108 Calvin’s commentary on the Minor Prophets are replete with this concern to establish or come near to understand the “mind of the prophet” (e.g. Comm. Hos 8:5, CO 42, 368 ) or “the intention of the prophet,” in Comm. Hos 13:1, CO 42, 474 . See again also hthe reformer’s preface to Hosea dedicated to King Gustav of Sweden (CTS, Baker, xix; CO 17, 447). 109 See Muller: 1990, 81–82; Ibid.,: 1993, 62f., 66–69; Thompson: 2004, 63. 110 See Stauffer’s representation of Warfield’s view in : “Dieu, la creation et la providence dans la predication de Calvin.” Stauffer: 1978, 65. In sum, Calvin does not expressly teach verbal inspiration but de facto holds to it as one of his unstated assumptions. One can question Stauffer’s denial of this doctrine in Calvin given his dependence on the reformer’s sermons rather than a broader representation of the reformer’s works. Compare Wood: 1967, 86. 111 See Puckett, 1995, 48n24. See also 26ff. 112 See Comm. Mal 4:4, CO 44, 494. Calvin proved the sufficiency of the law of Moses, so that nothing of man’s “own imaginations” will guide him, by saying that Moses “brought forth nothing but what had been committed to him from above, and he delivered it, as they say, from hand to hand.”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Inspiration of Scripture

61

prophetic words themselves, recorded in summary form, as divinely inspired,113 and as some scholars have argued as inerrant too.114 As a Renaissance humanist and still part of the pre-critical, preEnlightenment era,115 Calvin recognizes rhetorical devices in the human speech forms God employs. In them God’s revealed truth is “common” (vulgo) on one level (recorded) as compared with how God addressed the prophets initially—including by visions or unique prophetic actions116—in a unique sense, so that they could speak God’s very own words as if in the person of God himself. Thus Calvin affirms the divine origin and divine authority of the prophets’ words to the people. The process of inspiration— which involves the full potential of human fallibility—in which transcendent truth passes from God’s Spirit to the people via the prophets enables the same word of God to retain its full authority in the church’s teaching ministry today. The Holy Spirit is content to employ human beings in the formation of sacred scripture. In his commentary on Hosea 1:2 Calvin observes: …for the Lord did not simply address the Prophet in a common way, but commissioned him with instructions, so that he might afterwards teach the people, as it were, in the person of God himself. …but the Prophet, without doubt represents himself in this place as the instrument of the Holy Spirit. God then speaks in or by Hosea for he brought forth nothing from his own brain. God spoke through him and this is a form of speaking which we will often run into.117

The law is certain to guide God’s people because Moses was faithful in delivering only what God had revealed to him. Not to submit to God’s law ————— 113

Wood: 1967, 86–87; Compare Gassmann, 1968, 128n.281. Compare McNeill: 1992, 112. Calvin’s admissions to scriptural incongruities and efforts at harmonizing them do not contradict his teaching regarding the verbal inspiration of the prophets by God; Also Zachman: 2006, 126–28; For the defense of inerrancy in Calvin’s doctrine of the Bible see Godfrey: 1983, 234; See also Gerstner: 1982, 389–95. 115 Compare Steinmetz: 1996, 103–04; Ibid.: 1997, 245–64; Also Thompson: 2004, 58–73. 116 Concerning visions Calvin himself prefered to think that when God called Hosea to marry Gomer (an adulteress) this took place in a type of vision or parable (parabolam) overruling the text which makes no mention of a vision vis-à-vis parable. Cf. Comm. Hos 1: 2–3, CO 42, 204. Concerning Amos and Zechariah who did receive revelation through prophetic visions Calvin notes in his comments on Amos 9:1 (CO 43, 157) and Zechariah 1:8 (CO 44, 135) that visions are like seals (“sigillum”) which confirm what God has already spoken earlier. The prophetic teaching through visions plays a supportive rather than an independent role in Calvin’s thinking about (verbal) prophecy. 117 Comm. Hos 1:2, CO 42, 203: “Dominus enim non simpliciter ut qualescunque e vulgo prophetam alloquutus est, sed mandatis instruxit, ut postea populum doceret quasi in persona ipsius Dei. …sed hoc loco mihi dubium non est quin propheta se constituat tanquam organum spiritus sancti. Deus ergo loquutus est in Hosea, vel per Hoseam; quia ipse nihil protulerit ex suo cerebro, sed Deus per ipsum loquutus est, quemadmodum haec forma subinde nobis occurret.” See also Comm. Hos 9:8, CO 42, 395. 114

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

62

Scripture

makes one wander in “uncertainty” said Calvin. Instead, the law is like a guard (custodia) and “keeps us under the fear of God and in the best order.”118 The Holy Spirit gives the believer inner certainty concerning his or her status as a Christian, but also about the authority of Scripture.119 As a result Calvin affirms the divine origin of the prophets’ words to the people while at the same time pointing out the human agency employed by God’s Spirit. Through divine inspiration the prophets were in the unique position to teach the people, as though speaking in the person of God himself.120 As the instrument of the Holy Spirit the prophets’ words were not their own but God spoke through them.121 In a comment on Zechariah 7:11–12 Calvin argues the divine nature of God’s words is unchanged and requires human submission to it. Speaking through human servants does not mean that God did not also speak by his Spirit (in spiritu suo).122 It is the reformer’s primary concern that human involvement in the process of inspiration does not compromise in any way the absolute (divine) authority of the message which is to be conveyed to God’s people. This may explain why on not a few occasions Calvin argues that God “dictated” his will to the prophets.123 Furthermore, it is Calvin’s application of the principle of the “analogy of faith” that explains his elaboration on what the text itself presents. Consequently, Calvin mentions often the “prophet’s intention” (mens prophetae) so as to suggest that the words the servant of God utters may be shaped by his personal circumstances.124 As noted above, the divine authority of God’s word is not compromised because God uses human agents to transmit his message, nor was the prophets’ authority predicated either on being God’s messenger or the honor attached to his office alone. Rather, Calvin explains to his audience that the priest’s authority is contingent upon the priests’ (and prophets’) faithful teaching of God’s word just as they received it from him.125 ————— 118

See Comm. Mal 3:13–14 and 4:4, CO 44, 478, 494. Ganoczy: 1976, 56. Ganoczy asserts that at the basis for this certainty lies Calvin’s conviction that scripture is “Dei oraculum” or “Quasi Dei oraculum”, CO 1, 296. 120 See Comm. Zech 7:13, CO 44, 230: “Ergo propheta…postea suscipit eius personam, ac si esset ipse Deus”. 121 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:2, CO 42, 203. 122 Comm. Zech 7:11–12, CO 44, 228f. 123 Comm. Hos 9:7, CO 42, 393: “…sed quod spiritus Dei illis dictaverat.” 124 As an example where Calvin allows for the element of the prophets’ personal involvement note Calvin’s comments on Hosea 4: 1–2 (CO 42, 276). Here the reformer argues the prophets were beset with weeping (clamando) because they saw no fruit on their labor. 125 As an aside we note here that Calvin’s view of the contingency of official authority applies in the same manner to secular rulers. Compare McNeill: 1957, 102. This observation is derived from Calvin’s 30th lecture on his commentary on Daniel, CO 41, 25, 26. 119

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Inspiration of Scripture

63

He indeed commits to men their own roles and they are rightly called the vicars of God who purely and faithfully teach what comes from his mouth. But the authority of God is not diminished when he makes use of the labors of men and employs them as his ministers. Therefore, we see here that the priestly charge is to rule the church according to the pure word of God.126

Calvin bolsters his view of divine inspiration by directly attaching to its process the work of the Holy Spirit in which the prophet himself functions as the Spirit’s “instrument” or “organ.”127 The primary role of the Holy Spirit in connection with scripture128 being taught in the church becomes one of Calvin’s most powerful moves to undermine on the one hand Rome’s view of the church’s authority over scripture while on the other hand refuting Anabaptist radicals’ who think they have no need to submit to preaching and teaching of scripture because the light of the Holy Spirit indwells them.129 In Calvin’s ecclesiology, the public ministry of preaching and teaching the Bible takes center stage. This priority is reflected for example in Calvin’s first comment on Amos 1:1: Amos does not boast here by the words he speaks that he contributes anything but openly acknowledges himself to be only the minister of God…God himself raised up the prophets and used their labor. At the same time, He guided them by his Spirit, that they might not announce anything but what had been received from him.130

In Calvin’s mind the employment by God of human beings should not keep people from showing their reverence to the divine word, because the majesty of God was not enveloped in the messenger or even his office as such, but in his message. The majesty of God which is incommunicable as far as God’s being is concerned is nevertheless communicated when He accommodates himself in the message he entrusts to the Moses and the prophets. God’s majesty is somehow retained in this human form even ————— 126

Comm. Zech 3: 6–7, CO 44, 174: “Mandat quidem suas vices hominibus et proprie sunt Dei vicarii quicunque pure et fideliter docent ex eius ore: sed non minuitur tamen Dei imperium ubi utitur hominum opera et adhibet eos ministros. Videmus ergo in hoc positam esse custodiam sacerdotalem, ut ecclesia regatur puro Dei verbo.” See also Comm. Hag 1:12, CO 44, 94. 127 Comm. Hos 1:2, CO 42, 203: “organum spiritus sancti”; 9:8, CO 42, 395: “quod essent eius organa”; Also: Comm. Mic 2:7, CO 43, 307: “prophetae sint spiritus sancti organa”. See also Puckett: 1995, 47n24. Author states “His (Calvin’s) prefered figure for describing the relationship of the biblical writers to the Holy Spirit in the production of scripture is that of instrumentality. The human writer is the instrument of the Spirit of God.” 128 Examples where Calvin kept the word and Spirit in close proximity and tension can be found, for example, is his lectures on Hosea 7:11–12, CO 42, 351 and Malachi 2:10, CO 44, 446. 129 Compare Comm. Hag. 1:12, CO 44, 94–95. 130 CO 43, 1–2. Cf. Puckett: 1995, 47.n.24. “Hic Amos non iactat se aliquid afferre a se ipso quum de verbis suis loquitur, sed tantum profitetur se ministrum esse Dei…Deus enim ipse suscitat prophetas, et utitur eorum opera: sed interim dirigit eos suo spiritu, ne quid proferant nisi ab ipso acceptum, ut fideliter quasi per manus tradant quod ab ipso solo profectum est.”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

64

Scripture

when humans are used as instruments. This dialectic tension in Calvin doctrine of scripture is stated well when he admits: “the majesty of God ought to remain inviolable in his word, whether brought to us by men or by angels.”131 To Calvin the rather natural connection between God’s divine being and the divine inspiration of scripture—as the outcome of God’s sovereign control over the process of communicating his words—lies behind the word choice of Calvin in his commentary on Amos 6:13. Calvin writes: “the word [of God] admits (recipit) of the nature of God himself (verbum enim recipit naturam ipsius Dei), from whom it is proceded (a quo profectum est).” 132 The prophets are nothing but custodians of the covenant, who guard (custos) it in order to teach what God has entrusted to them in it.133 The prophetic word bears the imprint of divine authorship in the sense that its origin is traced directly to God himself. As for the human messengers he uses, they (both priests and prophets) are no more but “interpreters of the law” which God had given to Moses.134 The limited importance Calvin gives to the human involvement in the process of inspiration is illustrated by his comment on Amos 3:3–8. Puckett describes Calvin’s view of inspiration of the prophet’s mind by the Spirit as “cooperation.” Puckett explains Calvin’s commentary on this passage to say that “The prophets were mentally active, yet they were God’s chosen vessels and were in submission to God in such a way that their speech may be understood to be his. This is what Amos means when he says ‘God is the author of what I teach.’”135 However, Calvin stays clear from using the language of human cooperation. Rather he speaks of the messenger as “companion” (comes) of God.136 To make certain that nothing by human will is mixed in with the prophetic words, Calvin paraphrases Amos to say: “Know then that whatever I bring forward proceeds not from me, but God is the author of what I teach.”137

—————

131 Comm. Zech 4:8–9, CO 44, 188: “Debet igitur constare verbo Dei maiestas sua inviolabilis, etiamsi per homines vel angelos ad nos defertur.” 132 Comm. Amos 6:13, CO 43, 117. 133 Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 439. Compare Richard: 1974, 485. Author shows how the Renaissance humanists as “a type of reform movement within the church” still viewed the church “as the mediator and custodian of divine revelation, and, ultimately, of every experience of God.” 134 Compare Comm. Hag 2:10–14, CO 43, 110; Mal 2:7, CO 44, 437, 440 and Comm. Zeph 1:13, CO 44, 23 and Zech 7:11–12, CO 44, 228. 135 Comm. Amos 3:3–8, CO 43:40. Quoted by Puckett: 1995, 48.n24. 136 Comm. Amos 3:3–8, CO 43, 40. 137 Ibid.; See Warfield: 1948, 108–09.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Sufficiency of Scripture

65

2.7 Sufficiency of Scripture Sufficiency of Scripture For Calvin it is important to remind his audience that the word of God is sufficient for the believer’s faith experience. The word of God alone claims Calvin is “a fixed and unchangeable rule, which cannot deceive.”138 Furthermore, Calvin believes that the Bible cannot be understood profitably unless the believer firmly trusts (fiducia) that through God’s spoken word God declares his favor toward his children. Contrasting faith with unbelief, Calvin suggests that the latter is rooted in the mistake people make when they limit God’s power (Dei virtutem) on the basis of their own thinking. However, the source of faith is when people (like Abraham) “are satisfied with his word alone [and] are fully persuaded (solo verbo contenti certo sibi persuadent) that God is true and that what he promises is certain (simul etiam certum esse quidquid ponuntiad) because he is able to fulfill it.”139 In short, to reject unbelief one “must say good-bye to [his] own judgment.”140 This grounding of faith on the sufficiency of the word of God alone also means that it ought not to be grounded on the authority of the church or tradition of exegesis.141 To be satisfied with the word of God alone (sed solo verbi contenti) means not to rely on our (sinful) human understanding— which is unbelief—but rather being fully persuaded (certo persuadent) that God is powerful to fulfill what he has promised by revelation.142 All of this explains why in Calvin’s ecclesiology scripture stands in authority over the church, not vice versa.143 The sufficiency of scripture is that “the word of God may on its own account be believed...”144 The prophetic vision is solid and stable enough by itself (satis solida et firma). Even tough God may seem to take a long time fulfilling what he has promised, “we need to acquiesce in the word of God (nos acquiescimus in verbo Dei). One should “wait for his power (expectate virtutem eius) and “remain quiet resting on his word” (ut tamen maneatis quieti sub eius verbo). In short, the believer should find it “enough that God has spoken” (sufficiat Deum loquutum esse).145 ————— 138

Comm. Zech 14:10, CO 44, 375: “…fixam et perpetuam regulam quae non posit fallere…” Comm. Zech 8:6, CO 44, 238. For Calvin’s emphasis on the notion of the certainty of scripture giving it complete trustworthiness due to its divine origin, see Kraus: 1982, 8. 140 Comm. Zech 8:6, CO 44, 238. 141 See Steinmetz: 1995, 136. 142 Comm. Zech 8:6, CO 44, 238; Hab 2:2–3, CO 43, 525: “... Visio ergo ipsa sit vobis satis efficax”. 143 Compare Gassmann: 1968, 129; Partee: 1997, 98, 109, 111, 119. 144 Comm. Hab 2:2–3, CO 43, 525: “…sid apud vos ĮȣIJȠʌȚıIJȠȢ, ut per se habeat fidem verbum Dei…” 145 Comm. Hab 2:2–3, CO 43, 526. 139

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

66

Scripture

Calvin applies the same sufficiency of the law for the renovation of the church also to his own day. Commenting on Hosea 1:11 Calvin exhorts that the church is “rightly formed,” (bene composita) when all people without exception consent to submit to Christ (consensu Christo subiicient) and follow his instructions.146 Finally, Calvin also exhorts his students to realize that the sufficiency of what God teaches in his word must come from a spirit which is teachable (docilitas). In other words, to be teachable is to embrace (amplectimur) the things which God publicly declares in his word.147 The authority and consequently the sufficiency of scripture must lead a person to be satisfied with the revelation God offers and not unwisely perpetrate beyond it.

2.8 Conclusion Conclusion The MP commentary confirms the claim by Calvin in his Institutes (1.7.2) that the church is born of the word of God. This concentration on the revealed and incarnated will of God in sacred scripture and Jesus Christ respectively is consistent with Calvin’s parallel emphasis on the eternal church of God in its visible presence in this world. Therefore while election serves as the ultimate, transcendent cause behind the church’s existence, the visible manifestation of it comes about as a result of the revealed words God gave to Moses and the prophets (law and prophets). In the MP commentary adherence to scripture—due to its divine, not human authority—functions as the primary criterion to identify a church as a true church. On this principle the claims by both the Roman Catholic Church and the followers of Anabaptist theology and ecclesiology fail this test. Calvin further reinforces this line of defense against these two main opponents in his day by welding the divine word with the work of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, Calvin bases the unity of the true (visible) church on its unity with the head of the church: Jesus Christ. Not external tokens or symbols prove the church to be genuine, but rather its unity with Christ (God) depends on the active obedience or submission by the church God’s revealed will. Given that Calvin adheres to a view of Scripture in which God actually speaks to his church—both ancient and contemporary—this explains why Calvin’s ecclesiology is forceful and dynamic for God speaks both by his revealed word and providence (blessings and punishings).

————— 146 147

Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 221. Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 408.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

3. Election Election Eternal Election

3.1 Introduction In his Minor Prophets’ commentary Calvin makes reference to the church as God’s elect people.1 The concept of election is therefore considered by some as constitutive or foundational2 for the reformer’s concept of the church (visible).3 The goal in this chapter is to show how on the one hand the doctrine of election functions for Calvin in the context of the church’s call to become progressively sanctified by virtue of remaining united with Christ as sole Head. On the other hand, Calvin’s lectures on the MP indicate the reformer’s reticence to delve into the (hidden) details of divine election. Predestination is an act God willed before time began but the reformer intentionally does not spend more time in his commentary seeking to elucidate it for his audience.

3.2 Eternal Election Beginning with his earliest statements the church—to Calvin—means the body of the faithful whom God has elected to eternal life.4 In Old Testament —————

1 Wernle notes that Calvin’s definition of the church—in the Institutes—as God’s elect varies from the way Luther and the early Zwingli for whom the church meant the communion of those who believe. Furthermore, Calvin’s definition emphasizes the invisible nature of the church to distinguish his ecclesiology particularly from the Catholic Church when the latter validates its authenticity externally in its papal and hierarchical organization and ceremony. See Wernle: 1919, 50–51. 2 Compare Fröhlich: 1930, 49. Author’s quotation adopts the word “konstituierend” (Scheibe); Also, Barth: 1995, 179. Millet notes that predestination is not the center of Calvin’s theology. See Ibid.: 1992, 72 . Compare also Gerrish: 1967, 158. Also Wiley: 1990, 96, 110; de Kroon: 1996: 156n.2; Compare Oberman: 1988, 45–46. This understanding by Calvin that election is the church’s foundation must be held in tension with the reformer’s other statement in his Institutes (4.2.4; 4.2.8) that the revealed word of God is the church’s foundation. Compare Wallace, 1988, 132. 3 Barth: 1995, 178, 179. “For John Calvin, then, the concept of the church rests on that of election, or predestination…”; Wendel: 1965, 269; de Kroon: 1996,156: “[Election] is the basis upon which Calvin builds his ecclesiology.”; Butin: 1994, 10n.22, 23. 4 For example, see Busch: 1997, 45; Leith: 1989, 169. Also note that although Calvin does not state it this way exactly, the following text references serve as examples to show where the words “church” and “elect” respectively “chosen”, “adoption” or “faithful” are used (in)directly and

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

68

Election

(Minor Prophets) context this means for Calvin that the Davidic kingdom even in its divided form constitutes God’s elect people. On one level Calvin considers the “faithful”5 to be true elect while at the same time many prove not to be genuine “children of Abraham”6 since they are only outwardly God’s chosen or elect.7 This twofold understanding of election in its general and restricted form applies to Calvin’s discussion of the church.8 The distinguishing mark of the special elect is that they alone are teachable,9 unlike those that are “refractory”,10 “hypocrites”,11 and “wicked.”12 It is by the inward working of the Spirit that some become “teachable and obedient.”13 The purpose of divine election is that sinners can live in a reconciled relationship with God. Their remission of sins is a gratuitous gift of God in whose divine nature it originates.14 This free remission and expiation of sins is by faith alone, and not, as the Roman Church teaches by works also. Calvin stresses this in a comment on Habakkuk 2:4.15 “[E]xcept the remission of sins be gratuitous, we must confess that righteousness is not by faith alone, but also by merits. But the whole scripture proves that expiation is nowhere else to be sought, except through the sacrifice of Christ alone.”16 ————— within close proximity: Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216, 218–19; 2:4–5, CO 42, 229–30; 11:8–9, CO 42, 445–46; Comm. Amos 1:2, CO 43, 4; 6:13, CO 43, 116; Comm. Zeph (preface), CO 44, 1; 3: 14,15, CO 44, 70; Comm. Zech 13:9, CO 44, 358; 14:5, CO 44, 366–67); 14:21, CO 44, 391; Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 403. See also Richel: 1942, 15–16. Author notes Calvin’s 1536 (first) edition of his Institutes, including the fact that Calvin views angels as those that are included in election. 5 For example see Comm. Zech 13:8, CO 44, 356. 6 Comm. Hos 1:6, CO 42, 211; Cf. Comm. Zech 1:17, CO 44, 148. 7 See Comm. Joel 3:16, CO 42, 596; Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 404; Comm. Zech 13:8, CO 44, 356. In the last text cited Calvin suggests that the greater part are hypocrites and to them the promises of God’s favor do not apply. Also Comm. Zech 13:9, CO 44, 357–58; Compare Inst. 3.21.5 and 3.21.7., CO 2, 682–84; 685–87. 8 This explains why Calvin speaks of the church (generally) as a “mixture”: Comm. Zeph 3:11, CO 44, 63; Comm. Zech 13:9, CO 44, 357 in which the church (narrow) is like “wheat among much chaff.” See also Comm. Hos 11:8–9, CO 42, 446. 9 Comm. Mic 6:9, CO 43, 396: “vera docilitate”; Comm. Zeph 3:12–13, CO 43, 66: “praebuissent dociles”; Comm. Hag 1:5–6, CO 44, 86: “nam qui dociles et morigeri”; Comm. Zech 6:4–5, CO 44, 205: “docilitas”; Comm. Mal 1: 2–6, CO 44, 408, “Sed hic docilitate et modestia opus est”. 10 Comm. Hos 4:1–2, CO 42, 268: “praefractis”; 5:2, CO 42, 299: “praefractum”; Comm. Nah 1:7, CO 43, 444; Comm. Hag 1:5–6, CO 44, 86: “praefracto”. 11 Comm. Nah 1:7, CO 43, 445; Comm. Zech 7:1–3, CO 44, 219. 12 Comm. Amos 9:10, CO 43, 168. 13 Comm. Hag 1: 5–6, CO 44, 86; Comm. Hag 1:13–14, CO 44, 97: “dociles et morigeros”. 14 Cf. Comm. Mic 7:18, CO 43, 430; Compare Hos 14:1–2, CO 42, 500: “in gratiam”; 14:4(5), CO 42, 502; Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 533. 15 Cf. Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 533. 16 Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 533.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Eternal Election

69

The biblical doctrine of gratuitous election enables Calvin to formulate his ecclesiology against the backdrop of Catholic and Anabaptist antagonists in his own day. Calvin does so by relating free election with God’s sovereign calling. Calvin argues that by “calling” the prophet Joel means God’s gratuitous election.17 That there will always be a remnant (church) dwelling inside the “church of God” is due to God’s hidden calling (vocatio arcana). This hidden or inward (interior) call resides in the secret counsel of God (in arcano Dei consilio).18 Those that are not called according to this “hidden calling” though they belong to the church externally are not secure eternally. As a result Calvin can identify or juxtapose the (visible) church with the “world” (read: commonwealth, F.H.) saying: “…the whole world19 seems to be doomed to destruction.”20 In these comments taken from his commentary on Joel 2:32, Calvin further distinguishes God’s gratuitous call in two parts. There is the inward call, which surpasses (praecedit) the external or broad call by which God calls (compellat) all people indiscriminately through the “voice of his gospel.”21 By this hidden call “God destines (destinat) for himself those whom he wills to be saved (vult esse salvos). The inward call is followed by the outward call “by which [God] makes us really the partakers of his adoption.”22 Thus Calvin can legitimize the Reformation as the reformation of the historic (Christian) church whose historical roots lie in the Old Testament (ancient church) and beyond that in the eternal will of God. The reformation church is by analogy the remnant church, called according to God’s external and hidden will, which God kept and preserved among the two separate kingdoms. Calvin sees in the kingship of Josiah and his restoration of the church’s worship an analogy or example of the experience of the church’s reformation of worship in his own context. The people’s outward conformity to the gospel of the Reformation soon proved to be false. Just because some of the people “profess the pure worship of God” (Deum pure ————— 17

Cf. Comm. Joel 2:32, CO 42, 579. In Oberman: 1988, 19f. The author observes that Calvin uses the word “secret” or “hidden” (“arcanum”) more often than any other medieval or reformed theologian to describe God’s secret working in which he takes care of creation (“providential generalis”), of humanity (“providential specialis”), and of the church (“providential specialissima”). 19 An examination of Calvin’s use of “world” reveals that Calvin seems to identify the Roman Church institution with the “world” that is perishing. One clear example of this is found in Calvin’s comment on Zechariah 11:15–16, CO 44, 317–18. 20 Comm. Joel 2:32, CO 42, 579. 21 See Wallace, 1959, 214. Author highlights the outer call that is indiscriminate in Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 81: 14, CO 31, 766. 22 Comm. Joel 2:32, CO 42, 579. 18

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

70

Election

colere profitetur) this does not qualify Calvin’s time as a “golden age” (aureum saeculum).23 Calvin vigorously disagrees with those who should know better but who all too easily accept those who merely say they agree with the gospel. This facile approach that considers a “person of extraordinary piety” (pro homine excellentissimae pietatis) because he “is not wholly an enemy of the gospel” (non prorsus esse hostem evangelii) Calvin regards as a profaning of the “sacred name of the Reformation” in his day.24 Mere outward reformation of worship—by abolishing what is corrupt, idolatry and superstitious—is not the same as restoration toward obeying God.25 Importantly, this word of caution Calvin applies to the community of those who have come out from under the Roman papacy by joining the churches of the Reformation. Nevertheless, what is also clear to Calvin is that the papists are like the ancient Israelites in falsely usurping the title “church” (usurpant ecclesiae titulum). The former do not see themselves as covenant breakers who, as God’s clear enemies have divorced themselves from him.26 The Catholic Church argues—erroneously according to the reformer—that it alone has a just claim to be the historic church founded on the apostleship of Peter. Calvin’s response to this misplaced appeal to being God’s church is that God is free to raise up a new church at any given moment.27 The Catholic Church is like the Israelites in thinking mistakenly that they are God’s people. In short, rather than grounding the authenticity of the visible church on earth on external attributes as the church under the papacy is wont to do and by which criteria they prove themselves disqualified, Calvin keeps the church grounded in gratuitous election.

3.3 Divine and Human Will Divine and Human Will Since the origin—and eventual glorification—of the church rests in sovereign election and since election itself is only gratuitous Calvin uses every opportunity to debunk what he perceives as the theological fallacy of free will in election. Even before God created the world he established his election of his chosen people.28 While God—when revealing himself—often uses other “instruments or intermediate causes” (instrumenta, vel per —————

23 Comm. Zeph 1:2–3, CO 44, 4. For Calvin’s negative assessment of the “world” in his time see also Joel 2:30–31, CO 42, 472–73. 24 Comm. Zeph 1: 2–3, CO 44, 4. Compare Comm. Amos 1:3–5, CO 43, 9. 25 Cf. Comm. Zeph 1:2–3, CO 44, 4. 26 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216. 27 Cf. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 217: “...in arbitrio Dei esse novam ecclesiam momento uno erigere…” 28 Cf. Comm. Hos 12: 3–5, CO 42, 454; Mal 3:17, CO 44, 483.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Divine and Human Will

71

medias causas) his hidden decree is such “that we may not think that God is dependant on the will of men…but that he himself has freely ordained whatever he has in his good pleasure determined.”29 In addition, God also did not merely foresee who the elect would be based on the merit of their future works (operibis futuris).30 Calvin’s anti free-will theology aims at both the Anabaptists and Catholic Church communities.31 In both groups Calvin feels compelled to expose the doctrine of free will pertaining to salvation. Hence Calvin stresses that divine election of Israel as the church of God (ecclesia Dei) is “free and hidden” (gratuita et arcane Dei electio).32 Calvin further defines the doctrine of election in his comment on Malachi 1: 2–6, namely, that some are chosen by God from the whole world, which includes Abraham’s offspring. The only cause for this gratuitous “choosing” is God’s pleasure or favor.33 Always closely linking—if not at times identifying—election with the doctrine of adoption, the cause of adoption (causa adoptionis) is the “pure mercy and goodness of God” (mera Dei misericordia et bonitas).34 The birth of Israel as a separate race is itself evidence, according to Calvin, that God’s election of individual persons is gratuitous and prior to human will or agreement.35 In a compact way the reformer states: “God through his good pleasure alone anticipates men, and not on account of works, but according to his mercy he adopts those he pleases.”36 The faith people possess does not originate in them but flows itself “from the fountain of free election,” (ex fonte gratuitae electionis) argues Calvin.37 If God’s decree to elect some and not others is both eternal and unchanging, what does Calvin think about the passages where God seemingly changes his mind? Calvin resorts to the argument of divine accommodation, when God says something that is “foreign to himself.”38 After all, God’s will is one and undivided (simplex et una sit Dei voluntas).39 Calvin makes references to the Anabaptists fanatics who insist ————— 29

Comm. Zech 6: 4, 5, CO 44, 206. Cf. Comm. Hos 12: 3–5, CO 42, 454; Compare Inst. 3.22.1–6., CO 2, 687–93. 31 See Helm: 2004, 158, 162. Author maintains that for Calvin the loss of free will (in salvation) is not essential but accidental to our fallen human nature, suggestive of Calvin’s willingness to use scholastic categories (Ibid., 162). 32 Comm. Mal 1: 2–6, CO 44, 403. 33 Cf. Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 397; Hos 12:3–5, CO 42, 454. 34 Comm. Hos 1:6, CO 42, 211; Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 397. 35 Comm. Hos 12:3–5, CO 42, 454. 36 Comm. Hos 12:3–5, CO 42, 454. 37 Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 408. 38 Comm. Hos 11:8–9, CO 42, 442. 39 Comm. Hos 11:8–9, CO 42, 442; cf. Zeph 3:6–7, CO 44, 56. 30

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

72

Election

on divine election involving the free will (libero arbitrio) of humans.40 Calvin charges these opponents with “overturning God’s eternal providence” by which they “blot out that election by which he distinguishes between men.”41 The explanation why one is a believer is not because people have a free will. Strictly speaking, people who are reconciled to God have only God to thank for their election. In order to safeguard one’s membership in the church—which is based on divine grace and not human merit or even a combination of them—Calvin ties the role of faith with the call of the gospel as both subservient to divine (hidden) election in his commentary on the Minor Prophets. This exclusive emphasis explains why the reformer combated those whose views he deems to be at variance such as Bolsec’s42 and Castellio’s43, as well as, the Catholics and Anabaptists whom he identifies broadly.44 The universal address through the gospel does not preclude the fact that those who are saved by it are such only because of God’s electing purposes.45 According to Calvin, not everybody is the recipient of God’s grace. When some choose to obstinately (contumaciter) reject God’s grace, Calvin’s terse explanation is that God simply “has not chosen everybody” (non omnes elegit). God illumines (illuminat) those who believe and that because he has chosen them “before the creation of the world” (Eph 1:1).46 Importantly, Calvin attaches the offer of God’s grace to the outward preaching of God’s word.47 Furthermore, divine election and salvation can not depend on free volition, because “by nature humans do not even have a speck of rectitude ————— 40

Cf. Comm. Hos. 11:8–9, CO 42, 442; cf. Comm. Hos 12:3–5, CO 42, 454; Comm. Zeph 3:6–7, CO 44, 56. 41 Comm. Hos 11: 8–9, CO 42, 442. 42 H. Bolsec argued against sovereign election and predestination as taught by Calvin believing that a person’s personal faith or the lack thereof was responsible for being saved or unsaved. Bolsec was arrested in October 1551, tried and banished from Genevan territory. Compare Godfrey: 2003), 87–98; ODCC, 223. 43 ODCC, 299. Sebastian Castellio, a former rector at the Geneva Academy who became alienated from Calvin, argued among other things for the doctrine of free will in salvation. 44 Compare this with McNeill’s comment in his footnote on Inst. 3.22.10.n24; See Gerrish: 1967, 150. Author mentions Jean Trolliet who also disagreed with Calvin on the subject of free will and predestination. 45 Compare Inst. 3.22.10. 46 Comm. Mal 1: 2–6, CO 44, 407, 408. This does not mean faith is not indispensable in the reformer’s thinking about how the benefits of election are apprehended by the believer. See for example, Wallace: 1959, 214, who cites Calvin’s commentary on John 6:40, CO 47, 147. Still, more often Calvin draws attention to the work of the Spirit than to the believer’s act of faith, because faith itself depends on God’s favor. See Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 408. 47 Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 408: “…offertur omnibus Dei gratia per externam verbi praedicationem…”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

General and Special Election

73

or of righteousness” in them.48 From those who make so much of “free will…the Lord demands faith as well as other religious duties; and he requires also love and the keeping of the whole law from everyone.”49 Without God’s Spirit first cleansing impure lips and rendering people willing to submit to his yoke in service to him, the people cannot and will not call on God’s name.50 Calvin’s rebuttal to divine justification by works is that it fails to distinguish between the “intrinsic strength” a person possesses naturally, and “external strength” which is a gift God’s Spirit bestows only on his elect (special): But they betray their own stupidity and thoughtlessness, inasmuch as they cannot distinguish between the intrinsic strength which is in man himself by nature, and the external strength with which God equips those men, and which is the gift of the Holy Spirit.51

Both Anabaptist and Catholic doctrine involving the will of man as a condition for salvation fall outside the pail of what Calvin views is biblical. A human’s natural (intrinsic) strength is faulty due to the loss of original righteousness and the gift of the Holy Spirit is what no person possesses except the elect of God. On these two counts Calvin argues in favor of the sovereign nature of God’s saving and efficacious grace which applies exclusively to the faithful, who like all people are in their nature equally reprobate due to original sin (peccatum originale) in Adam and thus are delivered to eternal death.52

3.4 General and Special Election General and Special Election Just as Calvin distinguishes between sovereign grace and free will in election he also distinguishes between general and special election by God. Israel was God’s elect, yet in a general, non-particular sense. In their election in Abraham as a separate nation, the patriarch’s physical offspring were all under the common or indiscriminate and gracious calling of God. Yet many of Abraham’s offspring proved to reject the “covenant of salvation” offered them by God, which precipitates their rejection, argues ————— 48

Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 431. Comm. Zeph 3:9, CO 44, 61. 50 Ibid. 51 Comm. Hos 12: 3–5, CO 42, 458: “Atqui produnt suum stuporem et socordiam, quia non possunt distinguere inter virtutem intrinsecam quae sit in homine a se ipso et a natura, et inter virtutem adventitiam qua Deus homines ipsos instruit et quae est donum spiritus sancti.” 52 Cf. Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 405: “…naturaliter omnes sunt reprobi in Adam et addicti morti aeternae…” 49

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

74

Election

Calvin.53 An expression like this suggests that God’s one will or decree operates on two levels: one pre-temporal and unchanging and the other is temporal and thus subject to change. With regard to the latter God responds in time and history to being rejected by rejecting in turn the very people he had at first called to membership in the covenant of salvation. What is the difference for Calvin between these two kinds of calling in divine election, and how does Calvin attempt to reconcile these two apparently contradictory observations? Calvin argues that the distinguishing mark of special election as opposed to general election is (1) that special election is efficacious in the true elect and (2) special election was accompanied by spiritual regeneration or being “gifted with the Spirit of adoption.”54 Consequently, when God appears to react to the rejection by those He has first called, it is not because He acts on the basis of what He foresees beforehand with regard to the reprobates’ rejection and the faithfuls’ acceptance of God’s covenant. Given Calvin’s regular recourse to the doctrine of accommodation, when God appears to reject those who reject him, it is still not contrary to God’s one and unchanging, eternal will. The efficacious outcome of special election of the faithful remnant and the attendant gift of divine adoption form the basis for Calvin’s teaching of the safety or security of the elect.55 For the reformer, certainty or guarantee of election rests upon the person of Christ, who preserves (in custodiam) the elect by his invincible power (insuperabilis).56 These particular elect are known only to God. Making his appeal to the gospel of John and the letter of Paul to the Romans, Calvin argues here that the special elect cannot fall away from salvation because God gives them his Spirit of adoption and “equips them with his own grace, so that they might never fall away.”57 Even so, because divine election is secret or hidden in God’s decree, Calvin infers that nobody (except God) is able to judge who belong to ————— 53

Cf. Comm. Hos 12: 3–5, CO 42, 405: “foedus salutis”. Ibid. Calvin states it negatively: “Interea non omnes fuerunt regeniti, non omnes donati sunt adoptionis spiritu.”; See Comm. Joel 2:32, CO 42, 575. Here Calvin speaks about God’s “promise” as efficacious in the elect, but not in the reprobate since they do not have this promise that whomever calls on the name of God will be saved due to unbelief. 55 Comm. Hos 12: 3–5, CO 42, 454; Compare Mic 7:14, CO 43, 422–23 and 7:19, CO 43, 432. Underlying this security of salvation is that it is not by human effort but it is God who preserves the remnant according to his gratuitous adoption and covenant; Comm. Zech 6: 15, CO 44, 217: “the faithful continue in obedience of faith to the end.” More will be said below about Calvin’s teaching on the efficacious nature of special election. We refer to the section: Election as Unchanging (Part II, Ch.2, F). 56 Comm. Hos 12:3–5, CO 42, 454); Compare Mal 1:2–6 (CO 44, 408); Inst. 3.24.5 (CO 2, 715–16). 57 Comm. Hos 12:3–5, CO 42, 454: “…instruxit etiam virtute sua, ut nunquam exciderent.” 54

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Double Predestination

75

God’s elect and who do not.58 What is also clear from this is that the fault for being a reprobate—that is, those who externally belong to God’s people—lies not with God’s preordained will but with the Jews’ and Israelites’ own ingratitude (ingratitudine). To stress once again divine decree rather than human decision Calvin appeals to the birth order of Jacob and Esau. He says that the significance of Jacob hanging on to the heel of Esau during their delivery manifests the unmerited favor of God towards Jacob. Since God destined Jacob to be superior to his first-born brother Esau it was not by “[Jacob’s] own choice nor power” (neque pollebat iudicio aut virtute aliqua).59 God’s free grace in salvation precludes any doctrine of works “as the papists imagine.”60 The reformer explains that God’s (special) election is personal or particular. Calvin argues from the general to the specific. The salvation of God was offered to all who were elected in a general way as offspring of the patriarchs, and as such were to be considered “God’s holy and peculiar people.” Calvin admits that not each and every one of Jacob’s offspring were “legitimate Israelites, for the greatest part of them were rejected. Since then many, who derived their origin from Jacob, were not less reprobate than Esau it follows that God’s free favor and simple mercy prevails as to individual persons.”61 One concludes that for Calvin the doctrine of election understood as God’s general call to all the covenant community of Jews and Israelites serves as occasion for warning rather than ease. The Roman papacy is mistaken for the same reason as the ancient people of God when they founded their election on external signs and evidences rather than upon God’s mercy alone as applied to individual persons who respond in faith and obedience.

3.5 Double Predestination Double Predestination In his Christian Institutes Calvin unequivocally states that “eternal life is foreordained (prae ordinatur) for some, eternal damnation for others.”62 How does this claim of a twofold foreordained election to eternal life and death respectively compare with Calvin’s comments, especially those on Hosea 12:3–5 and Malachi 1:2–3? What does Calvin think about the spiritual condition of Esau in relation to divine election? If Esau is a reprobate, so were many of Jacob’s offspring, as observed earlier. To what ————— 58

Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 408. Comm. Hos 12: 3–5, CO 42, 453. 60 Comm. Hos 12: 3–5, CO 42, 454; Compare Inst. 3.22.11., CO 2, 697–98. 61 Comm. Mal 1: 2–6, CO, 44, 404. 62 Inst. 3.21.5., CO 2, 683. Compare Strehle: 1992, 225n.13; Selderhuis: 2007, 272–81. 59

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

76

Election

does Calvin contribute the twofold spiritual position that sets Esau and his offspring apart from Jacob and his heirs? Generally speaking, Calvin discusses the subject rarely as outspoken and unambiguous in his commentary on the Minor Prophets as he does in the passage cited from his Institutes. In his comment on Hosea 12: 3–5 the reformer states that Esau was elected generally not efficaciously or specially. As to whether God can be charged with any wrongdoing because he chooses some to be passed over, Calvin clearly rejects such a possibility saying that reprobates were the “authors of their own ruin, for each of them must have been conscious of his personal perverseness.”63 The invitation of God’s covenant grace had come to Esau too, but he refused it. All of Abraham’s and Isaac’s offspring were received “into (God’s) faith, and (God) offered to all his covenant…Others were indeed chosen in a certain way, that is, God offered to them the covenant of salvation; but yet through their ingratitude they caused God to reject them, and to disown them as children.”64 It remains then that for Calvin God is sovereign in both election and reprobation, yet as concerns the elect “the Lord inwardly attracted his elect, and others were rendered inexcusable.”65 Both Jacob and Esau were the objects of God general choosing. That selective kind of favoring of Abraham and his offspring “was the source of their salvation.”66 In this favoring of one race (genus unum) God had passed over the other nations. Evidently, for Calvin salvation is not limited to being reconciled with God personally. External salvation of the Jews as a chosen people is the means toward personal reconciliation with God of individuals. Still, Calvin admits that this general election too is the fruit of God’s “gratuitous love” (gratuito amore Dei).67 But Esau and his offspring (Idumeans) are reprobates68 in that Esau was sent away by his father Isaac after his brother stole from him his birthright for which God holds him responsible. This act of unbelief is the reason why God hates Esau and his curse lies on him and his offspring. Even when the condition of Judea and Idumea was similar as both were overtaken by the Chaldeans, the difference between the two is seen in that the Idumeans have no hope of restoration ————— 63

Comm. Amos 5:4–6, CO 43, 72. Comm. Hos 12: 3–5, CO 42, 454. 65 Comm. Amos 5:4–6, CO 43, 72. 66 Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 397. 67 Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 397. 68 On Calvin’s use of the term “reprobate” we note that Calvin does not narrow its meaning only to denote the eternally lost who live outside the covenant, but also applies it to those who although they belong outwardly to the people of God, yet act contrary to his law and gospel. See Comm. Amos 9:10, CO 43, 168; Comm. Zeph 3:11, CO 44, 64: “…in promiscua multitudine non poterant discerni electi a reprobis.” 64

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Double Predestination

77

and reconciliation, contrary to elect citizens of both kingdoms of north and south. This is because the Edomites or Idumeans have been rejected in the person of Esau. For the Jews on the other hand, still loved by God, God’s wrath is but temporary and remedial in intent. The reason for this is that God did not completely forget his covenant. At least, within the context of ancient history of Israel until the advent of Christ, Calvin suggests that God’s anger toward the Edomites is permanent because Esau had been rejected. This is how according to Calvin God views the difference between the elect and the reprobate: “when God visits sins in common, he ever moderates his wrath toward his elect, and imposes a limit to his severity.”69 Evidence for this difference is that the Jews returned to their promised land, which serves “as it were as a pledge of their eternal inheritance” (quasi pignus haereditatis aeternae).70 The Idumeans did not ever return, and this was a sign of their rejection by God due to Esau’s sins. Their mount Seir was to them “a token of their reprobation” (signum reprobationis).71 Esau, when he left his father’s house in Canaan “became as it were an alien, having disowned himself of the celestial inheritance, as he had sold his birthright to his brother Jacob.”72 At least, as far as Calvin’s comment on Malachi 1 is concerned, the reformer does not turn only to God’s eternal election to explain the rejection of Esau and the Edomites by God. Calvin maintains the biblical tension between the free will and pleasure of God and human responsibility. In the person of Esau this tension is expressed in that Esau was elect in a general (non-saving) sense but rejected by God’s will to which his unbelief makes attestation. Calvin broadens this tension by stating that even among Jacob’s offspring there are those also who (like Esau) prove to be rejected. In any event, the reformer does not discuss Jacob and Esau in terms of their personal response of faith and unbelief respectively. Instead, Calvin presents both brothers in their role as representing two spiritually separate peoples. This seems largely due to Calvin’s appeal to what the apostle Paul teaches in his opinion in Romans nine through eleven. This emphasis on the corporate rather than personal salvation shapes the reformer’s ecclesiology. The church is first and foremost the elect people of God even when God administers his saving grace to individuals. When subsequently Calvin discusses the reason for the further distinction among the Jews themselves (as offspring of Jacob), the reformer appeals ————— 69

Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 399. Comm.Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 398. 71 Comm.Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 398. 72 Comm.Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 398. 70

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

78

Election

still more to the Apostle Paul’s teaching in Romans 9. There is then a kind of “second election” argues Calvin according to which among the already “chosen” offspring of Jacob there will be those who are reprobates, while others are faithful. The reason for this is once again God’s own pleasure (nempe quia sic Domino placet).73 God’s preference for Jacob was not based on any merit (non ob meritum aliquod) in him.74 At the same time Calvin echoes the warning of scripture’s evaluation of the offspring of Jacob and Esau in order to remind his audience that in that time there were those who considered themselves mistakenly to be one of Jacob’s rather than Esau’s offspring. By his appeal to the apostle Paul (Romans 9)—who references Malachi 1: 2–3—Calvin brings home the point that even among the progeny of Jacob there are those who are not true heirs. This reality of false trust in belonging outwardly to God’s chosen people applies to the “papists” in the same way (quemadmodum). As Calvin notes: “Just like the papists today who—as is well-known—estimate faith by external tokens, they object with disdain to us, that they are the church. It is as though a general promise were sufficient apart from the Spirit, who is justly called the Spirit of adoption, by whom God seals it within, even in our hearts.”75 The inner-connectedness between the word of God and the Holy Spirit is crucial to Calvin’s ecclesiology. In a comment on Zechariah 1:17 Calvin appears to suggest that the general election—which originally included Esau too and his subsequent accursedness following Jacob’s deception leading to Esau’s rejection by God—does not necessarily entail a permanent, eternal reprobation of Esau’s offspring. God gathers himself a (visible) church even from among those who externally speaking could be labeled as non-elect and reprobate. After all, Calvin implies, Esau too was included under “the calling of God which is without regret” (vocatio Dei sine poenitentia est).76 Calvin explains this by saying that according to the apostle Paul God does not change his mind about his original (general) calling. This applies by necessity to the “secret election of each” (arcana cuiusque electione) but to general adoption (adoptione generali) as well.77 The latter expression of general election—in which Esau is included—is about the race of Abraham which God separated from the rest of the nations. Esau as well as many other (elect) offspring of ————— 73

Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 403. Ibid. 75 Ibid. Calvin’s aversion toward the Catholic emphasis on external proof of divine election (Roman Catholic Church) may explain why Calvin’s doctrine of election is both more personal/spiritual and avoids the explicit use of the practical syllogism. 76 Comm. Zech 1:17, CO 44, 148. 77 Ibid. 74

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Election as Unchanging

79

Abraham is a reprobate. Calvin confesses: “however the election of God was steady. And, as a matter of fact there continued to be some hope as to that people. Because God would at last gather to himself a church from the Jews as from the Gentiles, so that those might be united again who were then separated.”78 From Calvin’s own statements it appears that his understanding of election and reprobation is both dynamic (covenant condition) and static (God’s hidden will) in a historical-redemptive sense and in terms of the order of salvation (ordo salutis) respectively.79 When it comes to Esau— though reprobate together with his offspring in one sense—Calvin seems to suggest that Esau although personally cut off from the covenant promise still awaits in his offspring a future opportunity (upon Christ’s first advent) when God will gather to himself his elect that are found also among the Edomites.80 Those Calvin designates as “hypocrites” belong to a category for whom there appears to be no hope81 except by repentance and faith: “God will not reconcile himself to any who are reprobate and obstinate.”82 It is God’s general election upon which Calvin builds his defense that the church and believers in it need never despair of God’s willingness to reconcile with penitent sinners. After all, it is the true elect that are only known to God.

3.6 Election as Unchanging Election as Unchanging Calvin views the doctrine of election in the main as mysterious and something one can easily stumble over when showing disrespect for its boundaries. On the other hand, though a difficult doctrine the Reformer understands it as necessary in assuring the faithful of their salvation precisely since it is rooted in God’s unchanging will. The election of Abraham and his offspring means that God called them into a relationship (covenantal) with himself. This election into a covenant relationship of the elect with God is based upon God’s agreement with ————— 78

Comm. Zech 1:17, CO 44, 148. Is Calvin’s both strict and dynamic use of the “elect” versus “reprobate” terminology a result from being influenced by M.Bucer? See van’t Spijker: 1991, 29 80 If this evaluation of Calvin’s remarks is correct than it provides impetus for arguing that excommunication is viewed by Calvin not as permanent separation from God but instead warrants ongoing appeal to God’s covenant faithfulness. Under the Gospel Esau’s former hopeless condition—confirmed according to Calvin in that the Edomites were not restored to the promised land—means that God’s earlier permanent anger toward Esau and his offspring is mitigated now that God calls his elect from among all nations. 81 Cf. Comm. Nah 1:3, CO 43, 441: “…non esse sperandam veniam…” 82 Comm. Nah 1:5, CO 43, 443. 79

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

80

Election

himself. As Calvin puts it: “[God] agreed (constitutum) with himself what he willed to become of each man.”83 As shown earlier Calvin depicts divine election—as the expression of God’s hidden purpose—as being incapable of change (firma et rata)84 despite Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness toward God. Israel’s divine adoption is yet another way for Calvin to point to Israel’s status as God’s chosen or elect people.85 God’s election and calling is unchanging—not just in terms of those who are special elect but all those with whom God keeps his covenant—appears from a comment by the reformer on Zechariah 1:17. Calvin means that from God’s side his general calling which includes Esau is “without repentance” (sine poenitentia) or regret.86 Evidently, this unchanging nature applies both to God’s special election as well as his general election, by which God had set apart the race of Abraham from the rest of the nations.87 However, there is also an obvious distinction in God’s calling. The difference between God’s universal (vocasset totum mundum) and special calling (narrow) is that the former is not efficacious. One senses Calvin might be applying this distinction to the churches under the papal authority. For example, Calvin notes that while God has been calling the whole world to himself, almost everybody has rejected his favor (gratia) and he has been enduring the sinful people for some generations (aliquot saeculis). God’s response of punishing this behavior has gone from less to more severe. Calvin assesses the severity of divine discipline as a deluge (diluvii). In short, his generation is witness to “that dreadful confusion which is seen among the papacy.”88 ————— 83

Inst. 3.21.5., CO 2, 683. Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216: “…ut tamen firma et rata maneat Dei electio…” Compare Comm. Joel 2:13, CO 42, 546. Here Calvin shows that God’s immutability in what he decrees is according to what he is in himself (in se). When God appears to change his original purpose this only accommodates to human understanding because “Quidquid enim profectum est ex ore Dei, instar inviolabilis decreti haberi debet.” Joel 2:32, CO 42, 577. Here Calvin associates the perpetuity of God’s church in the world with the unchanging nature of God’s truth which is “aeterna est ac immutabilis.” 85 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216, 218. In the latter instance, Calvin includes the Gentiles also as those who make up the “much larger church”; See also Comm. Hos 8:1, CO 42, 361: “…electione vel adoptione…” 86 Comm. Zech 1:17, CO 44, 148. Zechariah notes that God promises He will again “comfort Zion and choose Jerusalem” as the basis for his doctrine of the immutability of God’s election. 87 Cf. Ibid. 88 Comm. Zech 11: 15–16, CO 44, 317–18. For the sake of balance, Calvin’s sermons on the prophet Micah prove that Calvin does not merely point fingers at Rome (or the Anabaptists) but reminds his students frequently that it is human nature which gives all persons –including Genevans—a disposition to forget the teaching from God’s word by not putting into practice and prove this by “our scandalous behavior.”. See Calvin’s sermon on Micah 1:1–2 (Wednesday, Nov. 12, 1550; in Sermons on Micah by John Calvin, trans. B. Reynolds: 1990, 13. This sermon is found in Supplementa Calviniana (vol. 5). 84

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Election a Mystery

81

Calvin ties the warning which the prophets issued regarding the Jews’ negative response to God’s calling to the church in his own day. Even though the people in his time did not descend from Abraham or Jacob physically God has “engraved certain marks of his adoption on them as well.”89 By these marks the church in his day is distinguished from other nations, just like the Jews were when God set them apart as a special people or race. However, believers in Calvin’s time were “nothing better” (nihilo meliores) than their ancient Jewish counterparts. Identifying with the fate of the Jews Calvin admonishes that the same reproof the Jews received applies to the church in his day “if we do not respond to the calling of God.”90 Who then are the ones who do respond in obedience to God’s calling? Calvin speaks of the ancient Jews to whom the prophet Micah ministered, and indicates that the hypocrites and the faithful both belong to the church outwardly speaking. Micah’s words address both groups simultaneously and in as far as they are intended to scare the hypocrites it is as if the prophet said that “it is all over with the church’s reputation” (actum est de nominee ecclesiae) since there is no remedy left other than God’s “incredible power” (in virtute Dei incredibili).91 Calvin’s explanation why God did not destroy Israel as his church altogether and form a new church is because of their divine adoption, which continues with the race of Abraham” (in genere Abrahae) until the advent of Christ.92 Only the faithful—or remnant—are kept safe by God and only because of God’s gracious adoption (secundum adoptionem gratuitam Dei).93 In short, God does not totally reject the hypocrites by destroying them by his divine justice (now), but maintains the covenant with them without change by virtue of their adoption as a race. However, the reformer also makes clear that the blessings of the covenant apply only to those who are preserved by God according to that same gracious adoption in the narrow sense.

3.7 Election a Mystery Election a Mystery Again, Calvin’s aim is to impress upon his students that it is not free will of humans that determines or explains election unto salvation. God alone is solely responsible for Israel’s election as a race and the particular election of those few who prove this by their faithfulness to his revealed law. While God often used other “instruments, or intermediate causes” (instrumenta, ————— 89

Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 400. Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 400. 91 Comm. Mic 7:14, CO 43, 422. 92 Cf. Comm. Mic 7:14, CO 43, 423. 93 Ibid. 90

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

82

Election

vel per medias causas ) to accomplish his redemptive purposes it is his hidden decree (Arcanum eius decretum) that explains human election without divulging any details as regards divine motive. Stated in his own words, “that we may not think that God is dependant on the will of men…but he himself has settled whatever he has in his good pleasure determined.”94 Granted that divine election is hidden in the eternal and unrevealed counsel of God Calvin is quick to connect this mysterious origin of election to the person and work of the second person of the holy Trinity saying that election is “founded on Christ alone.”95 Reprobation is similarly “hidden in the judgment of God” (reprobatio autem in iudicio etiam Dei abscondita est ).96 A person who wants to know more than that election is hidden in the counsel of God enters into terrain rife with dangers. Therefore, Calvin admonishes against searching for its cause.97 The reformer warns that if the question is pursued concerning election apart from God, “we shall wander as in a labyrinth” (nos vagamur quasi in labyrintho).98 To peek curiously into the mystery of election is as dangerous as an abyss.99 Man stands here at the very boundary of knowing “where all our ideas vanish” (illic evanescent omnes sensus nostri).100

3.8 Assurance: Certainty of Faith and Salvation Assurance: Certainty of Faith and Salvation When Calvin mentions certainty regarding faith he understands this to mean that God’s people are personally assured of God’s favor toward them.101 Assurance of this kind is essential in terms of the piety or religion Calvin deems is acceptable to God. The reformer anchors certainty of divine favor on the certain promise (certa promissio) God gave exclusively by covenant to his elect people.102 Calvin asserts that the ancient fathers had a faith that ————— 94

Comm. Zech 6: 4, 5, CO 44, 206. Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 407: “et fundata in solo Christo”. See also Comm. Nah 1:5, CO 43, 443: “…tamen erit Deus inexorabilis contra omnes reprobos et obstinatos.” 96 Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 407. 97 Ibid., CO, 44, 408: “…ut nefas sit quaerere ieus causam.” 98 Comm. Mal 1: 2–6, CO 44, 406. 99 For complete quote see Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 407: “Iam si volumus illuc penetrare, est abyssus multa et profunda: illic evanescent omnes sensus nostril: sed interea Deo tamen non decedit sua libertas, quin eligat vel reprobet quoscunque voluerit.”; Compare Inst. 3.24.3–5., CO 2, 713–716; see Niesel: 1980, 160–61. 100 Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 407. 101 Cf. Schreiner: 2006, 116. Author cites Institutes 3.2.9, 15; Schützeichel: 1972, 135ff; Helm: 2004, 257–63. 102 Cf. Comm. Mic 7:18, CO 43, 428; Compare Inst. 3.2.6. Here Calvin links the elements of (true) faith as knowledge of God’s will with a “preconceived conviction of God’s truth.” Unless one’s mind is fully certain of the truthfulness of God’s word, “the Word will be of a doubtful and 95

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Assurance: Certainty of Faith and Salvation

83

was fixed on Christ unabatedly103 when they hoped for the restoration of the kingdom of David. For Calvin this means that if people in his day will “raise up [their] minds to God, Christ must immediately become a Mediator.”104 When Christ is missing there can only be despair and no certain hope. The only true confidence that succeeds is that which is “founded on Christ alone” (nisi in Christo solo fundata sit).105 The restoration of the ancient “fallen church” (ecclesia collapsa), which would not come definitively, until the first advent of Christ, could only be accomplished by being united under one head, which is Christ.106 Next, while Calvin does not specifically state that certainty of salvation is essential to a saving faith,107 the reformer certainly argues for its necessity in divine worship and religion by the faithful.108 Calvin stresses the importance of certainty or assurance regarding God’s favor due to the teachings (in the Catholic Church particularly) of those who deny that a person can or even should have such assurance. For Calvin to be persuaded that God is merciful toward his people to reconcile himself with them is the “first thing in our faith” (hoc sit fidei nostrae principium).109 Those who dispute the need to have certainty of divine favor say, according to Calvin in his comments on Micah 7:18 that it is “a vain presumption and rashness ————— weak authority, or rather of none.” For this same pastoral purpose Calvin exhorts his audience to consider God’s plan of election, but not apart from his word. (Inst. 3.24.4). See also Inst. 3.21.2; Graafland:1961, 29n.3. 103 Cf. Comm. Amos 9:11, CO 43, 170: “videmus fidem patrum semper defixam fuisse in Christo.” See also Milner: 1970, 72, who cites Calvin’s comment from his Inst. 3.24.5. (CO 2, 715–16) in which the reformer argues that certainty of salvation can not be found and considered “apart from the Son. Christ is the mirror, therefore, in which it behoves us to contemplate our election.” The “mirror” imagery functions also elsewhere when Calvin states that the promised land was to the Israelites threatened with exile “a mirror of the divine adoption.” See Comm. Hos 2:14, CO 42, 242: “speculum divinae adoptionis”. And: Christ’s resurrection “is the mirror of our life” Hos 6:2, CO 42, 321; The faithful who look at Christ as in the “mirror of the word” and “see in that what is far distant and even hidden from them,” in Comm. Zech 9:9, CO 44, 269–70. Calvin appears not to relate the work of the Holy Spirit to the subject of assurance front-and-center in the MP commentary. This is surprising in light of Schreiner’s observation that since the sixteenth century, the “primary work of the Holy Spirit became the giving of certainty.” Ibid.: 2006, 114; 116–18. Schreiner cites primarily Calvin’s Institutes. 104 Comm. Amos 9:11, CO 43, 170. 105 Comm. Amos 9:11, CO 43, 170. 106 Cf. Comm. Amos 9:11, CO 43, 170: “…sic etiam non potuit aliter ecclesia collapse restitui quam sub suo capite”. 107 The doctrine of certainty or assurance of salvation seems to belong to the area of sanctification rather than justification (i.e. the sinner justified by faith), and is on that score considered not essential for salvation. Calvin seems to imply that assurance is a benefit of Christ’s redemption, not a condition, as is faith. 108 See Beeke: 1999, 37–72. 109 Comm. Mic 7:18, CO 43, 429. On Calvin’s relating of faith to experience see Balke: 1978, 26–28; Beeke: 1999, 44–46.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

84

Election

when any one is fully persuaded of God’s mercy. They therefore keep consciences in suspense. Indeed, they leave them doubtful and trembling, when there is no certainty respecting God’s grace.”110 Calvin appeals again to the apostle Paul’s comments in Romans 4:20, in which he takes as an example the life of Abraham whose faith was founded on “this assurance” (hac certitudine) that God without a doubt could fulfill what he had promised (complere). “In short, we must not observe what is probable, not what nature brings forth, not what is usual, but what God can do, what his infinite power [can effect].”111 What we need to do—argues Calvin—is to think about God’s promises to his people not according to human nature, but “by faith ascend above the world.”112 To indicate that divine assurance is not conditional upon repentance for sin, but rather on divine grace freely extended, Calvin exclaims that “God has testified that he will be ever propitious to us, how much so-ever he may punish us for our sins, and that he will remember mercy, as Habakkuk (3:2) says, in the midst of his wrath.”113 It is not enough to merely realize our sins apart from comfort, which is based on the promises of God’s grace.114 Consequently, one ought to keep together “acknowledgement of our sins…and the knowledge of his goodness, and a firm assurance as to our salvation.”115 In connection with this theme of certainty of salvation, Calvin notes (again) that there are two kinds of knowledge (scientiae). The first kind of knowledge Calvin calls the “knowledge of faith” (scientia fidei ) and it is the type “by which the godly stand assured that God is true.”116 This faithexperience knows that God’s promise of his favor in salvation is not to be doubted (indubium). Calvin hints at the interconnectedness between “knowledge of faith” and the second form of knowledge which he calls “experimental knowledge” (scientia experimentalis) when he comments “this [faith] knowledge at the same time penetrates beyond the world, and goes far above the heavens, that it may know things that are hidden.”117 This ————— 110

Comm. Mic7:18, CO 43, 429. Com. Zech 8:6, CO 44, 238. 112 Comm. Zech 8:6, CO 44, 238. 113 Comm. Mic 7:9, CO 43, 414. 114 Cf. Comm. Mic 7:9, CO 43, 414: “Non sufficeret igitur sentire sua mala, nisi accederet consolatio ex promissionibus gratiae.” 115 Comm. Mic 7:9, CO 43, 414. 116 Comm. Zech 2:9, CO 44, 162. See also Joel 3:17, CO 42, 596. Calvin uses the same two categories, but refers to the cognitio experimentalis as reali notitia. Still, this is not the knowledge whereby God can be known as our Father. Such comes only from the “knowledge of faith” (cognitio fidei) which is “received from his word.” 117 Comm. Zech 2:9, CO 44, 162. See also Comm. Isaiah 14:1, CO 36, 273. Compare Oberman: 1988, 28. 111

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Assurance: Certainty of Faith and Salvation

85

latter faith, argues Calvin, is a knowledge that is based upon the fulfillment of Christ’s coming in the flesh.118 Consequently, given Calvin’s rejection of the nature of faith as taught in the Roman Church, the reformer’s description of faith and knowledge does not stress experience or affection as the essential character or even element of biblical faith and knowledge. Even from the perspective of the believer being assured of God’s favor it is human nature (caro nostra), says Calvin, to distrust God’s promise of free pardon (promissiones de gratuita venia). In other words it is not just the Catholic Magisterium which Calvin liberally targets in this matter of assurance of salvation. Calvin feels justified to suggest that people generally show a propensity to distrust (propensi ad diffidentiam) that God is ready to reconcile himself toward his sinful people.119 Even believers who embrace God’s promises of pardon can be tempted to say to themselves: “What! Can or dare you promise with certainty to yourself that God will be propitious to you, when you know that for many reasons he is justly angry with you?”120 For this reason the prophet confirms that “God is ready to be reconciled, and that he desires nothing greater than to receive and embrace his people.”121 Even when Calvin admits that the faithful are prone to “entertain doubt” regarding the hope of their salvation,122 he does not state it ordinarily for positive reasons, but rather contributes this to unbelief (infedilitatem) and Satan’s influence. Indeed, there can be “false comforts” (vanis solatiis) that seek to take away doubts (scrupulum) when God points out human sin.123 Calvin’s answer is that believers need to fight against “this destructive disease, in as much as Satan seeks nothing else but to sink us into despair.”124 For Calvin the lack of assurance of faith has vital implications for the worship of God. Accusing again Catholic teaching which kept peoples’ consciences in suspense, he adds “their whole worship is fictitious. In a word, the whole of religion is entirely subverted, when a firm and unhesitating confidence, as to his goodness, is taken away…”125 —————

118 Cf. Comm. Zech 2:9, CO 44, 162. On this point it may be noted that Calvin’s focus remains on the revealed will of God in which the believer’s election in Christ is mirrored. It is in this sense that Calvin’s understanding of assurance of faith—with Christ as its focal point as He is encountered in the revealed Word of God—serves as a correction to both the medieval Thomist as well as the nominalist view on the subject of assurance of salvation. Compare Wilcox: 1975, 264–67. 119 Cf. Comm. Hos 14:4 , CO 42, 504. 120 Comm. Hos 14:4, CO 42, 504. 121 Comm. Hos. 14:4, CO 42, 504. 122 Comm. Hos 6:3, CO 42, 322: “Scimus enim quam proclives simus ad dubitationem...” See also Heppe: 1978, 195, 537. 123 Cf. Comm. Hos 4:8, CO 42, 277–78. 124 Comm. Hos 6:3, CO 42, 322. 125 Comm. Mic 7:18, CO 43, 429.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

86

Election

Hence the fear of God and the true worship of him depend on a perception of his goodness and favor. For we cannot worship God from the heart, and there will be, as I have already said, no genuine religion in us, except we have this persuasion really and deeply seated in our hearts, that he is ever ready to forgive whenever we flee to him.126

The confidence that God is merciful is what enables persons to “come to [God] without doubting, whenever they sin and confess their guilt and transgressions, while at the same time they embrace the grace that is offered to them.”127 This same subject of the believers’ certainty of divine favor Calvin relates also to why God burdens his people with certain afflictions. Terror by itself discourages people from approaching God. This explains why God’s punishments toward his people are not so severe that they leave the people without hope. This moderate treatment by God of the faithful among the whole covenant people contrasts with the severe judgment which the reprobate receive when there is no remedy left for their restoration. Here Calvin is far less clear, because he does not distinguish as pointedly between reprobates who represent the non-elect nations and those who are among the outward elect but are reprobate because they reject God’s promise. Even so, the degree of divine afflictions does not aim to cause hopelessness but rather is meant to assure the people “that God would be propitious to them.”128 In the final analysis it is by looking to Christ, not in a carnal manner (non quidem carnali modo) but via the mirror of his word (in specula verbi) that one’s assurance of God’s favor comes to rest.129 Calvin may imply here that true assurance of faith in Christ precludes gaining such assurance from the adoration of the physical—rather than the spiritual—presence of Christ in the Roman Mass. Calvin’s pervasive use of the third person plural pronoun “we” in relation to the doctrine of assurance of divine favor indicates that certainty of salvation is a profoundly personal and communal matter.130 Even so, Calvin places the doctrine of assurance of election, adoption and divine favor in the context of the believer’s faithful persevering in walking in God’s way as they aim to reach heaven. In this process—according to Calvin—the just feel assured …that though now miserable for a time, they shall yet be blessed, since they have embraced the grace of God in Christ. They are sustained also by their own conscience

————— 126

Comm. Mic 7:18, CO 43, 429. Comm. Mic 7:18 (CO 43, 429); See also Comm. Hos 3:2–5 (CO 42, 264–65). 128 Comm. Hos 6:1, CO 42, 318. 129 Cf. Comm. Zech 9:9, CO 44, 269. 130 Doumergue: 1917, 10. 127

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Conclusion

87

so that they can look down on all the reproaches and slanders of the world, while they proceed onward in their course. Therefore those who thus walk in the ways of the Lord are unconquerable.131

Only hypocrites have false assurance and confidence because they deceive themselves about the present favor God shows them.132

3.9 Conclusion Conclusion In his Minor Prophets commentary Calvin maintains his basic conviction as already expressed in his first edition of his Christian Institutes (1536) as well as as his Geneva Catechism (1537) that the church of God is made up of those who are the elect. However, by the time of Calvin’s lectures on the Minor Prophets the reformer’s emphasis has shifted—along with the successive editions of his Institutes—to stress the visible expression of the invisible church which has its origin exclusively in God’s eternal and unchanging decree. Mixed in with the elect of God are those who are but hypocrites. Calvin’s ecclesiology in the MP commentary when it concerns its origin in election moves from the general to the particular. Calvin appeals to individual repentance and faith as necessary requirements in true worship of God. At the same time the reformer never looses sight of the church’s primary character as the corporate (visible) assembly of the people of God in history. While Calvin allows for a double aspect of election—outward and inward—the church in this world exists only by God’s favor and love, which is completely gratuitous and thus excludes any possibility of human cooperative effort. As a result Calvin rails against those who make election contingent on human free will. By placing election in the one will of God Calvin uses this argument to disprove—in his mind—the false ideas of both the Catholic and Anabaptistic views regarding the church and the condition on which one is a member of that church in the world. To know if you are a member of God’s elect (invisible church) one should look at Christ as he is shown in scripture. Persons can do nothing to earn their salvation, but by the same principle—gratuitous election—the still sinful (elect) believer can also do nothing to undo God’s will because He will not change it in accordance with his divine nature and purpose.

————— 131 132

Comm. Hos 14:9, CO 42, 513. Cf. Comm. Hos 1:6 (CO 42, 212); 13:7–8 (CO 42, 483). Compare Foxgrover: 1980, 220–

32.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

4. Covenant Covenant Introduction

4.1 Introduction The goal of this chapter is to show the way in which for Calvin the covenant occupies a crucial—albeit not an overt—role in his doctrine of the church.1 In the Minor Prophets commentary the covenant God made with Abraham functions in the reformer’s thought as the divine imperative for the historical church’s nature, organization and purpose in this world. Concomitantly, the church’s origin, struggle and preservation and final consummation are explained by God’s sovereign will in election and providential care and protection.

4.2 Place and Relationship to Election Place and Relationship to Election In Calvin’s view the covenant God made with Abraham has its foundation in God’s eternal will in election.2 This covenant is viewed by Calvin as a “mutual agreement”3 made with “the holy fathers” between God and Israel. It is what gave the Israelites as Abraham’s offspring “pre-eminence of other nations.”4 God demonstrates by this covenant his paternal favor towards his elect.5 Therefore, this divine covenant is gracious in nature and in the salvation it promises.6 Furthermore, argues Calvin, by his covenant God binds himself to (“us”) his people. This bond between God and the people is based on the imposed conditions by God, namely, that He promises to be “our Father and husband” and demands from us filial obedience and marital faithfulness. —————

1 Reventlow: 1997, 125. Author claims that the covenant does not occupy a central place in Calvin’s thinking overall. For similar view see Osterhaven: 1984, 90. 2 Osterhaven: 1984, 91, 93; See also Bierma: 1996, 24; Baker: 1980, 204–05. 3 For the covenant’s mutuality see Comm. Hos. 2:3–5, CO 42, 260: “mutua illa pactio…”; Compare with Lillback, 2001, 128. Author bases his comment on Calvin’s three terms used for covenant: foedus, pactum, and testamentum. See also Milner: 1970, 48. 4 Comm. Hos 1:8–9, CO 42, 215. 5 Cf. Comm. Hos 9:12, CO 42, 400. 6 Cf. Preface in Calvin’s commentary on Malachi (CO 44, 394). This gratuitous nature of the covenant is also the character of God’s word generally. See Comm. Mic 2:7 (CO 43, 309); Bierma: 1996, 44.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Place and Relationship to Election

89

Calvin calls this “mutual trust” (mutua fide).7 This union between God and his people (sacrum populum et peculiarem) would not exist if it were not for God adopting the Jews by virtue of his divine favor.8 God (in Christ) as covenant ruler is inseparable from his people (body). 9 The reformer’s frequent reference to such terms as “election”, “adoption”, and “covenant”10 suggests Calvin uses them interchangeably and in close connection.11 A mere cursory reading of his lectures on the Minor Prophets supports the insight that covenant and election are kept in close proximity in the reformer’s lectures.12 Since, for Calvin this gratuitous covenant is grounded in God’s eternal decree in election,13 Milner is correct in stating that both election and adoption are “integral to (Calvin’s) conception of the covenant: it occurs in time, in history—but it is not, thereby, an afterthought in the mind of God.”14 In Calvin’s mind election and covenant are organically related, so that the one can not be thought of apart from the other. Instead, the reformer keeps the two in tension. In fact, Calvin’s appreciation for the church in its visible expression is directly anchored in the reformer’s inclusion of covenant doctrine. Indeed, Calvin’s reference to “general election” (generalis electio) relates quite naturally to the covenant.15 Consequently, Milner claims that

————— 7

Comm. Hos 5:7, CO 42, 305. Cf. Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44,396. 9 Cf. Comm. Hos 5:7, CO 42, 305. It is important to recognize that, following Calvin’s commentary in Hosea the “divorce” between God and Israel is one in which God acquiesces rather than wanting it to happen (See for example: Comm. Hos 2:3–5, CO 42, 226. Elsewhere Calvin states a divorce is inevitable, since God has no other remedies left. Due to the Israelites’ divorce from Judah (David) they were as a result without a “legitimate head.” (Hosea 1:11). Exile means being divorced from the covenant land and its “social order” and from God as their leader or head (Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 261; Zech 11:10–11, CO 44, 309–10. This “divorce” does not mean divine destruction. Rather, God gives the Israelites a divorce so that they might sincerely repent. Israel’s defection from Judah “abruperit sacram unitatem ecclesiae,” in Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 260. Other passages in the MP commentary that state the headship of Christ over the church are: Comm. Hos 13:9–11, CO 42, 487; Amos 9:11, CO 43, 169; Zech 8:23, CO 44, 258; 12:8, CO 44, 332; Zech 1:18–21, CO 44, 152; 9:9, CO 44, 270. 10 See Milner: 1970, 73–75. Author states that God’s act in separating a “church” from the other nations is variously referred to by Calvin as “election” and “adoption”, and these Calvin uses “interchangeably.” See for proof Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 406; Again Milner, Ibid.: “Both motifs are integral to Calvin’s conception of the covenant…” Additionally, Milner claims that Calvin uses the word “covenant” interchangeably with election and adoption. 11 Compare Lillback: 2001, 126–41. 12 For example: Comm. Hos 8:1, CO 42, 361; Zech 2:12, CO 44, 165; 10:6, CO 44, 294; Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 395–409. 13 Osterhaven: 1984, 91, 93. 14 Milner: 1970, 47–8. 15 Cf. Comm. Hos 12:3–5, CO, 42, 454. 8

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

90

Covenant

for Calvin the “covenant … is the general election.”16 As noted before, there is also Calvin’s distinction between general and special election, which parallels in form the same distinction in his concept of the covenant. Both election and the covenant have a broad (general) as well as a narrow (special) circumference, in which the former supports the latter by its concealed nature. Therefore, humans are unable to trace election by its very divine origin to the mind and singular will17 of God. What is clear to Calvin is that the distinction of “special election” (specialis electio) in connection to the covenant broadly speaking is grounded in the fact that while all the covenant people were elect in the general sense, it remains also true that “God knew whom he had chosen out of that people.”18 Furthermore, the combination of election and adoption is never far removed from God’s gratuitous covenant established in Abraham and his whole seed.19 The co-dependency of these terms as related concepts Calvin demonstrates in his exegesis of Hosea 1:10: “God would not be forgetful of his word…God’s election would remain firm and unchangeable; in short, [the prophet] teaches that the adoption would not become void by which God had chosen the offspring of Abraham as his people.”20

4.3 One Covenant One Covenant A number of Calvin scholars agree that Calvin teaches one21 covenant (for both Old and New Testament) as opposed to several.22 Important for —————

16 Milner: 1970, 48; See Osterhaven: 1984, 93. Compare Richel: 1942, 24–26. We would caution against Milner that when Calvin appears to join together the concepts of election and covenant, they do not in fact collapse into each other, because Calvin retains throughout his emphasis on the unilateral initiative behind election in a way that is not true of divine covenant. 17 Cf. Comm. Hos 11:8–9, CO 42, 442; Richel: 1942, 26. Author rightly points out that in God’s single will to decree some and bypass others one encounters the connection between God’s hidden and revealed will. 18 Comm. Hos 12:3–5, CO 42, 454. On this second distinction in Calvin we refer to Milner: 1970, 53–62. 19 See also Lillback: 2001 139. Author claims that Calvin’s use of covenant and adoption “often occur together in a synonymous manner.” 20 Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216. God’s “word” Calvin understands covenantally as “testamentum.” Compare Lillback: 2001, 132. 21 Reventlow, Epochen, vol. 3, 125; Compare Osterhaven: 1984, 99; Hoekema: 1967, 133–61; Bierma: 1996, 44; Thompson: 2004, 68. 22 Cf. Lillback: 2001, 276–304. Author makes a cogent case for arguing that Calvin might have taught a pre-fall covenant (works). In the MP commentary, Calvin argues on the basis of God’s covenant with Levi—which too involves the principle of mutuality and works—that the Reformation has the right to scrutinize the perceived failings of the Roman Catholic Church’s priests (Cf. Comm. Mal 2:5, CO 44, 433). Without mentioning the word “covenant” or reference to a “covenant of works” Calvin in his commentary on Malachi 1:2–6 implies the works-righteousness

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

One Covenant

91

Calvin’s ecclesiology the gratuitous nature of the church’s foundation (sovereign election) explains why Calvin accentuates the gratuitous covenant God made with Abraham (and their fathers23) and which was deposited later into the hands of King David.24 Referring to the church as God’s elect, Abraham in particular serves as the one in whom the church in this world derives its identity as a separate nation, a royal priesthood, God’s peculiar people.25 Consequently, the church’s lineage according to Calvin’s teaching in the MP lectures is not primarily Adam-Christ.26 Rather, the church as a visible organism starts for Calvin with the covenant God makes with Abraham27 and then proceeds to track its course via David ending with Christ upon whom the covenant is founded. For Calvin, Adam is first and foremost the one in whom the whole human race now stands reprobate.28 At the same time, Calvin’s criticism of the Catholic Church’s leadership and practices flows directly from the principle of human obligation that is part and parcel of the nature of the covenant relationship, whether it concerns the covenant made with Abraham or Adam or Levi.29 In his commentary on the Minor Prophets, the reformer makes mention of the covenant made with Abraham and his offspring, which Calvin views as the church God forms as a separate creation besides that of humanity in general. Speaking about this covenant Calvin states: “For this creation ought to be confined especially to the church. God created the whole human ————— principle by which Adam in his original state could have obtained “integrity” for all humanity (CO 44, 405). 23 Cf. Preface to Calvin’s commentary on Malachi (CO 44, 394). See Milner: 1970, 72. Furthermore, Calvin calls Abraham the mediator of the covenant which God made with his whole race (Comm. Mal 2:10, CO 44, 444). 24 Cf. Comm. Joel 3:17, CO 42, 596–97. 25 Cf. Comm.Amos 7:1–3 (CO 43, 122). 26 Cf. Comm. Hos 6:6–7, CO 42, 332. Calvin rejects the interpretation of those who see the text as a reference to the historical Adam as breaking God’s covenant. At best Calvin tolerates here the concept of a “covenant of works” with Adam but does not seize the opportunity to teach this doctrine had it been firmly fixed in his thinking. Instead, the comparison, as Calvin sees it, is between God and the Israelites who violated not the covenant Adam broke but the one (Moses) by which God ordained the right order of worship to him by his people. Contra Lillback: 2001, 285f. In the Minor Prophet lectures the Adam-Christ parallel is less a “commitment” than the author claims. 27 It was Abraham (the one) whom God chose from among the many, not Adam, to constitute his separate people. To Calvin, that election is what gives the church its definition or identity as God’s chosen people. Compare Reventlow: 1997, 124–25. 28 Cf. Comm. Mal. 1:2–6, CO 44, 405; see Gerrish: 1998, 154. 29 Calvin labels the covenant made with Levi in his MP commentary as “God’s covenant of life and peace” (“pactum Dei vitae et pacis”) based on the biblical wording in Malachi 2:5 (see Comm: Mal 2:5, CO 44, 434. Calvin observes that this covenant made with Levi (i.e. his tribe), is based on “reciprocal obligation” (“reciprocam obligationem”) between the divine and human covenant partners. Calvin’s MP commentary supports the view that in it are present the seeds from which theologians after Calvin formulated their covenant theology.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

92

Covenant

race, but he also created the race of Abraham.”30 In light of the fact that Calvin does speak about the church in reference to Adam and Noah, who through his son Shem is connected to Abraham, it seems best to infer that in the person of Abraham and his progeny, God promises to engender a renewal of the church that began historically with Adam (post-fall) but which is validated by covenant when God established this with the first patriarch and his offspring.31

4.4 Christ as Mediator Christ as Mediator For Calvin, Christ in pre-incarnate form as “chief angel” (primarium angelum) is already the “Mediator and the Head of the church” (mediatorem et caput ecclesiae). The reformer correlates Christ’s role as “mediator of the church” (mediator est ecclesiae) with his divinity in his pre-incarnate state. Then Calvin adds the significant words that explain why Christ is the church’s mediator already in the Old Testament: “for the church could not exist, nor be united to her God without a head.”32 It is Christ who is the hope for the restoration of the church prior and posterior to his advent. Christ unites the hope of those living before and after him, because the one covenant for all time was established actually in Christ who then serves as the covenant’s foundation.33 Those who heard about the church’s future condition of blessing and happiness could do so only by setting “Christ before their eyes” (Christus ante ipsorum oculos). Calvin quickly adds that people should not take this in a “carnal manner but in the mirror of the word, as the faithful see in that what is far distant and even hidden.”34 In reference to Malachi 3:1 Calvin purports that the messenger God promises to send Israel refers to John the Baptist.35 However, in this same verse the words “angel/messenger of the covenant”—who is “the Lord” is in Calvin’s opinion a direct reference to Christ because the (new) covenant can only be confirmed by him. In all, David’s kingdom serves as a representation of the kingdom of Christ.36 Therefore, Calvin argues, God’s people before and since Christ’s first advent are to view him as their Mediator. Even the ancient people of God ————— 30

Comm. Mal 2:10, CO 44, 445. Compare Richel: 1942, 99–101; Lillback: 2001, 285. 32 Comm. Zech 1: 18–21, CO 44, 152. See also Comm. Hos 12: 3–5 (CO 42, 455). 33 Osterhaven: 1984, 100ff.; Woolsey: 1988, 333. 34 Comm. Zech 9:9, CO 44, 269–70. 35 Cf. Comm. Mal 3:1, CO 44, 461. 36 Cf. Comm. Mal 3:1, CO 44, 461; Compare Comm. Zech 12:11, CO 44, 338. 31

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Christ as Mediator

93

find their unity in their covenant Head, Christ the Redeemer.37 Pointedly, Calvin opines that separating Christ as head from “the race of Abraham” (genus Abrahae) God’s covenant would have no validity.38 Importantly, in their role as a teacher the prophets are called to set before the people the promised Messiah as Mediator.39 After all, it is through his indispensable mediation that God will reconcile himself to people. In the same commentary Calvin locates the role of Christ as reconciler between God and people in the office of priesthood in the Old Testament. He states that in the priesthood “there shone forth in it the image of Christ the Mediator, whose office it is, to intercede with God that he might reconcile him to men.”40 It is for this reason that the church with Christ as its head and mediator can not tolerate anything religious that is not ordained by God’s covenant and law. Calvin infers occasionally from a text’s reference to Baal worship that the Israelites adopted various gods from surrounding nations as mediators. It is true, argues Calvin, that Israel maintained that their God is supreme, but by their simultaneous reliance on pagan idols which Calvin calls “patrons” (patronos)41 the Jews were compromising the mediation of Christ, not being content with the word of God alone (non contenti simplici Dei verbo).42 Calvin wastes no time applying this ancient phenomenon to the practice of veneration of saints in and by the Roman Catholic Church in his day. Calvin notes: “It is the same with the papists today. They have their Baalim. Not that they regard their patrons in the place of God, but they dread every access to God, and understand not that Christ is a mediator.”43 If Christ is the “middle person” (medium)44 between God and the people, one must not add anything to his work as the Israelites did, trusting in their ————— 37

Cf. Comm. Hab 3:9, CO 43, 576. Ibid. 39 Cf. Comm. Hos (Argument), CO 42, 198. 40 Comm. Hos 8:4, CO 42, 364. 41 Calvin accuses the “papists” of not viewing Christ rightly in his role as Mediator accusing them of Baal worship since they add to the worship of God their “patrons” (“nutricios” viz. “saints”). See Comm. Hos 2:8, CO 42, 235; 2:17, CO 42, 246; 8:6, CO 42, 369; 9:1, CO 42, 382; 14:3, CO 42, 503. 42 Comm. Hos 8:6, CO 42, 369. In a comment on Hosea 2:17 (CO 42, 246) Calvin identifies Catholic practices of the day, which includes the worship of Mary “or some other saint.” Calvin immediately added a comment that reveals his understanding why the worship of Mary and other saints is so problematic to his way of thinking about biblical worship. He adds “…and [the papists] dare not come to God.” Anything that detracts from the sole mediation of Christ constitutes what the reformer considers Baal-worship. Calvin’s reference to Mariology is mentioned just here in the commentary on the Minor Prophets. 43 Comm. Hos 2:8–9, CO 42, 235. 44 Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 264. 38

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

94

Covenant

“patrons” so as to bar themselves access to God.45 Calvin insists that not even the angels—who serve the faithful and are united to them also through Christ as their Mediator—should be prayed to as if they were patrons also.46

4.5 Mixed Membership Mixed Membership For the Anabaptists the Reformation has not gone far enough in restoring the order and holiness of the church. Calvin agrees that purification is inherent to church renewal (renovare). This renewal of the ancient church Calvin compares with the church’s renewal which has been taking place since Christ’s first advent. The reformer cannot accept, however, that Zechariah 14:21 foretells a church in this world so pure “that all people would worship God from the heart and sincerely” (ut ex animo et sincere omnes Deum colant) nor that it can ever be free of hypocrites who pollute its worship.47 Instead, Calvin offers this interpretation that the prophet uses hyperbole because in this world the church is simply unable to “cast out every corruption” (ut non posit eiicere omnes corruptelas).48 After all, “the church has always been contaminated by many pollutions.”49 The cleansing of the church will not be perfected until the end (ad finem) when Christ’s kingdom in this world has made room for heavenly life (coelestem vitam).50 Calvin’s caution against a too zealous ambition to purify the church is supported by his understanding of God’s patience and unchanging covenant loyalty toward Israel and Judah. Even if God enacts the divorce of the Israelites from himself, Calvin understands the prophet Hosea to teach that God did “not willingly” (non sponte) reject the Israelites51, but he felt constrained to do so given their numerous abominations (multa flagitia).52 Israel’s defection from Judah “broke the sacred unity of the church” ————— 45

Cf. Comm. Hos 2:8–9, CO 42, 235. Cf. Comm. Zech 1:12, CO 44, 141. 47 Cf. Comm. Zech 14:21, CO 44, 390. 48 Comm. Zech 14:21, CO 44, 390. 49 Comm. Zech 14:21, CO 44, 390. See also Comm. Zech 3:5, CO 44, 172; 13:9, CO 44, 358: “multa contagio”; Comm. Joel 3:21, CO 42, 600. Calvin evidences a high tolerance for the moral imperfection of the church and its leaders and laypeople. The reformer makes it clear that with regard to the administration of the sacraments their meaning is not compromised even when the devil himself were to administer them, because sacraments (Calvin mentions Baptism) are “a sacred and immutable testimony of God’s grace.” See Comm. Amos 5:25–26, CO 43, 98: “inviolabile testimonium gratiae Dei”. 50 Cf. CO 44, 390. 51 Comm. Hos 2:2, CO 42, 224. 52 Cf. Comm. Hos 2:2, CO 42, 226. Calvin sees Israel’s delinquency illustrated in the Church of Rome serving then as an example—and warning—for the church in his time. 46

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Mixed Membership

95

(abruperit sacram unitatem ecclesiae). This illegitimate secession and subsequent religious apostate worship led to the Israelites’ divorce from God. God’s response translates into spiritual punishment (exile into Babylon was “a kind of death”53) in that Israel—as opposed to Judah until it too becomes apostaste—is without a “legitimate head”.54 The break in fellowship between God and his people is because Israel has rejected God’s government rule. Exile for the ten northern tribes means being divorced from the covenant land and its “social order” and from God as their leader or head.55 However, this “divorce” from union with God does not mean ultimate rejection. Rather, God gives the Israelites their bill of divorce to see that they might sincerely repent.56 In short, Israel’s exiles—especially to Babylon—was not permanent but a “temporary casting away” (temporalis abdicatio) when God hid his favor rather than forsaking it.57 In scripture Calvin observes that God keeps together or mixes both his “promises and threatenings” (miscere promissiones minis).58 In his extended comments on Hosea 11:8–9 Calvin unveils the reason why God would spare the guilty Israelites the divine vengeance He has determined to pour out over them. The reformer tells his audience that God appears to change his will. In reality, God only accommodates himself to his people’s ignorance because God “is not subject to passions” (nullis passionibus obnoxium esse).59 To be sure God’s patience should not be understood as though God’s will is contingent on the will of people (hominum arbitrio). God’s repenting of his original intention to punish is for the benefit especially of a small number of those who have remained faithful, argues Calvin. Evidently, this divine remorse is due to God’s free pleasure to reciprocate the appropriate fear God sees in this minority of penitents. Calvin seems to ignore that the biblical text as such does not make this distinction between the general populace and the faithful who repent.60 All told, God preserves his church among all the people, the way he keeps wheat among “much chaff” (multam paleam) only to be separated (distinguere) at the appropriate moment.61 God remembers his covenant and —————

53 Cf. Comm. Hos 2: 4–5, CO 42, 228. In this instance Calvin does not distinguish and so relates the Israelites’ (ten tribes) exile (Assyria) to the time when the tribes of Judah and Benjamin went into exile to Babylon. 54 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 220. 55 Cf. Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 261; Comm. Zech 11:10–11, CO 44, 309–10. 56 Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 260. 57 Cf. Comm. Hos 2: 4–5, CO 42, 229. 58 Cf. Comm. Hos 2:2, CO 42, 223. 59 Comm. Hos 11:8–9, CO 42, 445 and 446. 60 Cf. Comm. Hos 11:8–9, CO 42, 446. 61 Cf. Comm. Hos 11:8–9, CO 42, 446; Comm. Zech 14:21, CO 44, 390.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

96

Covenant

will preserve himself a remnant, “a certain body, a church, on Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem.”62 The church God preserves from among all who are scattered into near oblivion, is a testimony, “that he who is in heaven is true and faithful to his promises.”63 Until that ultimate separation takes place the church in this world remains a holy people but mixed in with it are those who are not true (spiritual) Israelites.

4.6 Israel and Church Israel and Church What is Calvin’s understanding regarding the relationship between Israel and the church? If the (New Testament) church replaces Israel as chosen people of God in what sense is this the case?64 The Minor Prophets commentary seems to argue for Israel’s “replacement” but not without qualification given the language Calvin uses. One of Calvin’s strongest statements that suggest the reformer considers the Jews as “replaced” by the Gentile church is found in his commentary on Malachi 1:11.65 Here the prophet speaks of a future time when Gentiles worship God worldwide. Calvin interprets this to mean that “God shows that he no longer cared for the Jews.” In fact, the Gentiles succeed the Jews who “have fallen from their place” (Iudaei exciderunt e suo loco).66 God has “repudiated” (repudiati) and “substituted” (substituat) the Gentiles in their place.67 The Jews will become excluded (by their exile) after which God will be worshipped “in common by the Gentiles” (communem gentibus). Calvin attributes the Jews’ replacement by the Gentiles as a result of ingratitude. The latter became “holy to God because it is evident he would let them become chosen instead of that wicked and ungodly people.”68 The question is whether or not Calvin views this “rejection” or succession (subrogabit) of the Jews by the Gentiles in a literal-definitive or a dynamic sense. When taken in a purely literal sense, God’s election of the Jews as God’s unique people ends with the advent of Christ. However, one must always realize Calvin’s rhetorical use of language which gives his “realistic way of ————— 62

Comm. Joel 2:32, CO 43, 577. Ibid. 64 See Moltmann: 1991, 136–40. 65 We also refer to Institutes 2.11.12. Here Calvin notes that the Gentiles “were, so to speak, taking the place of dead Jews,” CO 2, 338: “sed velut in demortuorum locum subire eas apparebat.” 66 Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 418, 419. 67 Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 419. 68 Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 419. 63

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Israel and Church

97

speaking”69 (i.e. literal) a dynamic and flexible instead of a static (literalist) meaning. For example, when the ten northern tribes separated themselves from the royal house of David this act meant that the people “had in a manner rejected God by rejecting the son of David, and became in a manner alienated from the body of the church” 70 (emphasis added). In other words, this is not the language which suggests that the reformer views the Israelites are permanently cut off and replaced but rather that they are included in the church—along with Gentiles—without the special favor they once possessed as God’s uniquely chosen people and physical offspring of Abraham. With Hesselink one may conclude that theologically Calvin views the relationship between Israel and the church in a positive way71 which may also be the reason why his critics accused him of being a Judaizer. The reformer’s understanding of Israel as the church born anew (i.e. restored) since Christ’s first advent is the necessary result of stressing (and straining) the organic unity of the Old and New Testament relative to the covenant with Abraham and its perpetuity for the church today. This development in the history of redemption represents the process in which Israel (church) is likened to children (similes fuisse pueris) being “under the elements of the law” to how God directly calls believers through the gospel “directly to heaven,”72 following the indiscriminate outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Jews and Gentiles. Calvin compares this difference in redemption before and after Christ’s advent to the way in which to a Christian his or her cleansing has come within reach (inter manus nostras) whereas the ancients could only see this gift unclearly and from a distance.73 The reformer identifies Israel as the church74 when he comments that divine adoption includes both Gentiles and Israelites. The church in that universal sense is the “whole Israel of God” (toto Israele Domini) of which the offspring of Abraham is a part.75

————— 69

Gerrish: 1993, 6. We believe that what the author notes with the regard to Calvin’s statements about the spiritual reality of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper applies to Calvin’s writing style in general. 70 Comm. Zech 10:6, CO 44, 292 (emphasis added). 71 Cf. Hesselink: 1995, 96. 72 Comm. Joel 3:18–19, CO 42, 598. 73 Cf. Comm. Zech 13:1, CO 44, 342. 74 For Calvin the church is Israel and Israel is the church “in its earlier stages.” See De Boer, 2004, 249. Still, Calvin seems to maintain a priority by which he (and God) favors the offspring of Abraham, since “…they were first begotten in the church, even after the coming of Christ” (“primogeniti erant Abrahae filii in ecclesia”), see Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 219. 75 Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 218. In this important commentary Calvin gives the text a nonliteral meaning. The Israelites are for the moment not identified as the ten tribes, since they never returned unlike their southern counterparts of Judah (and Benjamin) after their exile in Babylon.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

98

Covenant

Both the Exodus from Egypt as well as the Southern Kingdom Jews’ return from exile in Babylon76 play an important role in Israel’s history signifying God’s renewal of his church at that time. To the ancient Israelites under Moses their Exodus “was like their birth” (instar nativitatis). “It was the same as though the people had emerged from the tomb. They obtained a new life when they were set free from the tyranny of Egypt. Therefore, God begot them as a people for himself.”77 Somewhere Calvin states that “the full nativity of the church was when Christ came forth from Egypt to redeem his church.”78 Calvin explains in a subsequent statement that the eventual return of Israel from Egypt served, according to Calvin, as the “prelude” (praeludio) to the redemption postponed until Christ was born. Jesus’ return from Egypt metaphorically speaking is like the head becoming attached to the body (i.e. church) already delivered and returned to Judea from Egypt.79 Still, this isolated reference and commentary on the messianic promise found by Calvin in Hosea 11:1 must be compared with other statements, which point out that in the reformer’s view of the church the language of birth and renewal of the church is descriptive, not abstract.80 Calvin’s concern is to use this language of birth and rebirth (following death: Egyptian slavery; Babylonian exile) to speak of the multiple times in which God restores his church. The reformer’s intent is much less to abstractly locate one particular point in history than to point out the inseparable union between God (Christ) and his church from beginning to end. When God renews his church periodically it is because God does not forget the promise to Abraham that his seed would be as numerous as the sand of the sea.81 The reformer cautions: “Since, then, the Lord wonderfully defends his church, and preserves it in this world, so that at one time he —————

76 In his comments on Hosea 1:11 (CO 42, 219–20) Calvin claims that the verse about “children of Israel” and “Judah” refers narrowly to the “children of Abraham” in light of his comment on verse 10 where he concludes that the promise in it applies to the Jews and future Gentiles, because the physical Israelites never returned from their exile into Assyria. The promised gathering together of the two kingdoms’ children will take place when these offspring will be gathered together into “one body” under “one head” (kingdom of David). This “restoration to their first unity” takes place when after David, Christ becomes the Head of the united body of the church. 77 Comm. Hos 2:14, CO 42, 241. 78 Comm. Hos 11:1, CO 42, 433; See also Hos 2:3 (CO 42, 227); 2:14 (CO 42, 241); 13:4–5 (CO 42, 479). See also Milner: 1970, 7, 73. Author is correct in noting that Calvin’s frequent use of the “organism” metaphor accounts (in part) for Calvin’s “historical understanding of the church,” (Milner: 1970, 9). 79 Cf. Comm. Hos 11:1, CO 42, 433. 80 See for example Calvin’s comment on Hos 12:12–13, CO 42, 471–72. Here, because the text itself guides Calvin’s reference to Jacob, Calvin states that Israel’s “first origin” lay with Jacob, and their “second origin” was when God led them out of Egypt. 81 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Israel and Church

99

seems to bury it, and then he raises it from death; at one time he cuts it down as to its outward appearance, and then afterwards he renews it…,” one needs to be careful—according to the reformer—not to evaluate the condition of the church according to one’s own “human thoughts” and carnal reason” (humanum sensum, rationem carnis) but according to God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Abraham.82 For Calvin the rejection of Israel serves as a warning to the church in his day too—especially the Restored church under the gospel—that it can loose its privileged status. The example of the Roman Catholic Church confirms this for Calvin. The claim of being the church of God remains contingent upon covenant obedience of faith. For Calvin this point is proven by the examples of the ancient Israelites and Jews as well as the Roman Catholic Church in his day. Given the reformer’s propensity to bridge the sacred text with his own historical context, he sees the downfall of Israel as a launch pad for his (prophetic) critique against those people in his day who continued to “associate with papists” (et societatem ineunt cum papistis).83 Here Calvin hints at those who continued to follow Catholic worship practices (esp. Mass) and would not break membership with it, even though they espoused the Reformation doctrines. Such people, according to Calvin behave like the Israelites who stopped being the people of God.84 Calvin shows little empathy for such believers who remain under the “tyranny of the ungodly” (sub tyrannide impiorum). Even when they “profess outwardly his pure worship, they suffer themselves to be polluted with unclean nourishment.”85 Calvin warns that (Reformed) believers who enjoy hearing the gospel should not rest too comfortable for if they are led astray by wrong affections this would be “detestable wickedness and obstinacy.”86 Calvin points out how important it is to make a proper distinction between the two kingdoms of the north and south.87 It is with reference to the northern kingdom that Calvin attaches to their poor condition the stern message that “God wholly disinherited them” (Deus ipsos prorsus exhaeredat).88 Their sin leads to their final disowning (ultima abdicatio) by God.89 It is like a two-phase process by which the ten tribes have become ————— 82

Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 218. Comm. Hos 9:3, CO 42, 385. 84 Ibid.: “…ut desineret esse populus Dei…” 85 Ibid. 86 Comm. Hos 9:10, CO 42, 399. 87 Cf. Comm. (Argument) CO 42, 197; Hos 1:11, CO 42, 220: “…intepretes nihil enim distinguunt…”; 8:1, CO 42, 361. 88 Comm. Hos 1:8–9, CO 42, 215. 89 Ibid. 83

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

100

Covenant

disconnected with the Head, Jesus Christ, beginning with setting up their alternative kingdom and secondly being sent into exile. Calvin concludes that ten tribes were from then on “no different from the profane Gentiles.”90 Again this does not mean that God has chosen permanently to stop remembering his covenant with these Israelites who alienated themselves from him.91 There awaits a future opportunity for the ten tribes to be “restored to their first unity” (restitueret ad primam unitatem). Without explaining how this applies to the ten tribes—who did not return from their Assyrian exile—the reformer admits that the ten tribes loosing their status of pre-eminency over the Gentiles (desinant excellere supra alias gentes) became instead like them.92 Calvin sees this promise of a future restoration fulfilled in the first advent of Christ when “God would at length gather to himself a church from the Jews as well as from the Gentiles, so that those who were then separated might be hereafter united together.”93 This Old Testament perspective on the restoration of the ancient church’s unity underlies also Calvin’s perspective on the hope he nurtures throughout his life that the church (restored under the Gospel) may become truly united.

4.7 Law94 and Covenant Law and Covenant It appears that Calvin uses the terms “covenant,” “law,” and “word” (of God) interchangeably.95 In addition, as far as the “law” and “gospel” are concerned these are not just opposites.96 For Calvin it is appropriate to ————— 90

Comm. Hos 1:8–9, CO 42, 215. Compare Cottret: 2000, 324. 92 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:8–9, CO 42, 215. 93 Comm. Zech 1:17, CO 44, 148. 94 In his concluding prayer at the end of lecture #93 (incl. Micah 6:6–8), Calvin shows how he distinguishes the law from the gospel. The former he associates with “command” and gospel with “promise” of mercy. (CTS, 339–40). However, in his commentary on Hab.2:4 Calvin telescopes law into gospel thus admitting their agreement. Faith and law are contrary only in the sense that the former alone can “obtain grace.” (“consilient gratiam”) (CO 43, 532). In short, justification is by faith and not by good works made possible by God’s “helping grace” (“adiutrice Dei gratia”). For an insightful discussion of Calvin’s approach to the law and gospel consult Horton: 1997, 27– 42; Lillback: 2001, 194–209. 95 For example, see Comm. Hos 8:1, CO 42, 362: “…quia foedus et lex sunt hic synonyma…” Compare Amos 2:4–5, CO 43, 20. 96 Cf. Woolsey: 1988, vol. 1, 329–33. Author also notes that Calvin sees the need to explain the proper relationship between law and gospel in light of beliefs of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anabaptists (Unity, 343); Hesselink: 1992, 277. Author concludes “Only when sin intervenes and the Law is separated from the promises of the Gospel, which find their culmination in Christ, is the Law antithetical to the Gospel. Properly understood and applied, Law and Gospel complement each other.”]. In others words, there is more than what binds law and gospel for Calvin than what separates them. 91

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Law and Covenant

101

speak of the law when it is tied to outward ritual and the time of the gospel when sacrifices are no longer made.97 Under the gospel “the simple and naked truth is taught” (simplicem veritatem et nudam…doceri).98 Here Calvin refers to the law with its outward ceremonial demands which are fulfilled once for all in Christ’s sacrifice. In this light there is the added benefit that “God now calls us directly to heaven, and raises our minds to the spiritual life”99 (emphasis added). The Aaronic priesthood having ceased a better priest (-hood) has come. When taken together the law and gospel are part of one and the same revelation of God. This distinction’s point of reference evolves around on the first coming of Christ as Redeemer and Mediator. By keeping the law and gospel together this explains why Calvin’s ecclesiology in the MP can strike one both as christocratic as well as theocratic. What explains Calvin’s positive statements regarding the law? In one place the reformer expresses full confidence in the law as completely “fit to guide”100 the ancient Israelites during the old covenant dispensation. Calvin attributes the problem with keeping the law to the ancient people of God who were not “teachable” (dociles).101 For the law should have been to the ancients like “light of celestial wisdom.”102 Not only are the law and covenant used as synonyms by Calvin, the reformer also notes the organic unity between covenant and the word of God with reference to the “fanatics” (fanatici) who see no particular need to depend on God’s word in order to have fellowship with God. Their dismissal of total reliance on the written word of God “is to seek God without the covenant or without the word.”103 Instead, people in Calvin’s ————— 97

Cf. Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 421. Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 421. What is concealed under the law is revealed under the gospel describes Calvins understanding of the difference in terms of spiritual worship between the two covenant periods. 99 Comm. Joel. 3:18–19, CO 42, 598. 100 Comm. Hos 4:6, CO 42, 274. 101 Ibid. Stated differently, the law before Christ is not a barrier to faith in Christ as far as Calvin is concerned. In his commentary on Hebrews 8:6 Calvin pinpoints the problem as not being the law itself but the Jews’ superstitious observance of rituals. Doing this “they were prevented from advancing directly forward to the attainment of the real and pure truth of the gospel” (CO 55, 99– 100). 102 Comm. Hos 4:6, CO 42, 274. Note that Calvin does not portray the law (here) in its condemning role (second use of the law) but rather as a rule to express gratitude to God (third use), even during the Old Testament dispensation. The latter indicates the theocratic way in which for Calvin God’s law rules the morality in church and society. 103 Comm. Mal 2:20, CO 44, 446; italics added). It is not clear if Calvin presents a distorted view when he generalizes what he perceives as the Anabaptists’ superior regard for the Spirit’s role at the expense of the word. The early disputes with Anabaptists suggest that scripture for the latter did function with the authority Calvin alleges was missing. 98

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

102

Covenant

time should submit to the covenant teachings in order to “make progress in God’s school” (quo modeste proficerent in schola Dei).104 Calvin tries to maintain a delicate balance about the differences105 between the covenants of the Old (law) and New Testament (gospel) eras as well as that what unites them.106 Nothing changes substantially between the old and the new covenant eras since both are gratuitous and in essence one and the same for the reformer. God initiates his gracious calling of his people chosen freely by his eternal election. Covenant members in their obedience to the law are just as “passive” in either of the two covenant administrations, because they both eras depend on Christ and his work of redemption.107 It is God who causes people to become faithful in the future covenant to a degree not found under the law. Overall, Calvin makes no attempt to overcome the antinomy between the sovereign influence of God’s Spirit in the believer and the latter’s active response to the call to faith and obedience to the covenant in both dispensations.

4.8 New Covenant: Stability New Covenant: Stability Relative to the differences between the old and new covenant periods as mentioned above, Calvin is fond of portraying the new covenant as stable compared to the previous one. When Hosea is reconciled to his wife this renewal of their marriage-covenant represents stability and durability which the previous (conditional) marriage covenant did not have.108

————— 104

Comm. Mal 2:20, CO 44, 446. Cf. Calvin’s comment on Zech 2:10, CO 44, 163. Calvin says that there is no longer need for the “shadows” of the law when we now enjoy the reality to which the “types of the law” pointed in Christ. 106 In the MP commentary Calvin does not accentuate the biblical parallel between Christ and Adam as much as he compares Christ and David. Christ is less the “last Adam” (I Cor. 15:45) than he is the fulfillment of David as king of the united kingdom of Israel with its expansion that would in time include the Gentiles also. For a more rare example of the role of Adam in relation to Christ see Calvin’s comment on Haggai 2:20–23 (CO 44,121) where Adam is mentioned in the context of the regenerating work God does in the offspring of Adam, making himself “anew the children of Adam.” 107 In reference to bringing God worship in accord with his word, Calvin warns that our actions ought to be seen as “passive” rather than “voluntary” and “of our own accord.”; See Selderhuis: 2007, 218. 108 Cf. Comm. Hos 2:19–20, CO 42, 249. This is why Calvin mentions that the renewal of God’s covenant with his people is “as it were a new marriage” (“…ac si contraheret novas nuptiat.”). 105

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

New Covenant: Stability

103

According to the prophecy of Hosea, God summons Hosea to marry Gomer, a prostitute.109 Depicted in this marriage-divorce-remarriage metaphor is the spiritual malaise of the Kingdom of Israel (church) and its need for covenant-renewal with God. This divorce-marriage and remarriage scenario forms the mirror in which Calvin recognizes the nature of the medieval church’s downfall and renewal embodied in the Reformation churches in the sixteenth century. By comparison, just as God promised to receive Israel back into his favor only because of his mercy (Hosea and his first wife reconciled; chapter 3) the same did occur when God restored the church from under the papacy. Concludes Calvin: “[W]e could not have returned into favor with God, except he had freely united us to himself. God not only pardoned us, but also contracted a new marriage with us.”110 What this indicates is that in Calvin’s ecclesiology the church’s union with God is viewed ordinarily by him in corporate than in personal terms. Does Calvin think that the restoration of the one church—through the Reformation—in his day implies that its members have been rejoined to God’s fellowship permanently? Does the reformer assume the restored church can not fall away from its spiritual rebirth after it left the teachings and customs of the Roman church? Calvin’s discussion of the new covenant seems open to a certain ambiguity. This results from his axiomatic approach to the unity of the Bible. On the one hand the new covenant is stable and permanent just as the new marriage of Hosea and Gomer portrays. On the other hand, Calvin recognizes well that the permanent character of the new covenant still involves contingency due to human nature and the new covenant’s demand for obedience. It is due to Christ’s advent in his incarnation that the economy of salvation rests permanently on the covenant obedience as performed in Christ’s sacrifice. Human unfaithfulness can not create a need for yet another future covenant. In what sense does Calvin then think that the new covenant has the stability that was found wanting in the old covenant time? According to Lillback, Calvin believes that the Abrahamic covenant operates on the principle of mutuality and conditionality of both partners.111 ————— 109 Contrary to the Lord’s call to Isaiah (Comm. Isa 20, CO 36, 350–54) to walk around naked for three years, which Calvin believes Isaiah did except for covering the most private parts of his body, the reformer interprets God’s call to Hosea to marry an adulteress (Hos.1) as given him by a type of vision, which is like a parable, for Israel to see as in a “moving picture” (“quasi in viva picture”) their own sinfulness toward God. See Comm. Hos 1:2, CO 42, 204; Comm. Zech 11: 15– 16, CO 44, 317. Calvin also thinks that God’s order to Ezekiel to lay on his side for 390 days is given him by way of a vision (“per visionem”) rather than as a literal command. See Comm. Ezek 4: 4–8, CO 40, 107, 110. 110 Comm. Hos 2:19–20, CO 42, 251. 111 Cf. Lillback: 2001, 162–75; See also Lillback: 1994, 47, 59–74.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

104

Covenant

This does not change in the new covenant. The new covenant is better because this renewal of the relationship God is going to establish with his people will be “fast and forever” (stabile et perpetuum ) and of a “fixed and unchangeable duration” (firmaque huius coniugii duratione).112 The new covenant will possess stability unlike before, because in the new covenant “there would be truth and rectitude on both sides” (utrinque aderit veritas et rectitudo).113 Calvin appeals to Jeremiah 31 where that prophet announces that when God ushers in the new covenant, there will be a marked difference. Whereas the former covenant reflects the time when “a horrible darkness prevailed among the people of Israel” permitting them to stray and wander, the future new covenant represents a situation when people will receive “the light of true knowledge” so that the people no longer fall away from God “nor are they seduced by the fallacies of Satan.”114 The reformer’s explanation for this improvement is that the faithfulness and righteousness God attaches to the new covenant marriage relationship will be “mutual and reciprocal” (mutua et reciproca) under the new dispensation.115 One is left with the impression that Calvin thinks the benefit of the new covenant resides mostly in the fact that in Christ the light of the gospel began to dispel the former darkness found under the law so that for that (historicalredemptive) reason—more so than greater personal spiritual fidelity—God will not allow his church to decline so as to cut if off as He did with ancient Israel. After all, Calvin himself realized that the promised “truth and rectitude” on the part of the people of God under the new covenant proved to be most unstable given his critical assessment of the medieval church. Even many of those people who have publically joined the churches which have become reformed under the light of the gospel do not evidence automatically a more stable covenant life of obedience. When God chooses to reconcile himself to Israel (church) He voluntarily binds himself to his covenant partner, obligating himself but also his covenant partner to faithfulness or mutual trust (mutual fide).116 Calvin is ————— 112

Comm. Hos 2:19–20, CO 42, 249. Comm. Hos 2: 19–20, CO 42, 250. Hosea reconciles to Gomer who is no longer to live as an adulteress (ch. 3:3). 114 Comm. Hos 2:19–20, CO 42, 250–51; Compare Woolsey: 1988, 330. 115 Comm. Hos 2:19–20, CO 42, 249. 116 Cf. Comm. Hos 5:7, CO 42, 305. It is important to recognize that, following Calvin’s commentary in Hosea the “divorce” between God and Israel (ten tribes) is one in which God acquiesces rather than initiating it. The exile is inevitable, since God has no other remedies left, argues Calvin. Exile means being divorced from the covenant land and its social and civil order and from God (Christ) as their leader or head. For these thoughts in Calvin we refer the reader to consult the following passages: Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 220; 3:2–5, CO 42, 261–62; Comm. Amos 9:11, CO 43, 170–71; Comm. Mic 5:5, CO 43, 374; Comm. Zech 1:18–21, CO 44, 152; 9:9, CO 44, 270; 11:10–11, CO 44, 309–10. 113

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

New Covenant: Stability

105

quick to point out that the faithfulness on the part of the people under the new covenant is not due to the “power or will of men” (non est in poteste vel arbitrio hominum).117 Something greater than human nature is needed to assure this promised fidelity of God’s (new) covenant partners. The new covenant too will require obedience and it will give the covenant relationship a stability it did not have before. However, this stability is not the result of a positive change in human nature apart from divine work of regeneration. Calvin interprets the prophet Hosea to say that in the promised new marriage covenant—following the remnant Israelites’ return from exile—“God would cause the marriage vow to be kept on both sides.”118 And: Except God creates us allover again into a new people for himself, there is no more stability in the covenant he makes with us today than in the old which he made formerly with the fathers under the law. For when we compare ourselves with the Israelites, we are nothing better.119

Calvin attributes the greater stability of the new covenant to more abundant working of the Holy Spirit—after Christ’s first advent—as compared to his presence among the ancient people of God. The Spirit was indwelling the faithful under the law too, but less abundantly.120 For Calvin it appears to be a difference of degree, not substance—quantity, not quality—in the way God works more liberally (liberalius) in those who live in the restored new church (nova ecclesia restituerat) under the new covenant when compared with the law.121 In sum, the practical difference between the two covenants is that the new covenant is permanent and more stable due to the Spirit’s greater influence in the lives of God’s people based on Christ’s first advent. Calvin includes the element of conditionality when he cautions that “we are wholly lost” unless we keep our eyes on God. The believer’s union with God which has been formed by the gospel (per evangelium pepigit) still requires the believer’s faithfulness and this in turn requires God’s grace. Unlike the old covenant era when the law commanded obedience, Calvin posits that through both the external preaching of the gospel as well as by renewing people’s hearts (renovatione cordium) by “the grace of the Spirit” (spiritus gratiam) the covenant possesses its firmness or stability.122 ————— 117

Comm. Hos 2:19–20, CO 42, 251. Comm. Hos 2:19–20, (CO 42, 250. 119 Ibid. 120 Cf. Comm. Joel 2:28, CO 42, 566; see also: Comm. Heb 8: 10; CO 55, 103. 121 Cf. Comm. Joel 2:28, CO 42, 566, 567; Compare Comm. Heb 8:10, (CO 55, 103) where Calvin argues that the biblical author argues from less-to-greater when comparing the Spirit’s work under the law with after Christ’s advent (“…sed comparationem esse maioris et minoris.”). 122 Cf. Comm. Hos 2:19–20, CO 42, 251–52. 118

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

106

Covenant

Still, when Calvin mentions that there needs to be order in the church he connects this in certain places in his commentary with God’s covenant or law.123 Calvin’s understanding of the restoration of the Davidic kingdom, when Christ first came, concerns its order, which before had been thrown into a “terrible and disgraceful state of confusion.”124 The prophet Zechariah’s reference to the breaking of his two staffs is in reference to the way the people broke covenant (law) with God by rejecting his rule over them.125 By this act—thinks Calvin--Zechariah broke himself away from the office of a shepherd. Both social and doctrinal order was in a state of confusion. Breaking the first of the two staffs (beauty)126 meant that the people refused to be governed (regendo) by the prophet’s (and thus God’s) hand and authority.127 God declares by this act that he could no longer be the leader of his covenant people. When the ancient people of God trampled his “order” (ordo) underfoot it made the covenant void, argues Calvin.128 The only reason the Lord did not end his covenant definitively was “so that all things remained closely and perfectly bound together.”129 Applied to the church, this means for the reformer that order is important so that the care for it is not left to private impulse.130 Breaking his second staff (“union”) represents the scattering of the people which followed their rejection of God’s government over them. Hence they were effectively without “any regular form of government” or “union.”131 Yet, at the return of those few people from exile in Babylon and Assyria earlier, God will fulfill his promise to establish “a most beautiful order” (pulcherrimum ordinem) as well as “a brotherly concord” (fraternam concordiam) which earlier had been broken among the remnant of both the ————— 123

In his comments on Hosea 4: 6 Calvin identifies Catholic Church hierarchy and the order of the church as invested in their “clergy” (“ordinem sui clericatus”) as the type of church “order” which they “proudly force upon us” (“dum nobis magnifice obtrudunt”). Calvin believes the Catholic priests err like the ancient priests in that they took pride in the prestige of office without attending to their duties (in Comm. Hos 4:6, CO 42, 274). 124 Comm. Zech 9:9, CO 44, 272. 125 Cf. Comm. Zech 11:10–11, CO 44, 309–10. The offenses by the Jews who returned from exile in Babylon were threefold, argues Calvin: corruption of doctrine, error, and superstition (CO 44, 310). 126 In his comments on Zechariah 11:14 (CO 44, 314) Calvin explains that this staff (“beauty”) means that “God had omitted nothing necessary to produce the best order of things.” This “order” God put in place Calvin identifies as “government” (legitima gubernationis). 127 Cf. Comm. Zech 11: 10–11, CO 44, 310. 128 Cf. Comm. Zech 11:10–11, CO 44, 310: “…foedus etiam Dei irritum factum est…”. 129 Comm. Zech 11:10–11, CO 44, 310. 130 Cf. Comm. Zech 11:10–11, CO 44, 310: “Sicuti in ecclesia videmus curae esse Deo ordinem, ne quid scilicet temere pro cuiusque libidine turbetur.” 131 Comm. Zech 11: 14, CO 44, 314.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Conclusion

107

Israelites and the Jews.132 This restoration of unity among the ancient offspring of Abraham Calvin does not regard as a foreshadowing of the unity of the church at the time of Christ nor does he apply this expressly to the divided church in his own time period.

4.9 Conclusion Conclusion Part and parcel of Calvin’s argument for the renovation and restoration of the church in his time includes the doctrine of the covenant in its gratuitous nature. Calvin speaks about the church in the MP mostly from a corporate rather than an individual point of view.133 This can explain why Calvin mentions less often (than Luther) that justification of the sinner is by faith alone. The question for Calvin is not primarily how the individual sinner is justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to him—a teaching Calvin neither denies nor minimizes in the MP commentaries. Rather, Calvin approaches the church’s need for restoration by reminding it to maintain its status, relationship and purpose as God’s elect in unity with Christ134 as their spiritual head. Calvin’s appeal to the main covenant of grace and its close identification with the revealed word of God explains why Calvin’s scope is broader than attention for the individual state of the believer toward God. In terms of Calvin’s thinking about the restoration of the church the reformer’s approach is to consider the visible church as the elect of God who are justified in Christ by virtue of sovereign grace. Consequently, one sees in Calvin’s remarks in his lecturing on the Minor Prophets a greater attention for the sanctification of the Christian church’s life. Calvin acknowledges that the Holy Spirit—after being poured out on the (new) church—applies the preaching of the word of God by doing a work of spiritual regeneration in the believer by which he or she is justified. However, Calvin’s attention for this working of the Holy Spirit is not as much on the sinner’s regeneration that leads to faith in Christ than that it shows the covenant people (as God’s elect) whose hearts are in need of ongoing/gradual regeneration due to their sinful natures. The reformer follows a middle path between Anabaptists and the Catholic Church affirming that the church in this world—while it must be holy in all its ways—always remains a society in which the godly and hypocrite coexist. ————— 132

Comm. Zech 11:7, CO 44, 307: “…non modo pulcherrimum ordinem…fraternam concor-

diam.” 133 134

Compare Gerrish: 1993, 189. Cf. Petry: 1992, 81–92.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

108

Covenant

Taken as a whole Calvin views the restoration of the church in his day as yet another restoration of the historic church of God in the line of church restorations which occurred at certain pivotal times when Israel came out of Egypt; when the remnant of God’s people returned from exile in Babylon and most importantly the restoration of the church when Christ first came. In all one gets the sense that for Calvin his claim of greater stability of life under the new covenant (as predicted by Jeremiah) is reduced to a difference which is gradual rather than substantial in nature. This impression follows the logical outworking of Calvin’s handling of the difference and agreement between law and gospel.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

5. Kingdom and Church Kingdom and Church False Assurance

5.1 Introduction The goal in this section is to show how Calvin relates the motif of the church’s restoration in the historical context of the divided Davidic kingdom within the Minor Prophets’ writings. Calvin does not significantly distinguish between church and kingdom. As has been suggested before the divided kingdom of David is to Calvin a lens through which he sees the brokenness of the ancient church in the church of his own time as well. In a commentary on Micah 1:1 the reformer alerts to the fact that the prophet’s “sermons” (conciones) serve as a “mirror” (speculo) in which Calvin’s audience can see their own time may be alike or different from the time in which the prophet Micah labored.1

5.2 False Assurance Calvin places the blame for the kingdom’s break-up squarely with the northern ten tribes that seceded to set up their own kingdom.2 Despite the fact that the Israelites have divorced themselves from the Davidic kingdom God still does not completely abandon them but reserves a promise of a future restoration (Hos 1:10–11). Calvin goes out of his way to correct what he perceives to be a gross misapplication of this biblical principle regarding God’s covenant loyalty. Without giving biblical cross-references Calvin presupposes that the Israelites proudly said to the prophets that God would never do such a thing as alienating the Israelite kingdom from him. Using the terms church and kingdom alternately, Calvin explains that the Israelites falsely give themselves the title “church.”3 —————

1 Cf. Comm. Mic 1:1, CO 43, 281. Relevance of the ancient text would be “useless or at least frigid” (“inutiles…vel saltem frigidae”) argues Calvin unless we know today the time in which the ancient prophet (Micah) lived. Compare De Boer: 1994, 203–04. 2 Even so Calvin appeals to the mitigating circumstance of Rehoboam’s “tyrannical” rule. Cf. Comm. Hos 8:4, CO 42, 365. 3 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216. On Calvin’s close identification of the church with the kingdom of God see his Inst. 4.2.4., CO 2, 771: “In summa, quum ecclesia regnum sit Christi…”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

110

Kingdom and Church

The next thing Calvin does is to show the historical parallel between the apostate Israelites who still claim to be the church and the “papists” in his day who in his opinion are guilty of the same false sense of security. Calvin does not refer to any specific statements by Catholic authors or references to Catholic theological writings. Instead, the reformer assumes this prideful attitude is well-known to his audience. From Calvin’s perspective the Catholic leaders use biblical truth but apply it falsely. The Church of Rome hides behind such truths that Christ promised to be with his church without alienating it from him.4 This ignores the fact that they have divorced themselves from God (cum eo divortium) by breaking his covenant.5 Indeed, Christ stated that He would always be present with his church until the end of the world. But—argues Calvin—God is still free to fulfill his promise in a manner that bypasses the church (Israelites) that is in place. Appealing to Paul’s statements in Romans 9:24f—who himself quotes Hosea 1:10—Calvin concludes that since God is free to cut off the very ones whom he has chosen (externally) He is also free to call into existence a following (with the advent of Christ) who become his new people. God is not dependant upon old (former) loyalties. When God promises to renew his church, says Calvin, God can “raise up in an instant a new church”6 which is more numerous than the sand of the sea. God can “create” this new church from nothing (ex nihilo) according to the apostle Paul in Romans 4:17.7 This should serve as a warning to Catholics—according to Calvin—who both reject the idea that God would cast them off, in order to renew his church and who judge a church by its outward appearance.8 The Catholics think a church can not continue to exist unless it exhibits “the splendor of great pomp” (fulgere magnas pompas).9 Instead, “the state of the church” (statum ecclesiae) must not be judged by its outward appearance (ad externam speciem) using human reason (humanum sensum). By inference Calvin’s argument serves to defend the legitimacy of the Reformation church movement given its lack of outward ostentation. In short, one notices here how Calvin argues for God’s right to cut off his (outward) elect people, by passing them by when he creates a new church ————— 4

Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216. Ibid. 6 Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 217. 7 Cf. Ibid. 8 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 217. Here Calvin is not thinking of the external attributes (notae ecclesiae) by which he himself judges a church to be true. Calvin thinks that the Catholic Church anchors its assurance of being God’s church on the basis of external factors which he labels as “the spendor of great pomp” (“fulgere magnas pompas”). 9 Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 218. 5

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Church and Kingdom Restoration

111

when Christ comes. At the same time, this cutting off is not absolute, because God would contradict himself if He did break the covenant with the offspring of Abraham entirely. This leads Calvin to conclude that the promise in Hosea 1:10 must therefore apply to both Israelites and Gentiles who make up this new church or “new people” (novum populum) even when the promise to Abraham no longer follows the line of just one ethnic people but applies to the Gentiles too.

5.3 Church and Kingdom Restoration Church and Kingdom Restoration The theme of “church restoration” (ecclesiae restitutionem)10 in the Minor Prophets commentary Calvin applies to ancient Israel’s history when the prophets ministered until the advent of Christ.11 To point out how God restores his church after he first afflicted it, Calvin uses the metaphor of “resurrection”12 because Christ’s church (and kingdom) today (too) can often look like a dead person who is raised from a tomb.13 The church is in a “twofold state” (duplicem ecclesiae statem), namely, when it is disciplined by God’s scourges and when God comes to heal and restore it.14 As noted before, a prime example of promised church restoration is the Exodus from Egypt which functioned as the birth of the Israelites.15 Of similar importance is the return from Babylonian exile which Calvin describes as a bringing forth of “new men” (novi hominem) or “a new people” (novus populus).16 In another place, Calvin speaks of a “restoration of his church” (restitutione ecclesiae suae).17 The reformer refers to both events in Israel’s history as “redemption” (redemptionem)18 or as a kind of restoration to life (restitutione…in vitam).19 It is this historical precedent of church restoration that Calvin claims as the character of the reformation of the church in his ————— 10

Comm. Hag 2: 1–5, CO 44, 100. Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 217. Calvin refers to Paul’s letter to the church in Rome in support for his argument that the ancient church’s restoration commenced at Christ’s first coming. 12 Cf. Comm. Mic 4:6–7, CO 43, 353–354; Compare: Comm. Hos 6:2, CO 42, 320; Comm. Amos 9:11, CO 43, 169–71; Comm. Mic 5:5, CO 43, 374; Comm. Zeph 2:3, CO 44, 34; 3:19, CO 44, 76: “Denique significant restitutionem ecclesiae fore quandum formam resurrectionis…” 13 Cf. Comm. Mic 4: 6–7, CO 43, 353: “….ex sepulcro…” 14 Cf. Comm. Mic 4: 6–7, CO 43, 353. This “two fold state” of the ancient church refers to before and after God restores it. 15 Cf. Comm. Hos 2:3, CO 42, 227. 16 Comm. Mic 4:6, 7, CO 43, 354. 17 Comm. Zech 2:8, CO 44, 159. 18 Comm. Hag 2:7–10, CO 44, 104. See Wilcox: 1994, 3. 19 Comm. Hos 6:2, CO 42, 244. 11

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

112

Kingdom and Church

own day. Calvin dismisses therefore the charge by Rome that the reformers were establishing something novel or that they were acting schismatically.20

5.4 Spiritual Nature of the Kingdom Spiritual Nature of the Kingdom Repeatedly, one hears Calvin argue that the nature of Christ’s kingdom (i.e. kingdom of God21) is “spiritual.”22 This understanding means that the kingdom’s point of gravity never lies in what is earthly.23 Calvin felt that this was true of Roman papacy and their boasting in their church hierarchy and outward ceremony.24 This means that the kingdom of Christ is both the same, yet different from the kingdom of God before Christ came. Prior to Christ’s first advent, God was worshipped under “external symbols” (externis figuris) in a physical temple with the purpose (finis) to keep people in the hope of Christ’s future advent (in spe venturi Christi). But even so, the people were called to have “an inward feeling” (interior affectus) for their worship to be “spiritual” (spiritualiter).25 At that time the ancient people were not yet under the “yoke” of Christ’s gospel.26 The future kingdom of Christ is different from the temporal kingdom of ancient Israel in that the messianic kingdom is the fulfillment of the broken Davidic kingdom, re-united as one body under Christ, governed by their shepherdlike Mediator instead of a tyrant whom the people fear.27 This situation is ————— 20

Cf. Comm. Zech 3:8, CO 44, 178; See Lane: 1999, 46–7. Milner: 1970, 172. Author quotes Calvin from his commentary on Luke 17:20. In other words, the contrast between the divine kingdom before and after Christ’s first advent is not one between the latter being “spiritual” as if the ancient kingdom was not. 22 For Calvin’s reference to the kingdom as both the “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of Christ” interchangeably, see Comm. Amos 9:15, CO 43, 175: “natura regni Christi”. Also compare Comm. Mic 4:1–2, CO 43, 341; 4:8, CO 43, 356; 7:11–12, CO 43, 419; Comm. Hab 2:6, CO 43, 540; Comm. Zech 14:8, CO 44, 372; Leith: 1989, 173. 23 Cf. Fröhlich: 1930, 72f. The author contrasts the two opposing ideals of the church by saying that for Rome its church organization symbolizes God’s kingdom on earth, whereas for Calvin the church of the word of God ever exists even when it exists without visible manifestation; Leith: 1989, 172, “It is spiritual in nature and is utterly opposed to earthly kingdoms.”; Richard: Role of the Church (1974), 495. The author cites Comm. Amos 9:13, CO 43, 172. 24 Cf. Comm. Hos 4:6, CO 42, 274; 6:6–7, CO 42, 331; Comm. Zech 11:15–16, CO 44, 318. 25 Comm. Hag 1:7–8, CO 44, 89. 26 Commenting on Hos 4:10, CO 42, 281, Calvin explains the spiritual condition of the Israelites in terms of having shaken off the law as their yoke, and in doing so have departed from the Lord. See also Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 263. The yoke of Christ’s government is sometimes referred to as the “yoke of Christ” (“iugum Christi”) commencing with his first advent: See Comm. Joel 2:30–31,CO 42, 574; Comm. Hag 2:6–9, CO 44, 105; Comm. Zech 9:10, CO 44, 273; 11:15–16, CO 44, 318. 27 Cf. Comm. Mic 5:4, CO 43, 371. 21

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Spiritual Nature of the Kingdom

113

inaugurated when the new covenant takes effect and shows itself as permanent instead of transitory.28 Calvin speaks of the “spiritual kingdom” of Christ commencing with his advent because the kingdom under the law is “shadowy” (umbratile).29 He came to accomplish what David as his type had not been able to do, when he subdued the Moabites, namely “establish among them the pure and legitimate worship of God…[and] to unite them in one faith.”30 This does not mean however, that Christ was absent during the Old Testament. In a comment on Hosea 8:4, Calvin enjoins the office of Christ as priest and king. In the ancient priesthood “shone the image of Christ, the Mediator.” “In the person of David glistens also the kingdom of Christ.”31 However, when Christ is born in the flesh he begins his kingdom rule by the scepter of the gospel.32 The former kingdom era veiled its spiritual nature through the law and its attendant ceremonies and location of worship in the temple in Jerusalem. This difference between the kingdom of Christ before and after his incarnation parallels Calvin’s differentiation between “law” and “gospel.”33 Calvin makes it a point that the prophetic message entails a warning that the kingdom of Christ would not be “earthly” (terrenum) as though it consisted of “corn and wine” (tritico et vino) and other things among life’s pleasures.34 Life according to the “celestial kingdom” (coeleste regnum)35 means that believers do not live with the expectation of a “happy rest in this world” (beata quiete in hoc mundo) but rather they ought to “seek God’s grace” (quaerendam Dei gratiam).36 This is not to suggest—argues Calvin—that the prophecies foretelling abundance in food and “all good things, tranquility and peace”37 are antithetical to the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom. To the contrary, when the prophet’s words concern Christ’s kingdom, the earthly blessings do display the spiritual character of the kingdom of Christ.38 Earthly blessings function like a “taste of the spiritual life” (praebere spiritualis vitae). God depicts the happiness of the spiritual life in terms of earthly ————— 28

Cf. Comm. Mic 5:4, CO 43, 370: “…regnum Christi fore stabile et diuturnum…” Comm. Mic 3:6–7, CO 43, 355. 30 Comm. Mic 4:1–2, CO 43, 341. 31 Comm. Hos 8:4, CO 42, 364. 32 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 221: “Sceptrum enim regni eius est evangelium…” 33 See Hesselink: 1995, 96. Note the author’s caution that the difference between Luther and Calvin on their view of law and gospel “is not as great as imagined by many Lutherans…” One also ought to remember Milner’s comment that Calvin in places refers to the word of God as either gospel or law (Milner: 1970, 171). 34 Comm. Joel 2:30–31, CO 42, 571. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Comm. Zech 14:8, CO 44, 372. 38 Cf. Ibid., “…quin hoc totum intelligat prout fert regni Christi natura.” 29

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

114

Kingdom and Church

blessings and this is out of consideration of the “weakness of his ancient people” (infirmitati veteris populi).39 The Jews’ propensity (propensi) toward earthly happiness (terrenam felicitatem) rather than seeking out things “celestial” explains—according to Calvin—why God accommodates himself to this weakness. Consequently, God did not allow them to build a splendid temple (templum splendore) when Christ first came.40 As was noted before Calvin does not pit the kingdom under the law of Moses against the gospel through Christ. The kingdom of Christ is spiritual throughout. How can the church today be recognized? God’s temple (i.e. church) exists “wherever the doctrine of the gospel is preached, there God is truly worshipped, there sacrifices are offered.”41 From the reformer’s perspective the Israelites and Catholics are both guilty of the same error: they are “not content with the simple word of God.”42 Despite the differences that separate the time of the kingdom of God before and after Christ’s first coming, it is clear to Calvin that believers—in the past and today—do not possess a steady faith unless they are brought together and “Christ shines among us and rules us by his word” (Christus inter nos emineat et nos gubernet verbo suo).43 Just like it was for the ancient believers, our faith today, says Calvin, can only be steady “but when under the auspices of Christ we join together in one church body.”44

5.5 Davidic Kingdom Davidic Kingdom Calvin states that God gave in the person of King David “a living representation of his Christ” through erecting David’s kingdom.45 That kingdom prefigures and anticipates the messianic kingdom due to the covenant God made with David and the promise to him that his kingdom would last forever.46 Calvin underscores the organic unity between David and Christ when he argues that when the ten tribes headed by King Jeroboam set up their own kingdom, that rejection was tantamount to ————— 39

Comm. Zech 10:2, CO 44, 287. See also Comm. Amos 9:15, CO 43, 175–76; Compare Richel: 1942, 74. 40 Cf. Comm. Hag 2:6–9, CO 44, 107. 41 Comm.Mic 4:6–7, CO 43, 355. Also see Wallace: 1959, 209; Wallace: 1988, 132; McGrath: 1999, 214. 42 Comm. Hos 8:6, CO 43, 369: “…non contenti simplici Dei verbo…” 43 Comm. Mic 4:5, CO 43, 350. 44 Ibid., “Sed ubi Christi auspiciis coaluimus in unum corpus ecclesiae…” 45 Cf. Comm. Hab 3:13, CO 43, 581: “Nam David erat viva imago cum successoribus. Tunc ergo Deus familiarius expressit vivam picturam Christi sui dum erexit regnum in Davidis personam.” See Richel: 1942, 152. 46 Cf. Comm. Hag 2: 20–23, CO 43, 123. Compare also CO 43, 120–21.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Davidic Kingdom

115

rejecting Christ himself.47 King David, like the Messianic king to come, was placed in his office (uniquely) for it was not by the “suffrages” (suffragiis48) of the people but by God’s decree (electum Dei decretum).49 Therefore, concludes Calvin, “when the kingdom of Israel departed from the son of David, it was the same as though they had refused to bear the authority of God himself.”50 Separating from the household of David, “the body of the people ceased to be one…”51 Since the church is identified by Calvin with the kingdom of Christ,52 the reformer thinks that Christ has in himself combined two offices of king and priest (rex et sacerdos).53 According to the law, there had been distinctive offices of king and priest, but according to his interpretation of Zechariah 6:9–11, Calvin observes that the prophet there speaks of the future reality: “a union of royalty and priesthood in the same person, which had never before been the case.”54 It is this type of biblical teaching which then —————

47 Comm. Hos 8:4, CO 42, 365. Implied here is Calvin’s idea that outside David’s kingdom the Israelite kingdom excommunicated itself from this unity with the kingdom’s head and spiritual ruler (Christ). 48 Comm. Zech 14:9, CO 44, 372–73. In his comment on Malachi 2:9 (CO 44, 442) Calvin notes contra the Church of Rome, that “suffrage” becomes the principle at work in the New Testament churches to call pastors and replaces the Old Testament’s hereditary succession of the (Levitical) priesthood. 49 Comm. Zech 14:9, CO 44, 372–73. 50 Ibid. 51 Comm. Zech 14:9, CO 44, 372. 52 Cf. Wilcox: 1997, 6n26. Author makes reference to Calvin’s commentary on Amos 9:13, CO 43, 172. We also note that when Calvin speaks of the “kingdom of Christ” he views this as commencing at Christ’s first advent. The close proximity between the kingdom and its “spiritual people” (the church) is stated, for example, in Calvin’s comments on Zechariah 2:9, CO 44, 161; 4:7, CO 44, 187); 10:4, CO 44, 290–91. The ancient biblical kingdom is a “type and image of the kingdom of Christ” (“figuram et imaginem esse regni Christi”), see Comm. Zech 12:11, CO 44, 338. Therefore, Brillenburg-Wurth’s dogmatic claim that “De kerk valt bij (Calvijn) allerminst met het koninkrijk samen” is too forceful (1959, 61). Calvin views the place of the church as within society which in turn becomes a “Christian State,” see J. Bohatec: 1968, 367. 53 Comm. Hos 8:4, CO 42, 364. One can argue from Calvin’s Institutes (2.15.1–6.) that Christ combined in himself the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. However, in the MP commentary Calvin singles out just two offices of king and priest in the person of Christ, based on the priestly type (Josia), who represented him in the prophecy of Zechariah (See Comm. Zech 6:9–11; CO 44, 210, 211; 6:12–13 CO 44. Compare Comm. Hos 8:4, CO 42, 364. Christ’s office as prophet Calvin nearly ignores. See also Milner: 1970, 164n.1. Calvin prioritizes Christ’s offices of king and priest, in light of Calvin’s own admission that prophets at that time did not do much more than foretelling the future. The office of prophet Calvin calls “extraordinary” (Comm. Zech 7: 1–3, CO 44, 220 due to the priests’ neglect of their teaching office aside from their priestly duties. Cf. Comm. Mic 3:11–12, CO 43, 334. Calvin thinks the priests’ main task was to teach. 54 Comm. Zech 6: 9–11, CO 44, 210. Calvin appeals to Psalm 110 where this union of both offices of priest and king are foretold as refering to Christ the Redeemer. Cf. Ibid., CO 44, 211–12. For Calvin’s reference to Psalm 100 to justify his exegesis regarding the unity of these same two offices in the person of Christ in his sermon on the prophet Ezekiel’s Temple vision (chs. 40–48), please note De Boer: 2004, 234.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

116

Kingdom and Church

naturally explains for Calvin why he does not radically separate the realms of church and state as the Anabaptists did out of their fear for the gospel’s freedom.55

5.6 Kingdom of Christ Kingdom of Christ How does Calvin connect the line from the archetypical Davidic kingdom to that of Christ? And even more pertinent is the question whether Calvin gives in to the temptation to identify the evangelical churches with the Kingdom of David at the expense of the Church of Rome which became idolatrous, analogous to the kingdom of the Israelites begun under King Jerobaom. In any case it appears that Calvin does not directly identify the Catholic Church with the idolatrous kingdom under Jeroboam, and so to suggest that the churches committed to the true gospel (the church renewed) are the legitimate church. Regularly the reformer thinks that prophetic texts speak to the restoration of the church as commencing in Christ’s incarnation. The real restoration of the divided church (kingdom of heaven56) is to see the church reunited to its proper head David57 in whom the kingdom of Christ is (already) represented.58 This theme of the divided Israelite kingdom resonates with Calvin when he comments on the divided church in his time, and particularly, the issue which part of the church can legitimately claim title to being the “church of God.” For Calvin the question is how the Roman church can justify its claim to being the true “church” in light of its deplorable condition. Calvin’s conclusion on this matter is predicated on the historical situation exemplified in the divided kingdom of ancient Israel.59 However, caution again is needed because Calvin’s parallels are not as static as they may appear initially. Nevertheless, (prototypically) only the kingdom of Judah is legitimate, because it is connected still with the royal house of King David and God’s promise of perpetual government through him, fulfilled in the incarnation of the promised Messiah. It is unmistakably clear that the reformer implies ————— 55

Cf. Bohatec: 1968, 363. Cf. Milner: 1970, 168n.4. Author quotes from Calvin’s commentary on Matthew 5:19 (CO 45, 172), where Calvin states that the kingdom of heaven “means the renovation of the church…” 57 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 221. 58 Cf. Comm. Mal 3:1, CO 44, 461; Compare Comm. Hos 8:4, CO 42, 364. 59 Cf. Comm. Hos 3:1, CO 42, 258. Calvin argues that the “papists” cannot boast of their “ancientness” because the criterion for this to be established is no other than whether or not the word of the Lord is kept. For Calvin the answer is simple enough: “…we see how modern their superstitions are…they have nothing that remains constant” (Comm. Hos 3:1, CO 42, 258). 56

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Kingdom of Christ

117

that the sin of which the ten tribes were guilty (separating from the Davidic kingdom and invented worship outside the law) applies directly to the Catholic Church.60 In Calvin’s mind, whereas the Reformation means a return to the biblical order for the church on the authority of the Bible alone,61 the Roman church divorced itself from Christ as head by inventing self-styled worship contrary to God’s law, which is similar to the Israelites’ conduct of the Northern Kingdom.62 This approach upstages the argument of Rome that the Reformers created a new church. The exile into Babylon for the Southern kingdom constituted an “interruption” (interruptionem) of that kingdom rule until it was restored at Christ’s incarnation.63 The return of the Jews from Babylon offers a glimpse of the church renewed after Christ’s first advent. God will “continue his favor until he shall visit with punishment all the enemies of his church.”64 It is only when the end has come (Christ’s second advent) that the church will reach its “happy state” in perfection.65 Until then the church will struggle and remain in need of renewal and restoration,66 just like the Davidic kingdom in its divided existence awaited by tests their “happy and prosperous state” when Christ would come.67 In Calvin’s time the faithful remain under the same call to persevere and not repeat the errors of the ancient church and the medieval Catholic Church by not parting from the true worship as prescribed in God’s word.68 —————

60 The examples from the lectures are too numerous to mention here. It suffices to mention just the following: Comm. Hos 2:4–5, CO 42, 230; Comm. Zech 12:2, CO 44, 451–52. 61 In this sense one can argue that church restoration means a rehabilitation of the law which under the Jews and Israelites both had been corrupted. From Calvin’s perspective this was true of the Catholic Church also. 62 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216. 63 Cf. Comm. Amos 9:11, CO 43, 170. Calvin argues that both kingdoms became abolished when both people’s were scattered and “without a head” until God gathers them together under one head again. In the Redeemer (Christ) God would restore the “whole state of the kingdom.” 64 Comm. Joel 3:1–3; CO 42, 581: “…prosequetur suam gratiam, donec poenas sumpserit de conctis ecclesiae suae hostibus.” 65 Cf. Comm. Joel 3:1–3, CO 42, 581: “…ad felicem statum ecclesiae…”; However, “happy state” is also the epithet Calvin uses to point to Christ’s first advent. See for example: Comm. Amos 9:13, CO 43, 172. Christ’s kingdom will endure unto the end and continue “though in another form” after the resurrection, when the world will be renewed (“mundus renovatibur”) in accordance with the apostle Paul (Comm. Amos 9:11, CO 43, 171. 66 Again we note that Calvin’s prayers are rife with allusions to this ongoing struggle until the final advent of Christ. This struggle scene Calvin compares with the “theatre on which to show his gifts.” (Comm. Hos 12:3–5; CO 42, 457, 458). In this struggle God both fights against us and defends us. His power by which to defend us is greater (“maiorem potentiam”) and thus guarantees the faithfuls’ ultimate victory. 67 Cf. Comm. Amos 9:13, CO 43, 172: “…beatum et prosperum statum populo Dei.” 68 The prayer that concludes Calvin’s eleventh lecture on Hosea reads in part: “…da inquam, ut verbi tui doctrina sic custodiamur sub obsequio tuo, ne unquam deflectamus vel sinistram, sed maneamus in puro cultu quem nobis praescripsisti…” (Geneva: Vignon, 1610, 49).

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

118

Kingdom and Church

For Calvin, the kingdom of Christ is practically speaking synonymous with the “church of God” (ecclesiam Dei).69 This identification argues once more against the argument of an unqualified “replacement” of Israel by the (Christian) church. Instead, Calvin suggests a “ceasing” of the kingdom well before Christ’s advent, after the ten tribes continued on their own, and only a “small portion was left over” (exigua portio…residua). The reformer also refers to David’s kingdom (Judah) which eventually also disappears awaiting the re-unification of all Abraham’s offspring with the advent of Christ. This reunion will not be in a visible manner since the future kingdom is spiritual in nature.70 The reason for this is that Christ does not rule (his church) with a “golden scepter” but with a “doctrine”71 which is his gospel. Still, what the Christian church has in common with the ancient church is more than what separates those two dispensations. Calvin believes that the unifying factor between the church existing in the Old and New Testament church remains God’s favor, which “extended to Christ’s kingdom and this is what we have in common with the ancient people.”72 Another reason why it is significant to understand Calvin’s ecclesiology in light of Calvin’s proximate identification of kingdom and church has to do with how the reformer understands the future (messianic) kingdom and church is to be governed. For the reformer the authority of Christ’s kingdom and church “is vested in its Head. Hence where Christ shines, there the church—which is his body—is said to reign. Because, Christ’s will is that He should have nothing apart from his members.”73 Yet, even though the title “King” befits the person of Christ, he still prefers the title of “Shepherd” even more, says Calvin, because of his exceeding kindness and gentleness toward the faithful.74 Furthermore, the prophets speak of the kingdom of Christ when they describe its beauty in figurative language which is fitting for their covenant dispensation. The promised restoration of the church and its worship—by the prophet Isaiah—must be viewed, according to Calvin, “to apply to the —————

69 Compare Milner: 1970, 169 citing Calvin: Comm. Amos 9.13, CO 43, 172. We recognize the point made by McKim: 1988, 161. Author echoes Calvin’s view on the relationship between church and kingdom noting overlap but also distinction: “Through the victory of Christ the church participates in the kingdom—though the church itself is not the kingdom—and this receives assurance of final victory.” 70 Cf. Comm. Mic 4:8, CO 43, 356. 71 Cf. Ibid.: “Nam Christo non dabat sceptrum aureum, sed doctrinam…”; Compare Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 221. 72 Comm. Hos 2:18, CO 42, 248. 73 Comm. Zech 2:9, CO 44, 161. 74 Cf. Comm. Mic 5:4, CO 43, 371: “Non dominator ergo Christus in ecclesia tanquam formidabilis tyrannus…sed pastor est, et tractat oves suas qua optandum est mansuetudine. Erga fideles ergo nihil humanius et mitius Christo, quia fungitur officio pastoris…”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

War in the Kingdom

119

spiritual character of the kingdom of Christ” (ut anagoge fiat ad regni Christi naturam). Under the kingship of Christ there will be no more priests who sacrifice animals on altars, now that the “character of the priesthood has become spiritual” (natura sacerdoti spiritualis), since “all the symbols of the law have ceased” (cessarunt omnes illae figurae legales).75 In the kingdom of Christ one need not locate the physical Jerusalem where the ancient church worshipped God. This is so, because under Christ’s priesthood the church worships God in what is now the “spiritual Jerusalem…which differs from all earthly cities” and whose dimensions are worldwide.76

5.7 War in the Kingdom War in the Kingdom Calvin’s outlook on the spiritual life of the church in his (sixteenth century) world is admittedly somber.77 Not even his repeated reminders that God will ever come to the defense of his church alters this impression when reading his Minor Prophets commentary. What explains this negative assessment? Is it Calvin’s sense of realism regarding human nature and a fallen world?78 Given his own experience and knowledge of the church’s dire conditions, Calvin sees the church—as Christ’s kingdom—being engaged in continuous warfare79 and this does not end until it is completed.80 As will be shown by what follows, Calvin gives imaginative descriptions indicating acrimony towards the church by its enemies both without and within. The struggle of the church in the context of Calvin’s lectures on the Minor Prophets is not primarily with enemies such “Turks,” “Jews,” or with socalled “Christian” kings and princes. The latter certainly do not escape Calvin’s prophetic81 critique yet he reserves his most severe comments for ————— 75

Comm. Hag 2:6–9, CO 44, 107–08. Cf. Comm. Zech 2:1–4, CO 44, 154: “…spiritualem Ierosolymam, quae differ tab omnibus terrenis urbibus.” Note also how Calvin identifies Jerusalem with the church as had been the accepted view in the history of exegesis since the Early Church. 77 See his plentiful remarks such as “…for we see that hardly one in a hundred worship God in truth…” Cf. Comm. Joel 2:32, CO 42, 578. Compare See Reid: 1965, 190; Fröhlich: 1930, 6–8; 19–27; Balke: 2003, 33. 78 Compare Parsons: 2004, 61–62, 74 79 Cf. Comm. Zech 3:1–2, CO 44, 168: “…quoniam proposita est nobis militia…”; Compare Milner: 1970, 170. Author quotes Calvin’s reference to a “continuous warfare” in his commentary on Psalm 110:2, (CO 32, 162). 80 Cf. Comm. Zech 3:1–2, CO 44, 169: “…donec completum sit tempus militiae.” 81 Compare Engammare: 1998, 88–107. Author notes that due to his acute awareness of his own prophetic calling Calvin saw his office as positioning him to admonish “princes and governors”; Ibid.., 103. In addition to Engamarre’s biblical citations in Calvin’s commentaries where he depicts the prophet as “instrument” of God’s Spirit can be added from the Minor Prophets: Comm. 76

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

120

Kingdom and Church

the Roman “Antichrist,” (Antichristum) which “has now for ages dominated in God’s sanctuary” (iam tot saeculis dominatum esse in sanctuario Dei).82 Calvin compares the battle of the ancient church and its enemies with his own situation. As far as Calvin is concerned, God favors the churches of the Reformation over-against Rome (papistae). Of them the reformer confesses: “…for they have nothing in common with the true God” (quia nihil illis cum vero Deo commune est).83 To the contrary Calvin thinks they are the ones who have corrupted their worship of God and their argument that the small numbers of the confessors of the Reformation proves their illegitimacy proves nothing. Instead, “[W]e may boldly oppose them, since God, we know, can never be separated nor drawn away from his word, and his word, we know, stands on our side…God is opposed to them for we fight undoubtedly under his banner.”84 While God disciplines his own people “with his left hand” (sinistra manu) he simultaneously “defends us with his right hand.”85 On balance, the power by which God causes his people to become “victorious in the struggle” (in lucta superioris) is greater (maiorem), says Calvin, than the power by which he assails them.86 In this way of attacking and defending his people God humbly and graciously lets the godly gain victory over him when he chooses to use his power not to overwhelm and destroy his own and all mankind as he easily could “with just one breath” (tantum uno flatu).87 Calvin sees this general struggle—by which the godly are graciously kept by God’s power—in connection with those who are cruelly oppressed by their leaders inside the Catholic Church. Despite his severe criticisms against Rome, the reformer never completely or definitively dismisses the people inside the Catholic Church in his Minor Prophets commentary. Calvin illustrates this point when he admits: “yet we know that God cares about some of those who are dispersed in that labyrinth.”88 ————— Hos 1:2, CO 42, 203: “organum spiritus sancti”; Comm. Mal 1:1, CO 44, 395: “esse interpositum”. 82 By “Antichrist” Calvin refers mostly to the institutional government of the Catholic Church, which undoubtedly includes attacks reserved for the papal authority as well, but not exclusively. See for instance: Comm. Joel 3:17, CO 42, 597. Calvin much less often is critical of the lay members in the Roman Church. 83 Comm. Hos 9:17, CO 42, 407. 84 Cf. Comm. Hos 9: 17, CO 42, 408: “…tamen intrepide licet contra ipsos insurgere, quando scimus Deum nunquam separari posse nec avelli a verbo suo. Verbum autem scimus a nobis stare. …Deum ipsis esse adversum, quia scilicet nos certamus sub eius vexillo.” 85 Cf. Comm. Hos 12: 3–5, CO 42, 458: “…nos tueatur dextra sua…” 86 Ibid. Compare Steinmetz: 1984, 109–10. 87 Comm. Hos 12: 3–5, CO 42, 458. 88 Comm. Zech 11:17, CO 44, 320.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

War in the Kingdom

121

If the church battles with external enemies is bad enough, even worse to Calvin is when people “rage internally against themselves when they ought as one man to unite strength and courage to repel an enemy.”89 This Calvin asserts is the “condition of the church” and will be “until the end of the world.”90 Until then the church will be unable to rid itself of “domestic enemies” (hostes domesticos). Could the reformer be referring to the Lutheran theologian Westphal and his attacks particularly against the Calvinist and also Zwinglian views of the Lord’s Supper?91 In any event, Calvin thinks his eager listeners should not forget that such upheaval within the church is ultimately not from the devil or by accident but from God. In any event turmoil in the church can be God’s judgments when the church becomes fractured and sects, hypocrites and ungodly people act as though they are “God’s true servants [and] furiously assail true religion” (veros Dei cultores, pietatem furiose oppugnant). Calvin proceeds further and argues that such judgments from God serve the purpose to “test [his peoples’] faith, humble his church (examinet suorem fidem, ut ecclesiam humiliet) and also to give to his people a victory and a crown” (deinde ut det suis materiam victoriae et coronae). And finally, these “commotions” come from God in order to distinguish between [God’s] “sincere worshipers and hypocrites” (sinceros suos cultures et hypocritas) as the apostle Paul also teaches.92 As was suggested earlier, Calvin directs militant rhetoric not just at the ecclesiastical authorities of Rome. He also attacks the secular magistrates (princes in particular) who in his view do everything to avoid the weight of cross-bearing.93 These are people who wish only to placate the fury of the “papists.” Such persons try to be neutral by following a “middle course” (mediam rationem).94 Such a position does not harmonize with the church viewed as engaged in warfare. Until Christ’s final advent the warfare continues unabatedly yet God will preserve his people and protect it against Satan,95 just as He promised to the ancient church. Echoing this spirit of confidence, Calvin ————— 89

Comm. Zech 14:13, CO 44, 379–80. Comm. Zech 14:13, CO 44, 380. 91 Wendel: Calvin, 102–03. 92 Comm. Zech 14:13, CO 44, 380; Compare Richel: 1942, 150–56. Author claims Satan is the “aanstoker” (instigator) in the neverending battle the church must go through. Calvin however gives God a more dominant role so as to safeguard his sovereignty. 93 Comm. Amos 7:10–13, CO 43, 135. 94 Compare Comm. Amos 7: 10–13, CO 43, 136; Mic 1:5; CO 43, 290. This category of people who seek the middle road parallel those Calvin castigates in his comment on Hosea 4: 15 as “Nicodemeans” (CO 42, 290); Compare Cottrett: 2000, 186, 270, 274. 95 Comm. Zech 3:1–2, (CO 44, 169). Also Selderhuis: 2007, 83–4; 240–43; Fröhlich: 1930, 19–22. 90

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

122

Kingdom and Church

notes: “[T]he warfare then is troublesome and difficult, but the victory is not doubtful, for God ever stands on our side.”96 To suffer for the sake of the church’s restoration is not limited to clergy alone. All believers are called to bear their crosses, especially since they have biblical examples to imitate. Pointing to Christ first and then such heroes of faith like Abraham and David, as well as, patriarchs, prophets, and apostles who all grievously suffered, Calvin concludes that since the objective of such hardship is the restoration of the church (instaurationem ecclesiae) these people “invite us to persevere by their example.”97 The call to engage in spiritual warfare Calvin bases also on the example of both Christ and the devil. The “faithful” should not fight against “flesh and blood.” The real enemy is the devil but God is certain to deliver his people from all the dangers they face.98 God’s people should not fall for Satan’s ploy that “God rests leisurely in heaven” (quiescere otiosum in coelo). One must avoid the notion perpetrated by those who say they believe in God but exclude him from his office as a judge. To the contrary, God is neither passive nor blind toward sin.99 The believer should not become passive but rather engage in Christian warfare. Calvin justifies this insight on the fact that Christ is not allowed by Satan to exercise his office as heavenly priest peacefully. Christ’s dominion over the godly does not mean they can afford to take things lightly, because all God’s people are engaged in this spiritual war and should be armed for this.100 And of all people, the servants of God who teach his word ought to prepare themselves to pay the ultimate sacrifice and in this way “to seal their doctrine with their own blood” (obsignent etiam doctrinam suam proprio sanguine).101 The reformer compares the biblical text—in which the (false) prophet Amaziah seeks to intimidate the prophet Amos by accusing him of subversion against king Jerobaom and then calling him to cease his message against Bethel—to his own ecclesiastical situation. He concludes how dangerous Satan’s attempts are when he employs the “enemies of the truth” (veritatis inimici) who accuse the Reformed faithful of turning the whole world—including the church—into calamitous turmoil.102 Why is it that “so many enemies daily rail against us, and why the whole world burns against us with such implacable hatred…”? Calvin cautions that the reason is —————

96 Comm. Zech 3:1–2, CO 44, 169 [italics mine]. Calvin suggests clearly those people who have aligned themselves with the cause of the Reformation. Compare Pearcy: 1938, 2. 97 Comm. Mal 3:17, CO 44, 483. See De Scandalis CO 8, 29 quoted in Richel: 1942, 153. 98 Cf. Comm. Zech 3:1–2, CO 44, 167; Also Richel: 1942, 153–155. 99 Comm. Hos 7:2, CO 42, 339. 100 Comm. Zech 3:1–2, CO 44, 168. 101 Comm. Amos 7:10–13, CO 43, 131. 102 Comm. Amos 7:10–13, CO 43, 131.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

War in the Kingdom

123

because we do not remember “that we are fighting with the devil, the head and prince of the whole world.”103 Nevertheless, the outcome of this divine, cosmic, spiritual battle is certain. Despite all the trial and hardship “the victory is not doubtful, for God ever stands on our side” (Victoria tamen minime dubia est, quoniam Deus a parte nostra semper stabit).104 With what weapons does the church defend itself? The church’s protection is not the “Ajax” shield by which the Catholic Church lays claim to being the “mother church” (matrem…ecclesiam).105 Some of the grounds Calvin marshals forward to defend why in his view the Roman Church and the restored church of God stand opposed are the following: a false application of Christ’s promise to remain true to his church106; the Roman church’s added ceremonies;107 their show and pomp108; “naked” or “empty titles” (nudis or inanibus titulis)109; wrong appeal to the church Fathers,110 and the Reformation churches are few in numbers.111 So, how then should the spiritual warfare be conducted? God’s faithful do not fight with physical weapons. God keeps them safe “under the shadow of God’s hand.”112 Those who go out to injure the church will find God opposed to them. God protects his people (in suma custodiam) today too, says Calvin, for by standing “in the middle he intercedes” (medius intercedat).113 And as “patronus est ecclesiae suae” God brings judgment on the enemies of his people then and now, and this is only because of his fatherly love (amore paterno). Indeed, God testifies to the believers’ certainty of their salvation on the basis “that he is not only propitious to us, but that our salvation is an object of his care.114 Calvin does not translate the call to spiritual warfare to mean that believers actively carry out physical attacks on those who set themselves up as enemies of ————— 103

Comm. Zech 3:1–2, CO 44, 167–68. Comm. Zech 3:1–2, CO 44, 169. 105 Comm. Hos 4:5, CO 42, 173. For Calvin’s use of the church as “mother” metaphor see Schümmer:1981; Graafland: 1989. 106 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216; Comm. Zeph 3:5, CO 43, 52–53. On the latter text Calvin states that the “papists” like the Israelites falsely claimed that God was among them; see Richel: 1942, 170; Comm, Mal 2:4, CO 44, 432. 107 Cf. Comm. Amos 5:24, CO 43, 96. 108 Cf. Comm. Mic 3:11–12, CO 43, 334. 109 Comm.Mic 3:8, CO 43, 329; Comm. Zeph 3:3, CO 44, 49. 110 Cf. Comm. Zech 1:4, CO 44, 131; Comm. Mal 2:10, CO 44, 446. Here Calvin first attacks the “multi fanatici” who despise the “praedicationem externam verbi.”; Comm. Hos 3:1, CO 42, 258. 111 Cf. Comm. Hag 2: 2–6, CO 44, 101. 112 Comm. Zech 9:16, CO 44, 283; Compare Richel: 1942, 153. 113 Comm. Nah 1:9, CO 43, 447–48. 114 Cf. Comm. Nah 1:11, CO 43, 450: “…se non modo nobis esse propitium sed sibi salutem nostrum esse curae.” 104

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

124

Kingdom and Church

God’s kingdom or church. Rather, Calvin’s call to endure in the struggle to be faithful sounds more mild than militant.115 Calvin expresses his steadfast trust in God’s care and keeping toward the (evangelical) restored church. Those people in Calvin’s time who act against “us” will discover that God is their enemy (hostem).116 This is why the Jews were to rely on God’s power as a totally adequate shield (clypeus).117 Because people are naturally inclined to rely on people and things to rescue them, God is against (opponitur) all of this.118 Emphasis on the importance of Christ’s role as the church’s agent of peace Calvin mentions when discussing the messianic character of the prophecy of Micah 5. Calvin highlights two main ways in which Christ is the prince of Peace. As the “head” of the church, Christ protects it. Calvin thinks this title suits Christ very well because he will push far back anything that is meant to injure his people due to his superior might by which the ungodly are kept from aggression against “the children of God”(filiis Dei).119 This is the perspective one should have on the hurtful things that believers do experience in this life. Calvin finds it just as important, not only that believers know that God in Christ is their protector and mediator through whom God is reconciled with them, but also to be confident of God’s paternal affection. Absence of external trouble does not equal possessing certainty regarding God’s reconciled favor towards the believers. Calvin cautions that not having this assurance is to be “miserable.” There can be no peace within unless one is confident (certa fiducia) “that God is our Father” (Deum nobis esse patrum).120

5.8 Kingdom and Church: Schism and Reunion Kingdom and Church: Schism and Reunion For Calvin the Northern Kingdom under Jeroboam has no legal right to exist. The reformer tersely notes: “There was therefore no legitimate head over the people of Israel.” Unity among people means nothing in God’s sight “except it originates from one head.”121 It is evident from his Institutes —————

115 Contra Torrance: 1953, 55. Author presents Luther as “quietist” in contrast with Calvin whose kingdom perspective “was activist…” When it comes to the church defending herself Calvin foremost stressed to rely on God’s sovereign providence rather than by a kind of “faithactivism.” 116 Comm. Nah 1:11, CO 43, 450. 117 Comm. Zech 12:8, CO 44, 330. 118 Ibid. 119 Comm. Mic 5:5, CO 43, 372. 120 Ibid. Mic 5:5, CO 43, 372–73. 121 Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 221.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Kingdom and Church: Schism and Reunion

125

that Calvin objects to unwarranted church separation.122 In similar vein the reformer understood the prophetic text of the MP also in calling “all God’s children to cultivate unity and concord.” 123 Calvin warned that “whosoever tears asunder the church of God disunites himself from Christ, who is the head, and who would have all his members to be united together.”124 In the same passage Calvin explains why the unity among believers is a “union of faith” (consensum fidei).125 The elect are of a mind to surround themselves with many “fellow disciples” (condiscipulos) who also wish to obey God for the sake of godly doctrine (doctrina pietatis).126 When people rightly worship God then each person will not follow his or her own “personal religion” (peculiaris religio). When the truth of God (Dei veritatem) is at stake the whole world if necessary needs to be ignored, argues Calvin. But, now that the church once again possesses this truth God is their “leader” (ducem) and his people must follow him one and all.127 As for some of the main antagonists in his own time, Calvin aims the next two observations against the Anabaptist radical reformers and the Catholic community respectively. In the first instance, Calvin warns against the stealthy (clanculum) efforts of Satan who makes his “intrigues” (Satanae insidias) appear “under the cover of truth” (in specie veritatis).128 This remark is critical of the Anabaptists who under a cover of piety leave the church because it lacks the highest level of perfection. Such people separate themselves as soon as they see that they cannot correct what they deem intolerable, argues Calvin. They would rather “form for themselves a new world in which there is a perfect church” (perfecta ecclesia).129 Despite their appeal to select texts in the Pauline epistles where the apostle speaks about the church being without spot or wrinkle (Eph 5:27), Calvin is not impressed by this. Secondly, with respect to the Roman church Calvin

—————

122 Cf. especially Inst. 4.1.13,16,18; 4.2.5–10. Note also 4.2.7–9 where Calvin notes the “resemblance” between the church of Rome and Israel under king Jeroboam. 123 Comm. Zech 8:23, CO 44, 258. Calvin does not seem to have in mind a type of institutional/denominational organization to which each of the local churches must belong. For Calvin each local church is fully a church. See Busch: 2005, 155–56; Walker: 1984, 220, 224n.111. 124 Comm. Zech 8:23, CO 44, 258. 125 Ibid. Cf. Comm. Mal 4:6, CO 44, 498. Here Calvin defines unity of faith as pertaining exclusively to “the holy and chosen race” which due to God’s mercy would some day “be gathered and restored from discord to unity…” 126 Comm. Zech 8:23, CO 44, 258 127 Cf. Comm. Zech 8:23, CO 44, 258. Calvin confesses one church of Christ and ecclesial unity means unity in confession. Compare Richel: 1942, 124–38. 128 Comm. Hag 2:2–6, CO 44, 100. 129 Comm. Hag 2:2–6, CO 44, 100. Compare Niesel, “Wesen und Gestalt der Kirche nach Calvin,” cited in Balke: 1999, 234.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

126

Kingdom and Church

bemoans the fact that they have “a zeal so rigid that they depart from God himself and break the unity of the church.”130 Consequently, the charge that the reformers were “schismatic” by defecting from the “Holy Mother Church” (matram sanctam ecclesiam)131 Calvin rejects unequivocally. Indeed, Calvin turns the charge against the Roman accuser.132 By being “covenant breakers”133 the “papists” (and those who formerly belonged to them but have since have adopted the light of the true gospel) were like the Israelites, divorcing themselves from God (spiritually).134 Consequently, Catholic believers have no reason to boast being the children of God or presume they “possess the Holy Mother Church as their own”, because like the ancient Israelites they too “…are born from stinking harlotry.”135 Calvin bases the analogy136 between the kingdom under Jeroboam and the church of Rome on their corruption of “pure worship” (sincerum Dei ————— 130

Comm. Hag 2:2–6, CO 44, 100–01. Comm. Hos 2:4–5, CO 42, 230; Compare also Comm. Hos 4:5, CO 42, 273. 132 Cf. Comm. Amos 6:13, CO 43, 116. On this text Calvin asserts plainly that the Catholic Church wrongly “arrogate to them the name of church…that they may appear to be the true church.” Compare also Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216; Compare Balke: 1981, 140–41. Author points out how both the Catholics and Anabaptisits “sprouted essentially from the same root, namely, ‘spiritualism.’”; Richel: 1942, 184; For Calvin’s insight regarding Calvin’s reply to Cardinal Jacopo Sadolato, bishop of Carpentras (France) see Steinmetz: 1984, 103–04. 133 Calvin equates those he labels “covenant breakers” as “apostates” in his commentary on Amos 2:4–5 (CO 43, 20) because Jews and Israelites have repudiated God’s law prescribing divine worship. 134 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216. Calvin does not state in this reference whether he means the Israelites’ schismatic act under Jeroboam or their illegitimate worship or both. Combined with other references in Hosea (Compare Comm. Hos 2:19–20, CO 42, 248–52; 5:7, CO 42, 305–06; 6:6–7, CO 42, 331–32; 8:1 CO 42, 362–63. In these passages Calvin places the emphasis on the violation of God’s covenant (law) relative to worship. In this way Calvin is able to divert attention from the Catholic notion that having left her communion outwardly or visibly, the Reformation could not claim to be the true (visible) Church. What makes a church legitimate is whether one adheres to the laws God gave by which the people ought to worship him. On the text in Hosea 4:15 (CO 42, 287–88) Calvin does connect the schismatic act under Jeroboam with the impure worship of God that sprang from this. 135 Cf. Comm. Hos 2:4–5, CO 42, 230: “…et se habere matrem sanctam ecclesiam, quia nati sunt ex foetido scorto.” 136 Compare Richel: 1942, 128, 130. Author points out how based on Calvin’s analogy between the Roman Catholic Church and the ten tribes of Israel in his biblical commentary (Hosea), as well as based on statements in the reformer’s Institutes, that in a strict sense (“stricto sensu”) Rome cannot be called a church. The author superimposes a Kuyperian ecclesiology to argue his case for church pluriformity, albeit on the biblical ground that God’s covenant faithfulness is the reason why both the ten tribes and the Church of Rome are not cut off from God’s promises entirely, nor have they for the same reason lost all vestiges (“vestigia") of the church entirely. The author himself admits that Calvin did not develop a theory of pluriformity following the schism in the Western Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, the way Kuyper and Bavinck later on did (Ibid.: 1942, 138). 131

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Kingdom and Church: Schism and Reunion

127

cultum) of God.137 Comparing the Catholic Church to the adulterous wife described by the prophet Hosea, it is they, who like the adulterous Israelites are the guilty party as it were. Calvin cites as grounds for this accusation that 1) the Israelites had separated from the house of David, and (2) designing worship not commanded by God in his law.138 Calvin builds his doctrine of the church’s preservation on the doctrine of Christ as the sole and inseparable head of the church.139 The initial illegitimate separation from the kingdom of David culminating in the Israelites’ exile represents the “mutilation”140 of the body (church) severed from its head.141 It was a limited period142 of time when the church was to be “without any visible head.”143 But until the time of restoration came those (Israelites) exiled to Assyria and other foreign lands were “without a head, like a mutilated body.”144 It appears that for Calvin there can not now be a definitive severing of Christ as the Head from his body (analogous to the schismatic Israelites; F.H.) because “Christ can not be separated from the church” (Christum non posse avelli ab ecclesia).145 So if it would seem the church looks like a body from which the head is torn, and appearing outwardly “dreadfully desolated, there is yet a promise of a new resurrection” (novam resurrectionem).146 God “miraculously preserved”

————— 137

Comm. Hos 4:15, CO 42, 287. Comm. Hos 8:4, CO 42, 364. 139 Cf. Comm. Hos 11:1, CO 42, 432. 140 Ibid., Compare also Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 261; 13:9–11, CO 44, 487; Comm. Joel 3:1–3, CO 42, 580; Comm. Mic 5:5, CO 43, 374; Comm. Zech 13:7, CO 44, 355. In the latter instance the mutilation of the church refers to members who have lost their pastors, which Calvin applies to the situation in his day. “…yet God’s hand will be over them, so as to gather for himself again a church from the torn members.” Calvin uses the same metaphor when it applies to kings and judges whom God takes from the people as their governers (See Comm. Hos 7:7, CO 42, 345). 141 Built on the previous footnote, we observe that Calvin uses the metaphor of severing the head from the body to refer to the ten tribes illegally setting up their rival kingdom under Jeroboam. However, it refers also to the state of exile by which the body of Christ or his church is formally separated from the location of Jerusalem (Zion’s temple and worship) where alone God is truly worshipped. See Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 261: “…quasi truncum corpus sine caput…” Furthermore, Calvin does not deny that the Israelite kingdom represented still the church, albeit “without its Head.” 142 Calvin suggests that Hosea’s diagnosis in Micah 5:5 means that the body (church) severed from its head (Christ) and thus dead, does not represent a permanent but temporary condition due to promise “of a new resurrection” (”novam resurrectionem”), in CO 43, 374. 143 Comm.Mic 5:5, CO 43, 374. 144 Comm. Hos 11:10–11, CO 42, 446; See also Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 220; 3:2–5, CO 42, 261; 13:9–11, CO 42, 487. Only once does Calvin speak of the Jews (kingdom of Judah) in their exiled state as being “a mutilated body” (Comm. Mic 7:14; CO 43, 424). 145 Comm. Hos 11:1, CO 42, 433; Compare also: Comm. Mic 5:5, CO 43, 374. 146 Comm. Mic 5:5, CO 43, 374. 138

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

128

Kingdom and Church

(mirabiliter servatus est) the Israelites despite their sinful “defection” (defectionem) by which it “abruperit sacram unitatem ecclesiae.”147 In his commentary on Hosea 1:11 Calvin reveals clearly his understanding of church unity as it pertained to the divided kingdom. Calvin infers that kingdom reunification is conditional upon the renegade Israelites re-submitting themselves to the Davidic kingdom. It is not enough that Christ is king over his people, ruling as he does by his kingdom scepter, the gospel. More than that, the people who evidence “obedience of faith” (obedientia fidei) in submission to his rule are the ones who personally “embrace him as their king, and with reverence receive him.” By believing the gospel, people of their own volition “choose Christ for [their] King.”148 For Calvin this condition seems to apply both to the ancient people of God as to the church in his own time. Furthermore, it underscores the reformer’s awareness that the unity of the visible and militant church is more than mere outward, formal organization.

5.9 Conclusion Conclusion In the divided kingdom context in the Minor Prophets Calvin encounters a historical situation which parallel’s the sixteenth century situation for Calvin. Importantly, this biblical example of disunity in the ancient kingdom lies underneath Calvin’s concern throughout the MP commentary for the unity of the church as one of the most critically important questions that demand his attention and reflection.149 The frequent applications from sacred text to contemporary context in Calvin’s MP commentary— especially on the prophet Hosea—have to be more than coincidental.150 The reformer’s main contention is with the Roman Church’s claim to being the only church of God. The determining factor that decides this question is whether or not a church or communion of churches (like the Roman church as institution) upholds the revealed law of God. Such obedience in turn justifies the claim of having Christ as one’s supreme Head. Since, for ————— 147

Comm. Hos 13:9–11, CO 42, 487; See also Comm. Mic 1:1, CO 42, 283. Comm. Hos 1:11, CO 42, 221. 149 See Smidt: 1972, 10. 150 Calvin explains the brokenness of the ancient church as formally due to the Israelites’ defection under Jeroboam. That was an act by which the ten tribes rejected God, and thus the “Son of David” and thus alienating themselves from the body of the church. For this see Comm. Zech 10:6, CO 44, 292. Zechariah foresees how these divided peoples will become united again in the future. We conclude that by analogy for Calvin the Roman Church has acted similarly, when it rejects God’s authority by way of his divine word and so has alienated herself from the (true) “church of Christ” of which the Son of David is sole head. Nevertheless, Zechariah’s reference to the restoration of the church implies the promise of the restoration of the church’s unity. 148

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Conclusion

129

Calvin, the Roman Catholic Church invents its own manner of worship they end up with neither. The reformer views Israel’s example and the Catholic Church’s similar unfaithfulness as a challenge for the Reformation to guard itself against all who seek to attack its commitment to the gospel truth. It is in this context of spiritual warfare in the kingdom of God and Christ that Calvin points to the church’s divine protection and preservation. From Calvin’s perspective the (reformed) churches born anew under the gospel represent the restored (indivisible spiritual) kingdom united to its one head Jesus Christ (God). Despite its outward brokenness this re-born church under the gospel is the one church of God analogous to the broken, yet (spiritual) kingdom under Christ in the Old Testament under the typological headship of David. However, this external condition is not irreversible but can be lost due to covenantal unfaithfulness in belief and practice. In this lies the lesson for the church in Calvin’s and subsequent church history. When the church fails to maintain the law of God he is free and can by-pass it by raising a new church to preserve his elect. Because the church is born of the word of God this last observation constitutes for Calvin the legitimacy to no longer be united to the Church of Rome. In time this principle would be used to justify subsequent secession movements within the Protestant body of churches worldwide. At the same time Calvin does not encourage the argument that secession is a means to purify the church. It is the word of God and its divine authority that determine the outcome of such issues, not the church’s lack of doctrinal or moral purity. To part from the church visible because it is not holy (enough)—whether in questions of belief and practice—is by Calvin’s principle schismatic too. To neglect the word of God as sole authority which Calvin believed was the error of the Church of Rome is in an inverted manner the schismatic deed for which the reformer holds the illegitimate kingdom of Jeroboam responsible.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

6. Church Government and Administration Church Government and Administration Introduction

6.1 Introduction Like Martin Bucer so Calvin also closely identifies the kingdom of Christ with the church over which Christ is the sole Head. On that premise it is of paramount importance to the reformer that Christ’s royal scepter (scripture) sovereignly reigns in the church and determines its order and worship.1 There can be no competition in this matter as to God claiming through Christ all ecclesiastical and official authority to himself even as he delegates it to those holding office in the church.2 In the reformer’s own words: “Let us know that in the church the word of God so possesses the highest rank, that neither priests, nor kings, nor their counselors, can claim a privilege to themselves, as though their conduct was not to be subject to God’s word.”3 The true character of the church depends on correctly viewing Christ as the church’s head and ruler of his spiritual kingdom. This means that one needs to be clear about the way Christ, according to Calvin, governs in his role as supreme Lord and King over his kingdom subjects. For Calvin the church when properly obedient to God is not merely being (passive) governed by Christ. Christ actively shares his rule through the pastoral office within the church without ever relinquishing it. In other words the church’s government is only that of Christ’s:

————— 1

This exclusive right of rule in the church does not preclude the claim that God is also sovereign over the state. However, as Graham points out “For Calvin there was an undeniable separation between the two powers. But since both were under the Lordship of Christ, the church’s task was always an active one toward the state…” According to this author in Geneva there was not a theocracy if one means by it that the church and clergy ruled over the state. Calvin’s view of mutual responsibilities between church and state are simply reflective of the “res republica christiana” of which the church had been a part for the past one thousand years (Graham: 1971, 60–64). 2 Compare Faber: 1999, 336. 3 Comm. Hos. 5:1, CO 42, 297. See also M. de Kroon: 1996, 174–75; Bohatec: 1933, 135; Höpfl: 1982, 211. Höpfl points out that Calvin’s belief about submission to the Word of God implies also that citizens of God’s kingdom owe their obedience to the civil magistracy (Höpfl: 1982, 212).

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Church Government: Spiritual

131

…the government of the church is vested in its Head. So, where Christ shines, there the church, which is his body, is said to obtain the [office to] reign; for Christ’s will is, that he should have nothing apart from his members.4

In sum, Christ governs his church as its Head in such a manner that the church itself is the visible governance of Christ in and through his members. Therefore, the purpose of this part in our study is to show the importance Calvin invests in showing from the Minor Prophets how he believes God’s church has to be reformed and renewed thoroughly on the basis and authority of the Bible alone as the rule for kingdom living to which both the ordinary believers and the office bearers are subject and that for the well-being of all society.5 The context of this chapter concerns itself with the institutional aspect of the church life and ministry. However, Calvin’s discussion of church office and administration functions inside a view of the church in the MP which is dynamic because of the reformer’s depiction of the church—not as a formal organization—but rather as a living community of believers called to be faithful to those who minister God’s word to them in preparation for living out the Christian life.

6.2 Church Government: Spiritual Church Government: Spiritual Calvin hammers home the biblical claim that Christ is the Head of the church (e.g. appealing to Col 1:18) and that the church’s authority is “vested” in him.6 Importantly, here too one needs to place Calvin in his own historical context. In some form Calvin is still part and parcel of the medieval corpus christianum or societas christiana perspective whose ideal is that of an (albeit modified) unified Christian society or culture.7 Consequently, Calvin does not (and would not) pursue a complete separation between the church and state as this would place him alongside with the Anabaptist radicals.8 The state is responsible to defend the church’s life and interests. However, Calvin’s concern about the church’s right to ————— 4

Comm. Zech 2:9, CO 44, 161. Scholl persuasively notes that Calvin in contrast with the Anabaptists, depends almost exclusively on the Old Testament to support his views about the relationship between church and state. See Scholl: 2003, 107. 6 Cf. Comm. Zech 2:9, CO 44, 161: “…principatus ecclesiae est in capite ipso.” 7 Van Der Kooi: 2005, 23, 30–35; See Bohatec: 1926, 373. Author qualifies this understanding to argue that neither Luther nor Calvin view corpus christianum in traditional (medieval) sense in which views the spiritual-worldly society as indivisible; Brillenburg-Wurth observes that Calvin replaced the medieval catholic notion of “corpus christianum” with “regnum Christi” (1959, 59– 60). 8 On this point see Speelman’s reference to Calvin’s prefatory letter to King Francis I of France must be noted (Ibid.: 1994, 76). 5

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

132

Church Government and Administration

excommunicate points to the relative freedom or jurisdiction the church should possess. Calvin’s issue is not with the civil magistrate’s ultimate responsibility for the affairs of the church in Geneva. Rather, Calvin claims that it is the church’s (spiritual) right to execute its jurisdiction.9 Ever since emperor Constantine sanctioned the Christian religion the state and church have battled for supremacy in terms of their temporal and spiritual authority respectively (for example, the medieval history regarding investiture).10 Calvin shares with Luther the general belief that the kingdom of God embodied in history includes the realms of both church and state. Both of these exist under the rule of God’s dominion. However, where Calvin differs with Luther is in the way the reformer reconfigures11 the Wittenberg theologian’s understanding of this kingdom’s two aspects, particularly as it pertains to his ecclesiology: political (imperial government) and spiritual (ecclesiastical government). That is, corpus christianum or res publica christiana for Calvin is no longer the undivided spiritual-secular society in which the church (by divine right) rules over both the secular and spiritual powers instituted, like it had been viewed in traditional medieval belief.12 W. van’t Spijker has pointed out that Calvin’s manner of distinguishing between the realm of the political and the spiritual (kept more closely together in Luther’s thought) seeks to do justice to the twofold character of Christ’s kingdom.13 Calvin is not novel in recalibrating the relationship between the church and state in terms of power and authority.14 The Old Testament distinction between the priestly-spiritual (Aaronic) office on the one hand and civilearthly (Mosaic) office on the other hand15 may well serve as justification ————— 9

Lane: 1992, 145; Speelman: 1994, 65–86. Note that when Calvin argues to apply discipline in a local church—i.e. separating a pastor from his church (“excludi et exterminari ab ecclesia”)—the reformer gives no hint of this not being done by the church as opposed to the magistrate. See Comm. Zech 3:6–7, CO 44, 174–76. 10 See Balke: 2003, 289–90; McKim: 1988, 159. Also Baldwin: 1953: 23–24, 31, 38–41, 75, 83, 85–92. 11 Cf. van’t Spijker: 2001, 217 (“Die lutherische Lehre von den zwei Reichen hat Calvin umgebildet, um den zweifachen Charakter der Herrschaft Christi zum Ausdruck zu bringen.”). 12 Cf. Bohatect: 1926, 364, 373. Bohatec opines that Calvin broke fundamentally (“principieel”) with the medieval system of thought but also did not follow Luther without question (“Organische Idee”, 362). In short, Bohatect is correct when he explains that Calvin keeps in tension the for him crucial distinction between the civil and spiritual power (Ibid., 366); Compare also Bohatec: 1950. 13 Cf. van’t Spijker: 2001, 217. This varies from Luther for whom the visible church and its ministry are qualitatively different from the real or actual church whose members can only be recognized by faith and who are only known by God. 14 See Grishar, who offers a Catholic interpretation on the subject of the changes in the relationship between church and state (Grishar: 1968, 51–64). 15 See Calvin’s comment on Micah 6:4 (CO 43, 388), in which the reformer claims that though the biblical text mentions their Moses’ and Aaron’s sister Miriam too, her leadership appears to be

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Church Government: Spiritual

133

for Calvin’s argument in calling for a greater distinction between church and state, for example with regard to the church’s exercise of discipline or its right to call a minister. The church manages its own peculiar affairs because they are of a spiritual, non-transitory nature. Calvin’s thinking about the nature of the church’s power and authority formed a departure from the consensus in the medieval period. Importantly, it also differs from positions by Luther and Zwingli and their followers. Both the negative example of Catholic ecclesiastical practice and the overreaching influence of civil magistrates in church matters are the impetus behind Calvin’s battle and eventual victory to secure the church’s right to exercise its own discipline: In this especially consists the best condition of the people, when they can choose, by common consent, their own shepherds: for when any one by force usurps the supreme power, it is tyranny; and when men become kings by hereditary right, it seems not consistent with liberty.16

In the same commentary Calvin elaborates on this matter arguing that it is the Lord’s purpose—according to the prophet Micah—that that the church may set up a “fixed and well-ordered government, and that by the common consent of all” (ut statuat certum et bene ordinatum regimen).17 Evidently, Calvin finds occasion in the text of the Old Testament prophets to argue for the church in his time that it ought to have its own government and order. This shift from the city government officials, giving their ultimate consent, to the congregation giving its approbation in matters like this constitutes a formidable change within the Reformation movement. Not surprisingly no other city committed to the cause of the Reformation was as yet ready to adopt the Geneva model. If the church’s order and polity concerned Christ’s kingdom rule on earth, then in what sense were those called and approved to bear office in the church different from those who bore office in civil capacities? Ministers in the church are much like the Old Testament prophets in that they are entrusted with the living word of God, turning these people as it were into “agents of his Spirit” (spiritus eius organa) and “celestial ambassadors” (sunt quasi coelestes legati).18 ————— limited to women, argues Calvin, and this “singular precedent” is not to be considered as a basis for making this a “common rule.” 16 Comm. Mic 5:5, CO 43, 374. 17 Ibid. Note that elsewhere Calvin distinguishes between the situation in which a church’s order needs to be “kept fixed and unchanged” as compared with conditions “when not even the most tenuous beginnings of a church are in place,” in Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Advise, tr. M. Beaty and B.W. Farley (1991, 103). 18 Comm. Amos 2:9, CO 43, 31. Compare Ganoczy: 2004, 14.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

134

Church Government and Administration

Since his advent, Christ is Head over his church and governs his kingdom by spiritual rather than political authority. He governs his church not with “a golden scepter, but a doctrine…” which, according to Calvin, the prophet Micah also teaches.19 Calvin alludes to this when he argues that the church as the “spiritual Jerusalem…differs from all earthly cities.”20 Consequently, Calvin parallels the promised ancient (Old Testament) church’s restoration (ecclesiae restitutione) with what Christ is doing through the Reformation because “the state of affairs in our time is nearly the same as theirs” (Eadem enim fere ratio est nostril temporis, quae fuit illius). Namely, the reformer believes that Christ is at work to “renew by the power of his Spirit that spiritual temple which had been pulled down and wholly demolished.”21 Calvin is certain that Christ is restoring his church because Satan is actively opposing this “new building” (novae aedificationis) bringing together “many forces” (multos impetus) that seek to thwart the progress being made.22

6.3 Order of the Church Order of the church Among other things, Calvin’s God is a God of order.23 Since the church is a spiritual entity, its life must be ordered accordingly as demonstrated by Christ and instituted by his word.24 The worst thing that the ancient prophet Hosea has to tell the Israelites is that by being scattered as a people into exile they have their “exercises of religion taken away from them.”25 Additionally, they lose the outward sign (signum) of God’s favor on them as signified by the land they possessed and their worship of God in his temple in Jerusalem.26 This was tantamount to having no order left, either political or religious.27 Such is the repercussion of their impending exile. Calvin does not hesitate to chastise the “fanatics” in his day and alleges that they think they are no longer bound by the Old Testament law. To the contrary, the law of God applies to the Christian church era too. Such ————— 19

Comm. Mic 4:8, CO 43, 356. See also Comm. Hag 2:6–9 (CO 44, 108) where Calvin speaks to the physical adorrnments of the rebuilt temple under King Herod that “all the symbols of the law have ceased.” 20 Comm. Zech 2: 1–4, CO 44, 154. 21 Comm. Zech 4: 11–14, CO 44, 192–93. 22 Cf. Ibid. 23 Cf. Fröhlich:1930, 52. Author asserts “Calvins Gott ist ein Gott der Ordnung.” 24 Cf. Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541), CO 10, 16. 25 Comm. Hos 9:5, CO 42, 389. 26 Cf. Comm.Hos 9:5, CO 42, 388: “…nihil posse durius nobis contingere in hoc mundo, quam ubi sumus disperse absque ullo ordine.” 27 See for example Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 262; 11:8–9, CO 42,445.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Order of the church

135

people (i.e. Anabaptists) “who as far as they can destroy souls, who by their poison corrupt pure doctrine—which is spiritual food—who take away from God his own honor, who confound the whole order of the Church” should be punished.28 After this Calvin turns the spotlight on the Reformed churches in Geneva because in them he encounters a simillar attitude among those (Libertines) who criticize the pastors for warning them and their relatives against the wiles of Satan. Such persons Calvin notes should be more concerned about the glory of God and the right kind of religion “than their own carnal attachments” (quam suos illos carnales affectus).29 Therefore, the “new church” or newly-restored church30 can not be formed unless it is guided by the word of God.31 As was noted already Calvin predicates the claim of being a true church32 (verum ecclesiae corpus) on whether or not Christ is present.33 Stated differently, unless the church is duly (re)formed on the basis of God’s “revealed will” (patefacta Dei voluntas) there can not be “true religion” (vera pietas). However, this submission to God needs to be on a voluntary basis and can not be coerced by using violence like David did subjugating the Moabites and other nations. Without explanation Calvin holds that people can only submit to David’s posterity and unite themselves in one faith to the church (then and now) when they are “really and thoroughly reformed” (sed vere esse et penitus reformandos).34 This free associating with the church is characteristic therefore of the Messianic spiritual kingdom commencing at Christ’s advent.35 What does Calvin understand by order in the church? The government of the church is more than how the church regulates its various aspects of ministry, by those officially called and ordained to perform these. Specifically, the church’s officers are subject to scrutiny without detracting from the dignity of their office, argues Calvin in a comment on Malachi 2:4: “So at this day, when we resist the Papal priests, we do not violate

————— 28

Comm. Zech 13:3, CO 44, 347. Ibid. Calvin undoubtedly refers to the antinomian sentiments provoked among Genevan citizens by the confrontational type of preaching they heard from the Genevan pulpits. 30 Cf. Comm. Mic. 4:1–2, CO 43, 340: “…de integro ecclesiam Dei erigi.” 31 Cf. Comm. Mic 4:1–2, CO 43, 343: “…nullam esse ecclesiam, quae non subiicitur verbo Dei et regitur.” 32 Comm. Mic 4: 1–2, CO 43, 343 33 Cf. Comm. Zech 2:9, CO 44, 161. 34 Comm. Mic 4:1–2, CO 43, 341. 35 Cf. Ibid. One wonders here if the reformer by this time (ca. 1556–57) still agreed with his demand soon after his arrival in Geneva that all citizens of Geneva be required to sign the confession (1537) which he and Farel drafted and which the city fathers had provisionally adopted. 29

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

136

Church Government and Administration

God’s covenant, that is, it is no departure from the order of the church (ordini ecclesiae), which ought ever to remain sacred and inviolable.” 36 The ministerial authority and dignity of office bearers, like the priests under the old covenant arrangement, is conditional upon these persons’ obedience or faithfulness to acquit themselves of their responsibilities. Being unfaithful to one’s office is tantamount to subverting the sacred order of God (evertere sanctum Dei ordinem), argues Calvin. With an eye toward Catholic office-bearers, the reformer claims that many of them (especially those ordained, yet who do not teach) seek the honor that goes with holding office yet they fail to execute their duties.37 Calvin’s criticism of Rome is therefore no different than what the ancient prophets did when speaking against the condition of the ancient church and society combined. In other words the prophet Hosea refers to the whole political order (totum politicum ordinem) when he suggests that all things were now in a state of disarray among the Jews neglected to maintain order.38 Per analogy, the Catholic Church leaders falsely accuse the reformation of violating the order of the church (ordini ecclesiae).39 To question the performance of office bearers in the church is not the same as subverting the order in the church. Conversely, the latter occurs when the word of God is falsely taught or through unfaithful execution of the ecclesiastical office. Therefore the charge mentioned is unmerited. In fact, argues Calvin, the reformation’s goal is to restore due order (vero ordo) when it questions the behavior of priests in the church and insists that those endowed with a teaching office actually teach. Office bearers should be faithful in their task “so that due order may be restored (restituatur), that sound doctrine— elsewhere defined as ‘spiritual food’40 (spiritualis cibus)—may be heard and the worship of God found to be pure” (Dei cultus purus sit).41 Calvin feels confident of his case against the Catholic Church to the point that he not merely defends the Reformation against the former charge but goes on the offensive. It is necessary to “overthrow the whole of the papacy” (prosternere totum papatum) for the sake of the true Catholic Church’s restoration and renewal. Thus the church must be purged for the ————— 36

Comm. Mal 2:4, CO 44, 432–33. Cf. Comm. Hos 4:6, CO 42, 472. 38 Cf. Comm. Hos 5:10, CO 42, 310. 39 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:4, CO 44, 433. 40 Cf. Comm. Zech 13:3, CO 44, 347. 41 Comm. Mal 2:4, CO 44, 433. One cannot but help notice the close parallel these three objectives indicate with the three marks of the church, which Calvin knew Bucer had taught, namely, to ensure the teaching of pure doctrine, the right administration of church sacraments and the practice of church discipline. 37

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Authority and Limitation of Church Office

137

sake of restored order in the church, the preaching of the truth, and true dignity of pastors, reasons Calvin.42 One of Calvin’s main arguments in uprooting the Catholic theologians’ credibility is to dismiss their long-held claim and tradition that the Catholic Church’s clerical authority is built on apostolic succession.43 Calvin argues against the traditional Catholic teaching regarding its priestly (sacerdotal) view of the church and its ministry and office. The authority of the church is not tied up with the pope or priesthood but with the word of God, so that God will ever retain his (pre)-eminence over all people (emineat supra omnes mortales) because it is his will that He alone rule in the church even if through human ministers (sed vult solus in ea regnare hominum ministerio).44 Calvin concedes readily that church pastors are worthy of honor, albeit conditionally.45 Still, when applied to the papacy Calvin’s plain assessment is that the Catholics thieved their way into the claim of possessing apostolic authority by right of succession.46

6.4 Authority and Limitation47 of Church Office Authority and Limitation of Church Office With an eye toward the church’s restoration Calvin esteems the office in the church, especially that of the pastor in his role as a teacher.48 The apostolic, pastoral office is indispensable for the preservation of the church in this world, argues Calvin.49 —————

42 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:4, CO 44, 432–33. In this commentary too Calvin places the premium on the authority of church pastors, while leaving the office of elder entirely unmentioned. 43 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 442–43. See Mooi: 1965, 187. 44 Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 438. 45 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 438; See McDonnell: 1967, 542–56. Author observes that because Calvin feared the divinization of the church “Calvin is very careful not to attach or commit the Holy Spirit to any ecclesiastical office in any permanent way.” (Ibid., 543); de Kroon: 1996, 161. 46 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:5, CO 44, 433. Compare 2:9, CO 44, 438. 47 Compare Inst. 4.8.1–3. Calvin indicates that the church’s authority is limited with reference to things “doctrinal.” He calls this authority “spiritual…which is proper to the church. This, moreover, consists either in doctrine or in jurisdiction or in making laws…” (4.8.1). See also Inst. 4.8.2; 4.8.3. Here Calvin emphasizes that the honor and authority of the ecclesiastical office is derived only from divine calling to teach the Word of God and is therefore not based in the officers personally; Berkouwer: 1959, 189; Steinmetz: 1995, 205–06. Author discusses Calvin’s beliefs about the magistrates and their “inherent limitations of their power.” The author’s argument is that for Calvin both the church and civil authorities are servants (under God). 48 For example, see Comm. Zech 3:6–7, CO 44, 173. Compare with de Kroon: 1996, 161; Milner: 1970, 135. Refering to Calvin’s commentary on Ephsians 4:11 (CO 50, 199) Milner also observes that for Calvin the office of teacher in the church does not require such a person to also qualify as a pastor, the way a pastor must qualify in being able to teach (1970, 145–46n.2). 49 Zillenberger: 1993, 103n.377.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

138

Church Government and Administration

Speaking of the ancient priesthood and in light of the Catholic Church’s practices Calvin points out regularly how the office of the priesthood and teaching are inseparable (inseparabilia).50 Because of this high view of ecclesiastical calling Calvin takes aim at both the extreme Anabaptists (fanatici) as well as the Catholic Church when he warned in his commentary on Malachi 2:10 to keep God’s word as the highest norm and necessary means toward the reformation of the church.51 More specific than that Calvin applies this ancient example to the radical Anabaptists who satisfy themselves with “their dreams” (suis somniis) bypassing the word of God. They do not think they need any helps (adminiculis) despite their weakness. In effect “this is to seek God without the covenant or without the word.”52 In order to “make progress in God’s school and to be carried by degrees into heaven” God’s people need to remember that God must be worshipped through the covenant or word of God. As for the Catholics Calvin’s rebuke is similar in that—in his opinion— they argue for their authority on the account of the church fathers more than appealing to God who is “not to be separated from his word” (neque Deum velle a verbo suo divelli).53 For Calvin, “the [c]hurch’s only authority lies in the authority of holy scripture.”54 Speaking once more to the Anabaptists in reference to their alleged disregard for public preaching (praedicationem externam) of God’s word the reformer charges this lack of accountability to an objective norm as follows: …for many fanatics say, that there is no need of first elements, since God has promised that the sons of the church would be spiritual. Hence Satan by such delusions strives to lead us away from unadorned simplicity of doctrine. It is therefore necessary to set up this shield— that God is not displayed to us without Abraham, that is, without a prophet and interpreter. 55

Calvin’s primary concern behind his insights on the Minor Prophets is to prove from the Bible that a truly restored church needs to have ministers who instruct the people. The reformer’s esteem for the office of minister is such ————— 50

Cf. Comm. Mal 2:6, CO 44, 435. It is helpful to remember that Calvin is speaking not so much of the office all by itself as he is of the function of being a teacher in the church, which (function) technically applies to both pastor and teacher (doctor) in the church. 51 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:10, CO 44, 446. Note that Calvin does not distinguish between the various types of Anabaptists and their varied attitudes toward the authority of Scripture, such as that of Menno Simons. 52 Ibid. 53 Comm. Mal 2:10, CO 44, 446. 54 Parker: 1995, 141. See also page 145. 55 Comm. Mal 2:10, CO 44, 446. Calvin interprets the person of Abraham to function as a mediator through whom the ancient people of God gain access to God by virtue of the teachings of the covenant God established with Abraham.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Authority and Limitation of Church Office

139

that if one should try to silence (compescere) the prophets—who are spiritus sancti organa—this would mean that he or she “usurped to himself an authority over God himself.”56 Indeed, when people try to muzzle the Lord’s prophets they attempt to bind the Holy Spirit’s freedom. Moreover, when prophets can not freely proclaim what they must teach “it is the same thing as to reject wholly their doctrine.”57 Again one notes the close affinity Calvin sees between the ministry of the Spirit and the preached word of God. At the same time Calvin is no less hesitant to caution his audience against too great an esteem for church officials.58 He considers that the ancients’ respect for priests counting them as angels constitutes a danger in his own day that “is ever to be feared by us.”59 God does not relinquish his “office” (suas partes) when he entrusts it to priests and prophets, but permits such persons to only share in it, when he “connects himself with his servants” (coniungit se Deus cum servis suis).60 Instead, they ought to confine themselves “within the limits of [their] own call and office.”61 Honor goes with holding an office in the church but since God alone is worthy of all honor it is best to realize that they are nothing more than God’s ministers.62 Only the word of God remains sovereign.63 Therefore, for the church to be rightly ordered, the word of God alone can and must function in the church as its authoritative rule. To restore the church to its biblical and original order as exemplified in the early Christian church, and with the ancient church as a kind of Old Testament precursor, the word of God must have free reign. Scripture alone can and should bind people’s consciences, not people’s opinions nor the authority of church office.64 Church office and its authority remain conditional, “for the obligation, which has been mentioned, ought to be mutual. God is faithful.

————— 56

Comm. Mic 2:7, CO 43, 307. Comm. Amos 2:9–12, CO 43, 33. Compare Hesselink: 1997, 36. Section 30 (“The Pastors of the Church and Their Power”) states that when (faithful) pastors are “rejected [the Lord] is rejected.” However, the catechism states as a caveat that “that power which is allotted to pastors in Scripture is wholly bounded by the ministry of the Word. For Christ did not explicitly give this power to men but to his Word…”; de Kroon: 1996, 162n.22. 58 Compare with McKee: 2004, 10. 59 Comm. Mal 2:4, CO 44,432. 60 Comm. Mal 4:6, CO 44, 497; See also Comm. Haggai 1:12, CO 44, 94. Compare, de Kroon: 1996 161. 61 See Comm. Hos (Argument), CO 42, 197. 62 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 439–40. 63 Ganoczy: 1980, 626. 64 Compare also with Parker: 1995, 143. 57

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

140

Church Government and Administration

The priests also must not depart from being faithful in their office but should prove they are legitimate ministers of God.”65 In short, God is not Head of the church, except if He acts as the supreme and only teacher (summus et unicus doctor).66 The words his servants speak are authoritative but only because and in as far as they are identical with the message God delivered to them. God remains at all times the author of what his ministers merely teach.67 In other words, just as the prophets added nothing new to the revelation already received in the law of Moses—and their prophecies therefore nothing more but appendices68 to it—so must the contemporary prophets teach only what they received from God’s written word. Additionally, Calvin understands the authority of the office of a pastor as limited in the sense that the appointment to this office is public (publico munere).69 If the authority of pastors in the church is bound by these limitations than those priests placed in places of prominence in the church (sacerdotes eminent in ecclesia)70 are subject to discipline when they violate openly their office: …the priests ought by no means to be spared. When they sin only privately, though they may by bad examples corrupt the church, this may still somehow be tolerated.

—————

65 Comm. Mal 2:6, CO 44, 436. See also Zech 11: 4–6, CO 44, 302. Here Calvin also stresses the need for faithfulness in the minister of God patterned on the shepherding role God has performed continuously. 66 Comm. Mic 4:1–2, CO 43, 343. Compare Gassmann: 1968, 144. Author explains Calvin’s understanding similarly that while God uses ministers to govern his church “Gott der eigentlich Handelnde ist.” 67 Cf. Comm. Hag 1:12 (CO 44, 94) for Calvin’s carefully crafted explanation. “Scimus enim non ideo excitari divinitus homines qui loquantur, ut Deus ipse taceat. Quum ergo ministri doctrinae nihil Dei autoritati derogent, sequitur non nisi unum Deum audiendum esse. … Colligere igitur licet ex his verbis, non ideo regi externa verbi praedicatione ecclesiam, quasi Deus homines substituat in suum locum, atque ita se spoliet proprio officio: sed ut tantum per os ipsorum loquatur…Neque enim hic sermo Dei a prophetae verbis discernitur, quasi addiderit propheta quidquam de suo.” 68 Cf. Comm. Mal 4:4, CO 44, 493. 69 Incidentally, this does not mean the office does not have a private side to it, namely, when performing pastoral duties on an individual level. For this dual sense see Hughes: 1966, 36; Also Instruction Et Confession De Foy [“Des Pasteurs De L’Eglise, Et De Leur Puissance”], in Ioannis Calvini, Opera Omnia, vol. 2, 103. See Comm. Mal 2:6, CO 44, 435; Comm. Joel 1:13–15, CO 42, 526. Calvin here speaks of a public charge (“publicum onus”) which sets pastors apart from the common people; Also, Comm. Joel 2:28 (CO 42, 568) where Calvin makes a distinction among those who are prophets carrying a public office of teaching (“publico munere docendi”). These were people whom God called to teach as opposed to those who would be prophets (according to Joel’s prophecy) but who will be endued with much wisdom and insight in God’s truth, says Calvin. See for example: Comm. Amos 5:4–6, CO 43, 71; Amos 7:10–13 (CO 43, 132); Comm. Zech 1 :1–3, CO 44, 126 (“publicam personam”). Calvin makes no specific mention of the New Testament eldership here or anywhere in the Minor Prophets commentary. 70 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 440.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Authority and Limitation of Church Office

141

But when they corrupt and deprave sound doctrine and overthrow the order laid down in the law they deserve no special treatment.71

It is the biblical example that determines how Calvin views the conditional nature of the authority of the church office in his day.72 This is Calvin’s strong argument to dispel the Catholic reasoning that honor and authority of the office bearer is somehow imbedded in the office itself due to hereditary right or and succession as was given the Levites. Now that Christ has come it is God’s plan that pastors are called by the suffrage of the church (sufragiis ecclesiae).73 Consequently, ecclesial authority can no longer be based on hereditary succession as it was under the law. Therefore the Roman defense of its authority and right over the church has no basis in the Old Testament. Calvin alleges the Roman Church does this when they argue that Peter’s seat of primacy as bishop over Rome was extended similarly by hereditary right to the rest of the Roman bishops in that city as though this gave them the position of Head over the whole church.74 Years earlier Calvin’s calling and right to bear office in the church had been questioned (Du Tilliet75) because he had never been formally ordained. Now in the MP commentary the reformer counterattacks and argues the Roman ordination of priests is not of the ordination of Christ “nor anything like it” (neque ad eam accedit).76 Calvin’s main argument is that by defining their priestly task as “one who sacrifices Christ” (nempe qui —————

71 Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 440, “…iam nullo modo parcendum est sacerdotibus. Si privatim tantum peccarent, quamvis corrumperent malis exemplis ecclesiam, tamen hoc posset utcunque ferri: caeterum, ubi corrumpunt ac depravant puram doctrinam, ubi pervertunt ordinem in lege positum, nullam veniam merentur…” See also Hughes: 1966, 38–39. 72 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 438. 73 Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 442. This reference represents an example where Calvin has moved away from his sentiments expressed in the earlier edition of his Institutes (1539) as well as after his return to Geneva in 1541 that the city council calls the pastors to Geneva’s churches. See Speelman: 1994, 77. This author’s study focuses on the early years of Calvin’s ministry before and shortly after Calvin’s forced departure from Geneva in 1538. This may explain why Speelman’s thesis does not seem to reflect the development Calvin underwent in his thinking about church and state relationship. 74 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 442. On the dispute about apostolic succession of church office Calvin takes a step further back from the New Testament into the Old Testament, noting how the prophets forfeited their authority to speak for God as they violated their teaching ministry. This same error Calvin views as having taken place in the Church of Rome when its officers violate their teaching ministry. The latter is emphasized by Calvin in his: Inst. 4.4.1–3; 4.5.13; 4.8.9. 75 Cf. De Greef: 1989, 139–40. Author references: CO 10b, 241–245. 76 Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 443. See also Cottret: 2000, 120, 138. Author argues that Calvin validates his calling as received directly from God alone and is not conditional upon being ordained, anointed or the laying on of hands. Importantly, these seeming peculiarities must not be viewed as being in tension with Calvin’s statements drafted in the Church Order. Perhaps Calvin overstates his case against Cardinal Sadolet.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

142

Church Government and Administration

Christum immolat) daily, they rob Christ of his honor of being called a priest which was made official in him by an oath (iureiurando).77 The Roman priests’ daily sacrificing of Christ stands in contrast with what they ought to be instead—Christ’s “messengers and interpreters.”78 Additionally, a pastor who is not joined to a particular congregation to teach them God’s word is an anomaly to the reformer.79 Seeing that in the Catholic Church there were so many ecclesiastical dignitaries who did not teach God’s word, Calvin considers that to be a usurping of teaching authority (usurpant docendi potestatem) because strictly speaking the office to teach belongs to God alone.80 Combating what Calvin perceives as the kind of lawless liberty the Catholic clergy ascribe to themselves, he argues that there is in that church no freedom in teaching doctrine according to the word of God. Calvin demonstrates here too a conditional view of church office in which the office bearer’s authority is directly commensurate with the faithful adherence to scripture entrusted to them. “Let us then remember that God is not to be separated from his word, and that the authority of men is of no account, when they depart from it…”81 Church authority must of necessity be kept in check by no other authority than the word of God alone.82 According to Calvin it is not enough to merely be an office holder and not use it to teach doctrine. It is also important for Calvin to remind his listeners that the authority of those who teach in the church is not vested in their person but is directly predicated upon their faithfulness in teaching the word of God truthfully.83

6.5 Accountability of Office-Bearers Accountability of Office-Bearers What level of responsibility and involvement does Calvin reserve, if any, for the congregation in situations when a pastor’s ministry is in question? What role can it play in holding ministers of God accountable? Contrary to the system of government in the Catholic hierarchy of Rome in which the laity (and parish clergy) has no judicial power or ecclesiastical authority to ————— 77

Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 443. Cf. Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 443: “…eius nuntii et interpretes…” 79 This principle is outlined in Calvin’s Institutes (4.3.5. and 4.3.7.). See Hall and Hall: 1994, 78

64.

80 Cf. Comm. Mic 4:1–2, CO 43, 343: “…nam hoc proprie uni Deo tribuitur, quod docere velit populum suum.” 81 Comm. Mal 2:11, CO 44, 446. 82 Cf. Bohatec: 1950, 480; Also, Comm. Joel 1:1–4, CO 42, 518. 83 Cf. Milner: 1970, 135. Author quotes from the Inst. (4.8.2) and also Calvin’s commentary on II Cor. 13:8 (CO 50, 152) and II Cor. 10:8 (CO 50, 118).

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Accountability of Office-Bearers

143

retain or dismiss a pastor, Calvin admits that a local church can choose to retain or reject a pastor.84 When the “purification of the church” requires it a pastor who poses a danger should be removed (declinant) from his office— and this by “the church”85—but only through a “legitimate authority” (legitimo ordine).86 Calvin does not state specifically who are meant by this. Calvin could refer here to those he calls “ecclesiae praesides” or church rulers, who are “ministers of the Word” (verbi ministros).87 Is Calvin alluding to the Company of Pastors or the Consistory? In any case, given the fact that Calvin’s arguments are directly aimed at contradicting but also restoring the baneful practices in the Roman Catholic Church—by arguing for the church’s right to call a minister, to excommunicate or the right to depose a pastor—it is plausible to infer that Calvin’s admittedly veiled references to legitimate authoritative bodies of government apply more naturally to the (local) church’s consistory, rather than the civil magistrates.88 In the words of the reformer himself: “…legitimate means ought to be used, so that the church may reject all the ungodly…”89 It is safe to conclude that this type of disciplinary action against a church office-bearer is not determined just by congregational vote or merely by the city magistrate. Nevertheless, as was noted earlier Calvin appears to envision here a role for the congregation in which it renders its approval or approbation of the decision made by the consistory under supervision of the resident ministers. Calvin argues that when the majority (maior pars) in the church want to retain a pastor because he is not dangerous even—if he lacks respectability—then such persons must be tolerated as long as they “do not oppress the church with their tyranny, or to take to themselves what belongs to God alone, or to adulterate the worship of God or pure doctrine.”90 Pastors though appointed by God must rule the church, not by their own power (proprium dominium), but instead govern the church according to —————

84 Cf. Comm. Zech 3:6–7, CO 44, 174. See also McKee: 1989, 166. McKee suggests how Calvin went through a development in thinking how “church” came to mean something less “broad” than clergy and laity, but “council of elders” using the Sanhedrin as biblical justification (Mt.18:17). 85 Cf. Comm. Zech 3:6–7, CO 44, 174–75. Calvin appears to imply that the removal of a delinquent pastor is the church’s primary prerogative rather than that of the city government. 86 Ibid., CO 44, 174. 87 Ibid. 88 Support for this probability is fostered by the observation by Millet that the church’s elders do not function in Geneva—as opposed to Strasburg—as representatives of the civil magistrates (1992, 76). 89 Comm. Zech3:6–7, CO 44, 174. 90 Ibid.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

144

Church Government and Administration

God’s prescription and so that it is always God who is ruling even if he does it by means of people.91 Calvin draws a distinction between those who are in charge of the temple (pastores)—which includes all that has to do with the worship of God—and those who are overseers (aeditui) whom Calvin does not further identify.92 As far as Calvin is concerned the papacy disqualifies herself from her office to govern the church. Their priests do not walk in God’s ways as it pertains to the worship of God. The duties of pastors—according to their priestly office—are to “feed the flock, to discharge the office of pastors, and to administer the sacraments” (pascere gregem et defungi officio pastorum et sacramenta etiam administrare).93 Calvin calls this charge of the temple (worship) to the priest a “special honor” (praecipuus honor). However, when the priest is delinquent in terms of his duties and calling he forfeits his privileged status of deserving honor. Applied to the priests in the Roman Church Calvin observes that these “masked pastors” (larvatos pastores) should be excluded (debere excludi) from their office given their apostate and unfaithful behavior toward God. The reformer condemns their endeavors to destroy the church and labels them as “voracious wolves and spiritual tyrants and slaughterers” (lupi voraces et spirituales tyranni vel carnifices—Ibid.). In short, Calvin calls attention to the fact that the restoration of proper order in the church requires that clergy no less than laity are held accountable and the former if necessary dismissed from office. To hold office is not an inalienable right once one has been installed and ordained. Finally, Calvin discusses the limitations of church office in light of the Catholic priests who arbitrarily held people’s consciences bound by their misuse of ministerial authority. Calvin states: “for it is a pernicious evil to [use] tyrannical rule over the conscience.”94 A believer’s conscience may be held bound but by nothing else than what God’s word teaches through the agency of pastors.

————— 91

Cf. Comm. Zech 3:6–7, CO 44, 175. Calvin may well have had in mind the elders in the consistory in Geneva. Perhaps Calvin does not specifically mention the elders in his MP commentary because he realized that his ideal for a presbyterial form of church government and its implications vis-à-vis the civil magistrate— though formally accepted and reaffirmed—was still a sensitive issue inside Geneva. 93 Comm. Zech 3:6–7, CO 44, 175. 94 Comm. Hag 2:10–14, (note this text reference is Haggai 2:11–15 in CO 44, 110). 92

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Office of the Pastor

145

6.6 Office of the Pastor Office of the Pastor Among all of the four offices95 in the church Calvin gives priority to the pastoral office given its influence upon the affairs of the church.96 Calvin discusses the biblical pattern for the government of the church through an appeal to the early Christian church. With a sense of accomplishment Calvin exclaims about the pastoral office (pastorale munus) that “we have restored [it], both according to the apostolic rule and practice of the primitive church that every one who rules in the church shall also teach.”97 This citation from Calvin’s important work The Necessity of Reforming the Church highlights the fact that the Reformation aims to restore the church universal, not the establishment of a new church as an alternative to the church of Roman papacy.98 In his Minor Prophets lectures, however, Calvin appeals throughout to the ancient (Israelite) church era as the time in which the church is called to order its worship on the basis of the God’s revealed law. In order for the Old Testament (and New Testament) church to be restored this requires that those “who are priests or pastors in the church are to be teachers.”99 Pastors then and now need to be teachers of the word and as such they act as “organs of the Holy Spirit” (spiritus sancti organa).100 It appears that the Old Testament prophetic remarks in which the work of the priesthood is linked with the office of instruction, functions for Calvin as the source for his appeal to the apostolic church’s practice in his Supplex Exhortatio. One finds this emphasis in various locations in the Minor Prophets’ lectures. For example, Calvin argues that the main task of the priest’s office ————— 95

Calvin mentions the four offices in his Ordonnances (1541) patterned after Bucer and lists them in their priority. See B. Gassmann: 1968, 146, 148; See Runia who observes that in Calvin’s Institutes (1543 and 1559) the reformer mentions only three (1994, 103). 96 Fröhlich: 1930, 54; Wallace: 1988, 140; Runia: 1994, 103. Author’s observation concurs with this study’s findings that the lectures on the Minor Prophets devote no attention to the offices of elder and deacon despite their importance to Calvin’s overall concept or ideal for the church’s political organization. 97 Cf. Supplex Exhortatio, CO 6, 490. For appeal to the early Christian Church as paradigm for the church’s order see Calvin’s The Necessity of the Reformation of the Church, as well as his Institutes (4.4.1.). Note that teaching and preaching are synonymous for Calvin as McKee observes in her study of Calvin’s sermons on First Corinthians that “…all pastors must preach.” See McKee: 2004, 15. 98 See Ganoczy: 2004 9, 13. 99 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 438: “Haec igitur lex non potest aboleri, quin oporteat doctores esse, qui sacerdotes sunt vel pastores in ecclesia.” See also CO 44, 440. 100 Comm. Mic 2:7, CO 43, 307. See also Comm. Amos 3:1–2, CO 43, 36; Comm. Mal 1:2–6, CO 44, 408. Commenting on Zechariah 13:2 Calvin flat out denies the “papists” that they can claim to be “organs of the Spirit” (CO 44, 346).

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

146

Church Government and Administration

is to teach, when he claims that “teacher and priest are, as they say, almost convertible terms” (termini convertibiles).101 This didactic characterization of the office of the ancient priesthood has a pastoral, spiritual aim however, namely, “to preserve the people in piety and holy life.”102 The apostolic pattern indicates for Calvin that following Christ’s ascension and the ceasing103 of legal worship (Moasic law) in Jerusalem-following its destruction in 70 A.D.—the ancient office of prophet converges with that of the priest and king in the person of Christ.104 He considers both the ancient prophet as well as the priest to be teachers or interpreters of God’s law. Speaking to Zechariah 7:1–3 in the context of return from Babylonian exile to Jerusalem, Calvin interprets the text to say that the priests and prophets in Jerusalem serve as “ministers of his word” (verbi sui ministros).105 In fact, he argues that the prophetic task was “an extraordinary office” when God took others as the ministers of his word in addition to priests.106 Calvin suggests that God bypassing the priests judges them “by transferring the work of teaching to others” (transferret docendi munus ad alios).107 Furthermore, what is new and different about that alteration in God’s rule over his people is that unlike the priests, prophets “were taken from the common people” and not from the tribe of Levi.108 In other words, it became necessary for God to appoint prophets when priests neglected to fulfill their calling in teaching the people. It appears that in Calvin’s opinion the work of the priests was most importantly to teach the people and not their performance in ceremonial worship through sacrifice and offerings. What Calvin does not make clear is if he thinks this change by which lay people could become part of the ordained ministry at that time foreshadows the terminal break with the levitical priesthood at Christ’s first advent.109 ————— 101

Comm. Hos 4:6, CO 42, 275. Comm. Hos 4: 9–10, CO 42, 279. 103 Cf. Comm. Joel 2:28, CO 42, 568: “…cessavit totus ille cultus legalis…” 104 Cf. Comm. Zech 3:5, CO 44, 172. See also Ganoczy: 1968, 133–34. 105 Comm. Zech 7: 1–3, CO 44, 220. 106 Cf. Ibid., CO 44, 220: “…fuisse propheticum munus quasi extraordinarium…” Contra Ganoczy: 1968, 133–34. Author finds it significant that Calvin does not seem to emphasize the importance of Christ’s office as prophet when compared with his office of priest and king (“Wir stellen fest, dass Calvin fast nie das himmlische Prophetenamt Christi erwähnt.”). This does not take into account the argument that the office of prophet was to Calvin born out of need and therefore extraordinary, and also that both the priestly and prophetic offices are both viewed by him as primarily didactic rather than liturigical and ceremonial. See earlier discussion (Part II, Ch. 4. E., David’s Kingdom, 137–38). 107 Comm. Zech 7:1–3, CO 44, 220. 108 Ibid. Compare Milner: 1970, 141n.2. 109 Compare with Ganoczy who explains Calvin’s approach to the question of the “center and whole of Scripture” in relation to Christ in that Calvin takes seriously the prefiguration of Christ’s 102

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Office of the Pastor

147

In Calvin’s Minor Prophets’ commentary God models “the office of a good and faithful shepherd towards the Jews” (officio boni et fidi pastoris).110 Had the Jews who at last went into exile not renounced God, he “would have been otherwise their perpetual shepherd” (perpetuus pastor).111 Given God’s paternal care for his church Calvin points to Christ—who rather than the Pope—is not only the sole Head of the church but also the true Shepherd of the church. Commenting on Micah 5:4, Calvin highlights the pastoral role and manner in which Christ rules his church. That example stands in stark contrast with what he views as tyrannical behavior by Catholic clergy. Ministerial authority needs to be limited directly to the performance of one’s office in faithfulness to God and his word. The negative example of this Calvin observes in the Roman church when it (falsely) imbues its members with a sense of fear of God rather than leading people to trust in Christ’s favor on them. However, God rules his church very differently from those who thus tyrannize in the church. In the person of Christ God acts like a shepherd who acts gently towards his sheep.112 Consequently, the nature of the ruling office in the church is not to domineer but to act out one’s duty as God’s servant by teaching his word. On the other hand if like the ancient priests, clergy today domineer without restraint they show—according to Calvin—that they are not “God’s lawful priests” in the first place.113 To be sure there is biblical precedent for callings or appointments that are exceptions to the rule, namely, that God ordinarily chooses those to be teachers over his people who have had an education.114 In addition to the unconventional call of Amos and Micah’s unique powerful presence,115 Calvin also cites how Christ himself chose “rude and ignorant men” (rudes ————— priesthood patterned on the levitical priesthood as found in the letter to the Hebrews (NT). See author’s “Hermeneutische Korrelationenm bei Calvin,” (1980, 616). 110 Comm. Zech 11: 4–6, CO 44, 302. 111 Comm. Zech 10:3, CO 44, 288. 112 Cf. Comm. Mic 5:4, CO 43, 371. 113 Cf. Comm. Zech 3:6–7, CO 44, 174: “Qui ergo sine fraeno dominari volunt, satis hoc uno demonstrant se non esse legitimos Dei sacerdotes…” 114 Comm. Amos 7:14–15, CO 43, 136–37. Calvin views seminaries as fulfilling the same purpose as the ancient “colleges” namely that there “might be always seminaries for the Church of God, so that it might not be destitute of good and faithful teachers…” Ibid., CO 43, 137. 115 According to Calvin’s evaluation of God’s call to Micah this was confirmed “with a power so rare and so extraordinary” (“rara et incredibili virtute”), see Comm. Mic 3:8, CO 43, 328. In this instance Calvin’s opinion may be colored by his own experience, since he himself had receieved no formal theological training nor was he ordained to the Catholic priesthood nor afterwards as a Reformed office bearer. Instead, the council of Geneva hired and appointed Calvin first as Bible lecturer and subsequently as one of the city’s pastors.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

148

Church Government and Administration

homines et idiotas—Ibid.).116 Nevertheless, granting that levitical or apostolic succession is no longer the ground upon which one is called to fulfill the biblical office of priesthood today, everyone who does claim to possess honor of church office can not seize upon it; “a call is necessary” (requiritur vocatio).117 This too is to protect the lawful order of the church (ordine legitima in ecclesia).118 When God does call persons and appoints them to office (whether in the regular or extraordinary manner) those who are “faithful teachers” (fidos doctores) God “rules by his Spirit and fits them for their rank and station.”119 Finally, but no less important is Calvin’s insistence that pastors be joined with a congregation. Calvin observes how many priests in the Roman Catholic Church assumed the title of pastor yet had no congregation to care for. This is what the reformer militates against as, for example, in his commentary on Zechariah 11:15–16, when he calls it more absurd (magis absurdum) when there are those who are made pastors but yet who have “no flock under their care” (nullam curam gregis sustinent).120 The duties of the pastor concentrate on his capacity to teach God’s word to the people. In his lectures on the Minor Prophets, Calvin takes the levitical priesthood as the Old Testament pattern (exemplar)121 for the pastor in the Christian church.122 Levites were the “teachers of the church” (ecclesiae magistri).123 This does not mean that teaching doctrine is their exclusive task. Even though instruction has the main emphasis in Calvin’s thinking, he is also well aware that Old Testament priests were called “to be teachers of religion and of uprightness” (italics mine).124 And as “advocates” (patroni) they were to plead the cause of the people as though they were intercessors (mediatores) in order to reconcile the sinful people to God125 and to “correct what the people did amiss.”126 —————

116 Comm. Amos 7:14–15, CO 43, 137. One wonders if part of Calvin’s argumentation on Amos 7:14–15 is also not autobiographical, especially in light of his comment about the way Amos was as it were given his office not “by human authority, and in the usual way, but that he had been led to it as it were by force (“violenter”)…” (Comm. Amos 7:14–15, CO 43, 136). 117 While in exile in Strasburg, note Calvin’s defense of being truly called to bear church office in Geneva (“ministerium meum”) as teacher (doctor) as a “legitimate vocation.” See Calvin’s reply to Cardinal Jac. Sadolet (CO 5, 386). 118 Comm. Amos 7:14–15, CO 43, 136. 119 Comm. Zech 13:7, CO 44, 355. 120 Comm. Zech 11: 15–16, CO 44, 318. 121 Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 440. 122 It is noteworthy that Calvin does not quote strategically from the New Testament Pauline Epistles to bolster his argument. Evidently, for Calvin the Old Testament when rightly interpreted teaches what the New Testament spells out in more detail. 123 Comm. Mal 2:5, CO 44, 434. 124 Comm. Mal (Preface), CO 44, 394. 125 Cf. Comm. Mal 1:9, CO 44, 416.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Office of the Pastor

149

It is especially with regard to Calvin’s comments about the ancient priesthood and to some degree the prophets, that the reformer’s critical judgments about the deformation of the pastoral office in the Catholic Church surface. Calvin states with confidence: “[w]e therefore boldly attempt to subvert the whole of the papacy” in order to purge or cleanse the church.127 Nothing less will suffice but that “order in the church, the preaching of the truth, and the very dignity of pastors” can exist.128 Instead of claiming authority of office as though it could be taken away from God, a “true pastor” (verus pastor) is ruled by God’s Spirit and is as such his servant.129 Calvin summarizes what he thinks are the duties and characteristics (notae) of a “good pastor” (boni pastoris): Whosoever wants to be acknowledged as a good pastor in the church, must visit those who have been cut off, seek after the young, strive to heal the wounded, and feed well the sound and the vigorous; and he must also abstain from every kind of cruelty, and he must not be given to the indulgence of his appetite, nor regard gain, nor exercise any tyranny. Whosever will thus conduct himself will prove that he is really a true pastor.130

From this it is apparent that Calvin translates ecclesiastical “authority” into pastoral language.131 Church authority ought to be identified with the shepherding role God has entrusted to pastors by which they care for the people. In short, in the biblical pastor the office of prophet and priest come together.132

————— 126

Comm. Mal 2:1–2, CO 44, 427. Comm. Mal 2: 4 CO 44, 433: “Nos ergo audacter possumus prosternere totum papatum hac fiducia…”; See also Comm. Zech 13:2, CO 44, 344. Here Calvin notes that the church can only be formed rightly when it removes all superstitions. One gets the sense that when Calvin speaks of the church needing reform he is speaking about the church in its catholic sense, rather than just the papal hierarchy. 128 Comm. Mal 2: 4 CO 44, 433. Compare also with Comm. Mic 3:11–12, CO 43, 333–34. Here Calvin charges Catholic priests who think that they meet their duties by merely attending to “ceremonies” at the altar. In so doing they neglect the office of teaching (“reliquerunt docendi munus”). 129 Cf. Comm. Zech 11:15–16, CO 44, 318: “Neque enim ullus est verus pastor, nisi quem Dominus gubernat suo spiritu et qui eius est minister.” 130 Ibid. This example of Calvin’s sensitive description of a good pastor does not comport with Reynolds’s caricature of Calvin’s style as “totally self-absorbed,” and “draconian”, et cetera. “Calvin’s Exegesis of Jeremiah and Micah: Use or Abuse of Scripture?” (1991, 81–91); similarly biased is A. Adam quoted in Opitz: 1994, 102n18. For a balanced view see Wright: 1997, 3–19. 131 For Calvin’s emphasis on the pastoral character of that office we refer the reader to Wallace: 1988, 168ff.. 132 Reid: 1982, 65, 68. 127

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

150

Church Government and Administration

6.7 Divine Discipline133 Divine Discipline It is well-known that while Calvin does not state “church discipline” as a third mark of a true church he considers this aspect in the life and government of the church as indispensable.134 Throughout the MP commentary Calvin shows that he understands God’s discipline (disciplina) as an alternate method by which God teaches (doctrina) his people obedience not by the proclaimed word of God but by his providence.135 In other words—in a commentary on Hosea 9:7—God normally teaches by way of his revealed words. However, when that does not have its intended effect God will eventually “taken them to another school, where [He] teaches not by mouth but by the hand.”136 This vital codependence between doctrine (teaching) and discipline seems to be the reason and intention behind Calvin’s admonition that nothing should be changed in the discipline of the church.137 Still, the question remains what Calvin understood by spiritual discipline.138 After all, Calvin never once specifically mentions “church discipline” in his commentary on the Minor Prophets.139 While this is true, there is no question that Calvin thinks of divine discipline as taking place inside the boundaries of the church. This marks an area of spiritual duty which God entrusts to the church through its influence over its members.140 —————

133 For contrasting views on the question if Calvin views church discipline as one of the marks of the church see especially Plomp’s dissertation De Kerkelijke Tucht bij Calvijn (Kampen, 1969) and De Vries Kerk en Tucht bij Calvijn (Capelle a/d Ijssel, n.d.). Wendel suggests that Calvin’s views on church discipline continue the ideas of Oecolampadius and Bucer (1965, 298); On Bucer’s influence on Calvin with regard to church discipline, see D.G. Bloesch: 1970, 77. Author notes that unlike Bucer Calvin does not expressly state that church discipline is one of the marks of the church. 134 Cf. Inst. 4.10.27., CO 2, 887. Calvin describes the laws that govern the church as “sinews” (“nervis”) without which the Church will become deformed. Ph. Melanchthon uses the same imagery. 135 Cf. Trimp: 1981, 68–70. Author cites Calvin’s reference to Obadiah 21, CO 43, 200, in Media Vita, 69n.167. 136 Comm. Hos 9:7, CO 42, 391. Compare with Hos 10:3, CO 42, 412. Compare Blacketer: 2006, 43–44). 137 Cf. Comm. Mal 4:4, CO 44, 493–94: “…non est cur hoc praetextu mutetis quidquam in regimine ecclesiae.”; See also Walker: 1984, 121 138 Cf. Comm. Mic 6:4, CO 43, 388. Here Calvin compares the calling of Aaron as pertaining to the priesthood or spiritual government (“spirituali regimine”) to Moses who is the servant called to uphold “civil order” (“politico ordine”). 139 There is one reference to “ecclesiasticum regimen” and the question is whether this in fact translates into “church discipline” as does the edition by the Calvin Translation Society (CTS: 1993, 350. For references by Calvin to “church discipline” (“ecclesiae disciplina” or “disciplina ecclesiae”) see: Inst. 4.1.16; 4.3.14; especially 4.12.1–11. 140 Cf. Comm. Zech 3:6–7, CO 44, 173: “…Deus…commendat ecclesiae suae regimen.”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Divine Discipline

151

True, Calvin speaks regularly about the Lord’s “paternal discipline” and how he chastised the ancient church for its unfaithfulness toward his law and covenant. Nevertheless, it remains unclear why the reformer does not mention also, for example, the “power of the keys of the church” in his MP commentary as he does in his Institutes141 and occasionally in other biblical commentaries.142 6.7.1 Necessity: Church is Weak In the Institutes (1559), Calvin shows that in addition to the “saving doctrine of Christ” (salvifica Christi doctrina) discipline in the church is indispensable due to the church’s constant need to maintain and preserve its order and unity.143 The same concern prevails in the reformer’s comments in his lectures on the Minor Prophets.144 However, Calvin discusses church discipline in his exegesis from the perspective of God who allows his church to be chastised (due to sin) in order to restore it, while at the same time using the experience to preserve and defend his church until the Consummation. In other words, Calvin treats church discipline much less as the formal method used to censure delinquent church members, than to view it as spiritual pedagogue by which the faithful overcome the struggle and prepare for their union with Christ in glory. Calvin’s broad view of spiritual discipline makes sense in light of the variety in meaning of the term disciplina in his works.145 At the same time, the reformer leaves no doubt in his commentary on the Minor Prophets why God uses discipline. The context is almost always the unfaithfulness of the people of God provoking his displeasure. God’s “frequent scourges” (multis Dei ferulis) ————— 141

Inst. 4.1.22, CO 2, 762–63; G.C. Berkouwer: 1959, 368–74. E.g. Comm. Jer 6.20, CO 37, 662; Comm. Harmony of the Gospels (Matt 16:19), CO 45, 475; Comm. Acts 13: 39, CO 48, 307. 143 In Inst. 4.12.1. (CO 2, 905, 906) Calvin speaks of discipline both as “sinews” (“nervis”) and as a “remedy” (“remedium”). Still other metaphors used by Calvin are: “bridle,” “spur,” and “rod”; Also see Nijenhuis: 1972, 117; Hedtke: 1969, 118. Author notes that if it were granted that Calvin does not make church discipline a third mark of the true church, then still it is “für die Kirche von lebenswichtiger Bedeutung.” 144 For an example of Calvin’s numerous allusions to church discipline see: Comm. Zech 13:9, CO 44, 358: “…assidue purgari, quia toti immundi sumus.” Compare with Walker: 1984, 226. 145 See Trimp: 1981, 68–70. It seems evident that for Calvin church discipline is much more comprehensive than the simple application of biblical principle prescribed, for example, in the gospel according to Matthew 18. God ever disciplines his church when he calls it to submit to its teaching of his Word. Perhaps this also explains why Calvin does not feel the need to specifically link formal (church) discipline with the Lord’s Supper in the MP commentary for the sake of guarding the sanctity of the sacrament the way he does elsewhere (Inst., 4.12.5). Compare also McNeill: 1984, 114; Plomp: 1969, 145; Busch: 1997, vol. 2, 231–232n.32. 142

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

152

Church Government and Administration

are necessary to accomplish the church’s restoration.146 Without them “the church can not be rightly formed.”147 The immediate cause for God’s discipline is that the ancient Israelites prove to be obstinate (obstinatio in Israelitis).148 Admittedly, it is not always clear whether Calvin speaks of the adverse spiritual condition within the churches committed to the Reformation or if he speaks of the Catholic Church or perhaps both. One thing is beyond dispute that both the Reformation churches and the churches represented in the Catholic Church hierarchy, are just like the ancient church subject to God’s acts of discipline. Calvin admits that even though the light of the gospel shines once again in his day in the churches of the Reformation there is much left to be desired. 149 As has been noted already Calvin does not believe the church’s responsibility to order and govern its own life ought to be relinquished (totally) to the city-state government, such as was the practice in Germany.150 The end result of that arrangement was—in the reformer’s opinion—that eventually, there was no church discipline left.151 Instead, the lines of demarcation are drawn to distinguish (without severing) what is the competency of the state in its responsibility toward the church, namely, to act as “patrons of religion and supporters of the church” (patronos religionis, et nutritios ecclesiae) and thus “render free the worship of God” (ad cultum Dei asserendum). When princes and others in authority are given too much power in things spiritual (qui faciunt illos nimis spiritualis)

————— 146

Comm. Hos 2:17, CO 42, 246. Comm.Hos 2:17, CO 42, 246: “…non posse bene reformari ecclesiam, nisi formata ad obsequium fuerit multis Dei ferulis…” In this passage Calvin speaks of the church that is reformed as a “novum populum,” indicating that he is not thinking of the Reformation churches as a kind of new beginning of the church, replacing the Catholic church. “New” means “renewed” according to biblical example for Calvin. 148 Comm. Hos 2:7, CO 42, 232. However, one must be careful to consider that the formal church discipline Calvin reserves for the local consistory to enact is also organically part and parcel of the life long process by which God disciplines his church in its pilgrimage through this world. 149 Cf. Comm. Amos 1:3–5, CO 43, 9. The time of Amos was “aureum saeculum”, whereas Calvin views his own time as “hodie res magis corruptae”; see Comm. Amos 1:6–8, CO 43, 11; 2:6, CO 43, 23 ; 8:11–12, CO 43, 153: “hodie…parum reverenter maior pars hominum excipiat coelestem doctrinam”; Comm. Joel 2:30–31, CO 42, 572–73. 150 This comment would apply also to the Zwinglian dominated cities of Zürich, Basel, Bern, and Schaffhausen, in which the Christian magistrates apply discipline instead of a separate ecclesiastical court as Calvin envisioned. See Baker: 1988, 107–08. Author shows how Calvin’s effort to establish an ecclesiastical court independent of the civil courts finds its historical antecedent in the (failed) attempts of Oecolampadius, 110. 151 Cf. Comm. Amos 7:10–13, CO 43, 135: “...ut nullum sit amplius ecclesiasticum…” 147

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Divine Discipline

153

one ends up seeing all church discipline disappear.152 From these comments it is clear enough that on the issue of the right to excommunicate church members Calvin advocates a limited but certain sphere of independence instead of dependence on the state’s overall jurisdiction and counsel. 6.7.2 Character of Discipline: Paternal The reformer’s comments on Hosea 11:4 (“I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love:…”) say a great deal about Calvin’s understanding of the nature of divine discipline. God’s government over his people is a gubernationem humanam.153 God’s manner of governing his people is not the same as how one treats either slaves or animals, but rather the way a father treats his children. Calvin identifies God’s “paternal discipline” and “paternal favor” with “forebearance” (clementia).154 Yet, this initially patient and non-severe approach toward Israel was to no avail. It is not as though God made the task to obey him out of their reach, argues Calvin. God even lifted the yoke by carrying it on his own.155 In this respect God shows himself again to be unlike earthly kings, who are inclined to burden the people. Calvin concludes that when God acted toward Israel like a father toward his children he did not achieve his intended goal, namely, to see if there was in them “any meekness or docility.” Evidently, Israel’s spiritual condition was such that they were blind to God’s favors toward them.156 A decisive factor why God feels forced to reprove his people often is not merely due to the sins his people commit, but also because of the very weakness of human nature. 157 Israel as a whole is being made ready for its dismissal as God’s uniquely favored people. Despite God’s patience the “whole body of the people” (totum corpus populi) will be dismissed because Hosea—according to Calvin—is unsuccessful.158 —————

152 Comm. Amos 7:10–13, CO 43, 135. Incidentally, on this same text Calvin reveals a rare personal expression of disagreement regarding King Henry VIII of England. Calvin states: “…et hoc me semper graviter vulneravit…quum vocarent ipsum summum caput ecclesiae sub Christo,” in CO 43, 134). 153 Comm. Hos 11:4, CO 42, 436. 154 Comm. Hos 11:4, CO 42, 437. See also Inst. 4.12.1. 155 Cf. Comm. Hos 11:4, CO 42, 437. 156 Cf. Comm. Hos 11:4, CO 42, 437. 157 Cf. Comm. Hos 2:2, CO 42, 223; See Comm. Hos. 4:1–2, CO 42, 266; 5:13, CO 43, 314. 158 Cf. Comm. Hos 14:1–2, CO 42, 498. See also Comm. Hos 1:2, CO 42, 202. In this passage Calvin places the word “incurable” side by side with “almost past recovery” intimating to the reader that his words cannot be taken in an absolute sense necessarily; Also: Comm. Hos 7:10, CO 42, 350; 8:9–10, CO 42, 374; 9:9, CO 42, 396; 11:3, CO 42, 435. Compared with the other books of the Minor Prophets, these select examples from Hosea suggest that in this prophetic book Calvin particularly stresses the idea that spiritually the church situation was poor, especially

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

154

Church Government and Administration

Calvin takes special aim at the ancient priests who due to their delinquency in their office are worthy of discipline. In his comment on Malachi 2:9, Calvin notes that the ancient priests and God’s repudiation of their disobedience serves as a “pattern” (examplar) for the church “today” when God places pastors over his people.159 Calvin asks whether what is required of the ancient priests (i.e. conditions for being one) also pertains to the “state and discipline of the Christian church” (statum et gubernationem christianae ecclesiae).160 Calvin shows how his own ecclesiastical context explains his concerns. For his immediate answer is that the leadership in the Roman Church are unwilling to be restricted in their freedom to rule as they please.161 Reflections like this and others suggest that at this particular juncture in Calvin’s thoughts on the life of the church those who bear office as pastors need to grasp the nature of their office so that God’s rule or discipline over his church might be accomplished instead of opposed. 6.7.3 Motive: Divine Protection The motive for God’s “paternal discipline” (paterna disciplina) is once again God’s fatherly love and care for his (remnant) church.162 In this respect Calvin reflects the influence of Bucer who sees love as the motive behind (church) discipline.163 It is important to realize that Calvin never tires to mention that God’s actions toward Israel and the church occur in the context of God defending and protecting his church in ancient history and as it is being restored under the light of the gospel through the Reformation. The reformer readily—though not always overtly—applies the biblical text to his time. In a comment on Nahum 1:11, Calvin admits that judgment on enemy nations are testimony to God’s paternal love for his church. To observe that “our enemies” are destroyed by God is “indeed gratifying and pleasing.”164 But, it is only a “cold and barren comfort,” (frigidum est et ————— among the Israelites, but among the Jews as well, even if they are not equally impure by this time in history. On Amos 2:6 (Amos like Hosea had been sent to the ten tribe Israelites) Calvin says that both the Israelites and Jews’ diseases were “incurable” and “hopeless” but that at this time the Jews’ religion was still “purer” in comparison. Calvin see the condition of the church in his time as similar to the Israelites (Cf. Comm. Amos 2:6, CO 43, 23). 159 Cf. Comm. Mal 2:9, CO 44, 440. 160 CO 44, 441. 161 Cf. Ibid. 162 Comm. Hos 11:4, CO 42, 136; See also: Comm. Nah.1:11, CO 43, 450; 2:9, CO 43, 467; Richel: 1942, 217n.3. Author indicates that for Calvin the primary motive for church discipline is not the interest of the church or people, but to hold high the name of God and his honor (“glorie”). 163 Cf. Van’t Spijker: 1987, 70. 164 Comm. Nah 1:11, CO 43, 450.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Divine Discipline

155

ieiunum solatium) unless a person is convinced (persuasi sumus) that this divine judgment on the enemies is done because God loves his people and embraces them. This explains why he acts as the church’s defender (patronus est ecclesiae suae).165 To have this knowledge of God we possess victory even when we endure tremendous trial (iam triumphamus etiam in extremis malis).166 Moreover, God’s evidences of his love, grace and care for the salvation of his people give certainty of salvation (certi de salute nostra).167 Additionally, Calvin explains that the prophets as God’s ministers need to possess a certain disposition toward their office. Those who are “teachers” in the church must possess two qualities or feelings (duos affectus) just like the prophet Amos displayed. His ministry shows that he was both severe (regidus) and “at the same time he pitied the people” (sed interim misertus est populi) when he pleaded their cause before God.168 The dominant theme appears to be that God uses extreme patience while suffering rejection from his people. This does not mean that God’s patience is endless, because when God at long last concludes that the people will not repent he proceeds “to the last punishment”169 also known by Calvin as the “last remedy” (extremum remedium170), namely, when there are no remedies left.171 It is safe to infer that for Calvin excommunication is the Christian church’s equivalent to the times in the Old Testament when God cut himself loose (temporarily) from his covenant agreement with the northern ten tribes of Israel first and eventually the kingdom of Judah too as a last resort to incline his people toward repentance and loyalty toward him. 6.7.4 Purpose: Remedial The reformer depicts discipline often in terms of “scourges” or “chastisements” (ferulis) as the way by which the Lord “creates a new ————— 165

Comm. Nah 1:11, CO 43, 450. See also Comm. Nah 2:9, CO 43, 467: “…paterni Dei amoris erga ecclesiam suam…” 166 Comm. Nah 1:11, CO 43, 450. 167 Ibid. 168 Comm. Amos 7:1–3, CO 43, 121. 169 Cf. Comm. Hos 1: 8–9, CO 42, 215: “…ad ultimam vindictam progreditur.” 170 Comm. Hos 4:5, CO 42, 272. 171 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:2, CO 42, 202; 7:10, CO 42, 350; 8:5, CO 42, 368. These are just a few examples of the numerous passages in which Calvin describes the spiritual condition as a disease which proves in the end to be incurable and necessitating Israel’s demise as the unique people of God among the gentile nations. See also Inst. 4.12.4., CO 2, 906: “severius remedium”; Inst. 4.12.6., CO 2, 909: “acriore remedio”. Cf. Richel: 1942, 217.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

156

Church Government and Administration

people for himself” (creat sibi novum populum).172 For the people of God— both those addressed as a body and those among them who are God’s “faithful”173—these punishments serve a remedial purpose. For Calvin the bigger picture is that through these unfortunate but necessary experiences God restores his church, for instance, when he promises through Hosea that he will renew the marriage-covenant with Israel.174 More importantly, Calvin says, the new-marriage (novum coniugium) as opposed to the former one will be durable (durabilem statum), in other words “fixed and unchangeable” (stabili firmaque).175 Furthermore, Israel’s judgment through exile is the means to open the door for the gospel to reach the Gentiles.176 Generally speaking, God sends his judgments on Israel in order to restore his people and to recover his people from their sins.177 In a comment on Amos 4.4–6, Calvin opines that “the purpose of punishment is to turn men to be obedient to God.”178 In other places the reformer notes that its aim is to return to the “pure worship of God” (se reciperet ad purum Dei cultum).179 God sends his purgatio to make his church submissive to him (decrevit ecclesiam suam cruce domarum) so that it can pray to him.180 It is necessary that the people who experience God’s painful punishments come to him “by faith alone” (sola fide) because they must have not just a fear of God’s holy ————— 172

Comm. Hos 2:17, CO 42, 246. This does not mean that those who are the remnant had kept themselves free from violating God’s covenant and laws regarding proper worship. Based on Calvin’s comment on Zechariah 13:5 he indicates that these people (prophets/teachers) humble themselves in repentance (unlike the rest who are always the majority according to Calvin) and confess their ignorance (Cf. CO 44, 352). 174 Cf. Comm. Hos 2:17, CO 42, 246. Calvin also makes mention of “new people” in his commentary on Hosea 1:10, CO 42, 218; 2:19–20, CO 42, 252; 2:21–22, CO 42, 253. Also compare Comm. Amos 2:9–12 (CO 43, 28). Here Calvin uses the phrase “nova gens” on account of the fact that after God so mercifully defeated the Amorites the Israelites ought to have responded in obedient greatfulness but didn’t. It seems that Calvin believes that every time God saves his people (church) they ought to be as it were “a new people” by which is meant renewed rather than something newly created. This concept of being a “new people” (“novus populus”) applies especially to the remnant church (“superstitem ecclesiae”) who will return from exile. See Comm. Mic 4:6–7, CO 43, 354. In reference to Pentecost (Acts 2) Calvin speaks of a “new people” God created from the Jews. Cf. Comm. Zech 12: 12–14, CO 44, 340; 13:6, CO 44, 352. 175 Comm. Hos 2:19–20, CO 42, 249. Calvin does not make clear in this passage why the “new marriage” covenant will be permanent. Since the nature of the new covenant people does not change the reformer seems to place the weight for this claim in the promissory nature of God’s words to the prophet Hosea. 176 Cf. Comm. Zech 10:9, CO 44, 296. 177 For example, see Calvin’s comments in: Comm. Zeph 3:19, CO 44, 75); Comm. Zech 1:1– 3, CO 44, 128: “Ita videmus nihil excusationis posse afferri coram Deo, nisi aptamus in usum nostrum poenas omnes quibus nos revocat peccatis.” 178 Comm.Amos 4:4–6, CO 43, 59. 179 Comm. Hos 10:1, CO 42, 409. See also Comm. Zech 13:9, CO 44, 359. Here Calvin blames the ruinous effects of (material) prosperity requiring God’s trials because prosperity is like rust. 180 Comm. Zech 13:9, CO 44, 359. 173

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Divine Discipline

157

presence but even more important they need to know what it is like when God “gives them a taste of his goodness and love” (gustum praebet bonitatis suae et amoris).181 In sum, the Lord sends painful experiences in the life of the church in order to have his church continually “washed by his Spirit” (suo spiritu abluit) since believers remain unclean in many ways.182 The great difference Calvin wants his audience to remember is that the people of God— compared to the non-elect who face eternal destruction—suffer under God’s judgments only for a limited time (ad tempus).183 6.7.5 Method: Gradual Calvin distinguishes church discipline as spiritual in distinction from civil discipline by the magistrate which is only punitive and retributive.184 This remedial understanding of church discipline—which Israel still experiences as punitive—aims therefore always at the restoration of the penitent and believing sinner in the fellowship of the church.185 God’s approach to disciplining his people is to apply intensifying degrees of punishment aimed at their restoration.186 For Calvin divine discipline is part and parcel of the process of God teaching his people. Therefore, to be a true disciple one is not conceited but is willing “to be taught by God.”187 God does this through the verbal instruction (first through priests and by default the prophets after them) and when Israel refuses to heed it he applies various degrees of punishment to remedy their ————— 181

Comm. Zech 13:9, CO 44, 360. Comm. Zech 13:9, CO 44, 358. 183 Comm. Nah 1:15, CO 43, 456. 184 Richel: 1942, 218. See also Walker: 1984, 227. Calvin does not specifically distinguish in his commentary on the MP between the more benign discipline that applies to the laity versus the more strict discipline reserved for church office-bearers. See Inst. 4.12.22. (1543) as cited by Van Eck: 1992, 228n.107. However, Calvin’s emphasis on the divine discipline of ancient Israel’s office-bearers indicates the reformer’s ideal that office-bearers in his day must also be held to a higher standard than the rest of the population in Geneva. 185 Richel: 1942, 219. This explains why according to Calvin the spiritual reformation of the Christian’s life (church discipline) belongs to the jurisdiction of the church rather the state whose tasks it to merely punish those who have transgressed its laws. 186 The best example where Calvin explains the incremental or gradual nature of divine discipline of the ancient church is found in his comments on Hosea 1, in which the naming of Hosea’s three children by Gomer suggests the gradual sequence of God disciplining the Israelites (north). Cf. Comm. Hos 1:3–4, CO 42, 207f; 1:5–6, CO 42, 209–211; 1: 8–9, CO 42, 215. However, Calvin refrains here (too) from making any New Testament cross-references. 187 Cf. Comm. Zech 4:1–6, CO 44, 184: “…docilem praebeat Deo.” 182

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

158

Church Government and Administration

spiritual condition. In divine teaching reproof and kindness are not mutually exclusive. [W]hen God sees that we are not submissive enough…He strengthens his instruction by chastisements. Initially, when He allures us at first to himself he uses loving and kind invitations. But when He sees us delaying or even going back he begins to treat us more roughly and more severely. In fact, teaching without the goads of reproof is cold.188

God’s method is to apply his discipline gradually.189 God does not use “extreme justice” (extremo iure) before he has first applied “paternal moderation” (paterna moderatione).190 Even when God does use painful afflictions he still uses moderation because he knows that the people would not be able to sustain it if he “purified them to the quick” (si ad vivum vellet eos purgare ).191 Calvin dismisses the criticism by the ancient people which Calvin alleges they leveled against the prophets, namely, that their words were too harsh or rigid.192 The reformer’s matter-of-fact response is that only to those people who are not open to being formed (tractabiles) does the word from God appear to be this way. Rather, the word of God by its “own nature is gracious” (sua natura mereri gratiam) albeit only to those that are “the pious and the good” (piis et bonis).193 How does God then change his people? Calvin does not tire to remind his audience that God does not bring about his church’s restoration all at once (neque enim statim restituit Deus ecclesiam suam). Instead it is actually beneficial (opportuit) that God allows his church to be afflicted for some period of time.194 All of these experiences are necessary because the church has no power of its own to restore itself. In fact, the church looks at times from the outside like a dead person (ut nihil differet ab homine mortuo). Only God has the power to restore people from their spiritual deadness and the exclusive instrument he uses for this is his voice alone

————— 188

Comm. Zeph 3:1–2, CO 44, 47. Compare: Comm. Hos 6:2, CO 42, 321; 8:9–10, CO 42, 374; 9:11–12, CO 42, 400; The Institutes also mention the need to apply gentleness first because applying discipline can easily spin out of control. Calvin warns: “Haec humanitas nisi tam privatim quam communiter servetur, periculum est ne ex disciplina mox delabamur ad carnificinam,” in Inst. 4.12.10, CO 2, 912. 190 Comm. Zech 5:5–8, CO 44, 198. See also Comm. Zech 13: 9, CO 44, 358; Zeph 3:1–2, CO 44, 47. 191 Comm. Zech 13:9, CO 44, 358. 192 Cf. Comm. Mic 2:7, CO 43, 309. 193 Ibid. 194 Cf. Comm. Mic 4:11–12, CO 43, 362. See also: Comm. Mic 5:1–2, CO 43, 366: “…velit iterum restituere post aliquod tempus.” 189

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Divine Discipline

159

(sola voce). The reformer’s understanding of church renewal is that it is strictly the work of God (proprium Dei munus est).195 God wills to execute his vengeance on the people but—accommodating himself to their weakness—he appears to change his original purpose. However, this is indeed only by appearance, since God does not change his purpose (Deum non mutare consilium) nor his mind (mutatio affectus).196 In this regard one could say that discipline and sanctification are identical terms which for Calvin belong to the same lifelong process, in which the church must be led from spiritual degradation to spiritual renewal and formation. Finally, when God concludes that his patience bears no fruit, and he sees no repentance because the people refuse to change in any way, then God proceeds “to the last punishment” (ultimam vindictam).197 In the case of the ancient church this means that God separated the Israelites from their promised land and (false) worship centers in Samaria when they were exiled to Assyria. The same principle applies also when God cuts off the Southern Kingdom from its covenant heritage and privileges when he sent the Jews into exile in Babylon. Calvin uses the imagery of a limb being amputated (abscindere) from a (human) body or a tree-limb cut off from a tree. Calvin argues that this “violent remedy” (violento hoc remedio) serves the greater benefit of saving the rest of the body.198 It is God’s paternal discipline which confirms the unbelief of the reprobate while it serves to save the remnant or the faithful. However, the imagery of divine amputation is not as definitive as it may seem. God’s covenant faithfulness means that there remains a promise of return to which any and all Jews and Israelites may appeal in faith and repentance. For Calvin the application of divine (spiritual) discipline—especially in its final verdict and sentencing through excommunication—in the church is for the reformer never to be viewed as definitive judgment.199 Rather, the increasing degrees of divine discipline serve as (painful) preparation for service both now and in eternity in the lives of those who are the true elect.

————— 195

Cf. Comm. Mic 4:11–12, CO 43, 362. Cf. Comm. Amos 7:1–3, CO 43, 121–22. 197 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:8–9, CO 42, 215. 198 Cf. Comm. Jonah 1:8–9, CO 43, 222 and Comm. Zeph 3:11, CO 43, 63. 199 Van Eck: 1992, 227; note also Berkouwer: 1976, 367–68. 196

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

160

Church Government and Administration

6.8 Conclusion Conclusion When Calvin discusses the ministry and mission of the church in his MP commentary he shows the same attitude one encounters in Book IV of his Institutes. The reformer offers an apology for his view of the church as being a living and dynamic organism rather than a hierarchically structured institution. Unlike the Institutes the MP commentary is silent on the offices of elder and deacon. The most direct explanation for this is that Calvin as a rule does not discuss what is not directly related to the biblical text at hand. Importantly, with his victory (1555) behind him the reformer writes his commentary to defend his ecclesiology against Rome and to a lesser degree also against the Anabaptists. Calvin’s view of the church and its offices favors its active ministry through faithful pastors and teachers who nurture people‘s faith. Put differently, the institutional aspect of the church concentrating in its various offices—particularly teaching—is subservient to the church as God’s people who are called by the Bible to remain faithful to God and be restored to him through faith and repentance. The claim to being the church of Christ must be proven and sustained only by faithfulness to shepherding the people of God by instructing them in the Bible. It is not surprising then that Calvin’s ecclesiology stresses the church’s educational responsibility through its teachers (priests and prophets). Also, Calvin’s sensitivity to the ancient historical context in the MP and his understanding of his own sixteenth century situation—which saw such abuse of church authority by being divorced from the authority of the word of God—help explain why the reformer advocates strongly for the authority of the church to be limited to God and his word alone as the basis for a true reformation of the church. The power and authority of God delegated to his servants remains vested strictly in God himself. Finally, Calvin’s emphasis on both the strictness of God in his discipline as well as his paternal favor behind it reveals the reformer’s aim to correct the wrongful use of office and discipline in the medieval church. This link between teaching the word of God and discipline in the church pertains especially to those church officers in the Church of Rome who—according to Calvin— either neglect to teach people the Bible or who tyrannize the church by their capricious use of their official (and sometimes political) authority. On the other hand Calvin’s comments also aim at the Anabaptists who insist on the—for Calvin too radical—use of discipline to purify the church. In this matter of the discipline of the church Calvin travels very much a middle road between both Catholics and radical Anabaptists.200 —————

200 One can observe that the Anabaptist leader Menno Simons advocates passionately against a too fanatical application of church discipline and the application of excommunication relative to

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Conclusion

161

God’s paternal method and style serve as model for the contemporary church’s motive and method in applying spiritual discipline. Divine discipline is remedial in nature rather than just punitive and eschatological. The discipline of God aims to sanctify the lives of God’s people on the basis of his law. The by-product of discipline (not the motive) is that it separates (provisionally) the wheat from the chaff. However, God’s commitment to his covenant provides the sure protection that discipline by God—through the word—always aims at restoration and renewal. The authority which the church exercises is that of the written and instructed word of God and his Christ as the church’s sole Head.

————— the practice of shunning. For examples of this moderate and pastoral summons by Simons see two letters he wrote to an Anabaptist church in Franeker (Nov.13, 1555) and one in Emden (Nov. 12, 1556) respectively. In The Complete Writings of Menno Simons. C.1496–1561. Translated from the Dutch by L. Verduin and edited by J. Chr. Wenger, with a biography by H.S. Bender (Scottdale: Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1956), 1043–45 and 1050–51. For a comparison between Calvin and Menno’s views pertaining to church and state, see George: 1988, 195–214.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

7. Worship Worship True Worship

7.1 Introduction The goal in this section is to show how Calvin relates the Minor Prophets’ call for the restoration of the ancient church with the call for the necessity of the church’s reform of its worship in the reformer’s own time.1 The church can not be restored unless its worship conforms to the rule of scripture, rejecting on the one hand those who add any accretions of human origin as well as denying the practices of those who downplay the church’s institutional authority and ordained ministry.

7.2 True Worship The proper worship of God in the context of church reformation is Calvin’s primary concern.2 By her true worship the marks of the church are expressed—the faithful preaching of the word of God and administration of the (two) sacraments Christ instituted.3 It is the proclamation of the word of God that calls the church into being and maintains and protects it.4 Restoring the world5 to obedience to God and to rid it from all its corruptions is difficult, says Calvin, because of the hypocrites who are ————— 1

Calvin’s most important single treastise devoted to this subject is The Necessity of Reforming the Church written to the Emperor Charles V (Speyer, 1544). In Latin known as Supplex Exhortatio (1543, CO 8, 457–534). English translation found in Selected Works of John Calvin. Tracts and Letters, ed. H. Beveridge and J. Bonnet, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, 1983), 123–234. 2 See R.W. Godfrey’s introduction to the republication in English of Calvin’s work The Necessity for Reforming the Church (1994, vi); Compare Butin: 1994, 24. 3 Milner: 1970, 134. 4 See Wallace quoting Calvin’s commentary on Micah 4.7 (CO 43, 355), in Wallace: 1959, 209. 5 Cf. Comm. Zeph 1: 2–3, CO 44, 4: “…quam difficile sit mundum revocare ad obsequium Dei…” For an example of this use where Calvin compares the Catholic institution with “world” see his “Necessity,” in Tracts and Letters, vol.1, 154, (“It is with greatest reluctance that the world allows itself to be driven from such subterfuges as these;” Emphasis mine]. Calvin often speaks of the world as (nearly) synonymous with the church due to his view of a Christian commonwealth (Corpus Christianum) as kingdom of Christ (Regnum Christi), Bohatec: 1926 32–45, 153–64; 362–77, 373. For this notion of Christ as King ruling both over the spiritual and secular realms of history see also Fröhlich: 1930, 75. See Inst. 4.1.7., CO 2, 752–53. This observation does not seek to undermine Calvin’s clear distinction between church and state.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

True Worship

163

mixed in with the true believers as chaff among wheat. Obedience to God is not achieved by simply removing idols and superstitions.6 To do it right the church needs to be reformed not by half measures but completely.7 Only partial reform is according to Calvin what the “gross popery” (crassum papatum) in his day is after when it follows “that middle course” (media ratione)8 between outright apostasy and complete conformation to the will of God in worship. At least in principle, there is for Calvin no compromise possible on the question of divine worship and reconciliation. The glory of God in both of these two dimensions is at stake. 9 The “Nicodemians” serve as prime example of those who wish a mere incomplete type of reformation of the church.10 Calvin does not identify in the history of ancient Israel a specific counterpart to the person (Nicodemus) Jesus spoke with (John 3) at night time. Calvin uses only once the label “Nicodemeans” in the Minor Prophets commentary (Hos 4:15) where it supports the reformer’s criticism of those people in the Roman Church who do not openly break with religious (papal) idolatry and superstition. Perhaps the reformer is referring to this group of proponents of half-way reformation when he speaks of “mediators” (mediatores). These are indivduals who prohibit the restoration of pure worship of God because they refuse to bring the word of God to bear on the Roman Church’s corruptions. Calvin thinks their goal is “to reconcile popery with the doctrine of the gospel” (vellent conciliare papatum cum doctrina evangelii).11 Many admit the church is seriously corrupted. Yet how many of those who profess to be worshipers of God want true reformation, Calvin wonders out loud. These same people think it is enough when the church is only “half purified” and this might be the view of many, Calvin concedes.12 ————— 6

Cf. Comm. Zeph 1: 2–3, CO 44, 4. See Comm. Zech 13:3, CO 44, 351; Zeph 1:2–3, CO 44, 4. 8 Comm. Mic 1:5, CO 43, 290. 9 Compare Comm. Joel 2:14, CO 42, 548, and Comm. Mic 7:18, CO 43, 428–31; Comm. Joel 2:15–17, CO 42, 554. 10 Comm. Hos 4:15, CO 42, 290. Calvin clearly distinguishes the “Nicodemians” from the Roman Church, as people ostensibly reject Catholic doctrine but maintain the worship of the Mass, which keeps them in fellowship with the Roman Church, and this is not an option. See Higman: 1984, 165–68; Oberman: 2006, 95. Van Veen makes clear that the Nicodemites according to Calvin’s depiction of them stayed in the Catholic Church for a number of different reasons. See ‘Verschooninghe van de Roomsche Afgoderye. De Polemiek van Calvijn met Nicodemieten, in het Bijzonder met Coornhert (Van Veen: 2001, 91). 11 Comm. Amos 5:4–6, CO 43, 73. 12 Comm. Zech 3:5, CO 44, 172: “…contenti essent umbra aliqua: vel saltem, modo viderent dimidia ex parte purgatam ecclesiam, hoc illis abunde sufficeret. Et mundus refertus est istis hominibus, qui fatentur quidem ecclesiam foedatam esse multis corruptelis: Sed vellent exiguam 7

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

164

Worship

7.3 Rule for Worship Rule for Worship As one author observes Calvin believes “the Bible [is] the heart of Reformation piety and the centre of worship.”13 The church during the Old Testament kings and prophets departed from the law which God gave to Moses to teach Israel. Later the prophecies were added but these brought nothing new (nihil novum) to the law. Calvin considers the prophets’ teachings as “appendages”14 to the law. Similarly, the Reformation also introduces nothing novel, argues Calvin. Calvin’s position is clear when it comes to the worship of God, that people ought not to fabricate novos cultus. Rather, “men should never assume so much as to change any thing in the worship of God.”15 Calvin realizes that external worship by itself does not guarantee that it is genuine, spiritual worship.16 In particular, one should not think—as did the Catholic leaders—that the Roman church’s advantage in terms of numbers, resources and buildings of worship ensures God’s favor on them.17 There needs to be more than outward appearances to claim the title “church.”18 The ten tribes of the northern kingdom were more numerous, powerful, and affluent than were the people of the two-tribe kingdom of Judah and Benjamin with its liturgical center in the temple in Jerusalem. In reality the Lord’s favor remained on the small and inferior but legitimate kingdom, ————— aliquam reformationem.”; Compare with similar comment in Comm. Zech 13:5, CO 44, 351; A particularly poignant example of incomplete and failed reformation Calvin finds displayed in King Henry VIII of England. Comparing Henry to ancient king Jehu (Comm. Hos 1:3–5, CO 42, 208) Calvin opines that Henry in time became a terrible tyrant, despite his initial act of heroism in delivering “his kingdom from the hardest of tyrannies” (“eripere e tyrannide durissima regnum illud”). Henry soon began to persecute the godly doubling the tyranny of “…the Roman Pontiff: and such was Jehu…” (“…duplicavit tyrannidem romani pontifiis. Talis etiam fuit Iehu.” At least they who stay under the “bondage” of the “Roman Antichrist…retain at least some kind of religion.” (“Nam qui sub illa servitude manent, saltem retinent aliquam speciem pietatis.”). Henry VIII being void of any fear of God he was, says Calvin, a “monster” (“homo belluinus”). 13 Augustijn: 1991, 65. 14 Cf. Comm. Mal 4:4, CO 44, 493. 15 Comm. Amos 2:4–5, CO 43, 20: “Neque enim unquam sibi tantum sumerent hominess, ut aliquid mutarent in Dei cultu…” 16 See Witvliet’s comments on Calvin’s disavowal of “hypocrisy.” (Witvliet: 2000, 132–33). The other three “liturgical sins” the author mentions can be traced in the study at hand, viz. disobedience, superstition, and idolatry. 17 Compare Comm. Hos 1:7, CO 42, 213, 214; 8:11, CO 42, 375; Joel 2:32, CO 42, 578. 18 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 216; 4:5, CO 42, 273; Comm. Mic 1:3–4 (CO 43, 287); Comm. Zech 11:15–16, CO 44, 316. In other texts Calvin applies what is to him both the legitimate respectively illegitimate label of “title” to the office of a prophet/teacher/ shepherd/ pastor/bishop/pope. In still other places the reformer connects title with having a false respectively a true claim to being among God’s adopted people. Compare also with John Calvin: Concerning Scandals (1978, 109–13).

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Rule for Worship

165

because they had not broken fellowship with the royal Davidic headship over them.19 In this regard Calvin is particularly unforgiving toward the Roman Catholic Church, but he is also not afraid to point his teaching finger toward his own reformed community in Geneva and beyond. In the Reformation churches too the level of spiritual maturity left much to be desired, at least, from Calvin’s perspective given the numerous delinquent persons that he and other clergy men frequently brought to the city Council’s attention.20 As stated before Calvin suggests a degree of similarity—between the Roman Church’s ceremonial worship and that of the northern (illegitimate) kingdom—that is more than coincidental.21 Calvin is not primarily interested in identifying the Roman Catholic Church exclusively with the illegitimate kingdom that was formed during the reign of king Rehoboam so as to conclude that the Reformation is to be understood in terms of the kingdom of David and hence that of Christ. This last point of caution is supported by the (albeit rare) instance when—commenting on Micah 1:5— Calvin compares the Southern Kingdom “Jews” also with the Roman Church in his time. Usually, Calvin reserves this connection for the “Israelites” of the northern kingdom. Regarding those members of Judah and the half-tribe of Benjamin Calvin says: [B]ut the Jews had retained some form of religion. They had not thus abandoned themselves. Yet there were other superstitions mixed in just as one would find, when one compares it to the gross Popery of this day…22

In other words the Reformation church, though favored now can degenerate—like the Catholic Church until it rejected the form of government in the Early Church—for all people have a natural proclivity not to submit to God’s rule. The unity of the church with Christ as its sovereign leader is not secured or guaranteed by external signs, much less through idolatrous and superstitious practices and inventions which the word of God do not allow. This danger of resting one’s confidence on external form and ceremony is deceiving. Early on when they first worshipped God under king —————

19 It is difficult not to infer that Calvin identifies the Reformation churches with the Southern Kingdom. 20 For examples see Cottret: 2000, 174–78; 184–94. The reader may also note previously stated references by Calvin in which he characteristically claims that “less than one in a hundred….” are of truly godly disposition (For example, see Comm. Hos 14:7–8, CO 42, 507; Comm. Joel 2:32, CO 42, 478; Comm. Obad 7–8, CO 43, 187; Comm. Zech 13:2, CO 44, 344. 21 See Comm. Hos 9:15, CO 42, 405; Calvin depicts the Catholic Church hierarchy as “hypocritae” for “daring to corrupt and adulterate his pure worship” and in this they practiced what the ancient Jews and Israelites had done before Christ came. 22 Comm. Mic 1:5, CO 43, 290.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

166

Worship

Jeroboam, the seceded Israelites outwardly let their worship “vary as little as possible from the legitimate worship of God” (quam minimum deflectere a legitimo Dei cultu), but in reality it was false (perversum).23 Eventually there was nothing left of their “legitimate worship of God.” Calvin’s understanding of the prophetic indictment against the Israelites is such that they have fallen away so far “that they were altogether degenerated; nothing could be seen among them that had an affinity to the true and legitimate worship of God.”24 At the heart of the Israelites’ falling away from true divinity altogether, argues Calvin, is the designing of alternative worship contrary to the Mosaic laws. Again, despite some good things Calvin admits about King Jeroboam’s initial zeal for God, the fact remains that this king “erected temples, and appointed new sacrifices, contrary to God’s command.”25 Calvin then goes on to say that it is not up to people to fabricate worship as they see fit. “All we need to do is to depend on what the Lord says” (nisi ut pendeamus ex ore Domini).26 What was so particularly offensive about Catholic worship according to Calvin? It is not that it was completely void of truth. Rather it was the mixing of truths taught in scripture with human “inventions” (figmenta).27 This is most evident in terms of the Roman Mass and Eucharist.28 This worship may have the appearance of being worshipful by its “external pomp” (externa pompa), says Calvin.29 But in reality it disregards God’s word. Therefore God rejects it because this ceremonial worship “has nothing in common” (nihil commune) with what God says He approves.30 Worship that ignores God’s commands is hypocrisy. No matter what good “intentions” (intentiones) the ancients or the Roman churches have, when ————— 23

Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 262. Comm. Mic 1:5, CO 43, 290. This text reminds us that despite the parallels Calvin draws he never explicitly identifies the Northern Kingdom with the Roman Church and the Southern Kingdom with the church being renewed under the Reformation. Compare also: Comm. Hos 1:3–4, CO 42, 207; 1:6, CO 42, 211; 7:3, CO 42, 340. 25 Comm. Hos 10:8, CO 42, 418. 26 Comm. Hos 10:8, CO 42, 419. See also Comm. Hos 8:14, CO 42, 379–80; 13:2, CO 42, 477–78; Comm. Zech 7:4–9, CO 44, 223; 8:20–22, CO 44, 256–57. These and other texts in Calvin’s commentary serve as basis for what is also known as the “Regulative Principle.” Calvin’s Commentaries on the Gospels, Matt 22:21 as quoted in Milner: 1970, 158. See Harmoniam Evangelicam, CO 45, 602. 27 Passim. 28 In the discussion of the Lord’s Supper below, we will see that Calvin does not spend time to argue about manner in which Christ is present in the elements. Instead, the Mass is the most obvious example that illustrates for Calvin how Rome has overturned the biblical order of Christ for his church. 29 See Comm. Hos 1:10, CO 42, 217; 2:10–12, CO 42, 238; 6:6–7, CO 42, 324; 8:14, CO 42, 380; Comm. Joel 2:32, CO 42, 578–79; Comm. Mic 3:11–12, CO 43, 334. 30 Comm. Hos 5:2, CO 42, 298. 24

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Rule for Worship

167

the word of God is violated, one’s worship is idolatry.31 Applied to his own day, the Catholic Church’s worship Calvin deems unacceptable because it is “not grounded on (God’s) word” (nihil sit fundatum in verbo eius). Even so, the “papists” (papistae) think that their good intentions leave them off the hook (satis excusationem).32 So Calvin asks out loud: “Who at this day can persuade the papists that all their worship is a filthy abomination; a mere sacrilege?”33 Divine worship is not up to the free volition of people. Even those things external which can not bind the conscience are still not a matter of total indifference to Calvin.34 The worship God requires of his church is not to practice only that which is not against God’s word (Luther). Positively in worship God’s people may only bring him what is prescribed in his word. The object is not to do whatever pleases people but “the beginning of religion” is that “we humbly and soberly submit to God’s word.”35 Worship of God is not a matter of personal preference or well-meaning intentions. For Calvin the issue of reformation in and through worship concerns the question whether or not one actually remains faithful to God.36 Anything we do in worship that is not done by God’s command is an abomination (abominatio coram eo).37 Calvin does not suggest that scripture contains an explicit blue print for worship which all churches everywhere and at all times must adopt and practice uniformly. For example, after the Genevan city council’s refusal (1537) to allow the churches to celebrate the Lord’s Supper weekly, in spite of what Calvin specifically proposed, the reformer did not press the issue further. This ability to accommodate himself to the local conditions surfaces also in his correspondence. For example, in a letter to the church in Frankfort am Rhine38 Calvin advises that the particulars of worship ceremony are not a —————

31 Comm. Hos 4:13–14, CO 42, 284; Compare Comm. Hos 8:11, CO 42, 376; 10:1, CO 42, 410; Comm. Jonah 4:2, CO 43, 264; 4:4, CO 43, 270; Comm. Mic 6:6–8, CO 43, 392. 32 Cf. Comm. Hos 4:13–14, CO 42, 284. 33 Comm. Hos 6: 10–11, CO 42, 335. 34 Wallace: 1988, 134. 35 Comm. Zech 8:20–22, CO 44, 256; Cf. 13:3, CO 44, 347; 14:9, CO 44, 374, 375 (“fixam et perpetuam regulam”); 14:19, CO 44, 386–87. 36 Cf. Zech 8:20–22, CO 44, 256. 37 Comm. Amos 5:25–26, CO 43, 100. 38 In this letter to the French refugee church in Wezel (13 March, 1554) signed by the ministers of Geneva, Calvin’s pen is evident, when he promotes an accommodating spirit regarding “some ceremonies that do not affect the substance of the faith.” And it follows: “Upon this head let us lay it down as a settled point, that we ought to make mutual concessions in all ceremonies that do not involve any prejudice to the confession of our faith, and for this end that the unity of the church be not destroyed by our excessive rigor or moroseness.” The letter certainly admits that when opportunity exists the church should be purified from whatever accretions that are leftovers from the Roman Church worship practices (CO 15, 78–81). On the discussion of Calvin’s preference to

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

168

Worship

cause of disunity, even if reformation is desirable and ought to be achieved when opportunity exists. A little less than a year later Calvin repeats his call to be pliable on things that are indifferent or that are to be endured for the time being.39 In principle, divine worship is regulated by scripture and is faithful and consistent with the church’s evangelical confession of faith and order. That understanding enables Calvin to both condemn Catholic worship as idolatrous and mere outward show as well as act conciliatory in matters of outward ceremony that may be undesirable in evangelical churches but that can be tolerated for the time being.40 Calvin explains his view of simplicity of worship by contrasting the typical (temple) worship as demanded by the law with the future reality-beyond the return from exile in Babylon—displayed at the coming of Christ. According to Calvin the prophet Zechariah (2:10) speaks of a new way in which God will be present among his people. In the future God will no longer live among his people “under legal figures and symbols” (sub figures et symbolis legalibus) but he will “substantially live among them” (substantialiter habitavit inter ipsos), argues Calvin.41 The justification for this interpretation by Calvin is due to the way he sees it fulfilled historically in Christ’s first advent. The worship that commences since that time is different in the sense that it is done directly through Christ as Mediator. It is through him that God dwells now with his people so that they are united with God as their Father. Calvin’s antipathy towards the innumerable external ceremonies—which he alleges are part and parcel of Catholic worship practices—is motivated by this biblical argument that ceremonial observance is obsolete today. It is God’s word that reveals for the reformer the necessity to do away with the “shadows, when we enjoy the reality, and possess the completion of all those things which God purposed only to represent under the law.”42 Therefore—argues Calvin—one should guard against the mistaken notion by the Roman Church that God will not reject them despite their distorted worship since he promised (through Christ) to be with his church always. The idea that God could or would withdraw his blessing from the Roman Church is preposterous to its leadership. With animation Calvin ————— celebrate the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper frequently and his willingness to accommodate on this matter, see Brienen: 1987, 157–58; Wallace: 1953, 252–53; Milner: 1970, 158–59. 39 This reference in Calvin (CO 15, 393–94) was located in Pia Conspiratio Calvin’s Commitment to the Unity of Christ’s Church, ed. L. Vischer, Genéve: Centre International Réformé John Knox (Vischer : 2000, 26). Calvin’s letter was sent on 18th January 1555. 40 For a discussion of both Calvin’s strictness in matters of principle and flexibility in matters where there can be diversity of belief and practice in the church, see Wallace: 1988, 134–39. 41 Comm. Zech 2:10, CO 44, 163. 42 Ibid.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Worship is Spiritual

169

describes their hypothetically stated response to this accusation of divine judgment against Rome: “‘What! God does not consider our worship pleasing’? But the Prophet here shows by one word that Jehovah is nowhere, except where he is rightly worshipped according to the rule of his word.”43 Arguing that one can not truly worship God apart from his word’s direction, Calvin confesses that despite some outward semblance of divine worship it is impossible to please God.44 There can be no formation of a “true church” (verum ecclesiae) and people can not become united unless the truth of God’s word shines among them. The preaching and teaching of the word of God is the only way to raise up (erigendae) God’s church.45 Integral to the right restoration of the church is to understand worship in terms of teaching of the word of God.46 Only when one bases his or her thinking about worship upon God’s word can you see “that true piety is founded on the obedience of faith, and that God cannot be truly worshipped, except when he himself teaches his people, and prescribes to them what needs to be done.”47 By prioritizing the teaching character of worship Calvin is able to connect biblical piety and religion with obedience of faith.48 This is how Calvin understands the promises by the prophets regarding the restoration of the church commencing with the spiritual kingdom of Christ. For Calvin the church, school and home function like a classroom where Christians are trained to submit to God’s word.

7.4 Worship is Spiritual Worship is Spiritual Calling biblical worship “spiritual” does not mean for Calvin that the worship by the ancient Israelite church is inevitably unspiritual prior to Christ’s advent.49 It does mean, however, that under the law worship was in large part ceremonial or shadowy, beclouding the spiritual reality now fully revealed in Christ and his final sacrifice of himself. This progression from shadow to reality should characterize the worship for the Christian church today.50 The ancient church—like its New Testament counterpart—is called ————— 43

Comm. Hos 1:7, CO 42, 214. Cf. Comm. Mic 4:1–2, CO 43, 343. 45 Cf. Ibid. 46 Cf. Ibid. 47 Comm. Mic 4:1–2, CO 43, 343. 48 For literature on Calvin’s role as educator and pedagogue see the studies by Blacketer: 2005); Hedtke: 1969. 49 Cf. Diestel: 1981, 285: “Nicht began Gottes geistiges Wesen erst da, als er die ceremonialen Gesteze abschaffte.” Author references Calvin’s commentary on John 4, 24. 50 Cf. Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 420. 44

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

170

Worship

to worship God by a true faith in Christ as their (as yet) preincarnate Head and Mediator.51 According to Calvin, “sacrifices never pleased God by their own or intrinsic value, as if they had any worth of their own.” What then did God require under the law? “[T]hat faith and piety are approved. This has ever been the legitimate spiritual worship of God.”52 Therefore, the cardinal issue that separates the Reformation from the Roman Catholic Church is in Calvin’s judgment that the “papists” perverted the worship of God. Calvin considers their worship to be superstitious and as such an “abomination.”53 What the Catholic Church fails to realize is—and in Calvin’s mind this is the quintessential difference that sets the Roman worship apart from the Reformation, especially when it concerns the Eucharistic Mass—is that by their emphasis on the ceremonial and sacrificial nature of worship they mix the sacred with the profane. Or as Calvin puts it: “they think that what is heavenly is to be blended with what is earthly.”54 Worship today does not as such consist in ceremony but “in faith, and hope, and prayer.”55 The Christian church offers sacrifice of thanksgiving and prayer.56 It is not so much that Calvin is obsessed with a fear for the visuals used in medieval church worship. Rather, the reformer argues that visual dependence (except the instituted symbols of the sacraments) in worship is not consistent with the progress in redemption history. Just as the law was the sole rule for worship in the Old Testament—and the external ceremony required by law was needed to accommodate human capacity—the Christian church now must limit itself to the simple and pure doctrine of God as well. Applied to the Roman Church this means that to continue to carry out sacrifices today would be contrary to what God now commands from his people through his gospel. Arguing from silence, Calvin asserts that the New Testament says nothing about worship through incense or sacrifices. At this point Calvin —————

51 Cf. Comm. Zech 1:18–21, CO 44,152. Calvin defends the actual presence of Christ as spiritual sovereign over the ancient church on the basis that in his capacity as the Son, he is inseparable from God, the Father. See Comm. Zech 2:20, CO 44, 163. 52 Comm. Hos 6:6–7, CO 42, 330. 53 We offer just two examples about Calvin’s judgment of Roman worship. Cf. Comm. Mic 1:5, CO 43, 289: “…vocamus perversos et adulterinos ipsorum cultus abominationes”. The second example is taken from the commentary on Hosea 6:10–11(CO 42, 335): “Quis enim persuadebit hodie papistis omnes eorum cultus esse foeditam abominationem, esse mera sacrilegia?” 54 Comm. Mic 1:5, CO 43, 289. This concern may well explain Calvin’s rejection of both the Lutheran and Catholic views about the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. 55 Comm. Hos 13:4–5, CO 42, 480. 56 Cf. Witvliet: 2000, 142. Author cites from Calvin’s commentary on Mal.1:11 and refers to his commentary on Hebrews 13:15. The author notes “The fundamental continuity Calvin perceived in God’s revelation in both testaments led him to take seriously the patterns of the Old Testament cult for understanding the worship of the Christian church.”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Worship is Spiritual

171

differentiates between what was required under the law versus the gospel today. The gospel regulates how God wants to be worshipped. Under the law and its shadowy form of worship people were commanded to offer sacrifices and incense. Now that the gospel is operative the church needs to know “how [God] would have us to worship him”57 namely, by the ministry of the divine word (and sacraments). Worship of God that is fueled by faith, piety and love is antithetical to external ceremonies.58 The sacrifice of worship which the church offers up to God today is to render to him our prayers and deeds of gratitude (preces, gratiarum actiones).59 Calvin mentions how the ancients ought to have had the right purpose or “design” (fine) of worship in mind behind their sacrifices—namely that the sinner recognizes his sin and worthiness of spiritual death and feels compelled therefore to flee in faith to Christ and his sacrifice—or else these outward acts of ceremonial worship are plain “nonsense” (nugis).60 The reformer believes furthermore that after Christ’s first advent and following the destruction of Jerusalem the “entire former legal worship ceased” (cessavit totus ille cultus legalis).61 This ceasing of ancient Mosaic (ceremonial) law is Calvin’s biblical argument against the false or spurious worship he so mercilessly condemns in the Roman Church. Christian worship for Calvin is that which the divine word evokes and which is embodied spiritually at the table of the Lord. True, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross has a perpetual efficacy and it is only in the sense of the worship it engenders that it can be said to be offered perpetually by the church.62 This explains how important it is to Calvin that the church in his time understands the nature and purpose of the sacraments correctly. If the church corrupts “the purity of divine worship. If we treat [God’s] word with scorn. Indeed, if we transgress as to these main points of religion, then much less is our excuse.”63 Calvin’s immediate concern is not to have the worship of God be pure in all its liturgical details. Rather, people must not violate the “main points of ————— 57

Cf. Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 420. Cf. Comm. Hos 6: 6–7, CO 42, 329: “Neque enim dubium est quin hic propheta fidem vel pietatem erga Deum, deinde caritatem erga proximos opponat omnibus externis caeremoniis.” 59 Cf. Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 421. 60 Cf. Comm. Hos 5:6, CO 42, 304. 61 Cf. Comm. Joel 2:28, CO 42, 568. Calvin exegetes this text to mean that the prophetic imagery of worshippers going to the temple in Jerusalem to bring their sacrifices does not refer to a literal sacrificing in the future restoration, but is the portrayal of that future “spiritual worship of God” depicted visually. 62 Cf. Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 420: “Nunc enim nobis nullum altare est. Nam quiquis altare sibi erigit, evertit crucem Christi in qua obtulit unicum et perpetuum sacrificium.” 63 Comm. Amos 2:9–12, CO 43, 33. 58

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

172

Worship

religion”, by polluting the sacraments, corrupting the purity of divine worship or by scorning the word.64

7.5 Piety65 Piety John T. McNeill observes that Calvin frequently employs the word “piety” in his Institutes of 1536. Piety is the duty to praise God and is motivated by reverence and love. Piety understood this way it is “the mainspring of Calvin’s life effort.”66 This characterization agrees also with Calvin’s expository comments on the Minor Prophets two decades later. To achieve purity of worship something more is needed than outward conformity to God’s law with regard to how God wants to be worshipped. Worship God accepts needs to be faithful to God’s word (norm) and have nothing added to it that is invented by humans. For this reason, Calvin pinpoints “hypocrites” in particular because their outward religion and worship masks the reality of un-confessed sin hiding underneath it. It is sheer mockery to boast about “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the name of Reformation…when no real piety flourishes in the heart.”67 True religion requires us to act with justice and mercy (Mic 6:6–8). Even under the law to be reconciled with God means “God requires what is very different. For his worship is spiritual” (…cultus enim eius spiritualis est).68 God rejects duplicity outright then and now. Calvin knows that the believer’s duties toward God (first table of the law of Moses) come before the obligations one has toward his or her neighbor. However, Calvin points out how this obedience toward God is verified best. Namely, “justice, which is to be exercised towards men, is the real evidence of true religion.”69 This explains why divine worship which God accepts ————— 64

Comm. Amos 2:9–12, CO 43, 33. Relevant reflections on Calvin’s understanding of piety and worship can be found in Cottret: Calvin, 281–83. Also: Richard: Spirituality, 116–22; Battles: 1984, 192–211; McKee: 2001. 66 See McNeill: 1984, 118. 67 Cf. Comm. Mic 3: 11–12, CO 43, 334: “Apud nos etiam hypocritae iactant baptismum et sacram coenam, et nomen reformationis: interea haec mera sunt ludibira, quibus profanatur Dei nomen et tota religio, ubi non viget in cordibus sincera pietas.” This seems to be a reference to the Nicodemites or perhaps more generally those in the Roman Church who pretend to achieve its reformation. See also Comm. Amos 5:21–23 (CO 43, 92). Witvliet: 2000, 132–33; Zachmann: 1997, 414. Author notes that this motive to move the heart Calvin adopted from the rhetorical tradition; McKee: 2001, 3. 68 Cf. Comm. Mic 6:6–8, CO 43, 394; Also Comm. Zeph 1: 6, CO 44,13; 3:1 CO 44, 46; Comm. Hag 2:10–14, CO 44, 116; Comm. Zech 7:4–9, CO 44, 224; 14:17–19, CO 44, 384 ; Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 420–21. 69 Comm. Mic 6:6–8, CO 43, 394. Compare the study by Haas: 1997, 88–91. 65

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Piety

173

must be outwardly obedient to God’s law while inwardly sincere, both of which hypocrites (hypocritae) merely pretend.70 For Calvin, the Christian life consists of the believers’ duties toward God and his neighbor. The reformer sees these two pronged obligations reflected in the two tables of the Decalogue.71 Worship of God in a comprehensive sense means “faith or piety towards God and love toward our neighbors.”72 This definition of worship Calvin believes is against mere external ceremonies in which he thinks the Roman Church bases its confidence. Bringing the two sides of the law together Calvin argues that instead of such “pomp and empty show” (pompam et evanidum splendorem) the spiritual worship of God “consists in faith and love” (positus est in fide et caritate).73 The duties toward God are primary and are identified with “piety” whereas the duties toward neighbor are referred to as “justice” or “love.”74 Again, true religion or piety is best proven against the second table of the law.75 Speaking on Hosea 12:6–7 Calvin observes that the fifth through the tenth commandments instruct a person to shape his or her life “according to the rule of love” (regulam caritatis). In fact, for good reasons Hosea mentions the call to love one’s brothers (fratribus nostris) first and then addresses the worship of God, because a person’s genuine repentance is tested better by the standard of the second table of the law than the first.76 One needs to have a true knowledge of God, because “piety” deals with the heart’s attitude to obey God and consequently to honor one’s duties toward fellow human beings.77 This requires an inner disposition to obey (studiumque obedientiae)78 and to be teachable (dociles) to obey God’s will.79 ————— 70

Cf. Comm. Amos 5:21–23, CO 43, 92–93. Cf. Comm. Hag 2:10–14, CO 44,116: “sincero affectu cordis”. 71 See Mic 6:6–8, CO 43, 394; Hos 12:6–7, CO 42, 462. 72 Comm. Hos 6:6–7, CO 42, 329. 73 Ibid. 74 See Richard: Spirituality, 117. A good example of the relationship between the use of the first and second table of the law is found in Calvin’s comments on Hosea 12:6–7 (CO 42, 462). Also see Battles: 1984, 193–94; Lee: 1997, 233–37. 75 This approach by Calvin agrees with Bouwsma’s evaluation of Calvin that for him the Christian faith is not so much a system of doctrinal formulations as it is “a way of life, and that the reformer’s teaching was directed to the promotion not so much of theological understanding as of practical piety.” (1986, 55). 76 Cf. Comm. Hos 12: 6–7, CO 42, 462. 77 Ibid. Cf. Comm. Hag 2: 10–14, CO 44, 119–120; Comm. Hos 1:2, CO 42, 205. 78 Cf. Comm. Hag 2: 10–14, CO 44, 115. 79 Cf. Comm. Zech 8:20–22, CO 44, 255: “….dociles nos offere et morigeros…”; Compare Comm. Zech 1:18–21, CO 44, 151: “…verae docilitatis…”; Ibid., CO 44, 152: “…docilem et morigerum…”; Comm. Hos 1:2, CO 42, 205: “…dociles et morigeri…”; 14:1–2, CO 42, 499: “Quomodo igitur verba afferre debemus ad Deum quibus profiteamur veram pietatem? Nempe ubi sumus dociles…”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

174

Worship

Calvin views the reformation of the church as rescued by the Lord from being “sunk in the gulf of popery.”80 This state is essentially analogous to the hope of church restoration held out to the ancient people of God by the prophets sent to them. Given that historical parallel Calvin is acutely aware that the (reformed) church requires a biblical faith in which genuine piety is tested by obedience to the law with its divine and human application. Religion that pleases God consists of God’s nearness in his paternal favor and his distance in his holiness and justice81 rather than mixing the two as he believes the Roman Church was guilty of doing. God reveals in scripture how people can and need to know God in a way that is categorically different from what the Roman Church teaches. Thus Calvin feels compelled to reject their teaching of “implicit faith” (fide implicita) because a faith that has no true knowledge of God is “cold and empty imagination.”82 Instead, faith is knowledge of God which is personal.83 For this reason it can not be described as a “formed faith” (contra Rome). We have faith, says Calvin, when God’s will (voluntas Dei) is made known to us, and we embrace it (illam amplectimur) because it is only in that way that we worship him as our Father.84 This means, that knowing God according to his will (i.e. the Bible) is indispensable to true faith.85 In Calvin’s mind “implicit faith” means having no true knowledge of God and the result is “there is no religion [and] piety is extinct and faith abolished…”86 As Van Der Kooi observes, for Calvin “piety is not empty; it is paired with knowledge”87 (of God). Therefore, a religion which is external worship as demonstrated by the degenerate ancient Israelites and Jews is “carnal and earthly.”88 —————

80 Cf. Comm. Hos 12:10, CO 42, 468: “…nos redemit Dominus quum essemus demersi in abysso papatus…” 81 Cf. Cottret, Calvin, 282. 82 Comm. Hos 6:6–7, CO 42, 331. See Graafland: 1961, 16. Author shows from Calvin’s Institutes 3.2.8. (CO 2, 403) that the reformer rejected the Catholic distinction between “formed” and “unformed faith,” as a kind of intellectual faith that is left untouched by the fear of God or feelings of piety. See Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 535; Steinmetz: 1984, 105. Author argues Calvin contrasts “passive implicit faith” with “active spirit of docilitas’or learning readiness which characterizes true Christian faith.” 83 C. Graafland: 1961, 13. 84 Cf. Comm. Hos 6:6–7, CO 42, 331: “…nempe ubi voluntas Dei nobis patefacta est, et illam amplectimur, ita ut possimus illum colere loco patris.” 85 Cf. Ibid., “Cognitio igitur Dei necessario ad fidem requiritur.” 86 Ibid. Compare Helm: 2004, 262. The author notes how in certain instances Calvin makes allowance for “implicit faith” such as when the disciples’ faith was still darkened before Christ’s resurrection. 87 Van Der Kooi: 2005, 25. 88 Comm. Hos 6:6–7, CO 42, 331: “…carnale esset vel terrenum… See also Cottret: 2000, 282.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Piety

175

In light of the prophet’s saying that God desires mercy rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings, Calvin interprets this to teach “that God is not worshipped by external ceremonies, but when men forgive and bear with one another, and are not exceedingly rigid.”89 True worship is spiritual only when it expresses itself in faith and love.90 Notions of “implicit faith” have nothing in common with this type of religion or piety as far as Calvin is concerned. The fact is, that “God values faith and kindness much more than sacrifices and all ceremonies.”91 This distinguishes a truly pious person from one who merely pretends to be one. Calvin points out the difference between the pious and the hypocrites also in a commentary on Jonah 1:16 when he contrasts the prophet Jonah with the pagan sailors. These heathens were not true worshippers of God because their worship was only outward even if they showed a fear of God. But the truly pious person (Jonah) obeys God with a sincere heart, argues Calvin. The fear of God (timor Dei) means having a reverence (reverentia) for him by which “the faithful willingly submit themselves to [God].”92 A right fear of God and repentance—as exemplified by Jonah—is integral to biblical piety. True faith accompanied by repentance should lead to the “reformation of our lives according to the law of God.”93 This means that when God sends his hardships to us believers demonstrate genuine piety “when we patiently submit to the judgments of God.”94 In short, to conform oneself to God’s law is to worship God spiritually, which itself consists of faith, prayer, and treating our neighbors justly and with kindness, as well as, abstaining from doing any sort of wickedness. 95 This faith is proven genuine within the communion of the church. The individual and communal aspects of genuine religion are kept tightly united by the reformer.96 ————— 89

Comm. Hos 6:6–7, CO 42, 331. This statement underscores our perception that Calvin though rigorous in arguing for worship that is exclusively based on divine prescription is far less rigorous and insistent when such purity of worship concerns the non-essentials. 90 Cf. Comm. Mic 6:6–8, CO 43, 329. 91 Comm. Hos 6:6–7, CO 42, 330. 92 Comm. Jonah 1:16, CO 43, 230. 93 Comm. Hos 12: 6–7, CO 42, 463. 94 Comm. Mal 2:17, CO 44, 458. 95 Cf. Comm. Hos 12:6–7, CO 42, 463: “…corrigimus ad ipsius legem, et incipimus a spirituali eius cultu, cuius praecipua pars est fides, ex qua deinde nascitur invocatio. Ad haec si agimus cum proximis nostris ex bono et aequo, et abstinemus ab omnibus iniuriis, fraudibus, rapinis, omni denique malitia…” 96 See Horton: 2006, 179. Older Catholic authors have criticized Calvin and Calvinism for its emphasis on the individual believer supposedly at the expense of appreciating enough the church as community. Compare Witte: 1949, vol.2; Scholl: 1974, 162–63. The author notes: “Die verbindung des Einzelnen mit dem Ganzen ist auch für Calvin unumgängich.”

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

176

Worship

7.6 The Holy Spirit The Holy Spirit What is the role of Christ’s Spirit in the life of the church? He guides his faithful by his Spirit when he emits his light of truth to them.97 This tandem guidance by the word and the Holy Spirit is unique to believers and not the devil and all the wicked.98 The latter do God’s (kingdom) will also, but not by his word and Spirit and therefore “not willingly but against their will” (nolentes et inviti).99 Therefore, it is peculiar to the church only that it is governed by God through his word and Spirit. This willing submission to God occurs when he “bends the hearts of men to obedience, so that they follow him voluntarily and willingly, being taught inwardly and outwardly—inwardly by the influence of the Spirit—outwardly by the preaching of the word.”100 Calvin believes that the role of the Spirit should not be estimated at the expense of the word. Calvin hints at those who downplay the ministry of the word because it is taught by God’s fallible prophets.101 These people rely only on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the preaching of the word. Why may the role of the Spirit and the word not be placed in competition? Because “the power and majesty of the Holy Spirit appear and shine forth in the doctrine itself, so that the condition of men takes nothing away from its authority.”102 Gone is the excuse for those who refuse to listen to those contemporary “prophets” (pastors) of God whose spiritual condition they find wanting and whose words therefore need not be considered as authoritative. Instead, the Holy Spirit is present in the “doctrine” itself being taught and not in the messenger. Calvin’s judgment is that one must accept the messenger for the faithful message he delivers from God for if “we despise the word, and neglect the Spirit of God” one not only rejects the word of God but endangers his or her salvation.103 Calvin’s insistence on the inseparability of word and Spirit is ————— 97

Cf. Comm. Mal 4:2, CO 44, 490. Hesselink: 2004, 80–81. Author mentions as the first distinguishing feature of Calvin’s theology “…the unity and inseparability of Word and Spirit” which he believes has “consequences for Calvin’s concept of the church.” For support the author cites T.F. Torrance to show that the church in this world experiences an uninterrupted participation in Christ’s kingdom. See Torrance: 1956, 98; Gamble: 1988, 63–75. 99 Comm. Mic. 4:3, CO 43, 345. 100 Ibid. See also Witvliet: 2000, 138; Plomp: 1969, 65. Author relates the voluntary aspect specifically to church discipline as “voluntaria castigation” quoting Calvin’s Institutes (4.11.5). Plomp cautions that this element of voluntary submission is not the most important characteristic of Calvin’s ecclesiology. 101 See Wallace: 1959, 130. Author cites Calvin’s commentary on John 15:27 (CO 47, 354). 102 Comm. Zech 7:11–12, CO 44, 229; See Wallace: 1959, 128–30. 103 Cf. Comm. Hos 7:11–12, CO 42, 351: “…autem contempto verbo et neglecto Dei spiritu…” 98

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Character of Worship

177

his primary defense against both the Roman church and the Anabaptists, and reveals the reformer’s definition of the ecclesia catholica in a nutshell.104

7.7 Character of Worship Character of Worship 7.7.1 New Priesthood It is significant to Calvin’s defense of the churches of the Reformation visà-vis the Roman Catholic Church that the Old Testament priesthood no longer is limited to Aaron and Levi. Worship that God now requires takes its cue from the priestly work of Christ as Mediator. Today all believers are regarded as priests because of Christ (per Christum sumus omnes sacerdotes), thinks Calvin.105 Spiritual worship takes place through the office of Christ who intercedes on his people’s behalf. He is the one by whom worshippers can have direct access to God because the veil in the temple is torn in two.106 With the mediation of the ancient priesthood removed and replaced by that of Christ, all believers can come near to God as priests through him. Through Christ each person can now pray and “in confidence call God our Father.”107 In this current time-period—following Christ’s first advent—the prophetic promise regarding a rebuilding of the temple signifies spiritually the building of a temple not built by humans but by Christ alone. According to Calvin the rebuilding of a temple means restoring worship that is spiritual as opposed to ceremonial or external. Speaking directly of the work of Christ Calvin states: “He built a temple to God the Father, when He raised pure worship everywhere, having reduced superstitions to nothing, and when he consecrated us to be a royal priesthood.”108 For Calvin the restoration of the church concerns primarily its confession and worship being in accord with the will of God. As a result, there are certain marks by which the true church’s character is made visible. What does Calvin think are the marks of the future restoration of the church and how are they expressive of the kingdom of Christ? As the reformer understands it (1) people worship God together, (2) they worship under one —————

104 Cf. d’Assonville: 1974, 9–11. In Calvin’s Catechism of Geneva (1545) the dialectic of Word and Spirit are discussed under the question about what the nature is of Christ’s kingship. See Busch: 1997, 27, section 5, question 35; Milner: 1970, 4. 105 Cf. Comm. Joel 2: 15–17, CO 42, 552–53. 106 Cf. Ibid., CO 42, 552. 107 Ibid., CO 42, 553. 108 Comm. Zech 6:12–13, CO 44, 214.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

178

Worship

head, and (3) they have one altar by which to express their unity of faith, argues Calvin.109 The worship then that the prophet still foresees functions according to Calvin as the pattern for the church’s restoration under the gospel when there is unity of worship110, under the sole head Jesus Christ, and at the site of one altar or table of the Lord where the faithful remember the sacrifice made for them. 7.7.2 Prayer Essential to worship in the restored church, Calvin claims a high view of prayer.111 The prophet Zechariah, argues Calvin, “sets prayer in the first rank, for prayer to God is the chief part, indeed, the main thing in religion.”112 Prayer is another way of stating what it means to seek after God and depend on him. To pray properly one needs to come to him fully confident (certa fiducia) that God is near. Even when we prepare ourselves to pray, argues Calvin, there must be in us a “conviction of the heart,” that God is indeed near to us.113 Without this persuasion regarding God’s nearness, “the door will be closed against our prayers.”114 One can mention again the way Calvin discusses the prophet Jonah as an example of a true believer, who after turning away from God turns back in assurance of God’s favor. Inside the large fish Jonah displays how his prayer (unlike the pagan sailors) proceeded from faith (ex fide) rather than fear of God as judge.115 Jonah “prayed with an earnest feeling and in faith: for he would not have called him his God, except he was persuaded of his paternal love, so as to be able to expect from him a certain salvation.”116 Unlike the prayers of the ungodly, prayers from the heart are “guided by the Spirit of God.”117 It is the specific work of the Holy Spirit, argues Calvin, “to raise our hearts up to heaven for in vain we pray, except we —————

109 Cf. Comm. Mic 7:14, CO 43, 424. Compare Comm. Mic 2:12–13, CO 43, 315–16; Comm. Zech 9:9, CO 44, 270. 110 Compare with McKee: 1984, 20. Author argues that for Calvin unity in liturgy does not require uniformity. 111 For a schematic overview of Calvin’s thinking about prayer see Hesselink: 1988, 196–97. 112 Comm. Zech 8:20–2, CO 44, 257. See also Richard, Spirituality, 121. In a sermon on I Tim. 2:1–2 as quoted by Richard (CO 53,125) the reformer claims: “The principal exercise which the children of God have is to pray; for this way they give a true proof of their faith.” See also Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 50:23 as cited by Hesselink: 1988, 219n.5: “Elsewhere Calvin speaks of thanksgiving as “the chief exercise of godliness”. 113 Comm. Zech 8:20–2, CO 44, 257. 114 Cf. Ibid., CO 44, 257; See also Selderhuis: 2007, 223; Niesel: 1980, 155. 115 Cf. Comm. Jonah 2:7, CO 43, 242. 116 Comm. Jonah 2:5–6, CO 43, 241; Compare Niesel: 1980, 155. 117 Comm. Mic 3:4, CO 43, 322.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Character of Worship

179

bring faith and repentance.”118 In short, there is a right way of praying and a wrong way. Finally, Calvin connects the primary role of prayer in worship to the ministry of God’s word. The main objective requiring an attendant appropriate disposition is to come before God with a mindset of wanting to be taught by God. The reformer argues that prayer requires faith and in this way the believers should come to God in order to be taught and “seek to be ruled by his word” (et capiut regi eius verbo).119 7.7.3 Certainty of Faith In close proximity to praying to God with certainty, Calvin also highlights the importance of certainty of faith as it relates to worship overall. Indeed, the lectures Calvin gives on the Minor Prophets reflect what others have observed relative to Calvin’s work in general, that the topic of the certainty of salvation is of great importance to the reformer.120 The reformer places the authority of scripture in unison with faith, which Calvin describes in his Christian Institutes as “knowledge of God’s will toward us, perceived from his word”.121 In his lectures on the Minor Prophets the reformer particularizes this certain knowledge of God in terms of his favorable disposition toward his church. The reformer argues that God’s glory is demonstrated in the first place in that he is “reconcilable” (placabilis) and “also of his own will invites and anticipates” (sed sponte invitat ac praevenit) sinners.122 This makes God the only true God. Consequently, to let this knowledge sink deeply into one’s heart, the primary character of one’s faith must similarly focus on knowing God’s desire to forgive our sins. The reason Calvin thinks this is of critical importance to our faith in God is that “unless we be fully persuaded as to his mercy, no true religion will ever flourish in us, whatever pretensions we may make…”123 To fear God and to offer God true worship depends “on a ————— 118

Ibid. Comm. Zech 7:1–3, CO 44, 219. 120 See Foxgrover: 1980, 220f.; McWilliams: 2008, 513; Schreiner: 1996, 189. Author makes clear this concern for certainty is not unique to Calvin but includes the theological discussions of both the late-medieval and the reformation times, with particular appeal “to the Spirit as the agent of certainty”. 121 Inst. 3.2.6., CO 2, 402. 122 Comm. Mic 7:18, CO 43, 428, 429. 123 Comm. Mic 7:18 (CO 43, 429. This type of certainty Calvin stresses is seldom mentioned by him as certainty of final salvation or the state of grace at death. Calvin’s focus is consistently on the faith of the believer during his or her life. Concern about the state of grace at death receives comparatively little attention even though certainty of salvation regarding divine favor is regarded 119

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

180

Worship

perception of his goodness and favor, for we cannot from the heart worship God…except this persuasion be really and deeply seated in our hearts—that he is ever ready to forgive, whenever we flee to him.”124 This firmness of conviction Calvin contrasts with religion under the Papacy, which is “perplexed and doubtful, they ever hesitate, and never dare to believe that God will be propitious to them.”125 Finally, in the same passage Calvin packs his argument together with penetrating clarity, namely that God is not duly worshipped unless it is by a true faith: They [Romanists] therefore keep consciences in suspense. What is more they leave [people] doubtful and trembling when there is no certainty respecting God’s favor. Consequently, their whole worship is fictitious. In the end, true religion is entirely subverted, when a firm and unhesitating confidence as to his goodness, is taken away. It is not that confidence by which men are enabled to come to him without doubting, and to embrace at once, whenever they sin and confess their guilt and transgressions, the mercy that is offered to them.126

Calvin dismisses the Catholic charge that having such assurance of God’s mercy is rash and presumptuous.127 As Calvin sees it the papacy is basically clueless about the doctrine of God’s grace: “they have some ideas, although I know not what.”128 Calvin’s concern about having certainty of God’s mercy and grace is essential to true worship. As for the religion under the Roman Church: “their whole worship is fictitious” (totum eius cultum illic esse fictitium) because it takes away the unwavering confidence (fiducia) in the goodness of God that all who turn to him in repentance receive the mercy he offers.129 In one of his prayers, following the end of his discussion of Malachi 1:2– 6, Calvin shows that the certainty of our salvation is displayed to us in Christ and that “through the gospel.” This assurance of salvation, rooted in the mercy of God, Calvin understands to be a dynamic or a life long

————— by Calvin as consistent with a certainty of faith which appropriates the beatific state. For a description of certainty of salvation in the tradition of late medieval theology (esp. Gabriel Biel) see Oberman: 2000, 217–20. In this latter reference Calvin teaches a certainty of salvation by faith which appropriates the gift of grace for time and eternity and not by conjecture (Biel). This explains why Calvin’s use of practical syllogism is not emphatic. 124 Comm. Mic 7:18, CO 43, 429. 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid.: “Suspendunt igitur conscientias…” 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid. 129 Cf. Comm. Mic 7:18, CO 43, 429.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Character of Worship

181

process, not completed “until at length we are gathered into that eternal glory which he has procured for us by his own blood—Amen.”130 For Calvin the true religion in the reformed churches is diametrically opposed to the Roman Church. For the differences between them are modeled by biblical examples of the worship by God’s people versus the Gentiles. The latter sacrificed but could not obtain any certainty regarding the expiation of their sins, as opposed to the sacrifices offered by God’s people, because “there was a promise added to them, which could not disappoint.”131 In Calvin’s view the error being perpetrated by Catholic doctrine is their bifurcating of the outward command to offer ceremonial worship and the promise attached to it that God would be propitious to his people. As for those people who are not persuaded personally concerning God’s mercy toward them, it is true they “have made but little progress in the school of God” (parum nos profecisse in schola Dei).132 Calvin rejects this understanding of faith by the Roman papacy, because it fails to persuade the faithful that God will be merciful to them according to his nature despite the showings of God’s wrath. Therefore this system of belief that is based on mere conjectures is a horrendam abyssum.133 In the final analysis the believer should be persuaded of God’s truthfulness by “resting on his word [that] it is enough that God has spoken.”134 Only this approach agrees with what Calvin calls the true “logic of religion” (dialectica pietatis).135 7.7.4 Preaching and Sacraments as Aids136 Calvin’s general rejection of Catholic worship surfaces particularly when he references the Catholic view of the Mass as sacrifice. To the reformer it is the worst example of human invention of worship unprescribed by God and his Son Jesus Christ. When Calvin discusses the Lord’s Supper on occasion —————

130 From Calvin’s MP commentary (Geneva: Vignon, 1610, 729): “…donec tandem colligamur cum eo in illam aeternam gloriam, quam nobis sanguine suo perperit, Amen.” Quote is taken from the prayer with which Calvin concludes his commentary on Malachi 1:2–6. 131 Comm. Mic 7:18, CO 43, 429. 132 Comm. Mic 7:19, CO 43, 432. See also Comm. Mal 2:10 (CO 44, 446). Compare Blacketer: 2005. Consult especially chapter 1 for the author’s appeal to the “school of God” metaphor in Calvin’s sermons. 133 Cf. Comm. Mic 7:19, CO 43, 432. 134 Comm. Hab 2:2–3, CO 43, 526. 135 Cf. Comm. Mic 7:19, CO 43, 431. 136 The language of “aids” or “helps” Calvin uses to introduce the fourth book of his Institutes suggests that the church itself in its visible form is an aid to our weakness (see de Kroon: 1996, 158; Wendel: 1965, 291–92).

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

182

Worship

in the Minor Prophets lectures he leaves largely unattended the hotly debated issue—at that time—of how Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper.137 The Roman Mass seen as sacrifice instead of supper is the real stumbling block which sets Rome apart from the Reformation. Given Calvin’s view that the true character of the church is judged by (preaching of) the word and pure use of the sacraments,138 it is not completely accurate to say—given this priority—that the church for Calvin is “in the first place a communion of Lord’s Supper celebrants.139 The emphasis on the church’s teaching ministry of the spoken word of God outweighs Calvin’s concern with the sacraments in his lectures on the Minor Prophets. Nevertheless, God accommodates himself in his revealed word to human capacity and for the same reason this applies to the ordinances of sacraments also. Due to common weakness (communi infirmitate) we humans need the word and sacraments as long as we sojourn through this world (peregrinamur in hoc mundo).140 Because of the weakness (imbecilla141) of our faith God accommodates himself not just by his revealed words and the instrumentality of his ministers who communicate its teaching142 but also through the aid of Christ’s instituted sacraments.143 Calvin recognizes that when people read God’s word they can be left with questions (perplexus). Besides his promise to give believers the “spirit of understanding and wisdom” (intelligentiae et discretionis spiritum)144 God uses additional means. There are two “helps” (adminicula) by which God enables us to “lead us to himself” (nos ad se deducit), namely “the ————— 137

See van’t Spijker: 1994, 34–5. Cf. Comm. Joel 2:32, CO 42, 578: “…ex verbo et ex puro sacramentorum usu.” 139 At least, this characterization is not prominent in the MP commentary. See Speelman: 1995, 16; Niesel, claims the same when he asserts “Calvin regards the church as essentially a Eucharistic fellowship.” (Niesel: 1980, 212); Gerrish: 1998, 52–65. 140 Comm. Mal 1: 12, CO 44, 424. 141 Compare CO 5, 349 in Catechismus sive Christianae Religionis Institutio, Basel 1538; Also, de Kroon: 1996, 164 (n.30). In his Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1545) Calvin teaches specifically that the weakness is due to our (sinful, F.H.) humanity (CO 6, 113). Compare Dankbaar: 1941, 33. Author points out that besides the weakness of one’s faith, Calvin also appeals to the weakness of human nature as reasons for the necessity (though not in an absolute sense) of sacraments; Wallace: 1959, 138n.3. 142 For example see Comm. Hos 12:10, CO 42, 468, 469. 143 It is natural for Calvin to transit from divine accommodation due to human weakness (“common infirmity”) and relates this to the sacraments, calling them “ordinances” which “are useful to us, and without which we cannot be as long as we sojourn in this world...” (Cf. Comm. Mal 1:12, CO 44, 423–24). It is stating too much that for Calvin scripture and the sacraments are in se divine accommodations. See also Moehn: 1996, 268; Torrance: 1956, 128n.6. Author cites the Catechism of the Church of Geneva. Same statement is found also in Tracts and Letters, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 84; Compare also Hedtke: 1969, 33–34; Balserac: 2006, 76–97. 144 Comm. Zech 1: 18–21, CO 44, 151. 138

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Character of Worship

183

preaching of the word and the sacraments,” (praedicationem verbi et sacramenta) argues Calvin.145 If believers do not neglect to use these means (of grace) and especially ask God to guide them by his Spirit this guarantees that there will remain “nothing obscure or intricate in any of the prophecies” which God will make known “as far as it is necessary.”146 Evidently, Calvin admits that certain things remain unclear, but one can still benefit as long as a person is “teachable and submissive toward God” (docilem et morigerum offerat Deum).147 Calvin also realizes that the preaching of the word of God and the administration of sacraments do not form in themselves the heart of true religion. Calvin bars any thinking that by mere outward religious exercises people can please God. This hypocrisy hides what is the main thing of importance in obeying God’s law—integrity of heart (integritas cordis).148 People who are like that simulate ardentissimum zelum for God when their hearts remain unchanged (et cor non afficitur), and “when they come to the Lord’s table and are at the same time alienated from Christ.”149 On the other side of the spectrum are those who “at this day regard as nothing outward teaching and the sacraments.”150 Such people ignore that all people are spiritually weak (communi infirmitate).151 The ordained —————

145 Comm. Zech 1: 18–21, CO 44, 152. Calvin says elsewhere that the church is recognized by the “word and pure administration of the sacraments” (“…ex verbo et ex puro sacramentorum usu…”) in Comm. Joel 2:32, CO 42, 578. See also Calvin Institutes 4.1.1; 4.14.1. and the Confession of Faith 1562 (section 24) in Tracts & Letters, vol. 2, 152. Consult also Parker: 1995, 147, 158. With regard to the latter page reference, Parker notes that Calvin in his Institutes (1559) speaks of the civil government (like the church itself and its sacraments) as a “help” (Book IV.1.1.); Steinmetz: 1995, 173; de Kroon: 1996, 163, 167; Milner: 1970, 157. Author mentions “prayer” and “praise” as two more “aids” which together can be said to comprise for Calvin true worship; Witvliet quotes Calvin’s commentary on Malachi 1:11 where the reformer brings out the spiritual nature of the Lord’s Supper by saying that the sacrifices of the New Testament are “prayers and thanksgiving,”(2000, 142). 146 Comm. Zech 1:18–21, CO 44, 152. 147 Comm. Zech 1:18–21, CO 44, 152. 148 Cf. Comm. Mal 3:13–14, CO 44, 378. 149 Comm. Mal 1:12, CO 44, 423–24. Calvin’s reference to the Eucharist as the ‘Lord’s table’ vis-à-vis Mal. 1:12 he may have adopted from Augustine (In Answer to the Jews and Sermon 228B.I.). See Ferreiro: 2003, 290n.5, 292n.17. 150 Comm. Mal 1:12, CO 44, 423; See Dankbaar: 1941, 33. The author believes that Calvin argues against the position of Zwingli, and others (“anderen”) including “spiritualists” who think that what is possessed by faith does not require visual aids to strengthen it. 151 Cf. Comm. Mal 1:12, CO 44, 424. Balserac points to the fact that sacraments like scripture itself are forms by which God accommodates to the human weakness to understand who God is (2006, 64); see also Frye: 1990, 182. This emphasis or caution may arise for Calvin due to the Anabaptist’s disregard for the sacraments as aids in their human weakness; de Kroon: 1996, 164; Smolinsky: 1992, 78–79. Calvin sees virtually no need to discuss the debate about the relationship of the sacrament as sign and seal in the Minor Prophets.; Barth: 1995, 174–76; Hesselink: 1997, 141, 221n.6. Author shows that in Calvin’s earliest Catechism (1538, section 26, 27) the reformer states that God provides the sacraments due to “our slender capacities”.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

184

Worship

practices (exercitia) are useful (utilia) to believers. Therefore, people who view the congregational worship of God as “nothing” (nihilo) or “trivial” (levia) prove the guilt of their ungodliness.152 Instead, both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, Calvin argues, confirm (objectively) that God favors the worshiper as the call of the gospel also testifies.153 Sacraments are necessary to increase faith because neither the believer’s sanctification nor his or her faith is ever complete throughout their lives.154 7.7.5 Baptism If the preaching of the word of God and the sacraments are necessary to aid us in our worship of God due to our human weakness, this does not mean, thinks Calvin that people are free to create their own inventions or “additions” (additamentis) like the ancient Israelites and in his own day the papistae are guilty of doing. The prophet Hosea uses contrast (antithesin) when he compares the (false) worship of the ten tribes at Gilgal and Bethhaven and the temple worship in Jerusalem. Calvin next notes the parallel with the Roman church, so that the latter “appear to be like the Israelites” (papistae Israelitis sunt similes).155 This is true, for example, with regard to the sacrament of Baptism. This ordinance, says Calvin, has its origin in Christ who instituted it.156 But being baptized is not enough. Calvin looks at the example of the Israelites who proved themselves to be beyond the point of recovery (Comm. Amos 2:6) because of their gross violations of God’s laws. This serves as a warning to those who mistake the outward rite of baptism or “symbol of faith” (insigne fidei) as one of the marks (notae) which identifies a true church.157 This disregard for the pure and spiritual worship of God repeats the mistake made by the Catholic Church “who blend profane with sacred things, when they prostitute their masses, and also when they trifle with God in their ceremonies.”158 According to Calvin there are several ways in which the ancient prophets speak about Israel. First, they speak from the perspective that the people of God have become apostate because they turned away from biblical worship ————— 152

Cf. Ibid. Cf. Comm. Jonah 2:4, CO 43, 240. 154 See Gassmann: 1968, 141–42. Author notes as well that while for Calvin faith is not dependant on the sacrament, the exact nature of this relationship remains unsolved. 155 Comm. Hos 4:15, CO 42, 289. This exegesis is just one example among many where Calvin uses the rhetorical devise of synechdoche to justify his interpretation and application which often appear to reach beyond what the text strictly states. 156 Cf. Ibid., CO 42, 290. 157 Cf. Comm. Amos 2:6, CO 43, 23. 158 Comm. Amos 2:8, CO 43, 27. 153

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Character of Worship

185

of God. But they have yet another way of speaking when they point out how the true worship of God is preserved even when the people corrupt it. Calvin applies this comment also to baptism and tacitly to the Roman church. Why? Because, this sacrament “is a sacred and immutable testimony of the grace of God” (erit sacrum et inviolabile testimonium gratiae Dei).159 The sacraments have no spiritual efficacy of their own (opere ex operato). Sacraments for Calvin remain what they are in themselves: signs.160 As signorum they remain God’s ordained exercises (haec exercitia) and therefore not to be held in contempt, Calvin opines.161 Nevertheless, to make clear that “baptism ever retains its own character, and is never contaminated by the vices of men it would not matter even if the sacrament were “administered by the devil [or] even if all who partake of it were ungodly and polluted as far as it pertains to their character.”162 For reasons left unmentioned Calvin when he refers to the nature of the sacrament does not state more emphatically that these ordinances are not efficacious apart from faith, as he does elsewhere.163 Instead, it appears that Calvin maintains a more general concern to instill in his audience his emphasis on the “obedience of faith” (obedientiam fidei) for the Christian life overall.164 Theologically, the reformer’s objective is to speak of the church in its call to the life of progressive sanctification. This call of obedience, however, is one which Calvin ties closely to the word of God.165 7.7.6 Lord’s Supper The reformer is much more polemical when it comes to his view of the Roman Mass. In the case of baptism—and as we just saw—Calvin could still accept the baptism by Roman priests because of his belief that the sacrament retains its own integrity regardless of the moral condition of the one administering it.166 Admitting therefore that while “some things” ————— 159

Comm. Amos 5:25–26, CO 43, 98; Cf. Nijenhuis: 1994, 46–7. Author argues that Calvin in his opinion had more in common with Luther than Bullinger on ths subject of the nature of the sacraments. 160 See Smolinsky: 1992, 80. 161 Cf. Comm. Mal 1:12, CO 44, 423, 424. 162 Comm. Amos 5:25–26, CO 43, 98: “Baptismus semper retinet suam naturam…” Refering to the Lord’s Supper Calvin observes that the same “must be said of sacrifices.” (Ibid.); Compare Parker: 1995, 152. 163 Compare Comm. Ezek 20:20, CO 40, 492. See Kärkkäinen: 2002, 55. 164 Cf. Comm. Hos 1:2, CO 42, 205. Other texts where this phrase occurs are in his comments on Hosea 1:11; 2:2; 2:4–5; Jonah 2:8–9; Micah 4:1–2; Habakkuk 2:2–3; Haggai 1:12; Zechariah 1:12; 6:15. 165 Cf. Comm. Jonah 2:8–9, CO 43, 244; Comm. Mic 1:3–4, CO 43, 288. 166 See Parker: 1995, 152.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

186

Worship

(aliquae) remain true in the Catholic view of baptism, about their Mass Calvin notes that it “agrees in nothing to Christ’s holy supper” despite what the papists think of this.167 Erasing any validity in the Roman Mass the reformer argues that the Mass has noting in common with the Lord’s Supper.168 It is evident from these sentiments that to Calvin the Mass and the Lord’s Supper are incomparable and two different matters entirely. What then is so disagreeable about the Mass? The reformer’s charge cuts right to the marrow of the controversy. Assuming that his audience is informed about the subject of controversy on the Lord’s Supper, Calvin states that it is “sufficiently known” (satis notum est) that through the Mass the Roman Church “abolishes Christ’s unique sacrifice” (abolent unicum Christi sacrificium).169 This implies that on the merit of this statement alone the Mass—since it is viewed as a bloodless sacrifice—has nothing at all in common with the sacrifice Christ once made on the cross. Instead, the Romanists “ascribe to their own devices the expiation which was sought for by the death of the Son of God.”170 The faithful (fideles) should instead “be content, not with one altar—for there is now no need of an altar—but they ought to be content with a common table” (contenti esse communi mensa).171 For Calvin this disagreement is relevant in particular to a group of individuals who have tacitly embraced the Reformed faith or doctrine but refuse to openly break allegiance with the Roman Catholic Church. They are the “Nicodemians.”172 As mentioned earlier, these people refuse to make a choice and worship God acceptably by leaving the Roman Church and join churches committed to the Reformation teachings. Calvin does not isolate such a group in the Minor Prophets or Old Testament history as a whole. Rather, it is the behavior that is true of the ancient church generally which for Calvin can be characterized as following that same “middle road” regarding divine worship, which he recognizes in those Catholics who stayed under papal authority. Elsewhere, without mentioning them as “Nicodemians” Calvin speaks of those who try to walk a “middle course” (medium). “[T]hey wish to —————

167 Cf. Comm. Hos 4:15, CO 42, 290: “…sed missa nullo modo accedit ad sacram Christi coenam. Iactant tamen papistae esse eius loco.” 168 Ibid., CO 42, 290: “Missa enim ut scimus, nihil habet commune cum sacrosancta coena Domini.” 169 Ibid. 170 Comm. Hos 4:15, CO 42, 290. 171 Comm. Hos 8:11, CO 42, 375. 172 Cf. Comm. Hos 4:15, CO 42, 290: “…qui iactant se Nicodemitas…” (hapax). Calvin identifies those who are “papists” as “hypocrites” in this same text. It may be implied that the “Nicodemians” are hyprocrites too according to Calvin. In effect, they both wear masks hiding their true identity. See De Greef: 1989, 126–31; Wendel: 1965, 39, 47.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Character of Worship

187

reconcile Popery with the doctrine of the gospel,” which is clearly not a biblical option, argues the reformer.173 Based on the biblical choices between Jerusalem in Judah and the alternative locations Gilgal and Beth Aven in northern Israel, Calvin implies in his comment on Hosea 4:15, that there exists a clear choice in his day for where people should and should not bring their (Eucharistic) worship. In other words, while Calvin does not identify the Old Testament equivalent of “Nicodemites” he does think that those ancients who pretended to worship God aright but refused to forsake their illegitimate places of worship that were apart from the temple in Jerusalem is essentially the same error of those he identifies in his own day whose loyalty toward Reformation doctrine remains disguised. It is incumbent to return to the right worship of God, and this warrants an open break with Catholic worship practice and environment.174 People are mistaken who—by staying in the Roman Church and celebrating Mass outwardly while privately they interpret the Mass to display “a commemoration of Christ’s supper and of his death” (proponi memoriam coenae Christi, et mortis eius)—can claim they do not come to the Mass itself, nor show this “papist figment” (papistico figmento) any respect.175 Calvin’s response to this rational is that believers should maintain purity in these matters too so as not to be guilty.176 Simply put, to consider the Mass a sacrifice is no longer applicable because the words of Christ’s institution ought not to be interpreted literally “since the Prophet adopts a mode of speaking common in Scripture.”177 Calvin ends up dismissing the theological question regarding the “true presence” of Christ through transubstantiation in the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine on the argument (of Zwingli) that Jesus’ language is meant to be taken as figurative.178 Still, where Calvin addresses the subject of the sacraments in the MP he does not engage in a discourse on how believers personally enter and remain in communion with Christ.179 Although the concept of the mystical communion between Christ and his church is not specifically mentioned by Calvin in the MP lectures, the idea ————— 173

Comm. Amos 5:4–6, CO 43, 73; See also Amos 7:10–13, CO 43, 135–36). Cf. Comm. Hos 4:15, CO 42, 290. A clear defense for separation from the Catholic Church Calvin states in his commentary on Ezekiel 2:8 (CO 40, 74: “…quia necesse est nos separari ab impia illa conspiratione…” 175 Comm. Hos 4:15, CO 42, 290. 176 Comm. Hos 4:15, CO 42, 290. 177 Comm. Mal 1:11, CO 44, 421. 178 Ibid. See also Frye: 1990, 180–81. Compare with Mooi: 1965, 153. Author suggests that according to Calvin the medieval theologian Duns Scotus declared as much that the better part of reason dismisses the real presence of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist by transubstantiation. 179 For example, see Comm. Ezek 20:20 (CO 40, 492) or CTS (Baker, 1983), vol. 12, 312. 174

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

188

Worship

of communion of God with his elect is still present due to his approach to the church as a (covenantal) community.180 However, when Calvin interprets Joel 2:14 to say that God “had all things in common with his people,” it is to underscore the notion that God seeks the communion or fellowship with his people as his chosen ones.181 In other words, the communion and fellowship with Christ—characteristic in Book III of his Institutes (1559)—is spoken of in his Minor Prophets lectures as God’s communion with his people. Thus the ecclesiology in the Minor Prophets’ lectures highlight the corporate unity between ancient Israel and God, and derived from that is the greater unity today between Christ and his body, the church. The explanation for this seems to be that the historical division in the ancient church between the legitimate kingdom of David and the alternative (illegitimate) kingdom begun under King Jeroboam as well as the need for the latter to be reunited with the former under one spiritual head (David as type of Christ) stands at the forefront of the biblical text’s own agenda. In the MP commentary Calvin’s concern to appeal to the church as covenant community retains priority over the individual believer’s communion with Christ and its mystical nature.182 It is this spiritual union between God (in Christ) and his people that is of vital importance for the individual life of Christian obedience (good works) that issues forth from a true or genuine faith. 7.7.7 Good works Hence this definition must be borne in mind — that works, however splendid they may appear before our eyes, are of no value or importance before God, except they flow from a pure heart. (CTS, Comm. Hag 2:10–14)

Calvin comments frequently on the role of good works (bonorum operum)183 and how they relate to faith and justification of sinners. Calvin’s concern throughout is to defend the Reformation or Pauline doctrine of ————— 180

Walker: 1984, 220. Cf. Comm. Joel 2:14, CO 42, 549: “…sibi omnia esse communia cum suo populo. Haec igitur communitas vel societas Dei cum electo populo…” Calvin seems to be describing what is refered to in his Institutes as the “communio sanctorum” or “Societas fidelium”. See Petry: 1936, 227–38. In the Minor Prophets commentary Calvin favors the term “the faithful.”. 182 For Calvin’s emphasis about communion with Christ within Reformed theology see van’t Spijker: 1995, 24, 41–45, 58–63, 69–70, 72–78); Ibid., 1994, 32–44. 183 Cf. Comm. Hos 14:2–3, CO 42, 500; Comm. Jonah 1:16, CO 43, 231, 260; Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 533; Comm. Mal 3:17, CO 44, 484. As these few occurrences indicate the term “good works” is not one Calvin himself prefers. His standard use is simply to refer to them as “works” in his Minor Prophets commentary. 181

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Character of Worship

189

justification by faith as a completely gratuitous act by God184 against those who base salvation on a mixture of divine grace, good works and free will doctrine. Because the human heart is “naturally corrupt” (vitiosum est naturaliter) all human works are “corrupt before God and abominable in his sight.”185 The difference comes into play “when God cleanses the heart by faith then our works begin to be approved and obtain praise before him. For the heart no doubt is cleansed by faith, and purity spreads over our works, so that they begin to be pleasing to God.”186 Evidently, Calvin’s view of true religion is that it is a religion of the heart purified by God through the regenerating work of his Holy Spirit. From the example of Abel, Calvin seeks to show that the Catholic Church’s teaching about “good works” have in reality no merit before God because the human heart is corrupt by nature.187 On this subject Calvin finds himself in direct opposition to (Tridentine) Roman theology concerning good works.188 Good works stem from a person’s faith—itself the result of being declared justified based on God’s favor. To make God’s favor depend on works “derogates from the grace of Christ,” argues the reformer.189 Again using Abel as an example, Calvin shows that the sacrifices by this son of Adam and Eve were approved by God “because he worshipped him with an upright and sincere heart.”190 Furthermore, “his sacrifices were approved, for they proceeded from the true fear of God and sincere piety.”191 This agrees with the apostle Paul too (I Tim. 1:5) who teaches that the true purpose of keeping of the law is “love from a pure heart and a faith that is unfeigned” (finis legis est, inquit, caritas ex corde puro, et ex fide non ficta).192 On this basis “no work is deemed right before God, except it ————— 184

Cf. Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 531: “…tunc Dominus nos gratis iustificat.” Comm. Hag 2:11–15, CO 44, 114. 186 Ibid. 187 Cf. Ibid., 113–16. Here too Calvin avoids using the phrase “good works” when discussing it; Also Comm. Hos 6:6–7, CO 42, 330. 188 See Oberman: 2000, 169–72, 355. Calvin implicitly rejects the Catholic doctrine of the socalled “Gratia create” (habit of grace) and “gratia increata” (God’s acceptation). Calvin depicts God’s grace not in terms of “the habit of inherent grace” but rather as a gracious benevolence (“gratuita eius bonitate”/”gratuita Dei misericordia”). See Calvin’s commentary on Habakkuk 2:4, CO 43, 529, 535. According to McGrath, Calvin’s view of the ultimate ground of merit as resting in the will of God rather than in the “intrinsic goodness of an action” supports the belief that the reformer’s (voluntarist) position is characteristic and rooted in the late-medieval voluntarist school of thought (especially that of the Via Moderna and Schola Augustiniana Moderna). See McGrath: 1999, 80–81. 189 Comm. Mal 3:17, CO 44, 485. 190 Comm. Mal 3:17, CO 44, 485; Cf. Comm. Hag 2:11–15, CO 44, 114: “…integro et cincero animo eum colebat.” 191 Ibid. 192 Comm. Mal 3:17, CO 44, 485 185

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

190

Worship

proceeds from that fountain, even faith unfeigned, which is always joined with an upright and sincere heart.”193 Abel like all people was in himself sinful or “encompassed with infirmity” (circumdatum infirmitate). Therefore, the reason God accepted Abel’s sacrifice (Gen 4:4) is not based on Abel’s personal goodness. Rather, Abel’s sacrifices were found “pure in so far as there was nothing untrue or false in him” (integer quatenus nihil erat in ipso fictum vel duplex).194 Still, this sounds as if his works as such bear merit. Calvin’s explanation is because Abel was accepted by God, so also were the works he performed.195 To accept Abel’s worship, God first cleansed his heart and only then his works. What is true of Abel is true of the children of God (versus the hypocrites). Speaking in the first person plural, Calvin explains: “[F]or having been regenerated by the Spirit of God, we offer to him first ourselves and then what we have.”196 God graciously received from Abel his sacrifice because God first purified Abel as he does with all his elect when he “first forms us in his image, and engraves on us true and real fear, and an obedient disposition.”197 This is “true piety” when “we have no other purpose but to offer ourselves and all we have to God.”198 Hypocrites and the profane do not have “this feeling” (autem affectu) because they “want to be their own authority; for a hypocrite will never give up himself as a spiritual sacrifice to God.”199 Our good works do not obligate God toward us. Catholics, says Calvin, are mistaken to think that due to their belief of “partial righteousness” (partialis iustitia)200 a sinner’s partial obedience to the law is still approved by God. Speaking of such people, Calvin echoes their viewpoint: “But they say that if we kept half of God’s law, we could obtain righteousness by that half.”201 If the “papists” could only admit their contradictory belief that there is righteousness by covenant obedience and a righteousness which is partial. Calvin drives home the biblical notion that a person can not be ————— 193

Ibid. Compare with Calvin’s treatise The Bondage and Liberation of the Will. A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius. See Calvin: 1996, 27–28 194 Comm. Hag 2: 11–15, CO 44, 115. 195 Cf. Ibid. 196 Comm. Hag 2: 11–15, CO 44, 115. 197 Ibid., CO 44, 114). 198 Ibid. 199 Ibid. 200 Calvin mentions this phrase in just two locations: Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 532, 533; Comm. Hag 2:10–14, CO 44, 112. See Inst. 3.13.13; 3.17.15; and indirectly in 4:14.14 where Calvin rejects the notion of partial righteousness toward meriting salvation based on the sacraments themselves, which Calvin thinks is “deadly and pestilential. …But what is a sacrament received apart from faith but the most certain ruin of the church?” In his comments on Ezekiel 16:63 (CO 40, 399) Calvin uses the same terminology in connection with papal doctrine of “works of supererogation” (“operibus supererogationis”). 201 Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 532.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Conclusion

191

righteous “except through a full and perfect observance of the law. This is certain.”202 It can not be that sinners can make satisfaction by their own works’ merit. That, argues Calvin makes Christ’s sacrifice appear as though it is insufficient (ac si non sufficeret Christi sacrificium).203 Continues Calvin, there is only one way to obtain merit that deals with the sinner’s sin debt. It is divine merit which is by faith alone apart from works. The heart is too evil to attain a state of purity of its own by which human works deserve God’s favor. In sum, Calvin’s commentary suggests without equivocation that his view of divine favor and justification in relation to good works has radically broken with the medieval Catholic Church’s beliefs concerning the meritorious nature of good works as a condition for divine justification. In fact, argues Calvin, both the testimony of the apostle Paul and reason (ratio) itself readily argues against a view of salvation and righteousness through works.204 Salvation of God is free because it is obtained by grace through faith alone.205 Therefore, divine righteousness alone is the foundation for good works. In this way Calvin is able to distinguish justification from sanctification while at the same time showing how the former is the ground for the latter in the call to obey God in the Christian life.

7.8 Conclusion Conclusion For Calvin the restoration of the church is achieved through the restoration of its worship according to the rule of scripture. This principle is what defines the reformer’s ecclesiology as a theology of worship and it places it between (middle ground) 206 the respective ecclesiology of the Church of Rome (sacramental) and the Anabaptists (who downplay the significance of both the Bible and sacraments) generally speaking. Specifically, the renewal of the worship in the church requires and presupposes the need for the church’s contemporary “priests” and “prophets” to reclaim and assert their main office, namely, to teach the word of God to the faithful. However, as a result of Calvin’s main emphasis on the teaching responsibility of the office of pastors, the office of elders— who govern the church—receives less emphasis in the Minor Prophets commentary. Even when Calvin discusses the topic of the sacraments, it ————— 202

Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 532–33. Cf. Comm. Hab 2:4, CO 43, 533. 204 Ibid., CO 43, 534. 205 Ibid., CO 43, 530–31. 206 Hesselink: 1988, 152–53; 298–99. 203

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

192

Worship

serves the purpose to advance the theme of the Christian life rather than, for example, sacramental union with Christ. Overall, Calvin’s church ideal is to have the people of God being taught God’s truths to aid them in their Christian life both as members of the church (elect) and of the society in which they live and work in this world. The claim to being the church of God must always be verified by the question whether or not any church puts the law of God into practice. Only such worship can claim to honor God. Finally, Calvin belabors the point that worship—both in Old and New Testament—is spiritual in nature. For this reason, the church’s worship emphasizes the spoken word of God, because people remain tempted to fall back and rely for their faith upon outward forms and ceremony (Catholics) or their free will and the Spirit’s guidance (Anabaptists). Following the rule of faith through the guidance of the Bible and the Holy Spirit Calvin thinks the church’s worship will be restored as Christ rules his Father’s church and kingdom by his gospel.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Part Three: Calvin’s Ecclesiology in Light of the History of Exegesis on the Minor Prophets

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

8. Ecclesiology in Early and Medieval Exegesis on the Minor Prophets Ecclesiology in Early and Medieval Exegesis The Early Church

8.1 Introduction The purpose of the next two chapters is to give a brief and thus necessarily incomplete overview of the ecclesiological aspects that are gleaned from the exegesis of the Minor Prophets among commentators in the Early, Medieval, and Reformation eras.1 The goal is specifically to locate points of contact or divergence between Calvin, the exegetical tradition, as well as exegetes among his contemporaries with respect to their ecclesiology.

8.2 The Early Church (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyr, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind) It is recognized that Calvin was acquainted with the theological and exegetical writings of the Early Church. It has proven far more difficult to ascertain which sources in the Medieval Church period Calvin read or those to which he alludes.2 It seems safe to argue that familiarity with the high medieval (scholastic) authors includes the writings of Petrus Lombard (Sentences) and the theological treatises by Thomas Aquinas which Calvin would have read during his student days at Montaigu. One can surmise that due to Calvin’s lack of time to prepare for his lectures3 and following the custom in his day, the reformer seldom mentions his sources by name.4 And —————

1 Two main (albeit older) sources which are indispensable in the study of the history of exegesis of the Old Testament are by L. Diestel, Geschichte der Alten Testamentes in der Christlichen Kirche (Jena: DDR, Mauke’s Verlag, 1869, 1981 reprint). The other work is by H-J. Kraus, Geschichte der Historisch-Kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982). 2 On Calvin’s knowledge and use of the church fathers, see A.N.S Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Ibid., 1999, 47). For the Medieval Church period see R.J. Mooi, Het Kerken Dogmahistorisch Element in de Werken van Johannes Calvijn (Wageningen, 1965). 3 John Budaeus’s address “to the Reader” in Calvin’s Commentary on the Minor Prophets (CO 42, n.p.; or see English edition (CTS, Baker, 1993), xxvi. Author claims Calvin had less than an hour to prepare for his lectures due to his heavy schedule. 4 On this question see the discussion by Lane: 1999, 205–34. Jerome stands out as one exception to this general observation. In his MP commentary Calvin refers to him 26 times, both criti-

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

196

Ecclesiology in Early and Medieval Exegesis

when he does make mention of them—by name or indirectly—it is not to defend his own theological opinions in comparison or by contrast to theirs. Usually his references concern matters of philology or grammar. Evidently, for Calvin the purpose for lecturing on the books of the Bible is not to engage is theological debate with others in the scholarly community past or present but rather it is to combine devotion with learning for the sake of spiritual edification. Or in the words of the (standard) prayer preceding his lectures the study of scripture is to gain access with increasing devotion to heavenly wisdom for the glory of God and the believers’ edification.5 When studying Calvin’s ecclesiology as it emerges from the pages of his MP commentary one may question to what degree Calvin’s exegesis suggest any continuity with the past tradition in the Christian church. The limitations of this study preclude the possibility of studying specific examples of biblical exegesis within the entire history of exegesis on the MP and compare that information with Calvin. Complicating such a comparison even further is the fact that each period of exegesis reflects the perceived needs of the time in which they are produced. For instance, it does not surprise that the exegesis of the MP during the Early Church evidences a concern with the Christological and Trinitarian debates of that time.6 However, questions regarding doctrinal orthodoxy are not the only concerns in the Early Church. The Christian exegetes—in the context of their Jewish counterparts (especially in Alexandria)—demonstrate the obvious concerns to prove the legitimacy of the Christian church by showing “that Jesus was the Messiah, that the church was the new Israel and the temple sacrifices were fulfilled in those of the new covenant, and replaced by the Eucharist.”7 In other words claiming and defending the organic unity between the canonical writings of the Old and the New Testaments too was of critical importance for the post-apostolic church leaders.8 In post-apostolic times the Minor Prophets did not play a “minor” role. In the Early Church period the Minor Prophets are widely mentioned—not ————— cally as well as with either overt or implied approval. Calvin mentions Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History just once (disparagingly) in his commentary on Zechariah 14:20 (CO 43, 388): “Ridiculum est ac puerile quod Theodoritus…” Lane states that Calvin had “thorough knowledge” of this work by Theodoret (Lane: 1999, 81). 5 “Det nobis Dominus in caelestis suae sapientiae mysteriis cum vero pietatis profectu versari in gloriam suam & aedificationem nostrum, Amen. (Geneva: Vignon, 1610, 1). 6 For example, Theodoret of Cyr was condemned in 449 A.D. (Ephesus) for his alleged defense of Nestorian ideas before he was rehabilitated at the Council at Chalcedon (October 26, 451). Texte, 480–81; Smolak: 1984, 241–43. 7 Ferreiro: 2003, xxi. 8 Cf. Ibid., xvii.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

The Early Church

197

just in biblical commentary—but in all manner of Christian writings.9 Four writers in the early church are known to have written full commentaries on all the Minor Prophets: Jerome (ca.347–420),10 Cyril of Alexandria (412– 444),11 Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca.360–428)12 and Theodoret of Cyr (ca.390–457).13 Didymus the Blind deserves being mentioned, though we possess only one complete copy of a commentary he wrote on the prophet Zechariah.14 This exegete from Alexandria has been viewed as the final main representative of the school of exegesis in that city. Didymus had a particular influence on Jerome who requested Didymus to produce this commentary.15 Comparing Calvin’s exegesis in terms of methodology with authors in the early history of exegesis of the MP the reformer utilizes elements of the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools of interpretation.16 From the former, Calvin adopts its more Christian-devotional character—while eschewing its allegorizing of the biblical text17—and from Antiochene writers he assumes their emphasis of a historical-literal approach to discover the text’s meaning, including its many references to rhetoric plus its historical realism.18 However, it must be pointed out that Calvin’s total lack in referencing the ————— 9

See Texte der Kirchenväter, vol. 5 (München: Kösel, 1963–1966), 718–19. Jerome. Commentarii In Prophetas Minores. In: Corpus Christianum Latina, vol. 76. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. Pars I, 6. (Turnhout, 1969). For Calvin’s esteem for Jerome as exegete over Augustine see Mooi: 1999, 353; Bartelink: 2003, 145–65. 11 Cyril of Alexandria. “Commentarius in xii prophetas minores.” In Sancti patris nostril Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in xii prophetas, vol. 1, 1–740; vol. 2, 1–626. 12 Theodori Mopsuesteni, Commentarius in Duodecim Prophetas Minores (Migne PG 66.123– 632. For literature on Theodore see: Raddatz: 1984, 167–77; Diestel: 1981, 129; Texte der Kirchenväter (München, 1963–1966), vol. 5, 485; ODCC, 1609–610. Note especially the bibliography. 13 Theodoreti Cyrensis, Explanatio in XII prophetas minores (Migne PG 81.1551–1988. For literature on Theodoretus see ODCC, 1611–612. Also see Diestel, 1981, 132, 133ff.; Texte der Kirchenväter, vol. 5, 480–83; Smolak: 1984, 239–49. 14 Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Zechariah (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006). Translated from the Greek and introduced by Robert C. Hill. This commentary was not yet included in the Patrologia Graeca for the simple reason that soldiers discovered this commentary along with other works by Didymus in 1942 in Tura outside Cairo, Egypt. See Reventlow: 1994, 27ff.. 15 Jerome makes multiple references to Didymus in his own commentary on the Minor Prophets. 16 This eclectic use of emphases from both schools of exegesis is not unlike Jerome. See Brown: 2003, 371. 17 Note how Calvin criticizes Jerome’s tendency toward allegorizing, calling his insights “pueriles nugae” (Comm. Hos 3:2–5, CO 42, 259). 18 Steinmetz argues that Calvin “while abandoning the medieval quadriga in principle, [he] retained it in fact; especially, what medieval theologians had called the literal-prophetic sense of the text… The literal sense was for Calvin what the allegorical sense had been for Origen, a sensus plenior, a big-bellied letter filled with spiritual significance and unfailingly edifying.” See Steinmetz: 1996, 104. 10

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

198

Ecclesiology in Early and Medieval Exegesis

biblical commentaries by Theodore and Theodoret (Antioch) may well be because these works in Greek were not available or were not yet translated into Latin. By going a step further—based on his view of history and the unity of scripture and bridging the context of the MP with his own (hodie)—Calvin is able to give his ecclesiology its dynamic character that is quite unique within the entire history of Christian exegesis.19 The Twelve Prophets are viewed by the Early Church as an important part of the Old Testament divine revelation as it is quoted numerous times in the Gospels and other New Testament writings. Particularly significant is how the Church Fathers understand the relationship between Israel and the church.20 Bible exegetes in Alexandria—more than their Antiochene counterparts—relate their insights from the biblical text especially to the doctrinal dispute about the nature of Christ. Alexandrian exegetes appear more quickly inclined to interpret the MP christologically.21 For example, Cyril of Alexandrian is quick to see Hosea’s prophecy (1:10–11) about the restoration and future re-union of the houses of Judah and Israel as referring to the ingathering of the innumerable Gentiles. Cyril explains this text to refer to the final (second) resurrection when Christ returns at the consummation. Cyril seems to believe that when Christ comes to this earth He will then not only dispense forgiveness of sins but also set up his (millennial) kingdom and throne.22 Theodore and Theodoret on the other hand keep the text’s fulfillment squarely in the Old Testament era.23 Theodoret elevates the tribe of Judah above all the others when together they become reunited under one governmental rule (Hos 1: 11). Even though some from the ten tribes did return also from their exile to Assyria, Theodoret nevertheless thinks not very much of that return. The ten tribes were “passed over” so that it can be said that God “gave all this attention to [the returnees of the tribe of Judah] from

————— 19

For instance, read Calvin’s opening statements in his commentary on Micah 1:1 (CO 43, 281) as cited from Parker: 1986, 39. Compare also the reformer’s historical argument of analogy (rather than allegory) by which the ancient circumstances function in an exemplary way for the church today (Comm. Dan 8:24–25, CO 41, 121); For a similar intimation see Ganoczy and Scheld: 1983, 144–68. 20 According to Ferreiro the church fathers believe that Israel of old is “transformed” into the church as the new Israel. However, following the argument of the apostle Paul, the consensus among these exegetes is that in the end the ethnic Jews will be converted just prior to Christ’s second coming (See ACC, xx-xxi). 21 The Antiochene exegetes also relate the text to Christ but less often and usually only when a link is established by way of typology or direct citation of the MP text in the New Testament. It is this approach that Calvin too utilizes in his exegesis of the Minor Prophets. 22 ACC, 6. (Migne PG 71.57). 23 Theodore of Mopsuestia, (Migne PG 66.131). Theodoret of Cyr., (Migne PG 81.1559).

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

The Medieval Church

199

which the Lord was due to be revealed as Christ, who was coming for the salvation of all alike.”24 Explaining verse eleven Theodoret notes: [Hosea] means that after the captivity in Babylon a single liberation will occur for everyone from the tribe of Judah, that they will actually be under one rule, no longer divided as before but under one rule, with the tribe of Judah in command of all and those from that tribe exercising kingship and authority.25

On the abovementioned passage in Hosea, Calvin chooses to distinguish between verses ten (Jews and Gentiles) and eleven, arguing that verse 10 applies to the universal ingathering of the Gentiles and Jews (CO 42, 217), whereas verse eleven refers just to the Jews’ restoration from exile in Babylon (CO 42, 218–21).26 Importantly, Calvin maintains that even since Christ has come the (literal) offspring of Abraham retain their honor of being first-born in the church.27

8.3 The Medieval Church (Rupert of Deutz, Nic. of Lyra, Denis the Carthusian) The Medieval Church Calvin’s rudimentary knowledge of the exegetes of the medieval period is evident in his Institutes.28 However, there are—at best—only mere hints of this in the MP commentary. One plausible explanation is that Calvin deems medieval authors of less usefulness for the purpose of restoring the sixteenth century church on the principle of continuity with the Early Church. In addition to the reformer’s lack of time29 to prepare himself more fully for his lectures, it appears that in the MP commentary Calvin turns a blind eye toward the exegetes of the entire medieval time period except for making veiled references to Jewish and Christian exegetes of the medieval————— 24

See Hill: 2004, 38; Compare Migne PG 66.126: “…verumtamen neglectis caeteris, ad hanc unam curas suas contulisse, ex qua Dominus proditurus erat Christus, cum denique pro communi salute conspiciendum se daret.” Evidently, it is only in Theodoret’s introduction to the prophecy of Hosea that the prophetic text’s fulfillment in history is related to the advent of Christ. 25 Hill: 2004, 44; Compare Migne PG 66.131: “Nempe ait fore, ut depulso a Judae tribu Babylonici servitii jugo, una omnium libertas sit, atque omnes sub uno sint principatu, haud jam ut antea divisi, sed unius imperii ditioni obnoxii, cui praesit Judae tribus; et qui de hoc genere sunt, in regia dignitate constituantur.” 26 Cf. CO 42, 219. This promised restoration is due to God’s faithfulness to his covenant. In this way Calvin is able to maintain his commitment to his principles of historico-grammatical exegesis while also honoring the apostle Paul’s reference to this chapter in Hosea, but limiting it to verse 10 with its universal scope. 27 Cf. CO 42, 219. “…ius primogeniturae…” 28 Christian Institutes, (McNeill: 1960). See Index II, 1592–1634. 29 This is especially true of the busiest period of his life, the 1550’s until the end of his life. See Lane: 1999, 233–34.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

200

Ecclesiology in Early and Medieval Exegesis

scholastic period calling the former “rabbins” (Hebraeis) and the latter “sophists” (sophistae) respectively.30 For the Medieval Church the period roughly between 600–1000 presents a time when few commentaries on the MP are produced—with notable exceptions of Bede the Venerable (d.735) and Rhemigius of Auxerre (d.908).31 Overall biblical exegesis during this time exhibits a lower level of scholarly capability and an over-dependence on the church fathers.32 Consequently, the early medieval period dwells more in the revered past than that it engages (yet) in a more learned exegesis of its own to address questions of ecclesiology such as will be more common in medievalscholastic period. As an example of this last scenario, writers like Rupert of Deutz (ca.1075–1129),33 Nicolas of Lyra (ca.1270–1349)34 and Denis the

—————

30 CO 44, 430, 450, 453; CO 43, 241. Even more vague references used include “allii”, “nonnulli”, and “interpretes.” Calvin’s knowledge of the Jewish exegetical tradition comes potentially from Sebastian Münster’s annotated Biblia Hebraica. See Lane: 1999, 210n, 216f, 226–27. Note that when it comes to locating which sources Calvin used for his MP lectures it is necessary to remember that Lane’s erudite study is specific only to Calvin’s commentary on the book of Genesis. Also Puckett: 1995, 78n.64. 31 See McNally: 1986, 104. Author lists only Remeghius of Auxerre (Enarratio in 12 prophetas minores; PL 117, 11–294) and Bede [d. 735] who wrote a commentary on Habakkuk (Migne PL 91.1235–54). 32 See McNally: 1986, 11, 29, 30–31, 38, 50f. Author argues that in this early medieval period in all of Europe there may have been less than a dozen people who possessed sufficient knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages. 33 R.D.D. Ruperti abbatis Tuitiensis. Commentariorum in Duodecim Prophetas Minores (Migne PL 168.9–836. Rupert calls the Israelites’ evil toward God malum irremidiabile (Migne PL 168. 28). The future unity of the houses of Judah and Israel Rupert sees fulfilled in the spiritual offspring of Abraham (Jews and Gentiles) according to promise, which is rooted in the work of Christ. They are joined together in Christ (in unum conjungit Christum, Ruperti, 30). Rupert is known for his historical-redemptive approach to prophetic writings dividing history along the persons of the holy Trinity. All who do not join the Catholic Church are in truth nothing but heretics. To go up to Jerusalem as the prophet commands (Zech 14:16–19) refers to when the church gathers together in coming to Christ (Ruperti, 811) by celebrating—through the Eucharist—its liberation from Egypt (Ruperti, 812). Refusing to go up to Jerusalem for divine worship by pagans and Jews is to resist “hearing the word of God according to the rule of faith” (“ut audient verbum Dei secundum regulam fidei”), Ruperti, 812. One notes in Rupert a concern for the importance of the role of scripture and its teaching. The church’s ministry is spiritual because the church is spiritual (Rupert, 814). 34 Nic. De Lyra Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria (Keerbergen, Jan van Antwerpen, 1617), vol. 4. On the subject of the replacement of Israel by the (Christian) church Lyra—based on his commentary on Hosea 1:8, 10–11 (Ibid.,1703) and Zephaniah 3:1 (Ibid., 2060)—argues that the prophetic indictment by Hosea that they would become “Lo-Ammi”—in favor of the Gentiles—is fulfilled when the Jews told Pilate “we have no king but Ceasar” (John 19:15). Lyra follows the exegetical tradition by pointing to the church as militant (Zech. 14:16–18; 2172). In the New Testament church the worship rendered to God is from the perspective of the people—led by priests—offering to God the Eucharist (De Lyra, 2173).

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

The Medieval Church

201

Carthusian (1402–1471)35 impute the subject of ecclesiology more readily into their (improved) exegesis due to improved scholarly learning.36 With the shift from monastic tradition to scholastic institutions the quality and interest in biblical commentary improved.37 In sum, the reformer does not depend on the medieval authors for either exegetical or ecclesiological insights. This is not to say that Calvin’s exegesis shows no ties with the late medieval exegetical tradition.38 The one important principle Calvin adopts and—with the rest of the reformers— accommodates in an evangelical fashion from the medieval period is the idea that the identity of the Old Testament is substantially the same as that of the New Testament.39 This attitude toward the unity and sameness in substance between the Old and New Testament the medieval church inherited itself from the early church fathers, especially Augustine in his fight against the Manicheans who championed the differences between the testamentary periods.40 However, the difference between the Medieval Church versus the Reformers’ approach to the unity of the Old and New Testament is based on the Reformers’ insistence that the Ancient Church needed complete restoration, which they believed is what was needed in the church of their own day and which had in fact begun to take place with the recovery of the gospel teaching. Generally, the medieval exegetes are not willing to apply the text to point out the deficiencies of the church in their day. —————

35 Dionysii Carthusiani. Enarrationes Piae ac Eruditae in Duodecim Prophetas (quos vocant) Prophetas Minores. Oseam, Ieholem, Amos, Abdiam, Ionam, Michaeam, Nahum, Abacuk, Sophoniam, Aggaeum, Zachariam, Malachiam (Coloniae: Ioannis Quentel, 1549), 703–04. Dionisius’ commentary on Malachi 2:7 notes the contrast between the lowest place the angels occupy in the heavenly hierarchy compared with the highest order the priests occupy in the church. Dionisius condemns the priests in the New Testament church—presumably in his own time—who do not fulfill their duties distinguishing between right and wrong and who do not study sacred Scripture as they should. 36 For a contrary view see Diestel: 1981, 188–89. Author does not think the quality of exegesis improves until 1300 through the impact of Jewish scholarly exegesis. Rupert of Deutz is an exception to the low quality of biblical commentary until the 14th century. 37 For the development of the “commentary” from the early church into the medieval period we refer to the insightful article by Ocker (1999, 328–45). See also his monograph Biblical Poetics, chapter one (2002, ch. 9–30). Also E. Ann Matter’s essay “The Church Fathers and the Glossa Ordinaria,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: from the Carolongians to the Maurists, ed. I.D. Backus (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1997) where it briefly relates the (as yet undecided) question which main source or sources are behind the Glossa on the Minor Prophets, 104–05. 38 One can argue that Calvin’s exegesis shows traces of the “quadriga” even when Calvin and generally the other reformers seek to distance themselves from it for the sake of finding the literal or plain meaning of a text. For literature on this subject Steinmetz: 1997, 245–64. Ocker: 2002, 7. 39 Diestel: 1981¸ 90–91, 278. 40 Diestel: Ibid., 90–91.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

202

Ecclesiology in Early and Medieval Exegesis

Calvin in the footsteps of Luther views the church in the Old Testament and his own time as analogous. This hermeneutic explains why Calvin more than any other exegete brings the ancient text so close to—and as nearly identical with—the condition of the church in his own day. The narrow distance between interpretation and application of the biblical text reveals Calvin’s monistic view of biblical and indeed church-history. While for the medieval commentators the unity of the Old and New Testament is grasped by finding the deeper meaning of a biblical text— hurrying past its literal-historical meaning—Calvin on the other hand argues from a common history and covenant perspective in which the spiritual meaning stays connected with the literal text but by way of promise and fulfillment. Calvin’s exegesis and ecclesiology in which the “new church”41 is made up largely of Gentiles and some ethnic Jews who (according to a literal-historical reading of Hosea 1:10–11) will in greater numbers be converted to Christ prior to the consummation or second (physical) resurrection. Calvin seems committed to a role left for the (remnant) elect Jews— especially toward the end of history—due to his view that God does not break covenant with Abraham and his (physical) offspring. At the same time, the reformer’s focus in terms of biblical prophecy in the Minor Prophets commentary is centered more prominently on Christ’s first advent in relation to the church’s restoration and renewal. So even while Calvin hardly appeals at all to the early and medieval teachers in the church—except Jerome—a brief overview of exegesis during the patristic and medieval period on the Minor Prophets suggests a degree of commonality with Calvin’s MP exegesis. Characteristics of both the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools of exegesis find their way into the reformer’s biblical commentary. From the ancient and possibly the medieval history of exegesis too, Calvin validates his (New Testament) emphasis on Christ as the Head of the church of God. However, what seems also clear is that the character of the church in the early and medieval church is not one in which the Eucharist takes center stage, nor do exegetes elaborate in any significant way on the doctrine of “good works” deemed meritorious. Nor do the ancients or medieval writers appear particularly concerned to associate the authority of Christ or even the apostle Peter’s—as delegated to the church by those who represent him—with papal authority.42 Generally, Christ is presented as ————— 41

This is a term Calvin uses sparingly. The Reformer’s peers use it more frequently. Denis the Carthusian: 1549, 703. Commenting on Malachi 2:7, Denis makes mention of the church’s hierarchic order relative to the office of priesthood. On this point the exegetes we have studied did not yet question but rather still assumed that the Eucharist is central to the church’s liturgy, that good works are meritorious, and that Peter is Christ’s representative and earthly head 42

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

The Medieval Church

203

Head of the church, whose rule though now limited by local worship centers will extend by the end universally43 in and through the church as his mystical body.44 Among ancient church exegetes Jerome45 and among medieval authors Nic. of Lyra,46 do not lose sight of the fact that the office of priesthood relates importantly to the teaching and instruction of the Bible more than external ceremony. Yet overall, none of the authors in our historical exegetical survey engage in critical analysis of the contemporary church in light of the history embedded in the biblical text that is comparable to the practice of Calvin.

————— of the church. This could in turn explain the overall silence on these rather significant beliefs for the life of the medieval church in particular. 43 Rupert: Migne PL 808. 44 Lyra, Biblia Sacra cum Glossa Ordinaria, 2173. 45 Jerome: Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 76, 697–99. 46 Lyra: 1617, 2174. Lyra notes the specific example of simony by which he relates the sins of ancient Israel with the church in his day.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

9. Sixteenth-Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets Sixteenth-Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets Calvin’s Principles and Practice in the Interpretation of Scripture

9.1 Calvin’s Principles and Practice in the Interpretation of Scripture 9.1.1 Introduction Since Calvin’s ecclesiology is so heavily dependant upon the ministry of the word of God and the guidance by the Holy Spirit, it is incumbent to offer at the very minimum a brief description of Calvin’s stated beliefs about the right interpretation of scripture and the reformer’s actual practice. At the outset it is important to realize that Calvin’s exegesis of the Minor Prophets did not occur in an historical vacuum. Instead, the reformer is part of a developing tradition (Reformation) of biblical interpretation which has its roots in the ancient as well as the medieval history of exegesis. While there is discontinuity with the medieval emphasis on spiritualizing the Bible the reformer also takes the figurative sense of a text into account in his overall commenting on the biblical text. By the time Calvin is permitting his friends to prepare his lecture notes on the Minor Prophets to be sent to the printer, the reformer has had some two decades of experience as an interpreter of the Bible. Among the varied duties of Calvin which together consumed so much of his time and energies the reformer’s greatest passion seems to be reserved for his work as a biblical commentator. His admission about this is found in the preface to the commentary on Hosea.1 After all Calvin’s ideal for the reform and renewal of the church in his day was to have an educated laity who are being instructed in the Bible regularly. It is plausible to argue that Calvin’s knowledge of the Bible fuels the reformer’s formulations of biblical doctrine in the expanding editions of his Christian Institutes. In other words, one ought not to consider the importance of the Institutes apart from the reformer’s work as a commentator of scripture. His interest in interpreting scripture should not surprise in light of ————— 1

CO 17, 445–48. This observation is similar to the reformer’s comments in his dedicatory letter to King Edward VI of England (Jan. 24, 1551) accompanying his commentary on Paul’s General Epistles. For this insight see Büsser: 1986, 64.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Calvin’s Principles and Practice in the Interpretation of Scripture

205

the fact that for Calvin biblical instruction is inherently relevant throughout all the ages. The closing of the biblical cannon does not limit its authoritative injunction and organic connection with the church in Calvin’s time. In principle, the biblical force of the ancient biblical prophets’ inspired message vis-à-vis the church in that particular age has not diminished when the church today is taught the very same word of God thanks to the first advent of Christ. Whatever may be the exact meaning of Calvin’s reference to his sudden conversion2 this inward change signals the crucial turning point in which the preceding process—of being weaned off his Roman Catholic upbringing, tradition, and loyalty—led to his public break with the Roman hierarchy. The reformer placed himself under a new authority, namely, the word of God rather than the authority of the Roman curia. In effect, Calvin considers the Roman Church to be a misrepresentation of God’s church in this world due to its deformation and part doctrinal and part spiritual instability. After Calvin sees no option but to join those who left the Church of Rome, he makes ample use as a teacher of the Bible of his academic preparation steeped in Renaissance-humanism, first in Geneva, then Strasburg, and again in Geneva upon his return in 1541. In Calvin one observes the confluence of his own spiritual awakening3 and the interest and (religious) commitment to explain the Bible according to rules that guarantee the best possible outcome of scripture’s own divine authority and kerygma as it must be brought to bear upon the members of Christ’s church. Both piety and learning are bonded in Calvin’s exegesis held in place by the said authority of God’s revealed will, rather than human opinion compromising it. As a result of Calvin’s academic training and faith commitment to interpret scripture according to its literal-historical meaning the reformer demonstrates a traditional (i.e. not novel) understanding of a text combined with a more critical exegetical method on the premise that due to the divine calling to teach the Bible the exegete must be free to teach God’s truths without being held back by ecclesiastical bias or commitments. In short, God’s word itself must have free reign as it is being communicated from the pastors and teachers to the members of the congregation.

————— 2

See Calvin’s often cited preface to his Psalms commentary (CO 31, 21). The actual meaning of what Calvin experienced as his “sudden conversion” is something about which scholars differ. Compare Bouwsma: 1988, 10–12; Cottret: 2000, 68–70 ; Ganoczy: 1980, 241–66; Wendel: 1965, 37–45. 3

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

206

Sixteenth-Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets

9.1.2 Preface to the Minor Prophets Commentaries: a brief comparison There is little doubt that Calvin sticks rather consistently to his conviction to interpret the biblical text according to its literal-historical meaning. This does not mean that Calvin exegetes a text in a literalistic fashion. The reformer supplies at times a somewhat dynamic and flexible interpretation by associating biblical facts found elsewhere in the Bible with the text at hand.4 Nevertheless, in his pursuit of a literal understanding of the prophetic passage—as opposed to the allegorical method—Calvin offers a meaning that is not first of all figurative or allegorical. Before finding out how the text speaks to the contemporary (Christian) church Calvin holds that the interpreter must first aim to discover the original author’s intent. In addition he must try to relate how this understanding harmonizes with the unfolding of the prophetic sayings in terms of their promise (or foretelling) and fulfillment. All of this is to be viewed in the context of the ancient church’s call to be restored to the right worship of God within the framework of life in the Kingdom of God (Christ).5 Among the prefaces Calvin attaches to his respective commentaries on the Twelve Prophets the one related to Hosea stands out as most informative with respect to Calvin’s own claim to the method and practice of interpretation he follows. As has been pointed out by Calvin scholars such as Richard A. Muller these prefaces by Calvin afford important insights as to how Calvin understands the primary task of the interpreter of the Bible and what method of interpretation he claims to have followed.6 Perhaps the best known of all his prefaces is the one linked with his first published commentary on the book of Romans (1539).7 The same author observes that by comparison when it comes to Calvin’s commentary on the Minor Prophets it “does not contain a methodologically significant preface.”8 Certainly when matched with Calvin’s widely known and more extensive prefaces to his Romans (CO 10, 402–6) and Psalms (CO 31, 13–36) commentaries, the ————— 4

See also Muller/Thompson: 1996), 341. The authors observe that the term “literal” for the older exegetical tradition had a “rather different (and fuller) connotation…than it does for many today.” This assessment holds true of Calvin as well regarding his exegesis of the Minor Prophets. 5 At this point we point the reader again to Calvin’s “Argument” to the Hosea commentary. In it Calvin details the work of the ancient prophets who were “interpreters of the law.” Calvin argues that the sum of their responsibility to interpret the law consists of three aspects: 1) to convey God’s promise of salvation and eternal life. 2) to show forth God’s rule for holy and godly living. 3) to present divine reproof and words of punishment, besides words of grace and redemption. See Comm. Hos. CO 42, 198. 6 Cf. Muller: 2000, 21–38. 7 Cf. Comm. Romans (Preface), CO 17, 402–6; See Parker: 1993, 85–108. 8 Muller, 2000, 37.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Calvin’s Principles and Practice in the Interpretation of Scripture

207

preface to his commentary on Hosea does not stand out. Nonetheless, in the latter preface Calvin rehearses three of the most important principles found in those two prefaces which served to direct his work in commenting on the Minor Prophets. For this reason the preface to Hosea does warrant scholars’ attention for what it exposes about Calvin’s ambition as a bible scholar and exegete. Such a comparison proves the consistent pattern Calvin demonstrates from his earliest publications to his mature productions two decades later. First we mention the fact that Calvin claims to pursue the original author’s mind as closely as possible. In his address to King Gustav of Sweden, Calvin states that he has tried to come as closely as possible to “the Prophetic Spirit.”9 This comment is significant because it implies the belief that the true meaning of sacred scripture (or like that of any human literature) can only be apprehended when the words of the biblical text and their meaning are not colored first by human authority or by what a church council happens to believe. Philosophically and hermeneutically, a text must be judged by its own testimony and interpreted according to rules that safeguard its objectivity and the original author’s intent. For Calvin, the understanding of the biblical text can only be considered authoritative and binding on a person’s conscience when the authority of the Bible is not compromised by human contingency. God certainly uses prophets to communicate his revelation but their agency does nothing to weaken the divine authority of the biblical text. The prophets remain “organs of the Spirit” (ergo prophetae sint spiritus sancti organa)10 as stated earlier in this study because in some fashion they receive the words that have been dictated to them.11 This attitude in Calvin reflects both a desire to remain faithful to the historic Christian church’s respect for the Bible but it aligns also quite naturally with the reformer’s background in Renaissance-humanist training and its penchant for proper method by which to ascertain the true meaning of an original author’s text.12 Given Calvin’s dual reference in the MP commentary to the “mind of the prophet” and the “mind of the Spirit” the reformer regards it as his task to faithfully interpret and present the inspired author’s design and intent found —————

9 Comm. Hos (Preface), CO 17, 447. This compares with the preface to Calvin’s commentary on Romans. See Thompson: 2004, 60. 10 Comm. Mic 2:7, CO 43, 307. 11 Cf. Comm. Hos 9:7, CO 42, 393: “non loqui ex proprio sensu, sed quod spiritus Dei illis dictaverat.”; Cf. also 9:8, CO 42, 395. In this commentary Calvin indicates that while an interpretation can be considered a useful teaching it can still be “strained” because it not “simple” (“Sed haec simplicitas recterior est”); Cf. Comm. Zech 13:2, CO 44, 346. 12 Cf. Muller: 2000, 29.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

208

Sixteenth-Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets

in the written text. However, Calvin also acknowledges an attendant responsibility on the part of those who hear the word of God explained to them. A person who reads Calvin’s commentary will only know how to appreciate his statements when he or she uses “sound judgment” (sanoque iudicio praeditos) and possesses “well-disposed minds” (modo compositis animis) instead of being overly critical (fastidiose).13 The second principle Calvin claims he has adhered to is the concern that his work as an interpreter of the Bible will “edify the children of God.”14 Here one finds the eminently practical purpose Calvin envisions behind his task as bible exegete. Implied here is the belief that all exposition of scripture misses the mark when it does not lead to the restored and improved (public) worship of God in accordance with the Bible. For this reason Calvin states that he hopes his readers will profit from reading his commentary and that it will serve the “public good of the church.”15 In fact, knowing that his commentaries appear to be useful to many Calvin admits that he wants to do this work for the remainder of his life.16 To interpret scripture one must do more than satisfy intellectual curiosity. The knowledge of God gleaned from studying the Bible serves the purpose of knowing better what it means to know oneself and God’s favor upon him. For Calvin edification and usefulness are two ways of pointing to the same objective. To know the Bible is not useful in God’s service by merely knowing how to be a better person. When true instruction in God’s word takes place—and one displays the right disposition to accept it—the believer in concert with the congregation grows in his or her faith experience. When this is not accomplished than the purpose in knowing God through his word is not achieved because the content of the prophetic words are in themselves useful toward the right worship of God.17 Calvin adds also a comment that his goal is not to compare himself with other commentators, as this would be unbecoming of him. Calvin does not wish to turn his labor as a biblical scholar into a competition18 about who is the most advanced theologian or Bible expert. Thus the reformer reminds King Gustav that his goal as a commentator is to be of a “more extensive advantage to the public good of the church.”19 The commentary is not the ————— 13

CO 17, 447 Ibid., 446. 15 CO 17, 447. 16 Ibid., 447. 17 Comm. Mic (Preface), CO 43, 281: “quia contextus nobis suggeret quod utile est cognitu.” 18 Cf. Parker: 1993, 61. 19 Comm. Hos (Preface), CO 17, 447; Cf. Comm. Rom (Preface), CO 10, 403; Comm, Psalms (Preface in Latin and French), CO 31, 33–6. Based on Calvin’s concluding comments in his preface to the Psalms commentary Calvin repeats the said sentiments in very similar terms in his preface to Hosea (CO 17, 447). 14

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Calvin’s Principles and Practice in the Interpretation of Scripture

209

proper platform on which to engage in theological disputations and polemics. Building on these first two elements of Calvin’s practice as a commentator of the Bible the reformer offers a third requirement. The Geneva pastor and bible teacher wants his reader to believe that he has kept himself from presenting fanciful opinions that are not rooted in the biblical text. Simplicity is Calvin’s goal in exegeting a text.20 What he means by this is that the text itself must be understood on the basis of its most basic, literal meaning—as found in the words of the text itself and their place in Old Testament history—and from its link to the rest of salvation history, especially in light of Israel’s return from Babylon and Christ’s first advent. For the reformer this imposition on his freedom to exegete means providing the readers with an unadulterated, unfanciful, non-speculative, plain interpretation of the prophetic text. Calvin explains to King Gustav his effort to write a commentary by faithfully and carefully keeping at bay any sort of “barren refinements” (steriles omnes argutias)21 and to “preserve genuine simplicity” (comitetur genuina simplicitas).22 This strong belief in a literal (historical) exegesis which considers well the biblical context and historical background (Sitz im Leben) contrasts strongly with those who favor a spiritual understanding or those whose interpretation does not go much deeper than knowing the meaning of words without connecting this with the message of God’s salvation and covenant favor toward his church. Calvin’s concern throughout is that his teaching is solid and this is best achieved when the interpreter and readers are not distracted by outside (human) opinions— which however plausible—are not required by the inspired text itself.23 Only such a literal-historical reading of the text promotes the building up of a person’s faith that is similarly stable as the word of God on which it is built. Calvin is not satisfied calling a certain teaching biblical when it is merely plausible or because people are pleased with it. This explains why Calvin shows little patience with those interpreters—both Christian and Jewish—who allegorize at the expense of a literal exegesis. Concerning the latter group, Calvin states in his preface to Nahum his general dislike of those rabbinical exegetes who produce “things that are known not to be certain” (nulla illis constat certitudo).24 —————

20 Comm. Hos (Preface), CO 17, 447. Substantially, this concern for simplicity is not unlike Calvin’s call for “perspicua brevitate.” Cf. Comm. Rom. (Preface) CO 10, 402. Calvin’s call for simplicity is also found in his preface to the Psalms commentary. Cf. CO 31, 33–34. 21 Comm. Hos (Preface), CO 17, 446; See also Comm. Hos 11:12, CO 42, 447. 22 Ibid; Compare Comm. Psalms (Preface), CO 31, 33–4. 23 Cf. Comm. Hos (Preface), CO 17, 446. 24 Comm. Nah (Preface), CO 43, 436.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

210

Sixteenth-Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets

9.1.3 Calvin’s Principles and Practice in his exegesis of the Minor Prophets When it comes to what Calvin professed about his avowed dislike of allegorical interpretation25 and comparing that with his actual practice it seems fair to say that Calvin does not simplistically contrast between allegorical and literal interpretation.26 Calvin leaves the door for this possibility ajar by his own admissions relative to certain texts which justify spiritual interpretation built on a text’s primary historical sense.27 For example, to relate a text to Christ and proclamation of his gospel this is only justified when it is also linked with the historical reference point of the ancient people’s return from Babylon.28 In the main, however, Calvin dismisses those commentators who make no concerted effort to supply a literal-historical sense but jump instead to the text’s spiritual meaning. Even so the reformer gives himself enough elbow space to expand upon texts whenever he feels like it because the text is living and continues to speak to the contemporary church.29 When it comes to Calvin’s professed dislike of allegorical interpretation the reformer classifies this method of doing exegesis as “strained,”30 or “frigid”31 and so on. The reformer’s antidote is to present an explanation which is simple and follows more strictly the words of the prophet—in their own historical setting—and in accord with that prophet’s intention and in harmony with God’s bidding.32 Calvin’s commentary is rife with comments that speak against the tendency to explain a text in a non-literal (non-historical) manner, even when this would be the popular thing to do.33 Obviously, Calvin is well-aware of —————

25 For example see Calvin’s commentary on Joel 3:8, CO 42, 589: “Ego enim abstineo ad allegoriis libenter, quia in illis nihil est firmum nec solidum.” 26 In his commentary on Joel 3:8 (CO 42, 589) Calvin argues that by rejecting a literal interpretation the alternative is not necessarily allegorical. Calvin’s solution to the problem is to argue that the language used by Joel is figurative. In other places Calvin uses the word “metaphorical.” For example see: Comm. Hos 4: 13–14, CO 42, 286. 27 CO 42, 286. 28 See Comm. Mic 7:16–17, CO 43, 426. Calvin explains in his commentary on Malachi 4:2 how the text’s metaphor “Sun of righteousness” applies directly to Christ but also to the gospel (CO 44, 490). 29 See Muller: 1990, 81. 30 Cf. Comm. Joel 1:6–7, CO 42, 523. 31 Cf. Comm. Hos 1: 8–9, CO 42, 215. 32 A good example of what kind of allegorical exegesis Calvin disavows is found in a comment on Hosea 4:12, CO 42, 282–3. This spiritualizing of metaphorical things in the text (e.g. wood represents false religion) Calvin rejects because it has no basis in the biblical text. 33 For an example: Cf. Comm. Hos. (Preface), CO 17, 446. The children of God—says Calvin—want more than external appeal, “…they strive to penetrate to the kernel” (“ad nucleum penetrare appetunt”).

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Calvin’s Principles and Practice in the Interpretation of Scripture

211

the Bible’s use of certain metaphors that depict spiritual truths to us that are nevertheless stated in ordinary or historical terms. Calvin’s non-figurative method (seemingly) cancels out most but not all allegorical exegesis. In his response to Zechariah 6: 1–3, Calvin dismisses an allegorical understanding as “frigid” and “futile refinements.”34 Why does Calvin not like allegorical exegesis, even when it is popular? Because an allegorical understanding runs contrary to how proper interpretation is achieved, namely, by maintaining a reverent and soberly [read: historicalliteral; F.H.] approach as opposed to “fly(ing) in the clouds.” Rather, we must “fix our foot on solid ground.”35 Too often interpreters (both Christian and Jewish) loose sight of the text and either by complete arbitrariness or loose association with the New Testament text render explanations that express their own beliefs rather than what the original author and text intended.36 Even if Calvin labors hard against interpreting the text allegorically there is evidence that Calvin realizes that his task as commentator needs to accommodate the biblical information that begs for an explanation in those instances when it has been fulfilled in the person of Christ or in terms of how the New Testament understands an Old Testament text and its teaching. According to Puckett Calvin’s criterion to determine if a biblical text in the Old Testament contains an allegorical sense is satisfied when one can not argue that a given promise has (yet) been fulfilled in history so that one must look for a fulfillment which is not literal but spiritual.37 For example, an instance when Calvin permits allegorical exegesis is in his commentary on Amos 9:15. The reformer’s excuse not to interpret this promise literally is because it was never fulfilled in history.38 Consequently, a spiritual (allegorical) interpretation—which entails a foretelling of things about Christ’s future (spiritual) kingdom—is the only option left and Calvin justifies such an exegesis because the promises that speak of future blessing and kingdom restoration in terms of earthly (material) blessings in fact depict and accommodate the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom.39 What one observes from this is that Calvin is somewhat ambiguous—or is it bet————— 34

Comm. Zech 6: 1–3, CO 44, 202; Cf. Comm. Zech 14:4, CO 44, 365. Comm. Zech 6: 1–3, CO 44, 202, in Puckett: 1995, 108. See Comm. Zech 14:4, CO 44, 364f. Calvin interprets this apocalyptic message non-allegorically because it can not be stated with firmness that it foresees the time when Christ stands on top of the Mount of Olives nor did the mountain ever split in half. 36 For example see Comm. Mal 1:10, CO 44, 420–1. 37 Puckett: 1995, 113. 38 Ibid., 110–11. 39 Ibid., 111–12. 35

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

212

Sixteenth-Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets

ter to say “accommodating”—regarding his express disavowal and dislike of allegorical interpretation. At this point too it needs to be noted that Calvin’s Minor Prophets commentary in general does not refer to the Eschaton.40 The reformer’s understanding of a text and its spiritual application to the church in his day handles this concern when the reformer regularly contrasts the reality of the Kingdom under siege—due to the church’s enemies both from within and without—with its final victory. While Calvin does not openly espouse Lyra’s teaching about the doubleliteral meaning of a text in the context of the medieval application of quadriga41 neither does he dismiss it when he could easily have done either in his commentary work on the Bible. Calvin had to have been at least very familiar with Lyra’s method and practice of biblical interpretation.42 After all, Lyra’s method and commentary do not appear to have been abandoned in the late fifteenth or sixteenth century.43 To the contrary, Calvin’s emphasis—along with Reformed peers—on the literal meaning of a text in which the three spiritual senses are embedded “marks a continuity—not a contrast—between sixteenth century biblical interpretation and the exegesis of at least the preceding four centuries.”44 Muller shows the possible influence of Lyra in Calvin’s work as a biblical commentator.45 Muller makes the case that related to a text’s primaryliteral meaning lies also its threefold spiritual meaning; allegory (credenda), tropology (agenda) and, anagogy (speranda). These three senses when taken together with the literal sense explain Calvin’s approach to understanding the meaning of a biblical text. Briefly stated, the quadriga is recognizable in the way Calvin explains the prophet Joel’s famous prophecy first in the context of Joel’s time, then in its fulfillment in the advent of God’s kingdom in Christ, thirdly in its moral application for the people of God then and fourthly in terms of the hope it represents regarding eschatological

————— 40

Cf. Muller: 1990, 70. The concept of the “quadriga” does not represent one definition. For example, as Muller points out Nicolas of Lyra takes the medieval method of the four senses and refashions it so that the literal sense is given primary importance. 42 Cf. Muller: 1990, 68. Note that an important disciple of Calvin Daneus also made use of medieval author Lombard’s Sententium libri quatuor. Cf. Muller: 2000, 53. 43 Cf. Muller/Thompson: 1996, 5. Thompson argues that given Calvin’s treatment of biblical prophecy it calls to mind Lyra’s double literal understanding of (certain) biblical texts or genres. In: Thompson, 2004, 69. 44 Muller: 1996, 12. 45 Ibid.: 1996, 10–12. Muller speaks of “significant affinities” which he believes Calvin’s method and procedure reveal with the “quadriga” as used in the Middle Ages; Ibid., 12. 41

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Calvin’s Principles and Practice in the Interpretation of Scripture

213

glory.46 Muller’s observation makes sense when the traditional viewpoint is abandoned that alleges that all medieval exegesis was allegorical.47 The other main emphasis (application) found in the preface to the Hosea commentary is Calvin’s professed commitment to distill from God’s word a teaching which is useful and plain for the building up of all believers (church). In the main Calvin succeeds better by far than most commentators in the survey provided in this study. What can be the explanation for this? Even though Luther too (unlike for example Melanchton or Pareus) moves naturally from explication to application in his commentary on the MP, Calvin’s practice is less haphazard and more methodical. For the reformer, application of a text is integral—not ancillary—to the hermeneutical and exegetical method and practice. Given the reformer’s emphasis on the unity of the biblical revelation of God’s will (canon), its unified plot, and progressive unfolding toward the eschatological climax the particular historical reference point (of the MP) is organically and therefore practically related to its fulfillment in the future—whether in history or at the final Parousia. Underneath this observation lies a hermeneutical principle—not unique to Calvin but also found in Luther—of promise and fulfillment which guides the interpretive process for the reformer. Using the biblical picture of the Kingdom of God Calvin believes that the Bible reveals the existence of only one kingdom held together in both dispensations by its spiritual and typological king Jesus Christ. He rules the kingdom and church by his gospel scepter. This explains why the reader of Calvin’s MP commentary senses regularly that Calvin is able to extend the meaning (literal) to both the Old and New Testaments, and importantly apply its meaning to the church living well beyond the apostolic age.48 However, there are select few times when Calvin forgets to move slowly from ancient text to contemporary context, claiming right away how the “papists” illustrate the point a prophet is making.49 The question which deserves further study is whether or not Calvin’s practice of commenting on a given verse or pericope reveals a pattern in which the initial comments function like a summary statement which are then fleshed out in Calvin’s detailed attention for the text in its entirety.50 ————— 46

Muller: 1990, 72–3. Muller/Thompson: 1996, 343. 48 Ibid. 49 For example see Calvin’s commentary on Hosea 1:10, CO 42, 216; Hos 6:10–11, CO 42, 335; Comm. Amos 8:3–4, CO 43, 142. In these examples Calvin basically rushes to his conclusions on the basis of the analogy he recognizes right away between how Calvin views the unfaithfulness of Israel and the Roman Catholic Church in his day. 50 One can think of a parallel with Calvin’s Argument vis-à-vis the commentary proper. 47

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

214

Sixteenth-Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets

In some sense the concerns about Calvin’s perceived lack in applying the Old Testament text with the person and life of Christ (A. Hunnius) are ameliorated in light of the constant emphasis Calvin places on the ancient text and its link to the church of the original hearers as well as the church in the Christian era.51 Calvin observes frequent similarities between the ancient church age and his own. Viewing the Bible from a singular covenant perspective—despite its progressive emission of Gospel light from the Old Testament to the New—the reformer of Geneva knows that the story of the ancient Israelites is the story into which is woven the experiences of the church in any age. Texts apply to the church today because in Christ they have been fulfilled and they are just as relevant today as they were for the ancient people of God serving under the laws of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. This means that the covenant’s dual set of promises and curses apply (in context) to the contemporary church as well. In all, Calvin’s view of the church in the MP and today operates on the principle of analogy.52 The historical distance between the life of Israel under the prophets and the church as the new (read: renewed) people of God is close enough so that Calvin can weave in and out of the ancient historical context as well as the context of his own day almost seamlessly. With T.H.L. Parker one can say that historical text and contemporaneity are so closely intertwined in Calvin’s exegesis in the MP commentary that “[w]e almost forget which century we are in…”53 9.1.4 Conclusion In summary, for Calvin the close parallel between the ancient text and the modern church scene does not serve primarily to help the Christian understand better how to understand his Christian obligation. Nor is it legitimate to say that for Calvin his sixteenth century context serves as the basis for the explication of the biblical text.54 Rather, for Calvin the similarity of the two contexts explain why believers today have no excuse but to learn from their ancient counterparts and thus to worship of God as the obedience of faith requires. For Calvin, the Bible is not narrowly a “how to” manual. Instead, it functions as a mirror in which the church today sees how God —————

51 In other words implied in the references to the Christian church Calvin speaks indirectly of Christ too because the reformer is committed to keep together Christ who rules his church by his word and Spirit. 52 Muller: 1990, 74; Thompson: 2004, 70. 53 Parker: 1993, 204. 54 Cf. Stroup: 1986, 29.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Luther, Bucer, Zwingli, Melanchthon

215

calls the church (ancient and contemporary) to respond to God’s instruction through the gospel revealed in Christ Jesus.

9.2 First and Second Generation Exegetes (Luther, Bucer, Zwingli, Melanchthon) Luther, Bucer, Zwingli, Melanchthon The most obvious way by which Calvin departs from the medieval tradition is by radicalizing the principle that the church must worship God in accordance with the word of God and not by human tradition or invention. How does Calvin’s emphasis in this regard compare with fellow Reformed exegetes? On the subject of ecclesiology an overview of the various commentaries on the Minor Prophets by Luther, Zwingli, Bucer and Melanchthon indicates agreement and variance between these commentators and Calvin.55 A hallmark of the Reformation is that its leaders view commenting on the Bible as central to their calling. This does not mean that commenting or lecturing on the MP held the same priority for each of them. This observation is reflected in that only Luther and Zwingli commented on all the twelve prophets whereas Melanchthon and Bucer commented only on the last three of the MP and Zephaniah respectively. The explanation for the latter two reformers’ limited selections from the Minor Prophets is unknown but may well be due to historical conditions as well as preference. When we compare these respective commentaries one can note the following observations. First, Calvin’s critical application of the ancient text to the Roman Catholic Church—especially its view of the Lord’s Supper—is by comparison most noticeable in Melanchthon and largely passed over in the other three theologians.56 Secondly, Melanchthon (Malachi) and Bucer (Zephaniah) relate a biblical text to the subject of sacraments and for differ————— 55 By way of a preliminary remark it should be noted that conclusions drawn on the basis of comparing Calvin with Luther, Zwingli, Bucer and Melanchthon cannot ingnore that Calvin’s commentary is much more specific and detailed—not unlike some medieval authors—than those of Bucer, Melanchthon and Zwingli since Calvin’s MP commentary (like Luther’s) is based on his lectures. Even so, the three publications which Calvin wrote expressly as commentaries (Psalm, books of Moses, Joshua) also are more voluminous than many within his time. See Parker: 1986, 29–32. 56 See his commentary on Malachi 1. Ph. Melanchthon, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. C. G. Bretschneider, vol. 13 (Halis Saxonum: C.A. Schwetsc et filium, 1846), 1009–1010. Commentaries by Melanchthon on the Minor Prophets are Argumentum Concionum Prophetae Haggaei, (981–88); Commentarius Philippi Melnachtonis In Prophetam Zachariam, (989–1004); Explicationes Philippi Melanchthonis In Initium Malachiae, (1005–1016), in CR 13 (Bad Feilnbach, Germany: Schmidt Periodicals GMBH, 1990). Without using verse delineation Melanchthon discusses the prophet Malachi’s indictment against the ancient Israelite priests’ sacrifices and parallels them with the papal sacrifices which are a despising of the Lord’s Supper.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

216

Sixteenth-Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets

ent reasons.57 For Bucer it is important to stress that there can be differences in the manner of administration of the sacraments from place to place. However, most important is that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are about fellowship (societas) with the Lord and so they ought not be a cause for breaking the unity of the church as he thinks is true in his day (hodie) when people fight (hostiliter decertant) about this subject.58 Melanchthon stresses the importance of the sacraments. He considers the Lord’s Supper (Coena Domini) to be the nerve of the gathered (visible) church.59 His emphasis is on the promissory nature of the sacraments as “signs” that testify to divine grace (qui sunt signa testificantia de promissione gratiae) in the believers’ remission of sin and reconciliation with God. Rather than emphasizing the work of the Holy Spirit, as does Bucer, Melanchthon adds that for the promise to be applied to the believer faith is necessary (fides necessaria est) by which God’s promise of his grace is applied to the believer.60 Accordingly, this essential role of faith disqualifies the Roman view (ex opere operato) of the sacrament and its nature.61 Third, the theme of church unity—important to Calvin in his MP lectures—is reflected only to some degree by Luther (Hosea), Bucer (Zephaniah) and Zwingli (Obadiah). Fourth, all four reformers make either no or negligible reference the subject of election in their respective commentaries, while Calvin particularly stresses this motif in relevant texts located in Hosea 1:8–9; 1:10; 11:8–9; 12:3–5 and in Malachi 1:2–3.62 Only Bucer mentions election in connection with the Holy Spirit’s work making the proclaimed word of God effective in those who believe.63 Fifth, all four reformers agree that the Old Testament prophets address the (eternal) church of God (or ecclesia Christiana—Zwingli) in their age as representative of the church in the New Testament. However, not one of ————— 57

For Melanchthon the matter of the Lord’s Supper is raised in connection with comments made by the prophet Malachi (1:7ff). See CR 13, 1009–1010; For Bucer the external ceremony and the Lord’s Supper in particular should not excite quarrel and cause schism to divide the church of Christ. This opinion arises from his comment on Zephaniah 3:9. See Tzephaniah, 63v–63r. See also Bucer’s Epistola, 4–11, in which the subject of the Lord’s Supper (Eucharistia) surfaces a number of times. 58 Bucer: 1528, 63r. 59 Cf. Melanchthon: CR 13, 1010: “…Coena Domini est nervus publicae congregationis…” 60 Melanchthon: Ibid., 1011, 1014. 61 Melanchton: Ibid., 1014. 62 A prime example of this type of deliberate bypassing of the subject of election can be seen in Melanchthon’s commentary on Malachi 1:2 (CR 13, 1005–1016). Note the way Calvin discusses election and reprobation in terms of the historical church (first Israel’s ten tribe kingdom and the kingdom of Judah afterwards) falling away for the benefit of those God preserves to restore his broken church. 63 Bucer: 1528, 63r.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Luther, Bucer, Zwingli, Melanchthon

217

them mentions the covenant of grace (Abraham) in any substantive way as does Calvin. Sixth, there is agreement on the role of the Holy Spirit in that He uses the spoken word of God (viva vox—Luther, Melanchthon) so that the elect (Bucer) accept the gospel. One must believe God’s promise and worship him for there is no salvation outside the church (Non erit salus extra Ecclesiam).64 Seventh, only Luther makes the connection with “good works” stating that these follow the preached word as they are spoken by the “priests.” This gives the priests their main purpose, namely, that as organa dei they must call people to repent of sin and so to come from under their just condemnation. Not to believe is to stand condemned (Qui non crediderit, condemnabitur).65 Eighth, all reformers recognize that Jerusalem represents the church and only some state specifically that a given passage that speaks to Jerusalem’s restoration will not be fulfilled except in the city that is from heaven (celestial Jerusalem—Zwingi). Ninth, both Luther and Melanchthon allude to the distinction of the visible church (temporum Ecclesia)—as opposed to the fellowship of the church eternal (ad aeternae Ecclesiae societatem)66 using such terms as publica ecclesia,67 and Ecclesia coetus.68 The ancient Jews emphasized (erroneously according to Zwingli) the importance of private religion at the expense of the publice religioni et sanctitati vite.69 Finally, it appears that when Calvin distinguishes between the two Israelite kingdoms and suggests that the Reformation church (i.e. not the Roman hierarchy) is analogous with the kingdom of Judah, Calvin may be following Zwingli who also equates the “house of Judah” with the church.70 In a commentary on Zechariah 10:6 Zwingli states that the church “today” (hodie) is the true Judah because of Christ.71 Melanchthon notes a similar ————— 64

Melanchton: CR 13, 1003. Luther: Comm. Zeph. 3:8. In D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesammtausgabe, vol. 13 (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1889), 504; Cf. Luther’s Works (LW), vol.20, Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia, 1973, 356. 66 Melanchthon: CR 13, 1005; CR 13, 988. 67 Luther: Comm. Mal 2:7–8, 686. For Luther the visible church is identified in its preaching of the word of God. 68 Malanchton: CR 13, 1001. For Melanchthon, the description of the verae Ecclesiae (Comm. Zech. 13) is depicted repeatedly as a church subject to the cross. It concerns itself with the deletion of sin, unspoiled doctrine, and genuine call upon God. Melanchthon stresses the preaching of Christ (Gospel) and his suffering (Cf. CR 13, 1000–03). 69 Zwingli: Comm. Hag 2:12; in CR 101, 840. 70 Zwingli: Comm. Hos 1:7; CR 101, 769. 71 Cf. Zwingli: CR 101, 853: “Nos hodie sumus Juda verus per Christum. Nam Christus, qui ex Judaest, noster factus est.” 65

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

218

Sixteenth-Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets

connection with the history of the ancient prophets in which is viewed the history of the whole church.72

9.3 Third Generation Exegetes (Pareus, Piscator, Daneus) Pareus, Piscator, Daneus When we compare Calvin with three younger contemporaries—each recognized in his day for his exegetical prowess73 who commented on the Minor Prophets after the reformer’s death—we observe similar lines of confluence and divergence which could be noted between Calvin and his contemporaries. For example, all three of these orthodox Reformed theologians pay no significant attention to the subject of election.74 Only Pareus—following Calvin—speaks of the essential unity between the old and new covenants. 75 While the topic of the sacraments is not prominent in Calvin’s own MP commentary, it is also of no discernable importance to these younger contemporaries. Except for an incidental mention of church restoration by Daneus, this concept is not used by Pareus and Piscator.76 This latter observation prompts yet another difference, namely, that Calvin very adamantly proclaims that God (through Christ, by Spirit and word) will certainly defend and protect his (elect, remnant) church so that there will always be a church even when the church outwardly looks as good as dead.77 —————

72 Cf. Melanchthon : Haggaei, 984: “Ita ad nos et ad nostri temporis certamina veteram Ecclesiam conferamus, et vocem Prophetarum audiamus.” 73 Cf. Die Religion In Geschichte und Gegenwart (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1961) vol. 5, 109; D. Pareus, Irenicum sive de Unione et Synodo Evangelicorum Concilianda Liber Votives (Heidelbergae: Rosa, 1614), 1–7. For biographical information on Pareus see Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (RPTK), vol. 14, 686–89; Joh. Piscator, In duodecim prophetas quos nominant minores: puta in Oseam, Joelem, Amosum, Obadjam, Jonam, Michaeam, Nahumum, Abacucum, Sophoniam, Haggeum, Zachariam, Malachiam (Herbornae Nassoviorum: Christoph Corvinus, 1615). For biographical information see RPTK, vol.15, 414–15. 74 Piscator: 1615, 70. Author’s explanation of Hosea 11:10 is that the effectual result of the gospel preaching is that the elect are gathered into the church (“...ita praedicatio Evangelii efficax est ad congregandum eclectos in Ecclesiam.”); Pareus: 1605, 26–27: “Adoptionem electorum in Christo um quo ad electionem ab eterno…” 75 Pareus voices Calvin’s agreement that the substance of the Old and the New Covenant is the same or originates from the same root (“...vetus & nouum foedus u nú esse & ecclesia unam esse santá, catholicam, inde á principio huc v sq;. neq; n. plures fuerunt radices, sed una.”). In Hoseas Propheta Commentariis (Pareus: 1605), 254. 76 Danaeus: 1586, Commentarium Lamberti Danaei in Prophetas Minores (Geneuae: Apud Eustathium Vignon), 286. For biographical information on Daneus, see RPTK, vol. 5, 440–41; OER, vol.1, 463–64. 77 These observed differences may well be cosmetic. Still, this does not account for the fact that Calvin does mention certain aspects of motifs while his peers do so less often or less directly.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Pareus, Piscator, Daneus

219

On the other hand, emphases of Calvin which can in fact be traced in the three theologians mentioned are the following. First, Piscator makes it a point to argue that the life of true religion does not consist in its external splendor nor that external obedience alone suffices.78 A second similarity has to do with Calvin’s tacit claim that the division of ancient Israel’s kingdom follows the lines of division between the churches under papal authority versus those that teach the evangelical doctrine. Piscator claims that Judah’s form of government is a type of the government Christ administers over the true church.79 Pareus is even more similar to Calvin in speaking about an antithesis (antithesi)80 between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel so that the kingdom of Judah is analogous to the church of the New Testament (Ecclesia novi testamenti).81 Indeed, the Israelites (northern kingdom) are identified as the “papists”, the Roman pope is Jezreel (Hos 1:4) and since God no longer shows mercy to Israel (i.e. the northern kingdom that separated under king Jeroboam from the David kingdom) this means that God has punished these Israelites so that they are now without the covenant, grace, God, and life eternal.82 Thirdly, Pareus and Daneus are similar to Calvin (and Luther) by reiterating that in this world the church—though it is sanctified and secure83 (Daneus)—remains a mixture of people that include the good and bad (hypocrites—Pareus).84 It will not be until the realization of the “heavenly church” that the church is truly holy both internally and externally.85 Of all three, Pareus is most insistent that the Roman Church does not have a right to arbitrate in matters pertaining to faith and conscience but that such should be left in principle to Christ, who by his gospel, rules his church. As opposed to the authority of the church, the inspired word of God cannot be broken (Scriptura solvi non potest: Joh 11:36).86 Not the pope but only Christ is the church’s head.87 In the church there is to be no man-made authority.88 One must believe the testimony of scripture before believing the ————— 78

Cf. Piscator: 1615, 15, Comm. Hos. 2:1–14: “Ecclesia non est aestimanda è splendore…” Ibid., 15. 80 Pareus: 1605, 18; Cf. Comm. Hos 1: 6–7. 81 Ibid., 19. 82 Ibid., 20. 83 Daneus: 1586, vol.2, 774-75, See Comm. Zeph 3:13. 84 Pareus: 1608, 256, Comm. Rom 11:22. In In divinam ad Romanos S. Pauli apostoli epistolam commentaries (Francofurti: typis Iohannis Lancelloti). 85 Daneus: 1586, 1015, Comm. Zech 14:20. 86 Pareus: 1605, 6, Comm. Hos 1:1. 87 Cf. Pareus: 1605, 25, 27, Comm. Hos 1:11: “…unam ecclesiam sub uno Capite”. 88 Cf. Pareus: 1605, 3, Comm. Hos 1:1. See also Pareus: Ibid., 6: “Sic scripta humana non modo divinis aequantur…”; Ibid., 27: “Caput Ecclesiae…esse Christum…Non igitur Ecclesiae est Papa Romanus.” 79

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

220

Sixteenth-Century Exegetes on the Minor Prophets

testimony of the church.89 And much like Calvin does in his commentary, Pareus echos the false claim to the title of “church” by the Romanists as did the ancient Israelites who said “Templum domini, Templum domini.” Instead they now say “ecclesia, ecclesia, ecclesia.”90 One concludes that Calvin not only draws from the history of exegesis but also in turn influences younger Reformed exegetes whose works (occasionally) mention the reformer by name in the margin and or index. The same emphases found in Calvin’s MP commentary—though not unique to him—return in the third generation interpreters. All agree that mere external obedience is not sufficient; authority of the church is only Christ’s as He alone is the church’s sole head; the church is a mixture of the pious and hypocrites; the church is the number of those whom God elects by his power; and finally the church expands as a result of the preaching of the gospel truth.

9.4 Conclusion Calvin scholarship has tended to look for lines of influence between Calvin and those who preceded him in the history of exegesis in a linear manner. We see this approach clearly in such important authors as A.N.S Lane, R. J. Mooi, Richard A. Muller and David C. Steinmetz. This approach has produced a number of important insights generally speaking with regard to the question about continuity and discontinuity between Calvin and the tradition of biblical exegesis. But since it has proven to be rather difficult to draw firm particular conclusions as to which authors Calvin read in preparation for his lectures or the titles of the works to which he makes often a mere vague reference (at best) our approach instead has been to compare and contrast Calvin with the exegetical tradition in order to observe possible points of similarity and dissimilarity. The results of that alternative pursuit follow: 1. To one degree or another and by different exegetical principles the entire Christian tradition of Minor Prophets exegesis knows how and when to relate a text to its future fulfillment in Christ. This happens often by way of allegorizing the text. 2. Each period in the history of the church reflects its own theological concerns. The ecclesiology emanating from exegetes in the Early Church aims to justify and defend itself as the true fulfillment of the “old church” (ancient Israel). The Medieval Church exegetes display an ecclesiology that ————— 89 90

Ibid., 4. Ibid., 20.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Pareus, Piscator, Daneus

221

presupposes the Roman Catholic Church’s organization and ministerial (sacerdotal and papal) power rather than making it their goal to use biblical exegesis to establish or defend this. The reformers on the other hand not surprisingly display in their respective MP commentaries a doctrine of the church which includes motifs consonant with church restoration. Calvin in particular draws this motif of church reformation and restoration for the sixteenth century church from the biblical examples in the Old Testament where the return from Babylonian exile and the birth of Christ are two significant moments in which God renewed his church. Calvin’s younger peers perpetuate Calvin’s concern with worship that it must be pure and unceremonial. Of critical importance to Calvin’s view of the (Christian) church is its teaching office for the edification of the faithful. Like Calvin they too note the negative example of idolatrous worship recognized in the Roman Catholic Church especially in the area of the celebration of the Eucharist. By comparison, they too like Calvin note to a far less degree their concerns with the Anabaptist theological aberrations. 3. Calvin’s exegesis of the MP reveals a view of the church that is not novel or unique. However, Calvin may be following Zwingli’s exegesis by distinguishing between the houses of Israel and Judah as representative of the one and indivisible kingdom of Christ. 4. The differences between Calvin and the rest of the reformed exegetes are primarily a matter of degree since in one form or degree the various ecclesiological aspects (church’s unity, worship and the sacraments’ meaning and purpose, scripture, Holy Spirit, pastoral office and tasks) are present in each of them. 5. A particular point in which Calvin distinguishes himself in his MP lectures is his emphasis on the doctrine of election by which he intends to safeguard the sovereign will of God underlying the church rather than the free will or meritorious acts of people. However, Calvin’s practice to comment on the doctrine of divine election is primarily prompted by a biblical text as in Hosea and Malachi. His warnings remain that one must honor the barrier of understanding before which one stands when contemplating the mystery of election.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Having concluded the study of Calvin’s ecclesiology based on his commentary on the Minor Prophets we now present the overall results of the entire study highlighting briefly the various aspects that appear to dominate. The study’s methodology deliberately placed the reformer’s ideal and ambition for the restoration of the historic Christian church between Part One—dealing with the reformer’s own historical context (1556–1559) when he lectured on the MP—and Part Three which aimed to give an overview of the history of MP exegesis and how some of its characteristics either accord or deviate from Calvin’s own interpretations. This approach was taken based on the conviction that Calvin’s commentary on the MP evidences the reformer’s practice to bridge the text of scripture with the life of the church in his own day. The first chapter (Part One) suggests that Calvin’s somewhat somber but nevertheless realistic outlook on the life of the church corresponds to a significant degree with the political and social unrest and instability the reformer (has) witnessed close by in Geneva but also outside Geneva in Western Europe generally. Even though the Reformation meant the rebirth of the fallen medieval church (of God) Calvin refused to call his time a “golden age” just because the gospel was being proclaimed in many places. Given humanity’s natural bent toward spiritual weakness the Reformation too should take warning from the fallen condition of the Roman church. One should neither base hope in the reliability of people’s outward religion nor in the power of princes and other political leaders but only in the word of God and heeding its instruction. The biblical metaphor of illness and recovery replete in the MP commentary—and so poignantly applicable to his own physical condition—reflects the reformer’s basic outlook for the church in his day. The church’s happiness is found only in Christ and his voice is presently heard in the church by the preaching and teaching of the gospel under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Part Two (chapters 2–7) dealt with the ecclesiology of Calvin proper. Since the MP commentary is not a theological textbook treating the subject of ecclesiology in a systematic manner the view of the church that emerges is less formal since the reformer’s comments are steeped in the real-time history of the ancient church which for Calvin mirrors the church of his own time and circumstance.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Conclusion

223

By concentrating on the various elements Calvin delineates in his commentary one is able to produce a composite picture of what Calvin perceived to be the reality and the ideal for the church of God. Integral to Calvin’s understanding of the church—defined as God’s elect people who are united with God through their spiritual head Jesus Christ—is the notion that the church in his time needs to undergo its ongoing reformation and restoration. The singular cause behind the church’s very existence is the spoken and taught Word of God (ch.2). Now that the church of God has experienced its rebirth by renewal—through the Reformation’s rediscovery of the gospel— it still is the revealed truth God relayed to the prophets and before them to Moses in the law which the church in Calvin’s time needs foremost to guard as well. Scripture functions for Calvin as the principal means by which the church renders God the worship that befits his majesty and glory. All other attempts at reforming the church by mere outward ceremony and manmade religious inventions can not bring about the reformation that is needed. For this reason Calvin stresses that those appointed to teach in the church must do exactly that or else they disqualify themselves and become tyrannical. The church’s power and authority is derived only from the Bible as the word of God. That close transaction of God’s will to the prophets (“handto-hand”) is example and norm for the faithful instruction God requires from pastors and teachers in the church. Against the uncertainty bred by Roman Catholic doctrine and ministerial delinquency by its priests and pastors who do not teach as they ought, Calvin advocates the primacy of teaching sacred scripture to instill a biblical faith in the “faithful” by which they not only are assured of God’s (covenant favor in) election but also conform their lives and worship of God as laid out in the two tables of the law. There are differences between the biblical concepts of the law and gospel for Calvin. However, they are in some sense also not as antithetical as Luther viewed them. The gospel for the reformer is the law (understood as God’s entire will as embodied in the Old and New Testaments) to which the Spirit is attached bringing it to life in those who manifest spiritual obedience that comes from a faith that is grounded in the certainty of God’s gratuitous favor. In the chapter on election (ch.3) Calvin further lays the foundation for the church and its calling to serve God in this world. Calvin’s conception of the church follows biblical strains of thought by which the church is both transcendent (invisible and trans-historical) and immanent (historical, visible) yet kept in dialectical tension. These two logically irreconcilable aspects point to the metaphysical origin and nature of the church in this world. Consequently, Calvin does nothing to relieve this dialectic tension. Behind this lies the reformer’s (biblical) premise of the unbridgeable gap

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

224

Conclusion

which exists between God and human beings. To assure that believers do not build their faith and experience on anything in their own fallen nature and “free will”—which inevitably provides neither stability nor obedience of faith—Calvin appeals to the church’s or the believers’ security for time and eternity in what is exclusively from God and by his (eternal and unchanging) will. Calvin’s appeal to sovereign election in salvation is furthermore what assures and comforts the church in its struggle to overcome those who threaten it both from without and within. Divine election, adoption and calling serve as Calvin’s theological arguments to debunk the anthropocentric colored beliefs [especially “free will” doctrine] of both the Church of Rome and the Anabaptists and especially the spiritualist radicals among them. The chapter on Calvin’s understanding of the covenant (ch.4) and its role in the relationship between God and his people is quite closely attached with the reformer’s emphasis on divine election. Because election—in Calvin’s thought—serves an especially practical purpose in the life of the church in a turbulent and uncertain world rather than as a basis for unwarranted and fruitless speculation into the details of God’s (hidden) will, this election and the covenant function as two sides of the same coin. With Calvin’s emphasis on the visible church—as opposed to Luther and the inward oriented Anabaptists/spiritualists and as a correction of the Catholic Church’s confidence in its external ministry and power—Calvin’s appeal to the gratuitous covenant relationship God has with his elect church serves to ensure the visible, local church’s condition as a true church of Jesus Christ. Only the covenant is the reliable norm to which the church needs to appeal in its worship of God and meeting its civil responsibilities in society. It is the covenant (gracious) underlying Calvin’s view of the church that serves as the church’s norm and hope that God will protect and defend his elect people and safeguards its final victory. In Calvin’s ecclesiology the reformer sets the human being in his proper place in relation to the majesty of God. In summary, by stressing that scripture is fully divine, election is completely gratuitous and the covenant is defined by God’s rules, the ecclesiology of Calvin obtains on the one hand its characteristic robust strength and certainty. On the other hand because Calvin recognizes the way he believes God accommodates himself in the Bible this understanding of God’s self-revelation toward fallen humanity gives his ecclesiology also a dynamic (even flexible) appearance because the purpose of teaching scripture is practical godliness. The chapter on the church associated and at times identified with the kingdom (ch.5) of God (or Christ) shifts the attention from the primacy of God’s role in creating and preserving his church to that of the life and duties of the (visible) church in this broken and hostile world. The biblical

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Conclusion

225

example for God’s kingdom today is for Calvin represented in the ancient church in the context of the divided Israelite kingdom. The church is that realm over which Christ rules supremely through the scepter of the gospel. Importantly, by distinguishing the church as that spiritual kingdom as opposed to the temporal kingdom ruled by fallible earthly rulers, Calvin is able to stake out the boundaries that separate and distinguish these two (legitimate) realms. Calvin was asked numerous times by the city fathers of Geneva to offer his legal counsel but not adjudicate. Rather, Calvin always remains the pastor of his flock, aware that his primary task was not to influence the political process. Calvin knew his calling was to serve the interests of the kingdom of God which is not of this world. Nevertheless, the circumference of Christ’s kingdom rule is wider for Calvin than the visible and institutional embodiment of that rule in the church on earth and encompasses the state also. This despite the fact that the civil government belongs to the reality that is passing. In the chapter that deals with church office and administration (ch.6) Calvin’s ecclesiology betrays his concern that in the church—as in the ancient kingdom—nothing but the power and authority of God are to be exercised. Calvin’s comments serve as a correction toward the—in his mind—mistaken views about the church’s authority particularly among the Roman Catholic hierarchy and Anabaptists in his day. The church is found where the word of God (and its authority alone) governs the lives of the people. To step outside the boundary of this principle is for Calvin to be guilty of mistreating God by asserting a level of divine authority which God never relinquishes even when He entrusts his ministers with it. The authoritative work of those called by God to serve his church is spiritual in nature and is bound exclusively by the word of God alone. In the ancient church Calvin finds those priests and prophets who are guilty of not fulfilling their office (duty) when they fail to instruct the people. Recognizing this in the Catholic religion of his day Calvin finds biblical precedent to launch his occasional tirades, aimed especially at those who bear the title of church officer but are either not teaching the Bible or they are not pastoring a church or both. In Calvin’s conception of the church its officers function primarily to teach and care for the people with the word of God. Whether as teachers of students or pastors of a local congregation, both serve the church in their role as instructors of scripture. Because Calvin views the life of the church in the Old Testament so much as analogous to his own church and political context the reformer also adopts God’s remedy to cure the church’s spiritual weakness and disobedience through discipline. Just as God disciplined Israel toward repentance

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

226

Conclusion

and the obedience of faith as demanded by God’s covenant, so is God in Calvin’s day punishing—out of paternal concern and favor—the unbelief and unfaithfulness of many. Those among her who remain faithful suffer along with the rest but in their case God’s discipline serve to strengthen their faith toward perseverance. This is itself evidence of God’s love and favor toward them. Importantly, Calvin implies the church today needs to exercise the same gradual approach in its discipline of the members as God shows in his patient and paternal favor in discipline toward the ancient people under the law. Worship (ch.7) constitutes the heart of Calvin’s ecclesiology. In the final analysis the church exists for no other or different purpose than to glorify and honor God. Ancient Israel forsook its divine calling to worship God alone when first the northern and in time also the southern kingdom alienated itself from God. This transpired when both leaders and populace committed spiritual idolatry as was evidenced by their worship according to their own ideas rather than according to the norm expressed in God’s law. Calvin’s interpretation of the Minor Prophets text leads him to conclude that the late medieval and early modern church in his own time also invented their particular version of worship they believed still honored God, while making no apology for adding to their worship practices that God had not commanded in his word. Overall, Calvin seems less concerned with the particulars of how the church in a local setting ought to be governed and organized. While Calvin is adamant that the word of God must function as the sole authoritative rule in the life and order of the church this does not mean Calvin espouses a legalistic attitude. In this regard Calvin shows flexibility to let less important particulars be determined by local conditions rather than insisting on a uniform way of governing all the churches. For Calvin the goal toward a thorough reformation of the church does not mean using ruthlessness in accomplishing this. The same holds true of the local worship practices in churches when—apart from the restored elements of worship—the accidentals in liturgical expression still leave much to be desired. Calvin’s ecclesiology revolves around the worship the church offers to God. Worship does not have the static meaning for Calvin which it received in subsequent history when the Old Testament and medieval expression of the theocratic confluence of Church-and-State slowly disappear. Both in congregational worship as well as the Christian life the worship of God is demonstrated by fulfilling one’s duties toward God and neighbor according to the division of the two tablets of the law. As we have noted it is by the adherence to the second table of the law, argues Calvin, that one can verify one’s actual love for God himself as demanded by him in the first table of the law.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Conclusion

227

In short, the church in the mind of Calvin is a community of elect people, a mixed group of elect and reprobate, of the sincere and the hypocritical members who share in an outward bond of belonging to the elect of God with whom God always maintains covenant until the end of time. The church is not merely the total number of elect as they are known only to God. Consequently, the church for Calvin is that tangible body of people who need to be encouraged constantly to persevere in faithful obedience by deviating neither to the left nor to the right from God’s Word. This process of restoration through continuous conformation to God’s law is not finished until the consummation. In chapters eight and nine (Part Three) we have placed Calvin’s exegesis against the backdrop of the history of exegesis on the Minor Prophets in order to ascertain the measure of continuity and/or discontinuity when it comes to the theme of ecclesiology that is found in the commentaries across the history of the Christian church. It is clear that Calvin’s exegetical principle of locating the intended meaning of the original author according to a historical-literal reading of the Bible text closely aligns with the exegetical school of Antioch. This stands in contrast with the method propounded in ancient Alexandria which aimed to look for a deeper meaning as the true and spiritual one achieved by the method of allegorical exegesis. Calvin’s preference for the literal-historicalgrammatical reading of scripture explains the way Calvin interprets the MP depiction of the life of the ancient church in a more forthright and nonspeculative nor spiritualizing fashion. In harmony with the tradition of exegesis Calvin reserves a place in his exegesis for the person and work of Christ following his first advent. However, Calvin applies a distinction between the spiritual and the temporal (earthly) to a degree that sets him apart from the tradition generally leading up to the Reformation. It seems safe to conclude that this principle is not unique to Calvin but is recognized in the other reformers’ biblical interpretation also. As such this is the natural consequence of an ecclesiology which derives from a theology that is thoroughly Augustinian. Also more or less unique to Calvin as compared with the exegetes of earlier history (ancient and medieval) the reformer’s MP commentary evidences a concern with the church undergoing reformation of its worship and ministry, especially when compared with late medieval commentators such a Lyra and Rupert of Deutz. The reformer’s concern with the restoration and reformation of the church is best recognized in one of his most loyal followers David Pareus. In him we find both the emphasis placed on the church’s unity under God and the lack of rigidity necessary to advance the church’s ongoing renewal.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

228

Conclusion

Calvin’s ecclesiology retains important impulses for the contemporary church. First, the church today must be mindful—as was Calvin—that the church exists by the mercy and grace of God alone. As the reformer tirelessly insists in his commentary on the Minor Prophets, if indeed Christ functions as Head over his church then the church will be kept and defended even when externally it appears to be diminishing. This in turn means the church today must remember its complete reliance on God. Second, the church is a place where its members corporately offer God their worship in accordance with the principles laid out by God in his word so that his people do not offer him anything that is not commanded by scripture. That said, the church today must continue to render to God worship that is biblical while it can accommodate to the spiritual needs of its members where it concerns such currently hotly disputed matters as the style of music and song. Calvin’s ecclesiology inspires the church today to preserve simplicity in corporate worship for the purpose of keeping the glory of God central. Third, the church today too remains a place in which through the teaching of scripture it is aided and strengthened in its divine calling to be faithful to God whose authority serves as the checks and balances for both the church and state in an otherwise still corrupt and degenerate world. Fourth, the reformer’s depiction of God’s own careful restraint in his discipline practice toward the church in ancient times serves as a fresh reminder for today that while discipline of God remains essential to the life of the church it must be done in reliance on the Bible alone and practiced with care for the restoration of the sinner/saint. A fifth and final observation regarding Calvin’s relevance for the church today is that the experience of the unity between the church and Christ as its supreme Head is in large measure dependant on the faithful exercise of those who are called in the church to pastor the faithful by teaching them the truths of scripture rather than function as institutionalized managers and executives who have lost touch with their actual calling to be ministers and messengers of divine grace.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Bibliography Bibliography Primary Sources

Primary Sources Texts of Calvin Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Ad fidem editionum principam et authenticarum ex parte etiam codicum manu scriptorum, additis prolegomenis literariis, annotationibus criticis, annalibus Calvinianis indicibusque novis et copiosissimis (CO), 59 Vol., edited by Wilhelm Baum, Eduard Cunitz and Eduard Reuss, Braunschweig: 1863–-1900. Confession de foy, faicte d’un common accord par les Eglises qui sont disepersees en France, et sabstiennent des idolatries Papales. Avec une preface contenant response et defence contre les calumnies don’t on les charge. 1559. In Ioannis Calvini Opera Selecta. Tractatus Theologicos minores ab anno 1542 usque ad annum 1564 editos continens, vol. 2., P. Barth/D. Scheuner (ed.), 297–324. Münich, 1952. Instruction et Confession de Foy Dont on use en L’Eglise de Geneve. Catechismus Seu Christianae Religionis Institutio Ecclesiae Genevensis (1537). A. Zillenberger/M. Vial (ed.), Ioannis Calvini Opera Omnia. Series III. Scripta Ecclesiastica, vol. 2, Genève, Droz, 2002. Ioannis Calvini Praelectiones In Duodecim Prophetas Minores, Branschweig : Schwetschke, vol. 42–44 (Corpus Reformatorum), 1890. Ioannis Calvini Praelectiones In Duodecim Prophetas (quos vocant) Minores, Genevae: Apud Ioannem Vignon, 1610. Institutionis Christianae Religionis (1559). In Corpus Reformatorum. Vol. 30. Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia. Ed. G. Braun, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss. Brunsvigae: C.A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1864. Praelectiones Danielem. In CR vol. 41. Praelectiones Prophetas... Supplementa Calviniana. Sermons Inedits. Edited by E. Mülhaupt et alii. Vol.5. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1936—.

Other Primary Sources BUCER, M. (1528), Tzephaniah, Quem Sophoniam, uulgo uocat, prophetarum epitomographus, ad ebraicam ueritatem uersus, & commentario explanatus, per M. Bucerum. Argentorati: Ioannem Hervagium. DANAEUS, L. (1586), Commentarium Lamberti Danaei in Prophetas Minores, 2 vol., Geneuae:Vignon. DIONISIUS THE CARTHUSIAN. (1549), Dionysii Carthusiani. Enarrationes Piae ac Eruditae in Duodecim Prophetas (quos vocant) Prophetas Minores. Oseam, Ieholem, Amos, Abdiam, Ionam, Michaeam, Nahum, Abacuk, Sophoniam, Aggaeum, Zachariam, Malachiam, Coloniae: Ioannis Quentel, 1402–71. JEROME. (1969), Commentarii in Prophetas Minores, in: Corpus Christianum Latina, vol. 76. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. Pars I, 6. Turnhout, 1969.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

230

Bibliography

LUTHER, M. (1889), Praelectiones in Prophetas Minores, 1524–1526, Edition: Kritische Gesammtausgabe, vol. 13. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau. MELANCHTON, Ph. (1990, 1846), Philippi Melanchthonis Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, vol. 13. Halis Saxorum: C.A. Schwetschke Et Filium, in Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 13/14. 1846/47. Reprint, Bad Feilnbach, 1990. NICOLAS OF LYRA. (1617), Biblia Sacra cum Glossa Ordinaria. Keerbergen, Jan van Antwerpen, 1617, vol. 4. See also PL 113, 25–30. Paris: Migne, 1879. PAREUS, D. (1605), Hoseas Propheta Commentarius. Haidelbergae: Typus Voegelinianis. _. (1608), In Divinam ad Romanos S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolam Commentarius, Francoforti: Iohannis Lancelloti, 1608. PAREUS, D. (1614), Irenicum sive de Unione et Synodo Evangelicorum Concilianda Liber Votivus, Heidelbergae: Rosa. PISCATOR, J. (1615), In Duodecim Prophetas quos Nominant Minores: puta in Oseam, Joelem, Amosum, Obadjam, Jonam, Michaeam, Nahumum, Abacucum, Sophoniam, Haggeum, Zachariam, Malachiam, Herbornae Nassoviorum: Christoph Corvinus. RUPERT OF DEUTZ. R.D.D. (1893), Ruperti abbatis Tuitiensis. Commentariorum in Duodecim Prophetas Minores. PL 168, vol. 2, 9–836. Paris: Migne. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA. (1964), Explanatio in XII Prophetas Minores, in: Opera Omnia. PG 81, 123–632. Paris: Migne. THEODORET OF CYR. (1864), Explanatio in XII Prophetas Minores, in: Opera Omnia. PG. 66, 1546–1988. Paris: Migne, 1864. ZWINGLI, U. (1982, 1956), Die Zwölf Kleinen Profeten, in: Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 101. Huldrich Zwingli’s Sämtliche Werke, vol. 14, E. Egli (ed.), Zürich: Verlag Berichthaus.

Translations Translations CALVIN, J. (1969), Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, with introduction, translation and notes by F.L. Battles/A. M. Hugo. Leiden: Brill. CALVIN, J. (1991), Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Advise, M. Beaty/B. W. Farley (trans.), Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. CALVIN, J. (1978), Concerning Scandals. J. W. Fraser, (ed.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. CALVIN, J. (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion, J. T. McNeill (ed.), F. L. Battles (trans.), 2 vol., Philadelphia: Westminster Press. CALVIN, J. (1956), On God and Political Duty, J. T. McNeill (ed.), Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrrill Company. CALVIN, J. (1983), Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, translated by: H. Beveridge, vol. 1–3; D. Constable (vol. 4–5) and M.R. Gilchrist (vol. 6–7). H. Beveridge/J. Bonnet (ed.), Grand Rapids: Baker. CALVIN, J. (1990), Sermons on Micah, B. Reynolds (trans.), in: Texts and Studies in Religion, vol. 47, Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press. CALVIN, J. (1996), The Bondage and Liberation of the Will. A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius, in: A.N.S. Lane (ed.), G.I. Davies (trans.). Series: Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. CALVIN, J. (1994), The Necessity of Reforming the Church. By John Calvin. Introduced by W. R Godfrey, Audubon: Old Paths Publications. DIDIMUS THE BLIND. (2006), Commentary on Zechariah. R.C. Hill (trans.). Series: The Fathers of the Church, vol. 111. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press. LUTHER, M. (1973), The Minor Prophets, in: Luther’s Works, Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia, vol. 18–20.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Secondary Sources

231

SIMONS, M. (1956), The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (1496–1561). Translated from the Dutch by L. Verduin (trans.), and J. Chr. Wenger (ed.), with a biography by H.S. Bender. Scottdale: Pennsylvania: Herald Press. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA. (2004), Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. R.C. Hill (trans.), Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.

Secondary Sources Secondary Sources AUGUSTIJN, C. (1991), The Sixteenth-Century Reformers and the Bible, in: W. Beken/Sean Freyne/A. Weiler (ed.), The Bible and its Readers, Philadelphia/London: SCM Press/Trinity, 58–68. AVIS, P.D.L. (1977), ’The True Church’ in Reformation Theology. Scotish Journal of Theology 30, 319–45. BACKUS, I., ed. (1997), The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: from the Carolingians to the Maurists, 2. vol., Leiden/New York: Brill. BAKER, W.J. (1980), Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition, Athens/Ohio: University Press. ———. Christian Discipline and the Early Reformed Tradition: Bullinger and Calvin, in: R.V. Schnucker (ed.), Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 107–20. BALDWIN, M.W. (1953), The Mediaeval Church, Binghamton: New York. BALKE, W. (1981), Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals, W.M.J. Heynen (trans.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. (2003), Calvijn en de Bijbel, Kampen: Kok. ———. (1992), Omgang met de Reformatoren, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan. ———. (1978), The Word of God and Experientia According to Calvin, in: W.H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor, Kampen: Kok, 19–32. BALSERAC, J. (2006), Divinity Compromised. A Study of Divine Accommodation in the Thought of John Calvin, Dordrecht: Springer. BARTELINK, G.J.M. (1984), Hieronymus, in: M. Greschat (ed.), Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, vol. 2., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 145–65. BARTH, K. (1995), The Theology of John Calvin, G. W. Bromiley (trans.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. BATTLES, F.L. (1969), Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s ‘De Clementia.’ With introduction, translation, and notes by Ford L. Battles and André Malan Hugo, Leiden: Brill. ———. (1984), True Piety According to Calvin, in: D.K. McKim (ed.), Readings in Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 192–211. ———. (1984), Was God Accommodating himself to Human Capacity,” in: D.K. McKim (ed.), Readings in John Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 21–42. ———. (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans.), Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2 vol. Series: The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20. BEATY, M./FARLEY, B.W. (1991), (trans.), Calvin’s ecclesiastical advice, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991. BEEKE, J. (1999), The Quest for Full Assurance. The Legacy of Calvin and his Successors, Carlisle: Banner Of Truth. BENEDETTO, R., ed. (1996), Interpreting John Calvin / Ford Lewis Battles. With Introductory Essays by I. John Hesselink and D.K. McKim, Grand Rapids: Baker. BERKOUWER, G.C. (1959), Calvin and Rome, in: J.T. Hoogstra (ed.), John Calvin Contemporary Prophet. A Symposium, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 185–96. ———. (1976), The Church, J. E. Davison (trans.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

232

Bibliography

BEZA, Th. (1996), The Life of John Calvin, Gary Sanseri (ed.), Milwaukie, Oregon: Back Home Industries. BIERMA, L.D. (1996), German Calvinism in the Confessional Age, Grand Rapids: Baker. BLACKETER, R. (2005), School of God: Pedagogy and Rhetoric in Calvin’s Interpretation of Deuteronomy, Dordrecht/London: Springer. BLOESCH, D.G. (1970), The Reform of the Church, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. BOER, De. E.A. (1994), Hermeneutische Schlüssel zur alttestamentischen Prophetie in Calvins Hesekielpredigten, in: W. H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor. Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 199–208. ———. (2004), John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical Studies in John Calvin’s ‘sermons inédits’, especially on Ezekiel 36–48, Leiden: Brill. BOHATEC, J. (1950), Budé und Calvin. Studien zur Gedankenwelt des französischen Frühhumanismus, Graz: Böhlaus. ———. (1968), Calvins Lehre von Staat und Kirche: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Organismusgedankens, Aalen: Scientia. ———. (1933), Zur Eigenart des ‘theokratischen’ Gedankens bei Calvin, in: Aus Theologie und Geschichte des Reformierten Kirche. Festgabe für E.F. Karl Müller-Erlangen zu dessen 70. Geburtstage überreicht von Schülern und Freunden, Neukirchen: Neukirchen, 122–57. ———. (1926), De organische idee in de gedachtenwereld van Calvijn,” in: Antirevolutioniare Staatkunde 2, Kampen: Kok, 32–45, 153–64, 362–77. BORGEAUD, Ch. (1900), Histoire de l’Université de Genève. L’Académie De Calvin 1559–1798, vol. 1, Genève: George. BORNKAMM, H. (1969), Luther and the Old Testament, E. W. Gritsch and R.C. Gritsch (trans.), V.I. Gruhn (ed.), Philadelphia: Fortress Press. BOUWSMA, W.J. (1988), John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait, Oxford, 1988. ———. (1986), The Quest for the Historical Calvin, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 7, 47– 57. ———. (1982), Calvin and the Renaissance Crisis of Knowing,” Calvin Theological Journal 17, 190–211. BRAY, G. (1995), Scripture and Tradition in Reformation Thought, Evangelical Review of Theology 19, 157–66. BREEN, Q. (1968), John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism, reprint, 1931, Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books. BRIENEN, T. (1987), De Liturgie bij Johannes Calvijn. Zijn Publikaties en zijn Visies, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan. BRILLENBURG WURTH, G. (1959), Calvijn en het Koninkrijk Gods, Kampen: Kok. BROWN, D. (2003), Jerome and the Vulgate, in: A.L. Hauser and D.F. Watson (ed.), A History of Biblical Interpretation. The Ancient Period, vol. 1, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 355–79. BUSCH, E., ed. (1997), Calvin-Studienausgabe. Band 2. Gestalt und Ordnung der Kirche., Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. (2005), Gotteserkenntnis und Menschlichkeit. Einsichten in die Theologie Johannes Calvins, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich. BÜSSER, F. (1987), Bullinger as Calvin’s Model in Biblical Exposition: An Examination of Calvin’s Preface to the Epistle to the Romans, in: E.J. Furcha (ed.), Papers from the 1986 International Calvin Symposium, Montreal: McGill University, 1–27. BUTIN, Ph. W. (1994), Reformed Ecclesiology: Trinitarian Grace According to Calvin, Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary. CAMERON, E. (1991), The European Reformation, Oxford: Clarendon Press. COOKE, Ch. L. (1988), Calvin’s Illnesses and their Relation to Christian Vocation. Paper presented at a Colloquium on Calvin Studies at Davidson College and Davidson College Presbyterian Church, Davidson, North Carolina, in W. S. Johnson (ed.), Calvin Studies V: 1988, 41–52. COTTRET, B. (2000), Calvin. A Biography. M.W. McDonald (trans.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Secondary Sources

233

CRAMER, J.A. (1926), De Heilige Schrift bij Calvijn, Utrecht: Oosthoek. DANKBAAR, W.F. (1982), Calvijn: zijn Weg en Werk, Nijkerk: Callenbach. ———. (1941), De Sacramentsleer Van Calvijn, Amsterdam: H.J. Paris. D’ASSONVILLE, V.E. (1974), Calvyn Verdedig Sy Stad (sy antwoord aan kardinaal Sadoletus in 1539, Potschefstroom: Pro Rege. DIESTEL, L. (1981), Geschichte der Alten Testamentes in der Christlichen Kirche, Jena, DDR: Mauke’s Verlag. DILLENBERGER, J., ed. (1975), John Calvin. Selections from his Writings, Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers. DOUMERGUE, E. (1917), Jean Calvin. Les Hommes et les Choses de son Temps, vol. 5., Lausanne: Bridel. DOWEY, E.E. (1952), The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology, New York: Columbia University Press. ECK, van. J. (1992), God, Mens, Medemens. Humanitas in de Theologie van Calvijn, Franeker: Van Wijnen. ELTON, G.R., ed. (1962), The Reformation 1520–1559, vol. 2, in: The New Cambridge Modern History, Cambridge: University Press. ENGAMMARE, M. (1998), Calvin: A prophet without a prophecy, in: J. H. Leith/R. A. Johnson (ed.), Calvin Studies IX. Papers presented at the Ninth Colloquium on Calvin Studies at Davidson College & Davidson College Presbyterian Church, January 30–31, 1998, Davidson, North Carolina, 88–107. FABER, E-M. (1999), Symphonie von Gott und Mensch. Die responsorische Struktur von Vermittlung in der Theologie Johannes Calvins, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. FARRAR, F.W. (1886), Calvin, in: History of Interpretation: eight lectures preached before the University of Oxford in the year 1885 on the foundation of the late Rev. John Bampton, London: Macmillan, 342–352. FERREIRO, A., ed. (2003), Ancient Christian Commentary. The Twelve Prophets, vol. 14, Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. FISCHER, D. (1986), L’histoire de l’Eglise dans la Pensée de Calvin, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 77, 79–125. FOXGROVER, D. (1980), ’Temporary Faith’ and the Certainty of Salvation, Calvin Theological Journal 15, 220–32. FREI, H. (1974), The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, New Haven: Yale University Press. FRYE, R.M. (1990), Calvin’s Theological Use of Figurative Language, in: T. George (ed.), John Calvin and the Church. A Prism of Reform, Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/Knox Press, 172–94. FRÖHLICH, K. (1930), Gottesreich Welt Und Kirche Bei Calvin. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Reichgottesglauben Calvins, München: E. Reinhardt. GAMBLE, R.C. (1988), Calvin as Theologian and Exegete: Is there Anything New? Calvin Theological Journal 23, 178–94. ———. (1988), Calvin’s Theological Method: Word and Spirit, A Case Study, Kirksville, Mo: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 63–75. ———. (1994), Current Trends in Calvin Research, 1982–90, in: Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 91–112. GANOCZY, A. (1976), Calvin als Paulinischer Theologe, in: W.H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Theologus. Congress on Calvin Research, Amsterdam 1974, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 39–69. ———. (2004), Calvin’s Life and Context, in: D.K. McKim (ed.)/D.L. Foxgrover/J.Schmitt (trans.), The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–24. ———. (1968), Ecclesia ministrans. Dienende Kirche und Kirchlicher Dienst bei Calvin, Series: Ökumenische Forschungen, I. Ekklesiologische Abteilung , vol. 3, Freiburg, 1968.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

234

Bibliography

———. (1980), Hermeneutische Korrelationen bei Calvin, in: Reformatio ecclesiae. Beiträge zur kirchlichen Reformbemühungen von der Alten Kirche bis zur Neuzeit, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 615–27. ———. (1987), The Young Calvin, Foxgrover/Provo (trans.), Philadelphia: Westminster Press. GANOCZY, A./SCHELD, S. (1983), Die Hermeneutik Calvins: Geistesgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen und Grundzüge, Wiesbaden: Steiner. GASSMAN, B. (1968), Ecclesia Reformata. Die Kirche in den Reformatorischen Bekenntnisschriften, Freiburg: Herder. GEORGE, T. (1988), John Calvin and Menno Simons: Reformation Perspectives on the Kingdom of God, in: R.V. Schnucker (ed.), Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 195–214. ———. (1990), John Calvin and the Church: a Prism of Reform. Essays originally presented during the first four Colloquia at conferences, held from 1982 to 1988 at Davidson College, North Carolina, Louisville: Westminster/Knox Press. GERRISH, B.A. (1998), Calvin’s Eucharistic Piety, in: D. Foxgrover (ed.), Calvin and Spirituality. Papers presented at the 10th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society, May 18–20, 1995, Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 52–65. ———., ed. (1967), Reformers in Profile, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. ———. (1993), Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. GERSTNER, J.H. (1982), The View of the Bible Held by the Church: Calvin and the Westminster Divines, in: N.L. Geisler (ed.), Inerrancy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 383–410. GILMONT, J-F. (1997), Jean Calvin et le Livre Imprime. Series: Cahier d’Humanisme et Renaissance, vol. 50, Genéve: Droz. GODFREY, W.R. (1996), ’Beyond the Sphere of our Judgment’: Calvin and the Confirmation of Scripture, in: Westminster Theological Journal 58, 29–39. ———. (1983), Biblical Authority in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: A Question of Transition, in: D.A. Carson/J.D. Woodbridge, Scripture and Truth, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 221–43. ———. (2003), Reformation Sketches. Insights into Luther, Calvin, and the Confessions, Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing. GOODLOE, J.C. IV (1990), The Body in Calvin’s Theology. Paper presented at a Colloquium on Calvin Studies at Davidson College and Davidson College Presbyterian Church, Davidson, North Carolina, in: J.H. Leith (ed.), Calvin Studies V: 1990, Davidson, NC., 103–17. GRAAFLAND, C. (1961), De Zekerheid van het Geloof, Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen, 1961. ———. (1989), Kinderen van één Moeder: Calvijns Visie op de Kerk Volgens zijn Institutie, Kampen: Kok. GRAHAM, W.F. (1971), The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin and his Socio-Economic Impact, Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press. GREEF, de, W. (1984), Calvijn en het Oude Testament, Amsterdam: T. Bolland. ———. (1995), De Ware Uitleg. Hervormers en hun Verklaring van de Bijbel, Leiden: J.J. Groen en Zoon. ———. (1989), Johannes Calvijn: zijn Werk en Geschriften. Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan. GREIDANUS, S. (1999), Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. A Contemporary Hermeneutical Method, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans. GRISHAR, P.H. (1968), Tempest in State and Church, in: W. S. Reid (ed.), The Reformation. Revival or Revolution?, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 51–64. HAAS, G. (1997), The Concept of Equity in Calvin’s Ethics, Waterloo: Laurier University Press. HALL, D.W./HALL, J.H., ed. (1994), Paradigms in Polity, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. HANSEN, G.N. (2006), John Calvin’s Non-Literal Interpretation of Scripture: on Allegory, in: Ch. Raynal (ed.), John Calvin and the Interpretation of Scripture. Papers Presented at the 11 Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society at Colombia Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 343–54.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Secondary Sources

235

HARTVELT, G.P. (1960), Verum Corpus. Een Studie over een Centraal Hoofdstuk uit de Avondmaalsleer van Calvijn, Delft: Meinema. HAUSER, A.J./WATSON, D.F., ed. (2003), A History of Biblical Interpretation. The Ancient Period, vol. 1., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. HEDTKE, R. (1969), Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin. Der Unterweisungs- und Erziehungsauftrag der Kirche und seine Anthropologischen und Theologischen Grundlagen, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. HELM, P. (2004), John Calvin’s Ideas, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. HEPPE, H. (1978), Reformed Dogmatics. Set out and Illustrated from the Sources. Foreword by Karl Barth. Revised and edited by Ernst Bizer. Translated by G.T. Thomson. Grand Rapids: Baker. HESSELINK, I.J. (1988), An Introduction to Calvin’s Theology: Based Primarily on Ford Lewis Battles’ Translation of Calvin’s First Catechism (1538), Holland: Western Theological Seminary. ———. (1995), Calvin on the Relation of the Church and Israel Based Largely on his Interpretation of Romans 9–11, in: P. De Klerk (ed.), Calvin as Exegete. Ninth Colloquium on Calvin Studies held at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, N.J., May 20–22, 1993, Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 95–112. ———. (1992), Calvin’s Concept of the Law. Allison Park, Pickwick Publications. ———. (1997), Calvin’s First Catechism. A Commentary. Featuring Ford Lewis Battles’s translation of the 1538 Catechism, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. HESSELINK, I.J. (2004), Calvin’s Theology, in: D.K. McKim, The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, Cambridge, U.K./New York: Cambridge University Press, 74–92. HIGMAN, F.M. (1982), The Question of Nicodemism, in: W.H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos. International Congress on Calvin Research, Geneva, 165–70. HILLERBRAND, H.J. (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vol., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. HOEKEMA, A.A. (1967), The Covenant of Grace, Calvin Theological Journal 3, 133–61. HÖPFL, H.M. (1982), The Christian Polity of John Calvin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HORTON, M.S. (2002), Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. ———. (1997), Calvin and the Law-Gospel Hermeneutic, Pro Ecclesia, 6, 27–42. ———. (2006), God of Promise. Introducing Covenant Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker. HUGHES, Ph.E. (1966), The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. JONES, S. (1995), Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. KAMPSCHULTE, F.W. (1869–1899), Johann Calvin: seine Kirch und sein Staat in Genf, 2 vol., Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. KÄRKKÄINEN, V-M. (2002), An Introduction to Ecclesiology, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. KINGDON, R.M. (1956), Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France, 1555–1563, Geneva: Droz. KLAUBER, M. I./SUNSHINE, G.S., (1990), Jean-Alphonse Turretini on Biblical Accommodation: Calvinist or Socinian?, Calvin Theological Journal 25, 7–27. KOOI, C. Van der. (2005), As In A Mirror John Calvin And Karl Barth. A Diptyh, D. Mader (trans.), Leiden/Boston: Brill. KRAUS, H-J. (1982), Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. KROON, M. de, (1996), De Eer van God en het Heil van de Mens. Bijdrage tot het Verstaan van de Theologie van Johannes Calvijn naar zijn Institutie, Leiden: Groen en Zoon. LANE, A. N.S. (1999), John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers, Grand Rapids: Baker. ———. (1992), The City of God: Church and State in Geneva, in: R.C. Gamble (ed.), Calvin’s Ecclesiology: Sacraments and Deacons, New York/London: Garland Publishing, 140–51

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

236

Bibliography

LEE, S-Y. (1997), Calvin’s Understanding of Pietas, in: W.H. Neuser/B.G. Armstrong (ed.), Calvinus Cincerioris Religionis Vindex (International Congress of Calvin Research (1994: Edinburgh, Scotland), Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 225–39 LEITH, J.H. (1989), John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. LEWIS, G. (1986), Calvinism in Geneva in the Time of Calvin and of Beza (1541–1605), in: International Calvinism 1541–1605, New York: Oxford University Press. LILLBACK, P.A. (2001), The Binding of God. Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. ———. (1994), The Continuing Conundrum: Calvin and the Conditionality of the Covenant, Calvin Theological Journal 29, 42–74. MAAG, K. (1993), Education and Training for the Calvinist Ministry: the Academy of Geneva, 1559–1620, in: A. Pettegree (ed.), The Reformation of Parishes. The Ministry and the Reformation in Town and Country, Manchester: University Press, 133–55. MATTER, E. Ann. (1997), The Church Fathers and the Glossa Ordinaria, in: I. Backus (ed.), The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, vol. 1, Leiden/New York: Brill, 83–111. McDONNEL, K.. (1967), The Ecclesiology of John Calvin and Vatican II, Religion in Life 36, 542–56. McGRATH, A.E. (1986), John Calvin and Late Mediaeval Thougth. A Study in Late Mediaeval Influences upon Calvin’s Theological Development, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 77, 59–78. ———. (1999), Reformation Thought. An Introduction. Malden, Massachusetts/Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. McKEE, E.A.. (2004), Calvin and his Colleagues as Pastors: Some New Insights into the Collegial Ministry of Word and Sacraments, in: H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Preaceptor Ecclesiae.. Papers of the International Congress of Calvin Research. Princeton, August 20–24, 2002, Genève: Droz, 9–42. ———., ed. (2001), John Calvin: Writings on Pastoral Piety. Series: The Classics of Western Spirituality, New York: Paulist Press. ———. (1990), Calvin’s Teaching on the Elder Illuminated by Exegetical History, in: T. George (ed.), John Calvin and the Church: a Prism of Reform, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 147–57. ———. (1989), Exegesis, Theology, and Development in Calvin’s Institutio: A Methodological Suggestion, in: E.A. McKee/B.G. Armstrong (ed.), Probing the Reformed Tradition, Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 154–72. ———. (1984), John Calvin. On the Diaconate and Liturgical Almsgiving, Genève: Droz. McKIM, D.K., ed. (1984), Calvin’s View of Scripture, in: Readings in Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 43–68. ———., ed. (2004), The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, Cambridge: University Press. ———. (1988), Theological Turning Points. Major Issues in Christian Thought, Atlanta: John Knox Press. McNALLY, R.E., (1986), The Bible in the Early Middle Ages, Atlanta, GA.: Scholars Press. McNEILL, J.T., ed. (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vol. Series: The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20. Translated and indexed by F.L. Battles, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. ———. (1984), John Calvin: Doctor Ecclesiae” in: D.K. McKim, Readings in Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 11–20. ———. (1992), The Church in Sixteenth-Century Reformed Theology,” in: D.K. McKim (ed.), Major themes in the Reformed Tradition, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 169–79. McWILLIAMS, D.B. (2008), Calvin’s Theology of Certainty, in: L.G. Tipton/J.C. Waddington (ed.), Resurrection and Theology. Theology in Service of the Church. Essays in honor of Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing Company, 513–33.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Secondary Sources

237

MILLET, O. (1992), Die Reformierten Kirchen, in: H. Smolinsky (ed.), Die Zeit Der Konfessionen (1530–1620/30), vol. 8, Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 47–121. MILNER, B.Ch. (1970), Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church., Leiden: Brill. MOEHN, W.H.Th. (1996), God Roept ons tot zijn Dienst. Een Homiletisch Onderzoek naar de Verhouding tussen God en Hoorder in Calvijns Preken over Handelingen 4:1– 6:7, Kampen: Kok. MOLTMANN, J. (1993), The Church in the Power of the Spirit. A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology, (trans. M. Kohl), Minneapolis: Fortress Press. MONTER, E.Wm. (1967), Calvin’s Geneva, New York: John Wiley & Sons. MOOI, R.J. (1965), Het Kerk-en Dogmahistorisch Element in de Werken van Johannes Calvijn, Wageningen. MÜLHAUPT, E. (1959), Der Psalter auf der Kanzel Calvins. Bisher Unbekannte Psalmenpredigten, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. MULLER, R.A. (1996), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from the Middle Ages, in: R.A. Muller/J.L. Thompson (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation. Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 3–22. MULLER, R.A.,/THOMPSON, J.L. ed. (1996), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation. Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. (1996), The Significance of Pre-critical Exegesis: Retrospect and Prospect, in: R.C.Muller/J.L. Thompson (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation. Essays presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 335–45. MULLER, R.A. (2000), Of Prefaces, ‘Arguments,’ and Letters to the Reader: Calvin’s Testimonies to His Intention and Method, in: The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, New York/Oxford University Press, 21–38. ———. (1993), Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, vol. 2., Grand Rapids: Baker. ———. (1997), Scimus enim quod lex spiritualis est”: Melanchton and Calvin on the Interpretation of Romans 7.14–23, in: T.J. Wengert/M.P. Graham (ed.), Philip Melanchton (1497–1560) and the Commentary, Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 216–37. ———. (2000), Sources of Reformed Orthodoxy: The Symmetrical Unity of Exegesis and Synthesis, in: M.S. Horton (ed.), A Confessing Theology for Postmodern Times, Wheaton: Crossway Books. ———. (1990), The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment, in: D.C. Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, Durham: Duke University Press, 68–82 NAPHY, W.G. (1994), Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press. ———. (2004), Calvin’s Geneva, in: D.K.McKim (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, Cambridge: University Press, 25–37. ———. (1993), The Renovation of the Ministry in Calvin’s Geneva, in: A. Pettegree (ed.), The Reformation of the Parishes: The Ministry and Reformation in Town and Country, Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press, 113–32. NEUSER, W.H., ed. (1994), Calvins Verständnis der Heiligen Schrift, in: Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 41–71. NEWPORT, J.P. (n.d.), A Guide to Biblical Interpretation and Authority in the Thought of John Calvin, Ft. Worth, Texas: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. NIESEL, W. (1980), The Theology of Calvin, H. Knight (trans.), Grand Rapids: Baker. NIJENHUIS, W. (1959), Calvinus Oecumenicus. Calvijn en de Eenheid der Kerk in het Licht van zijn Briefwisseling. Series: Kerkhistorische studiën, vol. 8, ‘s-Gravenhage. ———. (1994), Ecclesia Reformata, in: S. De Boer/O. Fatio/E. Honée (ed.), Studies on the Reformation, vol. 2, Leiden/ New York/Köln: Brill.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

238

Bibliography

———. (1972), Calvin’s Life and Work in the Light of the Idea of Tolerance, Ecclesia Reformata. Studies on the Reformation, vol. 3, Leiden: Brill, 115–129. OBERMAN, H.A. (1988), De Erfenis van Calvijn: Grootheid en Grenzen, Kampen: Kok, 1988. ———. (1988), De Katholieke Kerkvader: de Hele Waarheid voor de Gehele Wereld, in: Kuyper Voordrachten, Kampen: Kok. ———. (1991), Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin’s Reformation, Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. ———. (1981), Masters of the Reformation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. (2000), The Harvest of Medieval Theology. Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. OBERMAN, H.A.. (2006), Toward the Recovery of the Historical Calvin: Redrawing the Map of Reformation Europe, in: D.F.Wright/A.N.S. Lane/J. Balserac, Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 91–104. OCKER, Chr. (2002) Biblical Poetics before Humanism and Reformation, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. (1999), Medieval Exegesis and the Origin of Hermeneutics, Scottish Theological Journal 52, 1, 328–45. OLSEN, J. (1998), The Friends of John Calvin, in: D. Foxgrover (ed.), Calvin and Spirituality/ Calvin and His Contemporaries. Calvin Studies Society Papers 1995, 1997, Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 159–68. OPITZ. P. (1994), Calvins Theologische Hermeneutik, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1984), Calvin on the Covenant, in: D.K. McKim (ed.), Readings in Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 89–122. PARKER, T.H.L. (1987), John Calvin: a Biography, London: Dent and Sons. ———. (1995), Calvin. An Introduction to his Thought, London: Geoffrey Chapman. ———. (1986), Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. (1992), Calvin’s Preaching, Lousiville: Westminster/John Knox Press. PARSONS, M. (2004), Luther and Calvin. Reformation Thought and Narrative Text, Lewiston: New York. PARTEE, Ch. (1997), Calvin’s Polemic: Foundational Convictions in the Service of God’s Truth, in: W.H. Neuser/B.G. Armstrong (ed.), Calvinus cincerioris religionis vindex. Paper presented at the International Congress on Calvin Research, Edinburgh, 1994, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 97–122. PEARCY, H.R. (1938), The Meaning of the Church in the Thought of Calvin, Chicago: University of Chicago. PETRY, R.C. (1936), Calvin’s Conception of the Communio Sanctorum, Church History 5, 227– 38. PICOT, J. (1978), Essai Statistique sur le Canton de Genéve, Genève: Edition Slatkine. PITKIN, B. (1999), What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvin’s Doctrine of Faith in its Exegetical Context, New York: Oxford University Press. PLOMP, J. (1969), De Kerkelijke Tucht bij Calvijn. Kampen: Kok. POLMAN, A.D.R. (1959), Calvin on the Inspiration of Scripture, in: J.T. Hoogstra (ed.), John Calvin Contemporary Prophet. A Symposium, Grand Rapids: Baker, 97–112. PREUS, R.D. (1982), The View of the Bible Held by the Church: The Early Church through Luther, in: N.L. Geisler (ed.), Inerrancy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 357–82. PUCKETT, D.L. (1995), John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. RADDATZ, A. (1984), Theodore von Mopsuestia, in: M. Greschat (ed.), Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1–2, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 167–177. RAYNAL, Ch.E., (1990), The Place of the Academy in Calvin’s Polity, in: T. George (ed.), John Calvin and the Church: a Prism of Reform, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 120–34. REID, W. S. (1982), John Calvin, Pastoral Theologian, The Reformed Theological Review 42, 65–73.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Secondary Sources

239

———. (1965), Calvinism in Sixteenth Century Historiography, Philosophia Reformata 30, 178–97. REYNOLDS, B. (1990), Sermons on Micah. By John Calvin., in: B. Reynolds (trans.), Texts and Studies in Religion, vol. 47, Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press. ———. (1991), Calvin’s Exegesis of Jeremiah and Micah: Use or Abuse of Scripture?, Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Society, 11, 81–91. REVEILLAUD, M. (1958), L’Autorite de la Tradition Chez Calvin, Review of Religion 9, 25–45. REVENTLOW, H.G. (1994, 1997), Epochen der Bibelauslegung, vol. 2–3., München: Verlag C.H. Beck. RICHARD, L.J. (1974), John Calvin and the Role of the Church in the Spiritual Life, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 11, 477–500. ———. (1974), The Spirituality of John Calvin, Atlanta: John Knox Press. RICHEL, P.J. (1942), Het Kerkbegrip van Calvijn, Franeker: Wever. RILLIET, J. (1963), Calvin, 1509–1564. Paris: Fayard. RUNIA, K. (1994), Calvijns Visie op de Ambten, in: M. Van Campen/F. Van der Pol/W. de Greef (ed.), Reformatie: Prediking en Ambt, Woerden: Zuijderduijn Druktechnieken, 99–116. SCHÄR, M. (1979), Das Nachleben des Origenes im Zeitalter des Humanismus, Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn. SCHOLL, H. (2003), Der Geist der Gesetze, in: Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation., Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich. ———. (1974), Calvinus Catholicus. Die Katholische Calvinforschung Im 20. Jahrhundert, Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder. SCHREINER, S. (2006), Calvin’s Concern with Certainty in the Context of the Sixteenth Century, in: D. Foxgrover (ed.), Calvin, Beza And Later Calvinism. Papers Presented at the 15th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society, April 7–9, 2005, Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 113–31. ———. (1996), The Spiritual Man Judges all Things: Calvin and the Exegetical Debates about Certainty in the Reformation, in: R.A. Muller/J.L. Thompson (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation. Essays presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 189–215. ———. (1991), The Theatre of his Glory. Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin, Grand Rapids: Baker. SCHÜMER, L. (1981), L’Ecclèsiologie de Calvin à la Lumière de l’Ecclesia Mater: son apport aux recherches ecclésiologiques tendant à exprimer l’unité en voie de manifestation, Bern. SCHÜTZEICHEL, H. (1972) Die Glaubenstheologie Calvins, München: Hueber Verlag. SELDERHUIS, H.J. (2008), Calvijn een Mens, Kampen, Kok. ———. (1997), Calvin als Asielzoeker, Hilversum: Drukkerij ‘Erica,’ H. van Wagtendonk & Zonen. ———. (2007), Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. ———. (2003), Kirche im Theater: Die Dynamiek der Ekklesiolgie Calvins, in: P. Opitz (ed.), Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation: historische und theologische Beiträge zur Calvinforschung, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 195–214. SELINGER, S. (1984), Calvin against Himself: An Inquiry in Intellectual History, Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books. SMIDT, U. (1972), Johannes Calvin und die Kirche. Ein Lesebuch mit Texten und Themen, Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk. SMOLAK, K. (1984), Theodoret von Cyrus, in: Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, vol. 1, 239–250. SMOLINSKY, H., ed. (1992), Die Geschichte des Christentums: Religion, Politk, Kultur. Band 8. Die Zeit Der Konfessionen (1530–1620/30), D. Becker (trans.), Freiburg: Herder. SPEELMAN, H.A. (1994), Calvijn en de Zelfstandigheid van de Kerk, Kampen: Kok. ———. (1995), Vaderlandse Kerk. ‘Samen op Weg’ en het Kerkbegrip bij Calvijn, Kampen: Kok.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

240

Bibliography

SPIJKER, W. van’t. (1994), Bucer’s Influence on Calvin: Church and Community, in: D.F. Wright (ed.), Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community, New York: Cambridge University Press, 32–44.. ———. (2001), Calvin: Biographie und Theologie, H. Stoevesandt (trans.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. (1987), De Ambten bij Martin Bucer, Kampen: Kok. ———. (1995), Gemeenschap met Christus. Centraal Gegeven van de Gereformeerde Theologie,. Kampen: Kok. ———. (1986), Reformatie en Geschiedenis, Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre . ———. (1991), Zwingli and Bucer in hun Relatie tot de Gereformeerde Scholastiek, in: C. Augustijn/W.H. Neuser/J.H. Selderhuis (ed.), Geest, Woord en Kerk. Opstellen over de Geschiedenis van het Gereformeerd Protestantisme, Kampen: Kok, 9–33. SPITZ, L.W. (1971), The Renaissance and Reformation Movements, vol. 2, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. STAEDTKE, J. (1969), Johannes Calvin: Erkenntnis und Gestaltung, Güttingen: Musterschmidt Verlag. STAEDTKE, J. (1978), Reformation und Zeugnis der Kirche, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. STÄHELIN, E. (1863), Johannes Calvin. Leben und Augewählte Schriften, Elberfeld: R.L. Friderichs. STAUFFER, R. (1978), Dieu, la Creation et la Providence dans la Predication de Calvin. Series: Basler und Berner Studien zur historischen und systematischen Theologie, vol. 33, Berne: Peter Lang. STEINMETZ, D.C. (1996), Calvin and the Irrepressible Spirit, Ex Auditu 12, 94–107. ———. (1995), Calvin in Context, New York: Oxford University Press. ———. (1997), Divided by a Common Past: The Reshaping of the Christian Exegetical Tradition, The Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 27, 245–64. ———. (1984), Luther and Calvin on Church and Tradition, Michigan Germanic Studies 10, 98– 111. ———. (1991), Calvin and the Natural Knowledge of God, in: H.A. Oberman/F.A. James III (ed.), Via Augustini: Augustine in the later Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation: essays in honor of Damasus Trapp, O.S.A., Leiden/New York: Brill, 142–56. STREHLE, S. (1992), Calvinism, Augustinianism, and the Will of God, Theologische Zeitschrift 47, 221–237. STROUP, G.W. (1990), Narrative in Calvin’s Hermeneutic, in: T. George (ed.), John Calvin and the Church. A Prism of Reform, Louisville: Westminster.Konx Press, 158–71. STUHLMACHER, P. (1997), Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Toward a Hermeneutics of Consent, translated and introduced by R. A. Harrisville, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. THOMPSON, J.L. (2004), Calvin as a Biblical Interpreter, in: D.K. McKim (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58–73. ———. /MULLER, R.A.. (1996), The Significance of Pre-critical Exegesis: Retrospect and Prospect, in: R.A. Muller/J.L. Thompson (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation. Essays presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 335–45. TORRANCE, T.F. (1956), Kingdom and Church. A Study in the Theology of the Reformation, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. ———. (1953), The Eschatology of the Reformation, Scottish Journal of Theology 2, 36–62. ———. (1988), The Shaping of Calvin’s Mind, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. TRIMP, C. (1981), Media Vita. De Betekenis van de Gereformeerde Ambtsleer voor de ‘Humaniteit’ in de Kerkelijke Zielszorg, Groningen: De Vuurbaak. VEEN, M. van, (2006), Calvijn, Kampen: Kok.. ———. (2001), ‘Verschooninghe van de Roomsche Afgoderye.’ De Polemiek van Calvijn met Nicodemieten, in het bijzonder Coornhert,’ Houten: Hes and De Graaf Publishers.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Secondary Sources

241

VEER, M.B. Van’t. (1942), Catechese en Catechetische Stof bij Calvijn, Kampen: Kok, 1942. VISCHER, L. (2000), Pia Conspiratio. Calvin’s Commitment to the Unity of Christ’s Church, Genève: Centre International Réformé John Knox. VRIES, W.G. De, (1990), Kerk en Tucht bij Calvijn, Capelle a/d Yssel: Repro Studio Oostgaarde. WALKER, G.S.M. (1984), Calvin and the Church, in: D.K. McKim (ed.), Readings in Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 212–30. WALKER, W. (1969), John Calvin. The Organizer of Reformed Protestantism, New York: Schocken Books. WALLACE, R.S. (1988), Calvin, Geneva and the Reformation. A study of Calvin as Social Reformer, Churchman, Pastor and Theologian, Grand Rapids: Baker. ———. (1953), Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. WALLACE, R.S. (1959), Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, Edinburgh/London: Oliver & Boyd. WARFIELD, B.B. (1956), John Calvin: The Man and his Work, in: S.G. Craig (ed.), Calvin and Augustine, Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 3–26. ———. (1948), The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, in: S.G. Craig (ed.), Phillipsburg: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing House. WENDEL, F. (1965), Calvin. The Origins and Development of his Religious Thought. Ph. Mairet (trans.), New York: Harper and Row. WERNLE, P. (1919), Der Evangelische Glaube Nach Der Hauptschriften Der Reformatoren, vol. 3, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr /Siebeck. WILEY, D.N. (1990), The Church as the Elect in the Theology of Calvin, in: T. George (ed.), John Calvin and the Church: A Prism of Reform, Louisville: Westminster/Knox Press, 96–117. WILCOX, D. (1975), In Search of God and Self. Renaissance and Reformation Thought, Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. WILCOX, E. (1997), The Progress of the Kingdom in Calvin’s Exposition of the Prophets, in: W.H. Neuser/B.G. Armstrong (ed.), Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex. Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion. Paper presented at the International Congress on Calvin Research, Edinburgh, September 13–17, 1994, Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 1–7. WILCOX, P. (1994), ‘The Restoration of the Church’ in Calvin’s ‘Commentaries in Isaiah the Prophet.,’ Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 85, 68–95. WILKINSON, J. (2001), The Medical History of John Calvin: Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edinburg: The Handsel Press. WITTE (S.J.), J.L. (1949), Het Probleem Individu-Gemeenschap in Calvijns Geloofsnorm, 2 vol., Franeker: Wever. WITVLIET, J.D. (2000), Images and Themes in Calvin’s Theology of Liturgy: One Dimension of Calvin’s Liturgical Legacy, in: D. Foxgrover (ed.), The Legacy of John Calvin. Calvin Studies Society Papers 1999, Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 130–52. WOLF, H.H. (1958), Die Einheit des Bundes, Neukirchen: Moers Verlag. WOOD, A.S. (1967), Calvin, in: The Principles of Biblical Interpretation: As Enunciated by Irenaeus, Origin, Luther and Calvin, Grand Rapids: Zondervan. WOOLSEY, A.A. (1988), Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly, 2 vol., Glasgow: University of Glasgow. WRIGHT, D.F. (1997), Calvin’s Accommodating God, in: W.H. Neuser/B.G. Armstrong (ed.), Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex. International Congress on Calvin Research, 1994, Edinburgh, Scotland. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 3–19. ZACHMAN, R.C. (2006), John Calvin as Teacher, Pastor, and Theologian: The Shape of his Writings and Thoughts, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. ———. (1997), Theologian in the Service of Piety: A New Portrait of Calvin, Christian Century, 114, 413–18. ZILLENBILLER, A. (1993), Die Einheit der Katholischen Kirche. Calvins Cyprianrezeption in seinen Ekklesiologischen Schriften, Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern.

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Index Index Index Aaron, 34, 149 Aaronic priesthood, 101, 132 Abel, 189f. Abraham, 51, 65, 68, 71, 73, 76, 78–81, 84, 88, 90–93, 97–99, 103, 107, 111, 118, 122, 138, 199, 202, 217 abyss, 82, 174, 181 Academy (Geneva), 21, 37, 40f, 236 Adam, 59, 73, 91f, 102, 149, 189, 218, 226 administration, 94, 102, 130f, 136, 162, 183, 216, 225 adoption, 14, 27, 69, 71, 74, 78, 80f, 83, 86, 89f, 97, 218, 225 Anabaptists, 22, 25, 71f, 80, 94, 100f, 107, 116, 125, 131, 135, 138, 160, 177, 191f, 224, 225 – perfect church, 125 analogia fidei, 47 analogy, 28, 45, 50, 62, 69, 126, 128, 136, 198, 213f angels, antithesis, 219 allegory, apostolic succession, 139, 150 Aquinas, Th., 195 assurance, 82–87, 109f, 118, 124, 178, 180, 231 autopistos, 65n144 Babylon (exile/return), 11, 28, 42, 95, 97f, 106, 108, 111, 117, 146, 159, 168, 199, 209f, 221 Balserac, J., 9, 39n120, 54n65f, 56n80, 59n101 Balke, W., 19n2, 51n43, 125n129 132n10 Barth, K., 12, 57 Bede the Venerable, 200 Bern, 26 Beza, 28, 33, 40f Bible, – accommodation, 40, 55f, 58, 71, 74, 231 – author (human), 60 – authority, 14, 47f, 51, 54f, 59, 61ff, 65f, 117, 131, 138, 142, 160, 179, 205, 207, 219, 223, 225 – inspiration, 58, 60–64 – mirror, 86, 92, 109 – revelation, 47ff, 54f, 60f, 64ff, 101, 139, 170, 198, 207, 213, 224 – unity, 11, 46, 51f, 97, 101, 103, 196, 201f, 213, 218 Blacketer, R., 169n48

body and head (church), 89, 97f, 112, 114f, 118, 127, 131, 159 – defection (Jeroboam), 89, 94, 128 – mutilated, 127 – severing, 129 Bohatec, J., 116n55, 132n12, 142n82, 162n5 Borgeaud, Ch., 40n127, 41n129 Bourse française, 23 Bouwsma, W.J., 20, 33n84, 38n108, 39, 173n75 Bray, G., 46n10 Breen, Q., 39n117 Brown, D., 197n16 Bucer, M., 130, 154, 215ff Bullinger, 29 Büsser, F., 204n1 calling, 69, 73f, 78, 80f, 102, 226 Calvin, J. – catechism (1537), 38, 87 – central theme, 14 – citizenship, 21ff – conversion, 39, 205 – health, 32–36 – headache, 34 – victory (1555), 21–24, 58, 120ff, 155, 160, 212, 224 Cameron, E., 21n13, 26n49 ceremonial worship, 58, 146, 165–71, 177, 181, 221 certainty, 62, 74, 82–86, 123f, 155, 174, 180f, 223f, 233 – or uncertainty, 47, 54, 57, 62, 223 – of divine mercy, 71, 75, 84, 103, 172, 175, 179–81, 219, 228 – divine favor, 57, 66, 68, 71, 75, 80, 82–90, 95, 117f, 120, 124, 147, 153, 160, 164, 174, 178, 180, 189, 191, 208f, 223, 226 chastisement, 55, 155, 158 Christ, – and communion, 187f, 199f – final advent as happy – state, 117 – first advent, 21, 39, 42, 46, 52, 79, 85, 103, 105, 146, 171, 205, 209 – as mediator, 83, 92f, 101, 112f, 124, 168, 170, 179 – shepherd, 106, 112, 118, 147 – sole head, 67, 127f, 130, 147, 161, 178, 220 – foundation election, 88, 91

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Index – protector and mediator, 124 church, – accountability, 138, 142 – authority, 22, 31, 46, 48, 65, 131–43, 149, 160, 219f, 223, 225 – free associating of, 137 – golden age of, 154 – happy state of (at second advent), 117 – Head of (Christ) – and Israel, 96–100 – and kingdom, 115 – as legitimate (legitima ecclesia), 53f – and membership (mixed), 87, 94, 96, 163, 227 – as mystical body, 203 – nature of (spiritual), 48 – as perfected (perfecta ecclesia), 94, 117, 125– restoration, 37f, 53, 60, 69, 83, 92, 100, 103, 107f, 111f, 117f, 134, 144, 152, 158, 169, 177f, 202, 218, 221 – as reborn at Jesus – return from Egypt, 98 – reunion, 118, 124–28 – and state, 19, 38, 116, 131ff, 152, 226, 228, 132ff – true restoration, 53, 66, 96, 116, 135, 150, 169, 177, 184, 219 – unity, 24, 29, 46, 52, 66, 93f, 100, 107, 126, 128, 151, 165, 188, 198, 216, 221, 227 – as public/visible, 67, 69, 87 (temporum ecclesia, publica ecclesia, ecclesia coetus), 217 church order, 38, 94, 106, 117, 130, 133–37, 139, 144f, 148f, 151f, 226 – unchanged, 133 – ordination, 135, 141 civil-government/magistrate, 21, 29, 37, 132f, 135, 141, 143, 225 Colladon, 32f Commentary (Calvin), – on Genesis, 51, 200 – on Harmony of – Gospels, 151, 166 – on Minor Prophets (Prefaces), 60, 204, 206f, 209 – on Psalms (Preface), 19, 205f, 208f – on Romans (Preface), 206 confidence, 35, 83, 85ff, 101, 165, 177, 180, 224 conscience, 35, 84ff, 139, 144, 167, 180, 209, 219 consolidation, 21f, 37, 41 Constantine, 132 corpus christianum, 132 Cooke, Ch.L, 33f Cottret, B, 100n91, 165n20, 172n65, 174n81 Covenant (Abraham), 88, 97

243

– and adoption, 89 – blessing, 81 – breakers, 70 – condition, 79, 88 – and election, 89 – faith – grace, 52, 76 – gratuitous, 90 – head of (Christ), 93 – and law, 101 – as marriage renewal, 103, 105 – membership (broad and narrow), 74, 76, 90 – mutuality, 104 – promise, 79, 82 – renewal, 103 – of salvation, 73, 76 – unity of, 102f – unchanged, 94 – obedience, 99, 102, 105 – one covenant, 90f covenant of grace, 52, 76 new covenant, 53, 92, 102ff – stability, 104f Cyril of Alexandria, 195, 197f Daneus, L., 218f Dankbaar, F.W., 25n40, 28n57, 30, 41n133, 183n150 d’Assonville, V., 177n104 David, 11, 15, 58, 68, 83, 91f, 97, 106, 109, 112–18, 127ff, 135, 165, 188, 219 death, 73, 95, 98f, 171 De Boer, E.A., 13, 97n74, 115n54 Deformation (church), – as gradual, 33 De Greef, W., 21n10, 25n39, 41, 27n53, 30n69, 38n110, 39n115, 141n75 de Kroon, M., 67, 181n136, 182n141 Denis the Carthusian, 199–200, 202 De Scandalis, 45n3, 48n22, 122n97 Devotio Moderna, 39 Didymus the Blind, 197, 199 Diestel, L., 169n49, 195n1, 201n36 divine discipline, 80, 136, 150–54, 157, 160, 176 – gradual, 156, 226 – by degree, 157, 159 – motive paternal, 158 – nature of, 153, 161 – necessity, 154 – pluriformity, 147 – as providence, 150 – purpose of, 35, 155f, 159 – as remedy, 161 – right to, 22, 40 – sinew/nerve, 153

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

244

Index

– unchanged, 150 divorce, 89n – of Israel, 70, 94f, 103, 110 – and new marriage, 102, 103 – of Roman Church, 117 docility (docilitas), 66, 153 godly doctrine (doctrina pietatis), 125 doubt, 151, 180 Doumergue, E., 86n130 Duchess of Ferrara, 30 Ecclesiology (Calvin), 19, 31, 39, 51f, 55, 59, 63, 65f, 69, 77f, 87, 91, 101, 103, 118, 132, 160, 188, 191 – medieval, 195f, 198, 200ff – sixteenth century, 204, 215, 220, 222, 224 Eck, J. Van, 159, 199 Ecclesiastical-Ordinances (1541), 22, 37f, 134n24 education, (Geneva Academy) 37–42 election, – Abraham, 93, 97f, 103, 107, 111, 118, 122, 138, 199, 202 – and adoption, 71 – in Christ, 74, 82 – hidden calling (vocatio arcana), 69, 71 – hidden decree (arcanum decretum), 82 – as efficacious, 74, 76, 80, 85 – as gratuitous, 69ff – of Israel, 70f – of love, 76 – secret, 78, 82 – twofold (general and special), 68, 73f – as unchanging, 79f. Engammare, M., 119n81 Erasmus, 39 Esau, 75–80 Eucharist, 202 See – sacraments, excommunication, 22, 155, 159 – as amputation, 159 – as (last) remedy, 81, 86, 155, 157, 159 Exegesis (Calvin), – Alexandrinian, 197f, 202 – allegorical, 56ff, 206, 210–13 – analogy, 69, 126, 136, 214 – Antiochene, 197f, 202 – Application (text), 20, 46, 49, 128, 202, 212ff – to edify, 60, 208 – frigid, 154, 210f – history, 21, 42, 45ff, 51, 89, 97f, 111, 132, 170, 202 – intent author (consilium, mens prophetae), 20, 49f, 60, 62, 206, 208, 210, 206 – principles, 47, 207 – grammatical-historical, 46, 57

– metaphorical, 98, 210 – as non-speculative, 209 – public good, 45, 208 – Judaizing (Calvin), 57, 97 – quadriga, 197f, 212 – simplicity (genuine simplicitas) 60, 138, 209 – usefulness, 39, 45, 208 exile, – Assyria (ten tribes), 100 – Babylon (two tribes), 98, 111, 146, 221 Exodus, 98 – as new birth Israel, 111 ex opera operato, 187, 216 Faber, E.M., 130n2 faith, – assurance of, 82–87 fanatics, 71, 101, 134, 138 Farel, G., 33 Ferreiro, A., 183n149, 196n7, 198n20 Fischer, D., 48n22 Foxgrover, D., 87n132, 179n120 free will, 70ff, 81ff, 189, 221 Fröhlich, K., 67n2, 112n23, 135n23, 146n96 Frye, R.M., 59n101, 187n178 Ganoczy, A., 46n9, 47n11, 48n25, 62n119, 139n63, 145n98, 146n109 Gassmann, B., 65n143, 140n66, 145n95, 184n154 Geneva, – political situation, 19, 21–29 – Libertines, 22, 27, 135 – opposition in, 20f Gerrish, B.A., 46n8, 91n28, 97n69, 107n133 Gilmont, J.F., 19n1 God, – love, 38, 73, 76 – paternal (love), 88, 123f, 154, 178 – as patron, 93, 123, 155 – and discipline, 80, 150ff – as patient, 153 – patient submission, 175 – as teacher, 50, 140 God’s will/decree (simplex), 71 – as eternal, 69, 71, 74, 82, 87ff – as hidden (arcana), 69 – as incomprehensible, 55 – as sole author of Bible, 48ff good works, 188–91, 202, 217 – as non-meritorious, 52, 189 – example of Abel, 189– 90 – works of – supererogation, 190n100 government, – church, 130ff Graafland, C.G., 174n82, 83

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Index Graham, W.F., 23n24, 130n1 Gustav, king of Sweden, 45n1, 207ff Haas, G., 172n69 heaven, 94, 97, 101, 122, 138, 170, 178 Hedtke, R., 151n143 hermeneutic, 46, 51, 202, 207 – of promise and – fulfillment, 52 Hesselink, I.J., 38n111, 112, 55n73, 97, 113n33, 139n57, 176n98, 191n206 Hill, R.C., 197n14, 198n24, 199n25 Holy Spirit, 20, 30, 32, 48ff, 61ff, 66, 73, 78, 97, 105, 107, 139, 145, 176, 189, 204, 216 – and freedom, 139 – and preaching, 139 – and spiritual – regeneration, 74, 108, 190 – and intent, 50 – power of, 20, 49, 134, 176 – and Word, 47, 49, 61ff, 66, 78, 176 Höpfl, H., 37n105 Horton, M.S., 52n50, 100n94, 175n96 Hughes, Ph.E., 22n16, 38n113, 140n69, 141n71 Humanism, 39, 205 human nature, 45, 72f, 84f, 103, 105, 119, 153, 189 – use of helps/aids (adminiculis), 138, 181 humble, 121, 156 Hunneus, A., 57 hypocrites, 68, 79, 81, 87 idolatry, 29, 70, 163, 165, 167f, 221 Idumeans (Edomites), 76ff incurable, 34, 153, 154n ingratitude, 75f, 96 implicit faith, 175 imputation, 107 Institutes (Calvin), 22, 38, 48, 52, 66, 75f, 87, 124, 151, 160, 179, 188, 199, 204 Interim Settlement, 25 Israel, – birth/origin of, 98 – and the church, – replacement, 96 – and covenant, – divorce of, – election of, – northern and southern – kingdoms, – and replacement, Israelites, – adulterous, 129 – and church, 97 – as ecclesia Dei, 71– Israelitica ecclesia, 53n59

245

Jacob, 75–80 Jeroboam, 114, 116, 124, 126, 129, 166, 188, 218 Jerome, 57, 197, 202 Jerusalem, 96, 113, 119, 134, 184, 217 Jews, 75, 106f – and Israelites, 75, 106f Jonah, 50, 56, 175, 178 Jonvillier, 50n37 justification, 52, 73, 107, 188f, 191 Kampschulte, F.W., 40n120 Kärkkäinen, V-M., 185n163 kingdom, – of God, 206 – of Christ, 92, 94, 112ff – of David (legitimate), 68, 83, 92, 106, 109, 114, 118, 190 – of Judah, – reunification, 130 – rule (gospel), 114 – scepter, 113, 128 – as spiritual, 112ff Kingdon, R.M., 13 knowledge, – of God, – twofold, (scientia fides, scientia experimentalis), 56, 84 labyrinth,82, 120 Lane, A.N.S., 112n20, 132n9, 195n2, 4, 199n29, 200n30 Lausanne (faculty), 30, 40 law, 48, 55, 61f, 64, 97, 100f, 106 – and gospel, 52, 101, 113 – and shadows, 113, 168f, 171 – two tables of the, 172f – versus gospel, 170, 171 Leith, 112n22 Levi, 58, 177 – covenant with Levi, 91 – levitical priesthood, 146 – succession, 141, 148 Libertines, 22, 27, 135 Lillback, P.A., 52n51, 88n2, 89n11, 90n19–22 Lombard, P, 195, 212n42 love, 38, 73, 76, 87, 156 Luther, M., 47, 52, 108, 132f, 167, 202, 213, 215ff, 219, 223 Maag, K., 41n128 Mary, 93n42 Mass/Eucharist, – as different from – Lord’s Supper, 186 – as human invention, 166, 170, 181f, 184ff

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

246

Index

– as superstion, 163, 165f, 170, 177 Matter, E.A., 201n37 Mc.Grath, E.A., 19n2, 189n188 McKee, Elsie A., 51n 44, 46, 139n58, 143n84, 145n97, 178n110 McKim, D.K., 56n80, 118n69 McNeill, J.T., 31n73, 33n87, 61n114, 62n125, 172 McNally, R.E., 59n104, 60n105, 200n31, 32 Melanchton, Ph., 213, 215–17 mercy, 71, 75, 84, 180 merit, 52, 68, 71f, 191 metaphors, 34, 211, 151 middle road (mediam rationem), 107, 121, 163, 186, 191 Millet, O., 67n2, 143n88 Milner, B.Ch., 13f, 83n103, 89n10, 14, 90n16, 98n78, 112n21, 116n56, 118n69, 142n83, 146n108, 162n3 ministers, 55, 63, 133, 137ff, 146, 155, 182 – disposition of, 155 – as prophets, 138ff, 146, 155 Moehm, W.H.Th., 182n143 Moltmann, J., 96n64 Montaigu, Collège de, 195 Monter, E.W., 22n14, 23n23, 29, 24n32, 27n50, 40n124, 125 Mooi, R.J., 137n43, 187n 178, 195n2, 197n10 Moses, 49, 61, 63, 98, 114, 140, 164 – office civil, 132 Muller, R.A., 39n114, 45n5, 46n6, 47n17, 50n37, 52n55, 53n61, 54n69, 60n109, 206, 207n12, 210n29, 212n40, 43, 44–46, 213n47, 214, 52 Naphy, W.G., 21n11, 23n21, 28, 24n35, 37, 38n109 Neuser, W.H., 52n53, 53n58 new church, 70, 81, 105, 110f, 135, 145, 202 new people (novum populum), 111 Nicodemites, 29, 163, 173, 187 Nicolas of Lyra, 199f, 202f, 212, 214 Niesel, W., 125n129, 178n116 Nijenhuis, W., 19n3, 26n45, 151n143, 185n159 nova ecclesia, 105 obedience, – of (old and new) – covenants, 88, 99, 103ff – of faith, 31, 46, 75, 99, 102, 104f, 128, 171 – as partial, 190 Oberman, H.A., 26n46, 47, 46n6, 69n18, 84n117, 180n123, 189n188 Ocker, Chr., 59n103, 201n37 office(s) church, – authority, 61, 106, 136ff

– calling, 138, 144 – conditional, 137, 139ff – converging, 146 – deformation, 149 – duties, 136, 144, 148f – limitations, 137–42 – nature spiritual, 132, 134– public (ministry), 139f – priestly, 63, 134, 144 – teaching, 136, 138, 142, 146f, 150 Old and New Testaments, – relationship of, 51f – differences, 52, 102, 114, 201 Opitz, P., 149n130 Origin, 197n18 papacy, 146, 149, 219 – disqualified, 146 – overthrow, 138 – tyranny, 149 – superstitions (??), – papists, 75, 78, 93, 99, 110, 121, 126, 167, 190, 213, 219, 189 patrons (idols), 93f, 152 Pareus, D., 218–20 Parker, H.T.L., 23, 51f, 214 (passim) pastor, – duties, 144, 148f – and discipline, 140 – dignity of, 135, 137, 149 – with local – congregation, 142f, 148 – as priests/teachers, 146 – office of, 147 – as teacher, 137, 145 Peace of Augsburg, 24ff Peace of Câteau- Cambrésis, 27, 40 peregrinamur (sojourn), 182 Perrinists, 21, 27, 40 persecution, 29f. persuaded, 65, 83f, 171, 178, 180ff Petry, R.C., 107n134, 188n181 Picot, 23n25 piety, 12, 39f, 70, 82, 125, 146, 164, 169–75 – and rule of love (regulam caritatis), 173 Piscator, J., 218–19 Pitkin, B., 56n79 Plomp, J., 150n133, 176n100 pope. See papacy prayer, 170f, 175, 178f – chief importance, 178 – with confidence, 178 practical syllogism, 78n75, 180n123 priesthood, – of believers, 177 – fulfilled in Christ, 177

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

Index priests (OT and papal), – as people advocates (patroni), 148 – as interpreters (law), 142, 146 – as teachers, 145f promise, – as certain, 56, 65, 82, 85 – and curse/threatening, 95, 214 promise and fulfillment, 42, 46, 52f, 79, 84, 98, 202, 206, 211, 213 Prophets (teachings), – as ambassadors, 56, 133 – as appendices, 142, 164 – as celestial – ambassadors, 56, 133 – as custodians (custos) – of covenant, 64 – as instruments (interpositum), 49, 56, 70 – intention of (consilium), 50, 62, 210 – as interpreters (law), 49, 64, 142, 146 – mind of (mens prophetae), – as organs of the Spirit (organa), 49, 145, 207 – as teacher, 50 Providence, – as eternal, 72 – as special, 55 – as distinguished from God’s word, 150 Puckett, D.L., 48n26, 58n91, 63n130, 211n37 prophetic office, – extraordinary, 146, 148 Raguenier, D., 50n37 Raynal, Ch.E., 40n126 reason, 99, 110 rebirth, – of church, 98 reconciliation, (God), 36, 76, 216 Reformation, 22, 25,ff, 48, 69f, 117, 120, 145, 172 174 – under gospel, 38, 129 – as imperfect, 152 – incomplete, 163 – as restoration, 134 – of lives, 175 – of worship, 162 refugees, 23f regeneration, – and covenant, 105 – of life, 107 – and special election, 74 regulative principle, 166n26 Rehoboam, Renaissance-humanism, 39, 61, 205 repentance (and faith), 84, 87, 159, 173, 175, 179f reprobate, 73–79, 86, 91 restoration of church

247

– order, 136 resurrection, 31, 111, 127, 198, 202 Reformation, – gradual,(not instant), 107, 138, 160 – future reunion as – spiritual, not visible, 118 Reventlow, H.G., 88n1, 90n21, 91n27, 197n14 Rhemigius of Auxerre, 200 Richard, L.J., 64n133, 173n74, 178n112 Richel, P.J., 14, 90n17, 92n31, 121n92, 126n136, 154n162, 157n184 (passim) righteousness, 52, 68, 73, 104, 107, 190 – divine, 193 – not of good works, 68, 191 – human, 73 – new covenant, 104 – original, 73 – partial, 190 Rilliet, J., 23 Roman Catholics, – Antichrist, 120 – claim to title church, 48, 70, 109, 116, 123, 164, 220 – as enemies (of God), 121, 154f – externalism of, 67, 75, 78, 112, 164–67 – hierarchy, 106n123 – like Israelites (north), 70 – a labyrinth, 82, 120 – Holy Mother Church, 126 – on scripture, 47f Rupert of Deutz, 199–02, 227 sacraments, 22, 55, 162, 170, 172, 181–88, 216 – are aids, 181f – of baptism, 184f – of communion, 185–88 – ex opera operato, 185, 216 – piety, 172 – presence (Christ), 187 – pure use of, 182 – as signs, 185 – as symbol of faith, 184 – Lord’s supper, 188 – as confirmation of – divine favor, 184 – as nerve (Melanchton), 216 – not as sacrifice, 186 – as signs (testimony), 185 – as table (altar), 171, 178, 183, 186 – weekly, 167 – unique (Christ), 186 sacrifices, – of thanksgiving and prayer, 170f, 175, 178f Sadolet, J., 126n132, 148n117 sanctification, 107, 159, 184f, 191 Satan, 32, 85, 104, 121, 12, 134f, 138

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222

248

Index

Schär, M., schism(atic), 112, 126f – as illegitimate, 165 Wars of Religion, 29 Scholl, H., 131.5 school (of God), 102, 138, 150,169, 181 Schreiner, S., 47n18, 55n78, 82n101, 83n103 Selderhuis, H.J., 20n4, 102n107, 121n95, 178n114 Selinger, S., 33n83 shadows (reality), 58n97, 168 sickness, 33–36 Smolak, K., 196n6 Smolinsky, H., 185n160 society, 32, 37, 131 specialem Dei – providentiam, 55 Speelman, H.A., 131n8, 141n73, 182n139 Staedtke, J., 41n134 Stähelin, E., 28 state as patron, – of church, 152 Stauffer, R., 60n110 Steinmetz, D.C., 60n106, 61n115, 65n141, 160n86, 174n82, 197n18, 201n38 Strasburg, 205 Strehle, S., 75n62 Stroup, G.W., 214n54 suffrage, 115, 141 sunshine, 36 Sturm, J., 39 synecdoche, 53 teachable, 60, 68, 101, 173, 183 terror, 86 theatre, 48 Theodoret of Cyr. 195– 99 Theodoret of Mopsuestia, 195–99 Thompson, J.L., 207n9, 212n43 today (hodie), 50, 198, 216 Torrance, T.F., 39n116, 124n115 Trimp, C., 150n135, 51n145 type/typology, 113, 188 tyrant/tyranny, 112, 144, 166 unbelief, 65, 76f, 85, 159 uncertainty, 47, 54f, 57, 62 usurping of authority, 133, 139, 142 van’t Spijker, W., 29n66, 39n119, 41n130, 79n79, 132, 154.163, 182n137, 188n182 van Veen, M., 27n55, 47n16, 48n20 Van’t Veer, M.B., 39n110 Viret, 40

Walker, W., 37n103, 104, 41n131, 151n137 Wallace, R.S., 69n21, 72n46, 114n41, 62n4, 67n34, 68n40, 76n101, 102, 182n141 warfare, – spiritual, 119, 121ff, 129 – weapons, 125 Warfield, B.B., 39, 49, 60n30, 64n137 Wendel, Fr., 121n91 Wernle, P., 67n1 Wilcox, D., 85n118 Wilcox, E., 115n52 Wilcox, P., 47n12, 111n18 Witvliet, J.D., 55n75, 164n16, 170n56, 172n67, 176n100 women (France), 30f, 133 Wood, A.S., 61n113 Woolsey, A.A.,100n96, 104n114 Word and sacraments, 55, 182 Word and Spirit, 176 Worms, Colloquy of, 26 Word (of God), – as an aid, 182 – authority, 48ff, 144 – as rule in worship, 171 world, 69, 80, 119, 122f, 125, 162, 182 wrath (divine), – yet merciful, 55, 77, 84, 181 Wright, D.F., 149n130 worship, – abomination, 94, 167, 170 – certainty in worship, 180 – external ceremony (pomp), 168, 169, 175, 177 – and faith, 169, 171f. – as genuine (piety), 164, 174f. – of God, – as heavenly (versus – earthly, 170 – as illegitimate under Jeroboam and/or papacy, 167, 187 – no human inventions, 166, 184 – and good intentions, 166f – as non-sacramental, 177 – as non-ceremonial, 171 – legal (Moses) ceased, 119, 171 – as legitimate (Reformation), 166 – to restore worship, 136, 159,177 – rule for, 164f, 169f, 179, 191 – as spiritual, 169–72, 175 – as pure, 113, 126, 136, 156, 163, 177, 184 – as unchanged, 164 Zachman, R.C., 54n65, 61n114, 173n67 Zillenbiller, A., 137n49 Zwingli, H., 215–17, 221

Walker, G.S.M., 150n137, 151n144, 188n180

© 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525569221 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647569222