<<   Title  Contents  >>

General Introduction

I. THE QUALITY OF THE COMMENTATOR

Calvin's Commentaries and sermons fill volumes 23-55 of hisWorks(inCorpus Reformatorum[1]); and the Commentaries by themselves fill forty-five volumes in English: thirty on the Old Testament, fifteen on the New Testament (in the series of the Calvin Translation Society).

The grandeur of this achievement becomes all the more evident when we remember that these Commentaries were the work not of a detached scholar, but of a Reformer whose days were filled largely with pastoral work both in the church and in the state. His multiple activities and preoccupations in the latter capacity, especially in the light of his delicate and sickly physical condition, leave one amazed at the diligence and perseverance which made Calvin's literary output (fifty-nine volumes in hisWorks) possible. One must not forget the several versions of theInstitutes, his numerous tracts and thousands of letters. Calvin believed not only in the Word of God, but also in human words as means of promoting the gospel and serving the church.

The Commentary on Romans, the first, was published in 1540. The latest, Joshua (1564) and Ezekiel, chs. 1-20 (1565), were published after Calvin's death. In between came the great Commentaries on Genesis, the four last Books of Moses (Harmony), the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Lamentations, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets (Calvin preached on the other books such as Deuteronomy, Job, and Samuel, but he did not lecture on them). There were also the Commentaries on all the books of the New Testament, except 2 John and I2 John and Revelation. The Harmony of Exodus-Deuteronomy (four volumes in English) and the Harmony of the Gospels (three volumes) deserve special mention as astonishing works of organization, both of narrative and of topics. They are, in fact, convincing evidence of Calvin's grasp of Scripture as a whole and in detail. It is impossible to single out the greater Commentaries. Each is valuable for the insights it gives into the Word of God contained in it. One has only to consult Calvin on a few given passages of Scripture to recognize that he is indeed a teacher without an equal. Calvin comments with the conviction that any passage of Scripture he may examine contains a Word of God full of God's wisdom, applicable to the condition of his hearers and readers in one respect or another. This conviction enables him to respond to the Bible with a vitality and intelligence which certainly go into the making of the mass of interesting material contained in the Commentaries from one end to the other. So it is that in spite of the occasional dips, one is aware of walking through on a high road, with solid pleasure and frequent excitement of illumination.

Most of the Old Testament Commentaries were delivered as lectures. Calvin spoke slowly and quietly, so that his words could be recorded fairly accurately by his students and more exactly by his secretaries. Afterward he went over what had been taken down, corrected it, and allowed it to be published with proper dedications to friends and persons of importance in England and elsewhere.

It is important to remember that these lectures were delivered at the Academy, which provided education to the children of Geneva, and attracted students of theology by the hundreds from France, England, Scotland, Holland, and elsewhere. Some of the greatest Protestant theologians of the day were trained in this Academy. But the majority of those who attended his lectures went to their several countries to work, and often to suffer, for the establishment and the progress of the Reformed faith. What these men needed was clear, sure, and strong grasp of Scripture doctrine, available for the new churches or gatherings of Protestants in their own lands, surrounded by hostile forces and in constant peril. Calvin commented for the upbuilding of these people and the churches they came from and went to.

He began his lectures always with the prayer, " May the Lord grant that we study the heavenly mysteries of his wisdom, making true progress in religion to his glory and our upbuilding." The closing prayer was longer, and in it Calvin laid before the Lord the special needs of the faithful as the Scripture just studied had revealed them.

The Scripture passage was read in the original language, then translated into Latin.[2]Calvin's Latin translation is apparently his own; in the classroom, it was made directly from the text. He was of course as familiar with the Vulgate as most modern English translators are with the Authorized Version, and like the modern translators, he enjoyed making improvements.[3]His wording is said to be closest, in the Old Testament, to the translation of Leo Jud, printed at Zurich in 1543 (reprinted 1545 and 1557[4]); but it does not seem so close as to suggest actual dependence. For example, in Gen. 1:6 Jud's translation runs,Dixit quoque Deus sit extensio; Calvin's,Et dixit Deus sit extensio.

What Hebrew text he used is apparently uncertain. Available, besides the Brescia edition used by Luther, were the Soncino (1488), the Bomberg editions, printed at Venice (1518-1526), and three editions of Münster, printed at Basel (1534, 1536, 1546). None of them differed significantly from the Brescia edition. The Complutensian Polyglot, finally published in 1521, was used by Beza (according to Delitzsch) and presumably was available to Calvin.

Calvin's opponents have minimized his knowledge of Hebrew (Il n'en connoissoit gueres que les caracteres[5]), but the Commentaries themselves offer sufficient evidence to the contrary. He deals repeatedly with disputes over the roots from which words were derived, and with various grammatical constructions. Further, he has a real sense of Hebrew style and uses it frequently as a guide to interpretation.[6]He recognizes fully the importance of " synonymous parallelism." He takes for granted the relative antiquity and accuracy of the Masoretic Hebrew in comparison with the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and he therefore uses them both along with the Targum, Theodotian, and the church fathers, much as he uses the commentaries of his own contemporaries, as aids to the interpretation of the text, not as independent authorities.

While translating the New Testament, Calvin has both the Vulgate and Erasmus before him. But he does not hesitate to make his own rendition. This statement could be substantiated from almost every other page of the New Testament Commentaries. One or two examples will suffice. He translates eu(ri/skomaiasinveniam(" that I may find" ), against Erasmus'reperiorand the Vulgate'sinvenior; and he justifies his rendition by saying " as Budaeus[7](the great Hellenist) shows by various examples" (on Phil. 3:9). Erasmus translates a) lla/ ma= llw[omegahat] eucaristi/ a, of Eph. 5:4, assed magis gratiarum actio, " but rather by giving thanks greatly." Calvin prefers Jerome'ssed magis gratia. He admits that the Greek word usually means " thanksgiving," but he thinks the present context requires that it be translated asgracious.

As to the New Testament text, Calvin clearly uses that of Erasmus. But references to ancient and more recent " manuscripts" show that he was not satisfied simply to follow even an authority like Erasmus.

Erasmus' influence on Calvin as critic and exegete was far-reaching. The former's insistence upon the necessity of knowing the original languages of the Bible[8]; his principle that the more obscure passages of the Bible should be interpreted with the help of those which are clear[9]; his plea for understanding the Bible in its " natural, or historical and grammatical" sense, and spiritually, that is, for moral edification[10]; his view of the Bible as having been written under the direction of the Holy Spirit (Ut enim Spiritus ille divinus, mentium apostoliarum moderatur) without a forced uniformity as to content[11]; his conviction that various and divergent accounts and teachings in the Bible do not diminish its authority and saving power[12]; his critical attitude with regard to the authorship of certain books, and his independence in relation to patristic interpreters, including Jerome; his dictum:In fontibus versetur oportet, qui vellit esse vere theologus-- " Every man who would be a true theologian must return to the sources''[13]-- all this, together with the example of free and competent examination of Scripture he sets in his emendations and annotations, are written large in Calvin's Commentaries. (How much of this agreement is to be credited to the direct influence of Erasmus on Calvin and how much to the humanistic classical training which Calvin had received is of course debatable.)

Calvin divides his text conveniently, so that he may be able to deal with a story or topic as a whole. After explaining a given passage in general, he then proceeds to discuss specific verses, phrases, and words, which he repeats sometimes in Latin and sometimes in the original. As he proceeds, he uses Latin renditions of the text which are not the same as those first given. His mind is on the original Hebrew or Greek and not on a Latin version, whether his own or another's.

As the occasion demands, Calvin goes into details in discussing a geographical and historical point. He appeals to classic authorities; to Jewish, pagan, Christian writers of antiquity, like Josephus, Pliny, and Jerome; and he quotes the best authorities of his own day. But he is brief and to the point. He weighs evidence, expresses an opinion, and moves on. It is seldom that he loses himself in detail and turns aside from his main purpose (as he does on Gen. 15:2, where his discussion ofmesek,sagah,shuk, and Damascus must have bored all but the hardiest students). After details have been dealt with, he returns to the meaning of the whole passage, often giving a summary of its teaching, or stating the central theme and applying it to the need of the church and of his hearers and readers. He had a habit, which must have brought reassurance to his students, of marking the end of the treatment of a passage by saying, " Now we have [tenemus] the prophet's meaning."

He paraphrases frequently, clarifying statements and ideas for the duller students. One can imagine the quick dipping of quill pens in the ink whenever the class heard " as if he were to say" (acsi diceret), followed by the repetition of a text in his own words. Often he projects his mind into those of his hearers, and takes up a line of thought which is of special practical concern to them. It is surprising how often he does the same for a present-day reader. One can hear the soft-spoken lecturer occasionally shaking up the unconcerned with well-aimed and adroit thrusts, and waking them up to the relevance of the Word of God to their own and their churches' condition. The Word applied, and Calvin was eminently resourceful in pointing this out to the mind of the not too bright student. The occasional belaboring of the obvious must no doubt be attributed to Calvin's concern with what we would call " average mentality." He can also make his point clear by an occasional flash of humor: " the uproar made by a fallen leaf,"[14]the suggestion that he might wear a military uniform to class,[15]the comment on bracelets and nose rings[16]or the asses' ears.[17]Calvin was never boisterous, but he certainly had wit and could be witty -- a good but rare quality in a commentator!

Characteristically, his worst term of condemnation for any interpretation is " frigid," by which he means not so much " remote" or " lifeless" as lacking in the power to give living faith to the church; on the other hand, his favorite word of praise is " solid," a sound and sure foundation for the church's faith. Eight years separated the printing of the Isaiah Commentary and that on the Minor Prophets. A comparison of Calvin's treatment of Isa. 2:4 with that of Micah 4:2 (Written eight years later) shows him addressing himself to different specific situations. And yet it also reveals the continuity of his thought in his primary concern with the upbuilding of the church.

With all this practical concern with the " progress" of his students and of the churches, Calvin was a conscientious historical critic. His comments did not degenerate into the undisciplined exhortation which often goes with " practical preaching." He neither practiced nor encouraged irresponsibility toward " the genuine sense" of Scripture. The students were to know what the author of a given text meant by what he said, and any " spiritual" meaning other than one derived from the author's intention was at once misleading and unedifying. Calvin said bluntly of Ezek. 17:1-2, " The prophet's discourse cannot be understood without a knowledge of the history [behind it]." Calvin's concern with history will be dealt with later.[18]Here we point it out as an essential part of his work as a lecturer, contributive rather than irrelevant to the hearing of God's Word.

Calvin's refusal to be diverted from his main purpose is clear also in his use of classical and early Christian literature. The list of classical references is a long one. Cicero appears most often (sixteen times in the Pentateuch Harmony alone); but there are quotations from all the better-known Latin authors (Horace, Juvenal, Seneca, Terence, Cato, Quintilian, Virgil, Plautus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Livy, Pliny), and from the Greek authors (Homer, Euripides, Xenophon, Ovid, Aristophanes, Epicurus, Plutarch, and Aesop). He quotes Plato and Aristotle with respect. He admires Plato's wisdom and piety, but objects to the " angelology" of Platonism (2 Peter 1:4, Col. 2:18, etc.). He quotes Aristotle on the distinction between anger and hatred (from " The Second Book on Rhetoric" ), and refers with approval to his saying that the tongue should be an image of the understanding (Gal. 5:19, 1 Cor. 14:11). In the field of law, he speaks of Portius' law, Flavian law, the laws of Sempronius, and Valerius' law (Acts 16:35, 22:25, 1 Tim. 1:10). Herodotus, Pliny, Gellius, Homer all contributed a discussion of the giant Og in Deut. 3:4. It is not always possible to tell whether Calvin is depending on his own memory of a quoted passage, or on a collection of quotations such as theAdagiesof Erasmus. Calvin was admired by his friends and feared by his enemies as a most learned man. But he never makes a display of his erudition and it seldom interferes with a forthright presentation of the meaning he saw it and with his communication with his hearers and readers.

The same holds for his use of ancient Christian literature. Hundreds of references in the Commentaries, quotations, approving and disapproving discussions make it obvious that Calvin had an extensive and masterly knowledge of Augustine, Jerome, and Chrysostom. He obviously learned a great deal from all three, and depended upon the latter two, as well as on Josephus, for his knowledge of Biblical times and places. But his knowledge is not limited to these giants. He makes apt reference, with frequent quotations, to Tertullian and Cyprian; to Irenaeus and Origen; to Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Lactantius, and Ambrose of Milan; to Eusebius and Socrates, the historians; to Pope Leo I, Gregory the Great, and Bernard of Clairvaux. But again, the fathers are consulted for the help they may provide for understanding Scripture; they do not interfere with his exposition of it.

Calvin was grateful to contemporary commentators like Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, and others (on Romans[19]). But the use he makes of their works keeps a consistent pattern. No references are given to exhibit his own learning. However, his comments show that he had read and pondered over the works of his contemporaries. Ecolampadius,[20]he says, interprets rightly and prudently, but one needs leisure to read his work (Dan. 9:25). He quotes approvingly and supports by his own argument Luther's designation of Ps. 132:14 as " the bloody promise," but he disagrees with Luther on Dan. 8:22-23; " Luther indulging his own thoughts too freely refers this to the masks of Antichrist." He gives high praise to Bucer in the Preface to Psalms,[21]but he says of him elsewhere (Preface to Romans) that he is too prolix for busy men to read, and too profound to be understood by the simple, and that because of the incredible fecundity of his mind, he does not know where to stop.

Calvin declares (and truly) that he does not expend words refuting contrary opinions unless he knows the faithful are troubled by them.[22]Most of his arguments therefore are with the " papists" and the Anabaptists. There are uncomplimentary references to " the doctors of the Sorbonne." Jewish commentators are usually treated as a group and dismissed as blind to the relation between the Old Testament and Christ. He uses their judgment frequently on details, especially the meaning or derivation of words. Kimchi he mentions by name and calls him " the most correct interpreter among the rabbis" (Ps. 112:5).index2

It is ironical that Calvin in spite of his frequent references to " the blindness of the Jews" was himself attacked, especially by the theological faculty of Wittenberg, as " a Judaizer." A pamphlet against his method of interpreting Scripture, which was published in 1593, bore the horrendous title " Calvin Judaizing, that is, the Jewish Glosses and Corruptions by which John Calvin did not Fear to Corrupt the most Luminous Passages of Sacred Scriptures and its witness to the Glorious Trinity, the Deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, including the Predictions of the Prophets on the Coming of the Messiah, His Birth, Passion, Resurrection, and Sitting at the Right Hand of God, in a Detestable Fashion. A Refutation of the Corruptions is Added." The reason for such attacks was of course Calvin's insistence on attending to the " genuine sense" of Scripture.[23]He despised the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture which had provided Christians with their favorite means of twisting the Bible into a religious book of their own liking. In insisting upon the original meaning of a text, he deprived the orthodox, even among Protestants, of many of their traditional proof texts. He even undermined the traditional doctrine of Biblical authority. But he taught the Protestant ministry how to read their Bible, and to understand it as the Word of God to the churches -- which is the utmost a commentator can do.

Calvin published his Commentaries to give his readers insight into the Word of God and to point out its relevance to their own life and situation. To this end he cultivated accuracy, brevity, and lucidity. He achieved his purpose to a degree that has aroused the admiration and gratitude of generations of readers. And in this day, as Prof. James Everett Frame of Union Theological Seminary of New York used to say, a man who would understand his Bible will do well to have Calvin's Commentaries within easy reach.

Here we must not fail to point out that every salient point of Calvin's theology is discussed, and is often more briefly and clearly and persuasively presented, in the direct statements of the Commentaries than in the sustained and usually technical arguments of theInstitutes. We hope that our selections on faith, providence, Jesus Christ, and so on, will help the reader to correct many an impression he has received either by dipping into theInstitutesor by secondhand acquaintance with Calvin. We ourselves were repeatedly and pleasantly surprised by what we found in these Commentaries: we hope the reader will find the same instruction and pleasure.index1

[1]Opera, inCorpus Reformatorum, ed. by G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss, vol. 59, pp. 451-482, contains a list of Calvin's publications during his lifetime.

[2]There was often a desire to include the Hebrew in the publication, but to keep the cost of the volumes as reasonable as possible, this was not always done. But see the Amsterdam edition of 1667.

[3]For strong objections to the Vulgate, seeTracts(Edinburgh edition), vol. 3, pp. 76 f., orOpera, vol. 7, pp. 411 f.

[4]King, John. Preface to Genesis, Edinburgh ed., pp. xv-xvi.

[5]Footnote of an article by Tholuck in the English volume onJoshua, Edinburgh ed., p. 348.

[6]See pp. 157, 310, 365, 396.

[7]See note 32.

[8]Opera Omnia, 10 vols., ed. by J. Clericus, Leyden, 1703-1706, vol. 5, pp. 77-78.

[9]Ibid., p. 131.

[10]Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 1026, 1029, 1034.

[11]Ibid, vol. 6, p. 13, on Matt. 2:7.

[12]Berger, Samuel,La Bible au seizième siècle, Paris, 1879, p. 78.

[13]Ibid.

[14]See. p. 322.

[15]See pp. 353. f.

[16]On Ezek. 16:12.

[17]See p. 80.

[18]See " Calvin as Historian," pp. 29-31.

[19]See Epistle to Simon Grynaeus, below.

[20]1482-1531. He was born in Weinsberg in the Palatinate. He went to Bologna to study law but ended studying theology in Heidelberg. In 1515 he became cathedral preacher in Basel, and after a period in Germany, in 1522 he returned to Basel, after which his name was associated with that of Zwingli and with the Protestant Reformation. He was well versed in " the new learning" and was respected both as exegete and as theologian.

[21]See p. 54 (and cf. p. 75).

[22]See Autobiographical Sketch, p. 57.

[23]Pp. 28f., 107f., 140f., 353, 366f. But see also on Deut. 13:1, John 11:58.

<<   Title  Contents  >>