<<   Title  Contents  >>

VIII Ethics and the Common Life

3. SOCIAL ETHICS: THE USE OF GOD'S GIFTS

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. John 12:31.

Now, the Lord, as though he had already won the battle, exults as victor, not only over fear but also over death itself. He proclaims the issue of his death in magnificent terms, to avoid consternation among his disciples.Judgmentis interpreted variously asreformationandcondemnation. I agree rather with the former view, with those who say that the world shall be restored to right order. For the Hebrew,Mishpat, which is renderedjudgment, means a state of good order. Now, we know that apart from Christ there is nothing but confusion in this world. Although Christ has already begun to set up the Kingdom of God, his death was the real beginning of a right order and the full restoration of the world!

Song of Ascents of Solomon. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman watcheth but in vain.

It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrow: for so he giveth his beloved sleep. Ps. 127:1-2.

There is no reason why the Jews should deny that this psalm was composed by Solomon. They assume that thelmeansin honor ofSolomon, but ordinary usage is against this, since this kind of ascription everywhere denotes authorship. Why should they insist on concocting a new interpretation when it [the psalm] seems especially appropriate for Solomon, who had much experience in political affairs, and could discourse in the wisdom of the Spirit on matters about which he had expert knowledge?

He emphasizes for a double reason that both the world and the lives of men are divinely governed. First, whenever men succeed in something, their ingratitude leads them to credit it solely to themselves, and God is not given his due honor. To correct this flagrant wrong, Solomon declares that nothing goes well for us except so far as God prospers our actions. Secondly, he intends to repulse the foolish self-confidence of men who, ignoring God and relying only on their own wisdom or strength, dare to start anything that comes to their heads. Therefore, he sweeps away everything which they rashly claim for their own and calls them to humility and prayer to God.

But he does not disparage man's labor or his effort and planning. For any virtue of ours is worthy of praise if we employ it in our zeal for the fulfillment of duty. The Lord does not want us to be like logs of wood, or to sit idle; he expects us to put to use whatever abilities we may have. It is of course true that the heaviest part of our labors comes from God's curse. But even if man's original state of integrity had remained, God would still have desired us to keep busy. Adam was put in a garden to cultivate it. Solomon does not condemn what God approves, and certainly not the labor men undertake gladly at God's command and offer to him as an acceptable sacrifice. But to keep men from being blinded by pride and from grasping at what belongs to God, he warns them that hard work wins success only so far as God blesses our labor.

Byhousehe does not mean just the wooden or stone building. He includes in it the whole family economy, as a little farther on by the wordcityhe does not mean merely the buildings and the surrounding walls but the common welfare of the whole state. He also is using the part for the whole (synecdoche) when he speaks ofbuildingandguarding. He is making the general statement that whatever effort, wisdom, or industry men expend in looking after a family or in protecting a city will be ineffectual unless God from heaven orders a prosperous outcome. We need to remember often what has just been said. For since blind pride almost fills the minds of men and leads them in contempt of God to an immoderate exercise of their own abilities, nothing is more salutary for them than to be called to order and reminded that whatever they attempt will quickly come to nothing, unless the grace of God alone sustains it and makes it to prosper.

When philosophers dispute about the political state, they cleverly put together everything which seems to apply to the subject. They show acutely the reasons for and the means of establishing a state; and again they describe the faults by which a good state is frequently corrupted. In fact they search out with the greatest skill all that is needed to understand the matter. But they leave out the main point: that however much men excel in wisdom and ability, they cannot accomplish what they undertake unless God takes it in his hand and uses it as his instrument. Who of the philosophers has ever recognized that human politics are only a tool directed by the hand of God? They have made human virtue the prime cause of good fortune.

When men in sacrilegious boldness rush off to found cities and to regulate the state of the whole world, the Holy Spirit rightly exposes such insanity. So let each one of us work as he can in the line of his duty, giving to God the praise for every success we have. For it is altogether wrong to divide the credit as many try to do, giving half to God and claiming the other half for themselves because they have worked so hard. We must prize the blessing of God alone and live under its reign.

But if even our earthly welfare depends wholly on God's good pleasure, with what wings shall we fly to heaven? A man may establish a decent household with a way of life that suits him; men may make good laws and practice justice -- but all such achievements are but a crawling on the ground, and the Holy Spirit pronounces them all transitory. Still less to be tolerated is the madness of those who strive to penetrate heaven by their own strength.

From this doctrine we may gather that it is not strange if world affairs are turbulent and confused, if in cities the rule of law is overthrown; if husbands and wives bring bitter and groundless accusations against each other, parents complain of their children, and all men bewail their lot. How many today devote themselves to the service of God in the practice of their own proper calling? How many, puffed up with pride, are not trying constantly to exalt themselves? God justly pays today's sad wage to unthankful men who defraud him of his honor. But if all should humbly submit themselves to God's providence, the blessing which Solomon celebrates would certainly shine bright in every aspect of our life, both public and private.

The verb'amal, which we translatelabor, means not just to be occupied in some work but to labor to the point of fatigue and pain. I said that bywatchmenwe must understand not only those stationed at lookouts but all magistrates and judges. Whatever watchfulness they have is a gift of heaven. But we need still another watchfulness -- God's. For unless he watches over us from heaven, no human keen-sightedness will be enough to ward off danger.

In vain. Solomon now explains more fully that it is useless for men to wear themselves out with hard work and grow weak with fasting in order to acquire wealth, since wealth also is the gift of God alone. In order to impress them more effectively, he speaks to each man individually:For you[he says]it is vain. He mentions specifically the two means which are commonly reckoned to contribute most to amassing wealth. For when men do not spare their labor, but consume night and day in business and spend little of what they gain from their labor on their living, it is not surprising that they accumulate riches in a short space of time. But Solomon declares that there is nothing gained by poor living and perpetual labor.

Not that he forbids living economically or getting up early in the morning to work; but he does urge us to prayer, to the invocation of God. And in order to inspire us to gratitude, he says that anything which obscures God's goodness is vanity. For we prosper only when our hope rests wholly upon God; and moreover the outcome of our work will depend on how we pray. But if anyone pushes God into the background and hastens eagerly ahead, his hurried rush will surely end in a fall. The prophet is not advising men to succumb to indolence and to make no plans in all their lives, merely to doze and indulge their inertia; on the contrary, his point is that, when they pursue the tasks divinely imposed upon them, they ought always to begin with prayer and invocation to God, and offer their labors for his blessing.

Bread of sorrowcan be explained in two ways: either " he eats by hard and anxious labor" or " he eats with pain," as it happens when miserly and greedy men scarcely taste their bread before they take their hand back from their lips. It makes no great difference which meaning you choose, for the point of the statement is that miserly men gain nothing when they grudgingly defraud their Provider [of invocation and prayer].

Surely he will give to his beloved sleep. This describes exactly the way in which God's blessing on his sons and servants is manifested. For acceptance of the futility of mere human striving would not be enough; the addition of a promise is needed if men are to perform their duties with a sure hope. This clause may be read,He will give sleep to his belovedorHe will give through sleepwhat the unbelieving vainly seek to gain through their own struggles. The wordkenis used to emphasize the certainty [of the promise] and to make more convincing what seems unbelievable and unrealistic; as though Solomon were pointing his finger toward God's feeding of the faithful without any anxiety on their part. Indeed, he speaks as if God in his indulgence, were encouraging his servants to be idle. But since we know from the law that men were created to work and since in the next psalm we shall see that farmers are regarded as blessed of God when they eat what their own hands have produced, it is certain thatsleepdoes not mean doing nothing but rather the tranquil labor to which men of faith apply themselves in obedient trust.

For what causes the great excitement of unbelievers who never move a finger without making a commotion (that is, without tormenting themselves with useless anxieties), except that they refer nothing that happens to God's providence? But men of faith, even when they spend their whole lives in hard labor, obey God's call calmly and with tranquil minds. Their hands are not idle, but their minds rest quiet in silent faith as if they were asleep.

If anyone object that the faithful often stew in bitter cares and worry about the future when they are hard pressed by the want of everything they need and destitute of all means of support, I answer: If the faith and devotion of the servants of God were perfect, the blessing of God which the prophet here describes would be plainly visible. And as for those who worry too much -- that is due to their own sin in not resting firmly upon God's providence. I even add that they are punished more severely than unbelievers, because it is good for them to suffer anxiety for a time, so that they may attain the quiet of this sleep. But meantime God's kindness [to his servants] persists, and shines always in the midst of the shadows [of this world]; for the Lord supports his sons as with sleep.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines ofdevils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.1 Tim. 4:1-5.

Paul has been busy warning Timothy about many things. Now he brings out the necessity of being prepared to oppose the perils announced by the Holy Spirit as imminent: namely, that false teachers shall appear, who shall hold out mere trifles as doctrines of the faith; who, putting all holiness in outward observances, shall obscure the spiritual worship of God which alone is lawful. And, in truth, the servants of God always had to struggle against the kind of people Paul describes in this place. Since men's nature is prone to hypocrisy, it is easy for Satan to persuade them that the true worship of God consists in ceremonies and outward discipline; men believe this kind of thing and need no teacher to fix their souls on it; then comes the crafty devil and confirms them in their error. So it comes about that through the ages there have been false teachers who have championed a false worship, which has been the burial of true godliness. Next to this pestilence has appeared another, which has turned matters of freedom into things of necessity. So, the world allows itself readily to be forbidden what God himself allows, in order that it may allow itself to transgress the laws of God. . . .

Speaking lies in hypocrisy. This may refer to demons who deceive others at the instigation of the devil. On the other hand, the speakers may be taken to be simply men.

When Paul says that they lie as hypocrites andtheir consciencesareseared with a hot iron, he is coming down to particulars. Let us observe also that these two evils go together and that the second grows out of the first. For, people with bad consciences, which are burned into by their wickedness, take refuge in hypocrisy: that is, they put on false colors so as to deceive the eyes of the Lord. What else can they do, when they are busy trying to win the favor of God with the counterfeit of external observances?

The wordhypocrisymust be defined in the light of the present passage. First, it has to do with doctrine; and then, with the kind of doctrine which perverts the spiritual worship of God into a set of bodily practices, and so corrupts its real purity. Thus, it includes all artificial means of pleasing God and claiming his favor. In short, all those who go around draped with a false sanctimoniousness do it by the devil's prodding; because no one can worship God rightly with outward ceremonies, for true worshipers adore him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Secondly, such ceremony is a useless medicine with which hypocrites mitigate their miseries, or rather a plaster by which they hide their wounds without deriving any benefit from it; but in fact it kills them.

Forbidding to marry. Having given us a characterization of diabolical doctrine, he now presents us with two particular elements of it: namely, the prohibition of marriage, and of certain foods. These arise out of hypocrisy which, having set aside true holiness, seeks to hide itself under alien and false colors. For people who do not refrain from ambition, hatred, avarice, cruelty, and the like, try to acquire integrity by abstaining from things about which God has left us free. Why are men's consciences burdened with laws about marriage and foods, unless to permit them to seek perfection outside of God's law? This kind of thing is not done except by hypocrites, who try to cover over their wickedness with trifling observances as with a veil, so that they may transgress the righteousness of the heart which is what the law requires. . . .

Such is the mind of the world that it always dreams of worshiping God with carnal customs, as though God himself were carnal. In the ancient church, little by little, things went from bad to worse, until we arrive at the tyranny according to which it is wicked for priests and monks to enter into marriage, and under which no man dare eat meat on certain days. Therefore, we are today far from wrong in applying this prophecy to the papists, who urge celibacy and abstinence from foods more forcefully than any precept of God. They think they can escape by clever caviling, when they twist Paul's words to apply them against the Tatianists,[97]or Manichaeans,[98]or others like them; as though the Tatianists did not have the same means of escape, by throwing Paul's words at the Phrygians and at Montanus[99]who was the founder of that sect; as though the Phrygians themselves could not come forth with the Encratites[100]as the guilty party. However, Paul is not talking about persons but about the principle of the thing. Thus, if a hundred sects were brought forward as having all labored with the same hypocrisy to forbid certain foods, none of them would be any less guilty. It follows that the old heretics are of no use to the papists, as though they alone were to be blamed; the question always is whether the papists are not guilty in the same way. The papists object on the ground that they are utterly unlike the Encratites, and the Manichaeans because they do not absolutely forbid marriage and meats. They say that they enjoin abstention from meats on certain days, and that they require celibacy only from priests, monks, and nuns. But this is a very poor excuse; for they nonetheless identify holiness with such matters: further, they establish a false and corrupt worship of God; finally, they bind consciences with a necessity from which men ought to be free.

In the Fifth Book of Eusebius,[101]there is a fragment from the writings of Apollonius,[102]in which, among other things, the latter reproaches Montanus for having been the first to dissolve marriage, and for having imposed the law of celibacy. He does not say that Montanus prohibited marriage or certain foods to everybody. It is enough that anyone should lay this kind of religion upon the consciences of men, or that he should require the observance of these things as the worship of God. To forbid anything that should be left to human decision, whether for everybody or for some, is diabolical tyranny. That this is true of foods will be clear from what follows.

Which God has created. Let us notice the reasoning in this matter: we ought to be content with the freedom which God has given us in the use of different foods, because it is for our use that he has created them. It is the joy of all godly people to know that every food which nourishes them is offered them by the hand of the Lord; that to eat it is pure and lawful. What arrogance it is to take away what the Lord himself bestows upon men! Did the papists create good? Can they void God's own creation? Let us always keep in mind that he who has created food also gave us free use of it, and that men's efforts to keep us from it are in vain. I say that God created food to be eaten, that is, for our enjoyment. There is no human authority which can change this.

But now he adds,with the giving of thanks; because we have nothing with which to repay God's generosity except the evidence of our gratitude. And thus he castigates the godless lawmakers with all the greater abhorrence in that they obstruct the sacrifice of praise, which God in the beginning established for our offering, with their own novel and useless enactments. On the other hand, we cannot act with gratitude unless we are sober and temperate; for no one knows the goodness of God if he makes a wicked use of it.

Of them which believe and know the truth. What then? Does not God make his sun to rise daily upon the good and the evil (Matt. 5:45)? Does not the earth, by his command, yield bread to the wicked? Are not even the worst men fed through his blessings? Therefore, his goodness is toward all men, as David sings in Ps. 104:14. But to all this I answer: Paul is here concerned with the right use of God's gifts, and has shown us the way we are to act before God. The ungodly do not share in such integrity before God, because their unclean consciences contaminate everything they touch, as we can see readily from Titus 1:15. Of course, in this sense, and strictly speaking, God has destined the world and all that is in it for his children alone; for this reason it is said that they shall inherit the earth. In the beginning, Adam himself was given dominion over all things on condition that he remained obedient to God. Therefore, when he rose in rebellion against God, he deprived himself and his posterity of this right which was conferred upon him. So, it follows that we are restored to our original dignity only by the benefit we receive from Christ to whom all things are under subjection: and this we receive by faith. Therefore, whatever men without faith get hold of, they rob or steal from others. . . .

For every creature. The use of food must be judged partly from its nature and partly by him who eats it. The apostle argues in both directions. He asserts that food in itself is clean, because it is God who gives it: and that we make a holy use of it by faith and prayer. When he says that the creatures are good, he is speaking of them in relation to man, not with regard to the body or one's health, but to one's conscience. I say this to avoid philosophical hairsplitting beyond the scope of this passage. Briefly, Paul means that whatever comes from God's hand is neither corrupt nor unclean before God, that it is simply for our nourishment; and as such, with regard to conscience, it is lawful. If anyone objects that of old under the law many animals were declared unclean, or that the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was fatal to men, I answer: Creatures are called clean not merely because they are works of God, but because they are given to us by his goodness. We must always pay attention to what God himself commands and to what he forbids.

For it is sanctified. This confirms the previous clause which said,if it is received with thanksgiving. This is an argument from the contrast between holy and profane. Now we learn how we are to sanctify all the good things which sustain our present life, that is, according to Paul's witness, by the Word of God and by prayer. But we must realize that if the Word is to do us any good, it must be heard by faith. Even though God himself sanctifies all things by the Spirit of his Word (mouth) alone, we cannot know this blessing except by faith. And to this is added prayer, because Christ himself commands us to ask our daily bread from God (Matt. 6:11): and because we must respond to his goodness with thanksgiving.

Paul's doctrine is based upon the principle that there is no such thing as lawful possession, unless our conscience testifies that what is ours is ours by right. And in truth, which one of us would dare call even a grain of wheat his own, unless he learns from the Word of God that he shall inherit the earth? Common sense tells us that by nature the abundance of this world is destined for our use. But, since in Adam dominion over the world was taken away from us, every time we touch a gift of God, it is polluted by our own filth; it is unclean to us, unless God comes to our help, and uniting us with the body of his Son, once again makes us lords of the earth. It is in this way that we come to a lawful enjoyment of all the things God gives us in such abundance. Paul is right in tying up rightful enjoyment with the Word of God, since it alone enables us to regain what we lost in Adam, for, if we are to be heirs of God, we must know him as our Father; and we must know Christ as our Head, if we are to have what is his. From this we gather that all the gifts of God are usurped by us and are unclean to us, unless we know the true God and call upon his name. It is a beastly business when people start eating without prayer, and when they are full, they run out without as much as mentioning God's name.

And they drank and were drunk with him. Gen. 43:34. (Calvin's wording.)

From the end of the chapter we conclude that there was a sumptuous banquet at which they indulged themselves more freely and hilariously than was usual. The verbshakar, which is translatedbe drunk, indicates either that they were not accustomed to drinking wine, or that an unusual amount was drunk at this banquet given in their honor. But the word does not necessarily mean drinking to excess (as riotous men interpret it to excuse their own dissipation by the example of the patriarchs), but drinking with honest and free enjoyment. I admit that the word is ambiguous and is often used in a bad sense, as in Gen. 9:21, and similar passages, but in this place, Moses' meaning is clear.

If anyone raises the objection that a frugal use of food and drink is sufficient for the nourishment of the body, I answer: Although food is a proper provision for our bodily need, yet the legitimate use of it goes beyond mere sustenance. For good flavors were not added to food value without a purpose, but because our Heavenly Father wishes to give us pleasure with the delicacies he provides. It is not by accident that Ps. 104:15 praises his kindness in creating wine to cheer man's heart.

But the more kindly God treats us, the more it becomes our duty to be careful to control ourselves and to use his gifts temperately. For we know how unrestrained our appetite is; in abundance it always overindulges itself and it is always impatient of scarcity. In fact, we must keep Paul's rule (Phil 4:12) and know both how to be in want and how to abound. This means to be on our guard when large quantities are at hand so that we are not tempted to extravagance; and again we must see to it that we endure privation calmly.

Someone will perhaps say that the flesh is much too clever at camouflaging extravagance, and therefore nothing beyond actual necessities should be allowed it. I certainly agree that Paul's requirement (Rom. 13:14) must be observed, and we must not serve our lusts. But what is most important for religious people is to receive their food from God's hand with a quiet conscience. And to do this, we must determine how far the enjoyment of food and wine is allowable.

For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be. . . upon all the ships of Tarshish. . . . Isa. 2:12,16.

There is no doubt that Cilicia was called Tarshish in Hebrew. Since there was much trade between that nation and the Jews, we find in Scripture frequent references to ships of Tarshish, so named from the Cilician sea on which they sailed. Trading in ships cannot of course be condemned in itself, for the import and export of goods bring no small advantage to men. And especially since God desires the whole human race to be united in mutual service, it is impossible to disapprove of ships as a means of communication. But since abundance increases pride and cruelty, Isaiah here denounces commerce by which a land is especially enriched. Also trade carried on with far-off foreign nations is often replete with cheating and extortion, and no limit is set to the profits.

Isaiah recognizes in the first place that if Jews are to learn to submit themselves to God, they must be stripped of their wealth. He then uses a symbol for their greed and their unjust gains, as he might have held up a bloody sword to announce a murder. The latter part of the verse makes it clearer that the prophet is condemning commerce because it has infected the land with many corruptions. For it too often happens that riches bring self-indulgence, and superfluity of pleasures produces flabbiness, as we can see in wealthy districts and cities [where there are merchants]. Now those who sail to distant places are no longer content with home comforts but bring back with them unknown luxuries. Therefore, because wealth is generally the mother of extravagance, the prophet mentions here expensive household furnishings, by which he means that the Jews brought God's judgment upon themselves by the lavish way they decorated their houses. For with pictures he includes expensive tapestries like Phrygian embroidery and vases molded with exquisite art.

It is indeed certain that morals are corrupted when men are greedy for such empty diversions. We know that such indulgences brought about the end of the Roman Empire. Before the Romans entered Greece, they practiced a high degree of self-control; but finally, after Asia was conquered, they began to grow soft and effeminate. And when their eyes were trapped with pictures, vases, jewels, and tapestries, their noses with ointments and perfumes, all their senses at once were overwhelmed. And by copying the luxury of the East, as if it were a higher culture, they came more and more to squander their lives in every kind of pleasure.

And Lot, also which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. . . . And there was strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle. . . . Gen. 13:5,7.

Now follows an account of the trouble Abram suffered because of his wealth. Certainly he did not want to part from his nephew whom he loved especially as if he were his own son. Surely, if he had had a choice, he would have preferred the loss of his wealth to separation from one whom he regarded as an only son. But he found no other remedy to stop the quarreling. Shall we ascribe the difficulty to his own too stern temper or to his nephew's insolence? I think we should do better to consider the purpose of God.

There was danger that Abram might become too well pleased with his own good fortune, just as many men are blinded by lesser goods. Therefore God seasons the sweetness of wealth with vinegar and does not allow the mind of his servant to be too much entranced with it. When a false sense of value leads us to seek riches more than is right, because we do not realize how many troubles they bring with them, the remembrance of this story should serve to limit our inordinate love. And whenever rich men fall into trouble because of their wealth, they should learn to use the pain it gives them as a medicine to purge their minds of too great a desire for the good things of this present life. Unless God in his wisdom tightened the curb rein wisely, men would leave the right road and would stumble badly in their pursuit of prosperity.

Again, when we are hampered by poverty we should understand that God uses this also as a remedy for the secret vices of our flesh.

In conclusion, let those who have abundance remember that they are surrounded with thorns, and let them take great care not to be pricked by them; and let those who have little and are very much hemmed in know that God planned [their poverty] to keep them from evil and hurtful snares.

Separation from Lot grieved Abram; but it could serve to correct much evil latent in him, and prevent wealth from stifling the ardor of his devotion. If Abram needed such an antidote, we should not wonder that God employs painful checks against our lust for pleasure. He does not always wait until the faithful have actually slipped, but he looks ahead for them. He did not punish Abram, his servant, for avarice or pride; he gave him a preventive medicine to keep Satan from infecting his mind with such sentiments.

And there was strife. What applies to wealth applies equally to large households. Yet we see how ambitiously many men seek to collect a great crowd of servants -- as if they wanted to preside over a whole nation. But seeing that Abram's great establishment cost him so much, we should learn to be willingly satisfied with a small establishment, or with none at all if it so please God. It is almost impossible for a house to be filled with many people without its being in turmoil. Experience proves the truth of the proverb, " A crowd is the same as a tumult." If quiet tranquility is an inestimable good, then we should see that our wisest course is to have a small house and to live unpretentiously within our family.

In this example, note carefully what we are advised to avoid if we are to keep Satan from drawing us into conflicts by circuitous devices. For when he cannot inflame us directly with mutual hate, he implicates us in the disputes of others. Lot and Abram agreed well together, but the quarrel which arose among the shepherds involved them against their will so that they were compelled to separate.

There is no doubt that Abram had given strict orders to his servants to keep the peace; but his zeal and effort did not prevent his seeing the flame of discord, kept alight by small fans, blazing in his own home. So it is no wonder that disturbances arise in the church which contains a still larger number of people. Abram had about three hundred servants; Lot's household was certainly little smaller. What then will happen among five or six thousand, especially when the quarrelers are all free men?

We must not let ourselves be upset by these offenses, but equally we must be on guard in every way against the outbreak of fighting. For unless disagreements are stifled properly at the beginning, they will burst into harmful dissensions.

And the squares of the city will befall of boys and girls playing in the squares. Zech. 8:5.

With a different figure the prophet repeats and emphasizes the same point: that boys and girls will be playing on the public squares and in the streets, which they cannot do in the uproar of warfare. For when arms clash, when the sound of the trumpet is heard, when insults from the soldiers of the enemy threaten, everyone keeps his children in the house. Outside it is an ugly and sad business, and almost nobody will be caught on the street. When fear hangs over the whole [city] even the children lose their gaiety. The prophet, then, is promising that Jerusalem will once again enjoy peace, that God will chase the menace of the enemy to a far distance; not that Jerusalem would ever be free from all danger, but that God's defense would give her people security in the midst of many terrors.

This is not the place to argue subtly whether one may play games in peacetimes. The prophet draws his picture from ordinary human behavior; it is indeed an expression of human nature. For we know that when men are not afraid, they relax and enjoy fun. Besides games and silly amusements are proper for children. Therefore all the prophet intended here was to assure the Jews that even though they were struggling with various enemies, they could nonetheless enjoy security and quiet.

And they shall not wear a rough garment to deceive. Zech. 13:4.

This means that they will not be concerned to maintain their prestige and reputation, but will abandon willingly the esteem which they had dishonestly acquired.

This passage shows that prophets wore a coarse and hairy garment. But interpreters are wrong to cite as evidence passages in which a prophet is ordered to put on sackcloth and a garment of goat's hair. For Isaiah in many of his prophesyings wore neither; he did so only when he announced disaster. And Jeremiah was once ordered to go naked.[103]But ordinarily the prophets were content with hairy garments, that is, with ordinary, coarse clothes.

Now although we have liberty in external things, we must practice some moderation. If, for example, I were to teach in a military uniform, good sense would be quick to object. There is no need of a special doctrine to teach decency and ordinary good taste.

The true prophets wore rough garments to show that their lives were as simple and plain as their clothing. But they did not achieve a reputation for holiness by means of their clothes only, as do the monks today who are supposed to be holy because of their cowls and such trumpery. That was not the aim of the prophets; they meant to show by their dress that their only purpose was to serve God, and that they were separated from the world only in order to devote themselves wholly to their ministry.

It was because the false prophets imitated them that Zechariah saysthey shall not wear a hairy mantle-- that is, they shall no longer wear prophetic garb. He was not merely condemning the garb worn by the false prophets. Therefore interpreters twist these words from their true meaning when they use them to condemn long gowns or whatever else of the kind displeases their sour minds. The prophet means simply that when pure doctrine shines bright and true religion has won its due honor, then there will no more be a place for false teachers. They will voluntarily leave their positions of honor and will no longer try to deceive uneducated folk. This is what the prophet really means, as he shows clearly when he addsto deceive.

So we see that hairy mantles are condemned, because rapacious wolves hide under sheepskins, and foxes infiltrate the fold in disguise. Zechariah is condemning the motive and not the garment.

Jabal was the father of such as dwell in tents. . . . Gen. 4:20.

Moses now reminds us that some good was combined with the evils which came from the family of Cain. For the discovery of the arts, and of whatever is useful and makes our common life more pleasant, is a gift of God which is not to be despised and an achievement worthy of praise. It is indeed surprising that the race which had departed furthest from the right way, surpassed the rest of Adam's descendants in serviceable endowments.

Indeed, I would suggest that Moses specifically enumerated the arts invented by the family of Cain to inform us that Cain was not so cursed by God that he had no gifts to distribute to his descendants. For it is probable that others also were not lacking in talent, and that there was among other sons of Adam no lack of industrious and clever men who busied themselves in inventing and developing the arts. Clearly, here Moses is celebrating what was left of God's blessing, in a people whom we should otherwise regard as sterile and devoid of every other good.

We must therefore recognize that, although the sons of Cain were deprived of the Spirit of regeneration, they were blessed with endowments far from negligible. In fact, the experience of all ages shows us how many rays of divine light have always gleamed among unbelieving nations, and have contributed to the improvement of our present life. And today we see glorious gifts of the Spirit spread throughout the whole human race. For the liberal and industrial arts and the sciences have come to us from profane men. Astronomy and the other branches of philosophy, medicine, political science -- we must admit that we have learned all these from them.

No doubt God endowed them so liberally with his excellent favors to give them no excuse for their impiety. But while we are amazed at the riches of his grace which God pours out on them, we marvel much more at the grace of regeneration given us, by which God sanctifies his elect to be his own.

Although the invention of the lyre and of other musical instruments serves our enjoyment and our pleasures rather than our needs, it ought not on that account to be judged of no value; still less should it be condemned. Pleasure is to be condemned only when it is not combined with reverence for God and not related to the common welfare of society. But music by its nature is adapted to rouse our devotion to God and to aid the well-being of man; we need only avoid enticements to shame, and empty entertainments which keep men from better employments and are simply a waste of time.

However, even if you think the invention of the lyre does not in itself deserve much praise, everyone knows how long and how widely people have valued the carpenter's skill.

To conclude -- in my opinion, Moses here wished to show that the race of Cain excelled in many important endowments which at once made their impiety inexcusable and were shining witnesses to God's goodness.

Jabal is said to be the father of the people who live in tents because he invented that convenient shelter, and others afterwards imitated him.

And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. Gen. 1:16.

The greater light. I have already said that Moses is not analyzing acutely, like the philosophers, the secrets of nature; and these words show it. First he sets the planets and stars in the expanse of the heaven. Astronomers distinguish a number of spheres in the firmament and teach that the fixed stars have their own place in it. Moses mentionstwo great luminaries. The astronomers prove with strong arguments that the star Saturn, which seems small because of its distance, is larger than the moon.

All this shows that Moses described in popular style what all ordinary men without training and education perceive with their ordinary senses. Astronomers, on the other hand, investigate with great labor whatever the keenness of man's intellect is able to discover. Such study is certainly not to be disapproved, nor science condemned with the insolence of some fanatics who habitually reject whatever is unknown to them.

The study of astronomy not only gives pleasure but is also extremely useful. And no one can deny that it admirably reveals the wisdom of God. Therefore, clever men who expend their labor upon it are to be praised and those who have ability and leisure ought not to neglect work of that kind.

Moses did not wish to keep us from such study when he omitted the details belonging to the science. But, since he had been appointed guide of rude and unlearned men rather than of the learned, he could not fulfill his duty except by coming down to their level. If he had spoken of matters unknown to the crowd, the unlearned could say that his teaching was over their heads. In fact, when the Spirit of God opens a common school for all, it is not strange that he chooses to teach especially what can be understood by all.

When the astronomer seeks the true size of stars and finds the moon smaller than Saturn, he gives us specialized knowledge. But the eye sees things differently; and Moses adapts himself to the ordinary view.

God has stretched out his hand to us to give us the splendor of the sun and moon to enjoy. Great would be our ingratitude if we shut our eyes to this experience of beauty! There is no reason why clever men should jeer at Moses' ignorance. He is not explaining the heavens to us but describing what is before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their own deeper knowledge. Meanwhile, those who see the nightly splendor of the moon are possessed by perverse ingratitude if they do not recognize the goodness of God.

[93]Sorbonne the original name of the University of Paris, founded by Robert de Sorbon in 1256. The university, where Thomas Aquinas had taught, was in the sixteenth century a citadel of Catholic orthodoxy, and its theologians defended it zealously against the Lutheran heresy.

[94]106-43 B.C. Roman statesman and philosopher who was regarded very highly during the Renaissance. He belonged to the New Academy and was deeply imbued with Stoic ethics. His more famous writings are " On the Supreme Good," the " Tusculan Disputations," " On the Nature of the Gods," " On Duties" (de Officiis). He was also a great stylist and was eagerly emulated during the Revival of Learning.

[95]Put together by Calvin in his Harmony of the Pentateuch. Calvin's commentary on the last four books of Moses presents the material in the form of a harmony. The work as a whole (four volumes in the Edinburgh edition) is an astonishing achievement. The laws are arranged, with a combination of insight and ingenuity, under the ten laws of the " Two Tablets" of Sinai. Parallel laws are treated together. The fundamental purpose of each command, both for ancient Israel and for the church of Calvin's day, is briefly explained. Calvin's arrangement is primarily topical but the narrative sections are fitted together to present a reasonable sequence of events. The volumes cannot be fairly presented in excerpts, but Calvin's treatment of the law should " be commended" especially to the Biblical theologians of the present day.

[96]Julian the Apostate -- A.D. 361-363. Roman emperor, who tried to revive a syncretistic form of paganism, made up of mystery religion, polytheism, and Neoplatonic philosophy. He died fighting the Persians in Mesopotamia. Even though he incurred the hostility of the church, he was a great emperor.

[97]Tatianists. Named after Tatian, an Assyrian Christian, these heretics were infected with Gnosticism and Docetism, and are even better remembered for their extreme asceticism. They condemned marriage, meat, and wine.

[98]The Manichaeans are especially important in the church because of the controversy of Saint Augustine with them. These dualists, who derived their heresy ultimately from Zoroastrianism, had many adherents because of the neat way they explained the origin of evil in one god and the origin of good in another. In its Christianized form, this heresy identified the treason with Ahriman, the evil god, and Christ with Ormazd, the good god. Flesh was evil, spirit was good. Hence they forbade eggs and milk as well as meat; they also forbade marriage and bathing.

[99]Montanus was a heretic of the early second century A.D., from Phrygia in Asia Minor, and his followers were called both Montanists and Phrygians. They received a new dispensation of the Spirit superior to that of Christ or of the apostles, and waited eagerly for the Parousia. They were visionaries and ascetics, forbidding marriage; and during prolonged fastings they forbade wine, meat, fruits, and bathing. This was a heresy which was espoused by Tertullian and left deep marks in the ancient church.

[100]Encratites, second-century heretics, believed in the inherently evil character of matter and advocated abstinence from marriage, flesh, and wine. They believed like the Marcionites that the Creator was the inferior God.

[101]Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 260-340) was a bishop and church historian who wrote theEcclesiastical Historywhich is an indispensable source book for the history of the ancient church (A.D. 325) inclusive of the reign of Constantine. This is a majestic account of the struggle and the triumph of the church of Jesus Christ.

[102]Apollonius Claudius, bishop of Phrygia, c. 171, a learned man and opponent of Montanism.

[103]Jeremiah appears to be a surprising slip of memory for Isaiah (ch. 20:2), or for Micah (ch. 1:8); but it is possible that Calvin had in mind Jeremiah's journey to the Euphrates; if the prophet wore only his girdle and buried it there, he certainly returned " naked."

<<   Title  Contents  >>