Calvin Theologian of the Bible

7/30/2019 Calvin Theologian of the Bible

1/17

John Calvin 'Theologian ofthe Bible

JOHN H. LEITH

Professor of Historical Theology

Union Theological Seminary in Virginia

Calvin's theology can properly be described primarily as commentaryupon Scripture as a whole and secondarily as commentary upon the waythe church had read Scripture in its theology and creeds.

JOHN CALVIN'S first title in Geneva was "Reader in Holy Scripture." 1 Very soon after he arrived in Geneva, he joined Farei in in

sisting that the inhabitants subscribe to a creed which began with thisaffirmation:

First we affirm that we desire to follow Scripture alone as rule of faith andreligion, without mixing with it any other thing which might be devised by theopinion of men apart from the Word of God, and without wishing to accept forour spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to us by thesame Word without addition or diminution, according to the command of ourLord.2

In his last message to the pastors ofGeneva he declared :

As concerns my doctrine: I have taught faithfully, and God has given me graceto write. I have done it with the utmost fidelity, and have not to my knowledge


2/17

corrupted or twisted a single passage of the Scriptures; and when I could havedrawn out a far-fetched meaning, if I had studied subtility, I have put that[temptation] under foot and have always studied simplicity. I have written nothingthrough hatred against any one, but have always set before me faithfully what Ihave thought to be for the glory of God.3

In his will, he identified himself as "I, John Calvin, Minister of the Word

of God in the church of Geneva.

554

John Calvin quite clearly intended tobe a theologian of the Bible.

Calvin's intention to formulate his theology according to the Reformation principle ofsola scriptum, to listen to the Bible without adding to itor taking away from it, was grounded in his own Christian experience.Luther had struggled with a guilty conscience, and his experience of thedivine forgiveness forever afterwards shaped his theology. Calvin ismore reticent concerning his own Christian experience, but there issignificant indication that hearing the voice of the living God in theScrip ture was basic to it. In the autobiographical mate ria l in the preface to the Psalms commentary, the "superstitions of popery55 stands incontrast to the "purer doctrine55 that was a consequence of his conversion.Likewise, when Calvin defended the Reformation in his "Reply toSadolet,55 obedience to the Word of God is a primary mark of theReformation, though he refers to justification by faith as the keenest sub

ject of controversy between them. In the defense which Calvin projectsfor the Protestant before the tribunal of heaven, he declares, "I heard

from thy mouth that there was no other light of truth which could directour souls into the way of life, than that which was kindled by thy Word. 55 5

Obedience to the Word is also a fundamental theme in Calvin's justification of those who had been instructed by Protestant preachers. In histreatise on the "Necessity of Reforming the Church,55 Calvin writes,

. . . the Reformers have done no small service to the Church in stirring up theworld as from the deep darkness of ignorance to read the Scriptures, in labouringdiligently to make them better understood, and in happily throwing light on certain

points of doctrine of the highest practical importance. In sermons little else usedto be heard than old wives' fables and fictions equally frivolous. . . . Therefore


3/17

John CalvinTheologian of the BibleInterpretation

let there be an examination of our whole doctrine, of our form of administeringthe sacraments, and our method of governing the Church; and in none of thesethree things will it be found that we have made any change in the old form, without attempting to restore it to the exact standard of the Word of God. 6

Calvin's emphasis on the Word of God in the passages in which hedefends the Reform are likely to be in part at least autobiographical.

His teaching on the testimony of the Holy Spirit points even more emphatically to his own experience of the Word of God in Scripture. Noargument, however persuasive, can give the Scriptures authority. "Theonly true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals in our hearts. 55 "Letthis point therefore stand : that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardlytaught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; . . .55 (I, vii, 5).7 Calvin contended that all theology is superficial that does not issue from the struggles of conscience.8 For Calvin

this agony of conscience must have been rooted in struggles that grewout of a corrupt Chris tianity that was purged by the Word of God. Cal vin's theological method was the fruit of his Christian experience.

I

The Interaction of Theology, Commentary, and Sermon

One of the most striking characteristics of Calvin's work as theologianis his synthesis of the work of the exegete, the systematic theologian, and

the preacher. Th is synthesis was rooted in Calvin's conviction tha t alltheology stands under the Word of God and also in his insistence thattheology is a pract ical science. In a perceptive article on "The Moderni tyof Calvin's Theological Method,55 Gilbert Rist has written that Calvinisttheology is located between the biblical text and preaching.

It is necessary to recognize that with Calvin theological effort is not the finalconsideration; it gives way to what precedes it and what follows it; it is only thediscourse which permits preaching to take root in Holy Scripture; it is only a key,

an opening, an entrance to the profitable reading of both the Old and New Testaments. Theology is a service for all men and not a purpose in itself, intelligible


4/17

only to clerics. Doctrine is contained in the Holy Scripture, not in dogmatics, andthis is why theology is only able to echo the biblical text, to reflect it constantlywithout being able to add anything to it. In a sense, Calvinist theology reducesitself (almost!) to a hermeneutic; this is a strength and at the same time a weakness. It is nevertheless a fundamental option which it is proper to point out at thebeginning since it conditions the foundation, the form, and the method of thework of the reformer.9

The interaction of theology, sermon, and commentary was carefully

thought out and programmatically developed. In the preface to the539 edition of the Institutes, Calvin stated that his object was to preparestudents for the sacred volume.10 The Institutes had the modest purposeof being a manual for the reading of Scripture in contrast to the grandiosedesign of summas. As such, the Institutes are intentionally related to thereading and study of the Scriptures and the commentaries.

This purpose persisted through all the editions of the Institutes. The1559 preface declares again, ".. . it has been my purpose in this labor to

prepare and instruct candidates in sacred theology for the reading of thedivine Word,. . . . " In the preface to the French edition of 1560, whichwas meant for a more popular audience, he expressed the hope that the

Institutes will be a "key to open a way for all children of God into a goodand right understanding of Holy Scripture Although Holy Scripturecontains a perfect doctrine, to which one can add nothing,.. ." most readers, Calvin knew, would need some guidance. Calvin's Institutes werenot designed for the theological elite but for the Christian as a reader

of Scripture.The Institutes also have a specific relation to the commentaries. Thepreface to the 1539 edition states that they are to pave the way for thecommentaries. Calvin expressly offers the commentary on Romans,which was written in 1539, as an example of his plan. In writing the commentaries, Calvin would presuppose the Institutes and specifically referthe reader to them for fuller treatment of specific topics.

It is significant that development of the Institutes parallels the writingof the commentaries. In the years between the Romans commentary in1539 and Calvin's death in 1564, Calvin commented on every book inthe New Testament except Second and Third John and Revelation He


5/17

John CalvinTheologian ofthe BibleInterpretation

also published commentaries on the Book ofGenesis and a harmony ofthe rest of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel 1-20, Daniel,Jeremiah, Lamentations, and all the Minor Prophets. In addition Calvin preached frequently, which enabled him to comment on many bookson which he did not produce commentaries including Job, Judges, FirstKings, and Second Samuel. The only books not commented on in the

Institutes are Esther, Nahum, Second John and Third John. u It iswrong therefore to think that the Institutes developed simply as a resultof theological controversies or the demands for theological coherence andcompleteness. The section on predestination, for example, was greatlyenlarged as a result ofCalvin's study of the Gospel ofJohn.

The focus ofboth Institutes and commentaries was the sermon. Calvin preached more than two thousand sermons in Geneva. No man, noteven a genius, can be expected to say something new in so many sermons. Consequently there is much repetition from sermon to sermon,

and also from the commentaries and even the Institutes to the sermons.The sermons are more popular in style than the commentaries and inthem Calvin is more in conversation with his culture; but no hearer orreader can doubt that the writer ofthe Institutes and commentaries wasalso the preacher. Nowhere else in Christian history have the tasks oftheology, biblical study, and preaching been integrated on so competenta level as in John Calvin's work in Geneva. Possibly nowhere else weretheology and exegesis so focused on the sermon and the life of the con

gregation.This integration was possible because of Calvin's understanding oftheology. Theology was for Calvin a practical, not a theoretical, task.Its end was the formation ofhuman life and society in conformity tothe will of God rather than the vision ofGod. For this reason he wrotehis theology for the people ofGod, not for academics or the theologicallyelite and for this reason he rejected speculation and sophistry. He couldput this whole matter with biting clarity in his question to Sadolet:

Do you remember what kind oftime it was when the Reformers appeared,and what kind ofdoctrine candidates for the ministry learned in the schools?Y lf k th t it hi t d t i t d i l d t t


6/17

more he puzzled himself and others with nagging riddles, the greater his famefor acumen and learning.12

Calvin's rejection of speculation and sophistry was so radical that itfinally undercut legitimate theological concerns, but it also made theology the major concern of the "people."

Theology has the task of clarifying the biblical message. Calvin knewthat Scripture texts could not be simply repeated. In justifying the ter

minology of trinitarian theology, he wrote,If they call a foreign word one that cannot be shown to stand written syllable

by syllable in Scripture, they are indeed imposing upon us an unjust law whichcondemns all interpretation not patched together out of the fabric of Scripture.. . . we ought to seek from Scripture a sure rule for both thinking and speaking, towhich both the thoughts of our minds and the words of our mouths should beconformed. But what prevents us from explaining in clearer words those mattersin Scripture which perplex and hinder our understanding, yet which conscientiouslyand faithfully serve the truth of Scripture itself, and are made use of sparingly andmodestly and on due occasion? (I, xiii, 3).

Calvin's theology can properly be described primarily as commentaryupon Scripture as a whole and secondarily as commentary upon the waythe church had read Scripture in its theology and creeds. Theologyclarifies and focuses the message of Scripture.

Explaining Scripture in "clearer words" meant, in practice, explaining it in conversation with humanist culture . Calvin was a par ticipant in

the humanist culture of his day, and every paragraph of theology thathe wrote reflects this fact. His theology was worked out in dialogue withthe thought forms of his age, even though he wrote no programmatic essays proposing to do this. He did give expression to the theological basisfor a theology alive to its culture in his affirmation of the universal activity of the Logos. Men who have even "tasted the liberal ar ts penetrate with their aid far more deeply into the secrets of the divine wisdom" (I,v,2). Wencelius in L'Esthtique de Calvin has demonstrated

how Calvin used poetry in his theological task. Calvin as a theologian wasvery much in conversation with the humanist culture and as such hed th ti f f ith h l f hi h i t f i d h f d


7/17


Theology, however, has the task not simply of clarifying Scripture butalso of ordering the message of Scripture. This problem, apparently,was a major concern for Calvin. In the preface to the 1559 edition ofthe Institutes he declared that he had never been satisfied until thenwith the arrangement of his theology. He takes satisfaction in the conviction that " . . . I have so embraced the sum of religion in all its parts,

and have arranged it in such an order, that if anyone rightly grasps it,it will not be difficult for him to determine what he ought especially toseek in Scripture, and to what end he ought to relate its contents." 13

In this sense Calvin was a systematic theologian, providing in the Insti-tutes the "system" that was mirrored in his commentaries.

The question can properly be raised whether the integration of theology and biblical study is a proper goal for the theologian today. Theanswer may be both yes and no. The demands of biblical study and oftheology today are so great that no man, however much a genius, canmaster them as did Calvin in his time. Indeed, Karl Rahner, one of theablest of modern theologians, suggests that the day may be past whenany one man can know enough to write a systematic theology and thatthe best option will be a theological encyclopedia which permits specialized competence in a more general statement of the faith. The explosion of knowledge not only in the theological disciplines but in culturein general precludes in practice the integration of the theological tasksin the work of any one person. Yet Calvin still remains a proper goal

in that the theologian, if he is a theologian of Bible, must utilize the workof biblical and cultural specialists. Furthermore the parish minister,in dependence on specialized scholarship, must remain a generalist whoperforms the theological task in preaching and churchmanship verymuch as Calvin did. It must not be overlooked that Calvin, more thanany other major Reformer, was a parish minister and churchman, aswell as a theologian and exegete, and in this he is still our model.

IICalvin as Interpreter


8/17

the admirable preface to Olevitan's translation of the Bible into French.In the preface to the commentary on Romans, written in 1539, he refersto his conversation with Simon Grynaeus three years earlier on thebest method of expounding the Scriptures. The very fact that Calvin soquickly submitted his commentary on Romans for publication, whenso many of the leaders of the Reformation had already published commentaries on Romans, points to Calvin's determination to work in thisfield, as well as to his confidence in the worth of his exposition.

The background for Calvin's exegesis lies in French humanism. Hehad received the best training his day provided. He had learned fromthe circle of Jacques Lefvre to appreciate a "humble Christian style.""What the humanists . . . . admired in the piety of the Fathers . . . . wasits simplicity and clarity [which avoided] emphasizing difficulties, nodi,openly opposing authorities sic et non, probing quaestiones in disputations, and finally reconciling them by a subtle dialectic. . . ." 14

Calvin's training as a humanist uniquely equipped him for the task

of Bible exposition. He was influenced by the writings of Erasmus andValla, as well as Lefvre. When the Council of Trent made the Vulgatethe definitive test, he exclaimed, "What! are they not ashamed to makethe Vulgate version of the New Testament authoritative, while the writings of Valla, Faber and Erasmus, which are in everybody's hands, demonstrate with the finger, even to children, that it is vitiated in innumerable places?"15 Battles has noted that in Calvin's treatise on Seneca's

De Clementia the young humanist lavished great care upon the mean

ing of words and phrases in his text.16

Calvin mastered Latin undersuch teachers as Cordier. He eagerly studied Greek under Wolmarand Dans. While his knowledge of Hebrew has been debated, it islikely that he studied Hebrew with such competent teachers as Vatablein Paris, Capito in Strasbourg and Sebastien Mnster in Basel. Calvin's primary interest was not the mastery of languages, but there is noreason to doubt his fundamental competence.17

14. Eugene F. Rice, Jr., "The Humanist Idea of Christian Antiquity: Lefvre d'taples andHis Circle," in Werner L. Gundersheimer, ed., French Humanism, 14.J0-1600 (Harper Torch-books; New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969), p. 169.

15. CR VII, 416; Calvin's Tracts, III, 74.


9/17


From the beginning two basic principles guided Calvin's work as aninterpreter. The first was simplicity and brevity. He enunciated thisprinciple with the writing of his first commentary, and he never deviated from it. Indeed, simplicity and brevity were characteristic of Calvin's total life style. The second principle was the fundamental importance of the "natural sense55 of a passage. Calvin reacted with all thepassion of a trained humanist against ". . . the licentious system [thatchanged] into a variety of curious shapes the sacred Word of God. They[Origen and others] concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor,and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries,which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. . . .5518

In the context of his age Calvin took seriously the historical characterof the Bible. He engages in textual criticism.19 He notes that Moses doesnot write as a philosopher or scientist but in the language and thoughtforms of the people.20 In commenting on Matthew 27:9, he notes thatthe writer uses the name Jeremiah where he should have put the nameZechariah. Calvin admits that he does not know how this came aboutand adds, "I do not trouble myself to inquire.55 21 In his comments onMark 1:2 Calvin finds no objection to changing the words of Malachito make the meaning clearer.22 On Matthew 27:51 he observes thatLuke inverts the order: ". . . the evangelists as we have seen are notcareful to mark every hour with exactness.55 23 There is a similar statement on Luke 24:12.24 He finds occasion to criticize the style of Ezekiel

in commenting on Ezekiel i2:4-6.25

Scholars differ as to whether Calvin believed in verbal inerrancy. Theevidence seems to point to a more liberal understanding than verbal inerrancy connotes today, though Calvin did certainly insist that the wordsof Scripture are the very words of God. The question can probably neverbe answered, for Calvin never faced the question in the way in which anyman who has encountered critical historical studies must ask it. The fol-

18. CR L, 336-37. Gal. 4: 22 .19. CRLV, 159. Heb. 11:21.20. CR XXIII, 22. Gen. 1:16.


10/17

lowing facts seem to be clear. First, Calvin was not a fundamentalist.26He is too much the humanist in his study of Scripture. Secondly, while inthe context of his time Calvin studied Scripture with philological, literary, and historical care, he could not possibly have imagined the problemsthat critical-historical study would raise in the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies. For this reason it is futile to find answers in Calvin's writingsto new questions raised by modem historical consciousness. Thirdly,Calvin accepted the Scriptures as from "the very mouth of God.55 He

never evades the theological force of any biblical phrase by labeling itthe word of man.

(b) The unity and diversity of Scripture. The unity of the Bible isa fundamental theological axiom with Calvin. Believing that God wasthe author of Scripture, he could only believe that any differences inScripture were due to God5s accommodation to the needs of men in different ages (II , ii, 13). "He [God] is the Author of the Scriptures: hecannot vary and differ from himself. Hence, he must ever remain just

as once he revealed himself there55

(I, ix, 2).Calvin was as aware as any man of his time of the apparent discrep

ancies in the Scripture, but he was surely as skillful as any man in thehistory of exegesis in handling these discrepancies. Along with all theReformers he insisted that Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture sothat obscure passages are interpreted by the clearer passages. This principle alone solved many problems. Calvin was also aware of the discrepancies between the different traditions in Old Testament history

and in the Gospels, but these problems could also be accounted for by"harmonizing55 the Gospels or the Pentateuch. Even the controversybetween James and Paul did not defeat Calvin, though it did strain histheological acumen. In the preface to the commentary on James, Calvinwrites, "But this diversity should not make us to approve of one, and tocondemn the other. Besides, among the evangelists themselves there isso much difference in setting forth the power of Christ, that the otherthree, compared with John, have hardly sparks of that full brightness

which appears so conspicuous in him, and yet we commend them allalike.5527 On James 2:21 he comments: "When, therefore, the Sophists


11/17

John CalvinTheologian of the Bible

Interpretation

set up James against Paul, they go astray through the ambiguous meaning

of a term.5 5 2 8

The most serious problem Calvin faced with his bias toward the unity

of Scripture was the Law-Gospel cleavage, which Luther had empha

sized, and the difference between the Old and New Testament, which

the Anabaptists would not let Calvin forget. Calvin refuses to set the

law in opposition to the gospel. Only when the law is regarded as the

way to merit God 5s favor is it a terror and in opposition to the gospel.

In commenting on Matthew 5:21, Calvin insists,

We must not imagine Christ to be a new legislator, who adds anything to the

eternal righteousness of his Father. We must listen to him as a faithful expounder

that we may know what is the nature of the law, what is its object, and what is its

extent.29

The gospel cancels the rigor of the law but not the content of the law.

Indeed, Christ is the soul of the law and apart from him it is dead (II, vii, 2).

The God who spoke in the law is also the God who speaks in the gospel.30

. . .

under the law Christ was always set before the holy fathers as the end to whichthey should direct their faith (II, vi, 2).

The relationship between the Old and New Testaments merited two

chapters in the Institutes. Characteristically, Calvin begins with the

unity of the Testaments. " . . . all men adopted by God into the com

pany of his people since the beginning of the world were covenanted to

him by the same law and by the bond of the same doctrine as obtains

among us. It is very important to make this point55

(I I, , 1 ). The two

covenants ". . . are actually one and same. Yet they differ in mode of

dispensation55

(II, x, 2) . More specifically, the unity of the covenants

is three-fold. First, in the Old as well as in the New Testament believers

were adopted into the hope of immortality. Secondly, in both Testa

ments believers are supported not by their own merits but solely by

the mercy of God. Thirdly, believers in the Old Testament knew Christ

as mediator, through whom they were joined to God and were to share

in his promises (II, x, 2 ).

The third point received primary emphasis in Calvin's specific treat

ment of the unity of the Testaments. Calvin never set limits to the Word.

I take it for granted that there is such life energy in God's Word that it quickens


12/17

[Old Testament believers] embraced the Word to be united more closely to God,I do not mean that general mode of communication which is diffused throughheaven and earth and all the creatures of the world. For although it quickens allthingseach according to the measure of its natureit still does not free themfrom the exigency of corruption. Rather, I mean that special mode which bothillumines the souls of the pious into the knowledge of God and, in a sense, joinsthem to him. Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs cleaved toGod by such illumination of the Word (II, x, 7).

Calvin did not doubt that Christ was manifested throughout the OldTestament, but his manifestation was obscure, shadowy, and by images.Consequently, Calvin likewise emphasized the increasing brightness ofthe revelation. "The Lord held to this orderly plan in administering thecovenant of his mercy: as the day of full revelation approached withthe passing of time, the more he increased each day the brightness ofits manifestation55 (II , x, 20) . It began with a feeble spark in the promise to Adam, but it broke forth increasingly until in the Christ, the Sun ofRighteousness, the whole earth was illumined.

If Calvin did not hesitate to emphasize the manifestation of Christ inthe Old Testament, he likewise underscored the importance of the fullmanifestation in the incarnation and in the New Testament. In the NewTestament earthly blessings are minimized and invisible spiritual realityemphasized; reality replaces the figures; spiritual doctrine or gospel replaces law or literalism; love takes the place of fear; and the universalcall of the gospel supersedes the particularism of Israel. Calvin "freelyadmits the differences,55 but he immediately adds "in such a way as not

to detract from its established unity.55 All the differences "pertain tothe manner of dispensation rather than to the substance,. . .55 (II, xi, 1 ).The only real difference between the Testaments is the degree of clarityin the revelation of Christ.

Calvin's emphasis on the unity of the Old and New Testaments is offundamental significance for his theology. In fact, Calvin was accused byhis contemporaries and by some scholars ever since of being under thedomination of the Old Testament,31 a criticism that is not wholly just but

not so easily disposed of as Barthian interpreters have seemed to think.32

31. E.g., James Mackinnon, Calvin and the Reformation (New York, Longmans, Green and


13/17


The more important point is the significance of this emphasis for histheological method. Can a Christian theology develop with so emphatic a doctrine of the unity of the Bible?

(c) The analogy of faith. In the dedicatory letter to Francis I, Calvin noted that Paul "wished all prophecy to be made to accord with theanalogy of faith [Rom. 12:6], "33 Calvin never to my knowledge de

fined the analogy of faith, but others have defined it as the Apostles' Creedand the generally agreed points of divinity. In any case, Calvin recognized that Scripture must be organized and interpreted in accordancewith some understanding of its central meaning. Calvin's failure to define more specifically the analogy of faith ultimately prevented him fromdealing adequately with the unity of the Bible in his theology as he hademphasized it.

Calvin did write that we are to search for Christ in Scripture. "This

is what we should in short seek in the whole of Scripture : truly to knowJesus Christ, and the infinite riches that are comprised in him and areoffered to us by him from God the Father."34 Yet, it is very difficult tosquare this intention with many of his sermons on Deuteronomy: Certainly Christ is not a canon within Scripture for Calvin, as he was forLuther. In the actual working out of his theology Calvin's initial commitment to write commentaries on the Pauline letters, a task he hadcompleted by 1550, is of the greatest significance. His first commentarywas on the Book of Romans and in it he found a basic clue to his understanding of Scripture as a whole.

Calvin did not, any more than any other interpreter, attach equalimportance to every passage of Scripture. The compilation of the biblical references in the Library of Christian Classics edition of the Institutesreveals a wide disparity in the number of references to Scripture passages: Romans, 582; Psalms, 576; Matthew, 528; John, 461 ; Luke, 130;Mark, 61; Genesis, 249; Deuteronomy, 155; First Corinthians, 423;First Thessalonians, 33; Revelation, 26. There are almost twenty five

hundred references to the Old Testament but more than four thousandto the New Testament. It is obvious that Calvin had criteria by which


14/17

of the Institutes but also in the development of themes within the /n-stitutes, likewise points to Calvin's actual use of an analogy of faith. TheInstitutes are replete with references to the church's theologians.35

Calvin knew how the church had read and understood Scripture in thepast, and this knowledge was a more significant guide to his reading thanhe ever admitted.

Heinrich Bullinger in a very remarkable sermon, "Of the Sense andRight Exposition of Scripture," specifically identifies five principles of

interpretation: ( i) The exposition of the Scriptures must agree fitlyand proportionally with our faith; (2) The exposition must not be repugnant to the love of God and neighbor; (3) The exposition of Scripture must consider the context of the passage; (4) Scripture must beexpounded by Scripture; (5) Scripture must be expounded by a heartthat loves God.36 Calvin does not so specifically develop either the analogy of faith or the analogy of love, even though he does in practicemake use of an analogy of faith. Calvin was perhaps too sure that thecontent of Scripture is clear to the believing student of Scripture and too

little aware of the extent to which faith commitments determined hisown interpretation.

Calvin's failure to develop either an analogy of faith or an analogy oflove led to serious difficulties in his theology. On the one hand Calvincould write that we are to find Christ in the Scripture. On the other,he could use Scripture to justify infant damnation and brutality that cancelled all human sentiments.37 The inconsistencies in Calvin's theologyarise not simply out of Calvin's method of developing a particular doc

trine as fully as possible without relating it to other doctrines, but alsoout of his method as a theologian of the Bible.

(d) The canon. Calvin has very little to say about the canon thoughthe Castellio affair is enough to indicate that it was a sensitive theological point. Other theological issues were more current, and Calvin couldfinish his career without ever being forced to face the problems that thecanon raises for theological methodology. In the end the theologian ofthe Bible must deal with these problems.

Scholars are divided in their assessment of Calvin's views of the canon.35. Cf. Author and Source Index, LCC edition of Institutes.


15/17


Calvin was clearly aware that the canonical authority of some bookshad been widely debated in the early church, but he nowhere makesclear what the precise basis of canonical inclusion or exclusion was.After acknowledging that questions had been raised about the canonicalauthority of Second Peter and that the style was not that of Peter, heaffirms that it everywhere shows

. . . the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit. [He then concludes,] If it bereceived as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his nameinscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ : and it would havebeen a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, itmust have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some oneof his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required.38

Calvin also knows that Jude's place in the canon has been questioned,but because it contains nothing "inconsistent with the purity of apostolicdoctrine55 and was received as canonical by good authorities, he is willing to admit it.39 As for James, Calvin uses very much the same arguments . The author is more "sparing in proclaiming the grace of Christ55

than becomes an apostle, but it contains nothing unworthy of an apostleof Christ; and so Calvin receives it.40 After reviewing the evidence, Ben

jamin B. Warfield concluded that the settlement of questions concern

ing canon and text depended on scientific investigation. "The movementof his thought was therefore along this course : first, the ascertainment,on scientific ground, of the body of books handed down from the Apostles as the rule of faith and practice; secondly, the vindication, on thesame class of grounds, of the integrity of their transmission; thirdly, theaccrediting of them as divine on the testimony of the Spirit.5541 Otherscholars hold that the primary fact in determining the canonicity of aparticular book is the testimony of the Holy Spirit. 42 No conclusive res-

38. CR LV, 441.39. CR LV, 4851.40 CR LV 381


16/17

olution on the argument is possible because the difference is partly theresult of definition of terms and partly the ambiguity of Calvin's ownthought. It is sufficient for our purposes that Calvin had a very clearand definite commitment to the canon as it had been defined.

The canon had important theological implications for Calvin's theology. First of all, it meant that the Old Testament is to be read in thelight of the New and that the New is to be interpreted in continuity with

the Old. Secondly, it meant that literary and historical canons of interpretation are subordinate to the canon, that through the ScripturesGod speaks uniquely and decisively to man, in judgment as well as fulfillment of any other intimation he may have of the divine presence. TheBible is not a book among books, not a classic competing with classicsin the market place of religious ideas, but the place where the churchhas found that the living God speaks. No theologian ever took the canonmore seriously than did John Calvin.

Calvin, however, never subjected the canon to critical examination asa theologian. He never faced squarely the fact that the canon, howevermuch it may have been the church's acknowledgment of the authoritythat Scriptures actually exercised, was still a fallible ecclesiastical decision that could easily become a legalism. Furthermore, as has beenindicated in the discussion of the analogy of faith, Calvin never developed a method for adequate discrimination between the lights andshadows of canonical material.

In sum, Calvin was by intention a theologian of the Bible. He broughtto this task the achievements of humanist scholarship that make his expositions a landmark in the history of interpretation. In his emphasisupon the canon and the unity of Scripture he brought to the task of exposition a profound awareness, nowhere exceeded in Christendom, thatthe Bible is not a book among books, but the place where God speaksto man about matters of life and death. Finally, he brought to the taskof exposition a clear understanding of the purpose of theology and of

exposition and of their role in the sermon as the proclamation of thegospel to the people not to the theologically elite Calvin's intention is


17/17

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Calvin Theologian of the Bible