_________________________________________________________________

   Title: Calvin: Commentaries
   Creator(s): Calvin, Jean
   Haroutunian, Joseph (Editor/Translator)
   Print Basis: 1958
   Rights: Public Domain
   CCEL Subjects: All; Bible; Classic
   LC Call no: BS485.C333 1958
   LC Subjects:

   The Bible

   Works about the Bible
     _________________________________________________________________

                             CALVIN: COMMENTARIES

    THE LIBRARY OF CHRISTIAN CLASSICS

  Volume XXIII

   Newly translated and edited by

   JOSEPH HAROUTUNIAN, Ph.D., D.D.

   Cyrus H. McCormick Professor of Systematic Theology,

   McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois

   In collaboration with

   LOUISE PETTIBONE SMITH, A.M., Ph.D.

   Professor of Biblical History, Emeritus,

   Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts

   PHILADELPHIA

   THE WESTMINSTER PRESS

   First published MCMLVIII

   Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 58–5060
     _________________________________________________________________

GENERAL EDITORS’ PREFACE

   The Christian Church possesses in its literature an abundant and
   incomparable treasure. But it is an inheritance that must be reclaimed by
   each generation. THE LIBRARY OF CHRISTIAN CLASSICS is designed to present in
   the English language, and in twenty-six volumes of convenient size, a
   selection of the most indispensable Christian treatises written prior to the
   end of the sixteenth century.

   The practice of giving circulation to writings selected for superior worth
   or special interest was adopted at the beginning of Christian history. The
   canonical Scriptures were themselves a selection from a much wider
   literature. In the Patristic era there began to appear a class of works of
   compilation (often designed for ready reference in controversy) of the
   opinions of well-reputed predecessors, and in the Middle Ages many such
   works were produced. These medieval anthologies actually preserve some
   noteworthy materials from works otherwise lost.

   In modern times, with the increasing inability even of those trained in
   universities and theological colleges to read Latin and Greek texts with
   ease and familiarity, the translation of selected portions of earlier
   Christian literature into modern languages has become more necessary than
   ever; while the wide range of distinguished books written in vernaculars
   such as English makes selection there also needful. The efforts that have
   been made to meet this need are too numerous to be noted here, but none of
   these collections serves the purpose of the reader who desires a library of
   representative treatises spanning the Christian centuries as a whole. Most
   of them embrace only the age of the Church Fathers, and some of them have
   long been out of print. A fresh translation of a work already translated may
   shed much new light upon its meaning. This is true even of Bible
   translations despite the work of many experts through the centuries. In some
   instances old translations have been adopted in this series, but wherever
   necessary or desirable, new ones have been made. Notes have been supplied
   where these were needed to explain the author’s meaning. The introductions
   provided for the several treatises and extracts will, we believes furnish
   welcome guidance.

   JOHN BAILLIE

   JOHN T. MCNEILL

   HENRY P. VAN DUSEN
     _________________________________________________________________

PREFACE

   In making this selection from Calvin’s Biblical Commentaries, our first
   intention was to use the translations of the Calvin Translation Society.
   However, it soon became clear that we had to make one of our own. For this
   there were two very good reasons. The older translation is about a hundred
   years old, and its style is no longer our own. Calvin’s Commentaries were
   composed by way of either lecture or dictation. Their Latin style, although
   uneven, has the vividness and directness of the spoken word. It is the style
   of a master of the language, and it is neither strange nor archaic.
   Therefore, it seemed to us unjust both to Calvin and to the reader to
   perpetuate English versions of the Commentaries that are both out of date
   and to us stilted. We have tried to make a translation which is at once true
   to the original and in good and vivid present-day English. It is too much to
   hope that we have succeeded in every passage we have selected. Any
   translator knows that fidelity in expressing the meaning and feeling of an
   author in another tongue is a subtle and risky business. We only hope that
   we have produced a readable translation without doing Calvin undue violence.
   We wanted the reader to enjoy Calvin as well as understand him. We hope we
   have met with some, even if uneven, success.

   The older translations are from the hands of a number of scholars. Their
   English styles are different, and not of the same quality. Besides, the
   exegetical and theological predilections of the several translators have
   understandably colored their versions of the Latin text. In a selection like
   ours we would have had to put together, in immediate succession, passages
   with different styles and different adequacy as translations. This would
   have produced a book with a garbled and bewildering style. We made a new
   translation to avoid such an intolerable defect.

   We must say a word as to why we offer the reader this particular volume out
   of the vast body of Calvin’s Commentaries. We had no single principle of
   selection. We took what we liked — rather, a small fraction of what we liked
   and would have included if we had had the space. We were intent upon giving
   the reader good specimens of Calvin’s way of explaining Biblical texts, to
   bring out his qualities as an exegete. We wanted to show his concern with
   literary and historical questions, his understanding of Scripture both as
   the Word of God and as a human document, his constant preoccupation with the
   upbuilding of the church. We could not and did not ignore present-day issues
   in the interpretation of the Bible in theology and practical church life. We
   did the best we could to include material in which Calvin can be of some
   help to the church today. We did our selecting with such interests in mind.
   However, we do hope that this book has a certain continuity which will
   convey a proper sense of the integrity of Calvin’s mind.

   Our organization of the material is one of many possible. The one we adopted
   seemed natural to us. We have not given special chapters to Calvin’s
   teachings on man, sin, the Holy Spirit, eschatology, politics. We had to
   choose between depth and spread, and we chose depth. We have much more
   material in hand, and someday we may be able to use it, especially if there
   is sufficient demand for it.

   I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Louise P. Smith who collaborated
   with me, especially in preparing the Old Testament passages. Her knowledge
   of Scripture and Calvin, her patience and good sense, her encouragement,
   have been invaluable in this laborious undertaking. I am also grateful to
   the editors and the publisher for their help, and to Mrs. George W. Baird
   who typed the major part of the manuscript. I wish to thank Rev. Kenneth M.
   Keeler and the First Presbyterian Church of Santa Fe, New Mexico, for giving
   me a study where I worked happily for seven months. My thanks are due also
   to Prof. Calvin Schmitt of the McCormick Theological Seminary Library for
   the bibliographical help he gave me, and to Prof. Edward A. Dowey, Jr., for
   his criticisms and suggestions, especially with regard to the Introduction.

   JOSEPH HAROUTUNIAN

   McCormick Theological Seminary,

   Chicago, Illinois
     _________________________________________________________________

General Introduction

  CALVIN AS BIBLICAL COMMENTATOR

   In these translated selections from the Biblical Commentaries of Calvin, we
   have tried to produce a readable version of a representative part of his
   work in this field. The Commentaries were translated into English soon after
   they were published in the second half of the sixteenth century. (They were
   retranslated about the middle of the nineteenth century, by the Calvin
   Translation Society, Edinburgh, and have been reprinted in this second
   version.) They were also translated immediately into French and somewhat
   later into Dutch and German. Calvin’s Commentaries profoundly influenced the
   churches of the Reformed tradition; and there can be little doubt that a
   renewed interest in them and study of them would not only contribute to a
   better understanding of Calvin, but would also have a profound influence on
   the mind and life of the church today. Our primary interest in preparing
   this volume has been to present Calvin as a Biblical commentator, with the
   hope that many will be induced to turn to the Commentaries themselves in
   search of the light Calvin throws upon the meaning of the Scriptures.

   We concur in the judgment of many before us that Calvin was, for various
   reasons, a unique and extremely illuminating commentator. His education as a
   humanist, his extensive knowledge of the work of other interpreters of the
   Bible, his classical and patristic erudition, his insights as a Reformer and
   churchman, and his exegetical competence and grasp of the Biblical mind —
   all these make him an endlessly fresh and eye-opening interpreter.

    I. THE QUALITY OF THE COMMENTATOR

   Calvin’s Commentaries and sermons fill volumes 23–55 of his Works (in Corpus
   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 his Works) possible.
   One must not forget the several versions of the Institutes, 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 3 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
   heuriskomai as inveniam (“that I may find”), against Erasmus’ reperior and
   the Vulgate’s invenior; and he justifies his rendition by saying “as Budaeus
   [7] (the great Hellenist) shows by various examples” (on Phil. 3:9). Erasmus
   translates alla mallon eucharistia, of Eph. 5:4, as sed magis gratiarum
   actio, “but rather by giving thanks greatly.” Calvin prefers Jerome’s sed
   magis gratia. He admits that the Greek word usually means “thanksgiving,”
   but he thinks the present context requires that it be translated as
   gracious.

   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 of mesek, 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 the Adagies of 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).

   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 the Institutes. 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 the Institutes or 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

    II. THE PREPARATION OF THE COMMENTARIES

   In the main, the Old Testament Commentaries were delivered as lectures, and
   the New Testament Commentaries were dictated at home. We owe an enormous
   debt to Calvin’s friends and secretaries who wrote down his lectures and
   sermons, and took dictation at his home. [24] Among these special mention
   must be made of Jean Budé, the son of the great humanist Guillaume Budé, and
   his brother-in-law Charles de Jonvillers, both of whom were refugees from
   France and lived on Calvin’s street. They worked tirelessly with him in the
   preparation of the Commentaries on Jeremiah and Lamentations, on Ezekiel,
   Daniel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets, which occupy seventeen volumes in
   English translation. They have left us firsthand accounts of the way
   Calvin’s Commentaries were composed and made ready for publication.See
   Papacy

   Budé wrote of the beginning of the work: “When some years ago that most
   learned man, John Calvin, at the advice and request of friends, undertook to
   explain the Psalms of David in the School, some of us his hearers began to
   take notes in our own way, for our own private study, according to our own
   judgment, and at will. But aroused by what we heard, we began to think how
   unjust it would be to a great many people, and to the whole church, if the
   benefit of such lectures were to be restricted to a few people. We did our
   best to take down the lectures word for word. Without wasting time, I joined
   myself with two zealous brothers for this purpose; and it happened by God’s
   grace that our effort was not without success. For, when we put our several
   notes together, and wrote out the lectures, we found that little had escaped
   us, and that we could fill the gaps without much trouble. Calvin himself is
   our witness that this is what happened in the first undertaking in which our
   abilities were put to the test. All the hearers [of the lectures] will
   readily acknowledge that we followed the same procedure far better in taking
   down the lectures on Hosea; for by this time we were more skillful at our
   job through much repetition and long practice.” [25]

   And we have the following, from Charles Jonvillers, on the preparation of
   the Commentary on Ezekiel:

   “On February 13, 1563, Calvin began to expound Ezekiel in the Public School;
   even though he was constantly afflicted by various serious diseases, and had
   either to be carried to the lecture hall in a wooden chair, or arrive
   perforce on a horse; for his frail body had become so worn out that there
   was hardly any strength left in him. And yet, for a whole year after that
   February, the virulence of his disease did not keep him from discharging his
   responsibilities of preaching and lecturing.

   “Finally, in February of the following year, when he had finished chapter
   twenty (except for four verses), he was forced to stay at home and almost
   continuously in bed. Still, even while his mind had to carry the burden of
   his illness, he was constantly thinking, or dictating; and he often kept
   writing, so that it is hardly credible how much he accomplished even when he
   could not leave his house because of bad health. Among other things, he
   corrected diligently the greater part of these lectures, as is evident from
   the copy with his notations, which I have saved with care along with the
   rest.” [26]

   A passage from The Life of John Calvin, by Nicolas Colladon, a minister and
   friend of Calvin, gives us a glimpse of the latter at work:

   “About the month of September (1558), he was attacked by a prolonged and
   dreadful fever; and while it lasted, he was forced, to his great regret, to
   stop both reading and preaching. But he did not cease to work at home, in
   spite of the remonstrances of those around him that he spare himself. At
   this very time he revised and improved his Commentary on Isaiah, which had
   already been printed in the year 1551. Besides, at this time his lectures on
   all the Minor Prophets were printed; for previously there had been only a
   separate printing of his lectures on Hosea. It may be that when he was
   seized by the fever he had already read all the Minor Prophets, and there
   were only two or three lectures on Malachi left. However, since the printer
   was nearby, Calvin, wanting to avoid publishing an imperfect work, worked
   over his lectures in his own rooms and dictated them to several persons who
   were able to be present. Thus these lectures, as well as the others, were
   taken down from his mouth, and printed like the rest. He worked in his room
   because it was winter and he had the fever; and it was not good for him to
   go outside.” [27]

   Again, according to Colladon: “Calvin on his part did not in the least spare
   himself. He worked much harder than his strength and health could bear.
   Every other week he preached one sermon a day. [28] Three times a week he
   lectured on theology. He was present at every meeting of the consistory, and
   made all the remonstrances. Every Friday, at a discussion on Scripture,
   which was called the congregation, what he added after the main speaker was
   like a lesson in itself. He did not fail to visit the sick, to give pastoral
   advice, and to do an endless number of things that went with the ordinary
   exercises of his ministry. Aside from the usual activities, he was greatly
   occupied with the faithful in France. He instructed, exhorted, counseled,
   and comforted them in the midst of persecution, as well as interceded for
   them, or had others do it when he thought there was a way.” [29]

   After describing Calvin’s excellent memory, Colladon goes on to say: “It is
   not that he had much time to prepare his lectures, for even though he would
   have preferred to do so, he had no leisure for it. And for a truth, most of
   the time he did not have one whole hour for preparation. . . . I will add
   still another evidence for his [remarkable] memory: If, while he was
   dictating, someone came in to speak to him and stayed a half hour, or even
   an hour, most often he would remember where he had left off, and would go on
   from there as though nothing had happened, whether he was dictating letters,
   or a commentary, or something else. . . .

   “He slept very little. Even though this meant he was less than energetic, it
   did not keep him from being ready for work and the fulfillment of his
   duties. On the days when he was not to preach, he would stay in bed and at
   five or six o’clock would ask for a number of books, so that he might
   dictate with someone writing down his work. If it was his week, he was
   always ready to go up into the pulpit. When he returned home, he went to his
   bed and lay down on it with his clothes still on, and taking some book,
   continued his labors. . . . So it is that he dictated most of his books in
   the morning, working continually and in a very happy state of mind.” [30]

    III. CALVIN AS RENAISSANCE HUMANIST

   I. Calvin’s “Literalism” 

   Calvin’s exegetical method and procedure were the product of a century of
   classical humanism, first in Italy, but later especially in Northern Europe.
   Humanists, such as Lorenzo Valla [31] (1407–1457), Guillaume Budé [32]
   (1467–1540) and Erasmus [33] (1466–1536), had in common a zeal for
   recovering the literature of Greece and Rome, and for publishing reliable
   versions of the old classics. They loved the wisdom and style of the ancient
   writers, and drank up their sayings for new insight into a virtuous and
   happy life. These men, and many others like them, were fine linguists and
   critics, with whom it was axiomatic that the establishment of the best
   possible text of a writing was the first step toward understanding it. They
   compared manuscripts and authorities, and assumed the responsibility of
   producing their own editions of the classics. Calvin, who was trained in the
   humanistic method, and admired Budé and Erasmus greatly, took it for granted
   that before commenting on any passage in Scripture, he had to ascertain what
   the author of it actually said.

   The so-called literalism of Calvin is directly related to the Renaissance
   scholars’ desire to get at the original and “genuine” meaning of a text.
   Reformers, like Luther, Bucer, and Zwingli, as well as Calvin, who were all
   indebted to Erasmus and the humanistic method, agreed that the natural
   meaning of a statement was to be preferred to one arrived at by way of
   allegorizing or supplying a meaning other than the literal. This method was
   a commonplace among humanists, who applied it to Greek and Roman writings
   earlier than to the Bible. Allegory was contrary to the humanistic canon of
   interpretation; and “literalism,” that is, the desire to get at an author’s
   own mind, was of its essence.

   So we find Calvin bent upon establishing what a given author in fact said.
   He criticized the church fathers, especially Augustine, Chrysostom, and
   Jerome, for dealing too subtly with the texts, for allegorizing and
   speculation; even though he obviously takes their understanding of the Bible
   more seriously than he does that of the humanists. [34] He complains
   repeatedly that even while Augustine’s remarks on a given passage are good,
   they are irrelevant to the purpose of its writer (on Rom. 8:28, John 1:16).
   Allegorizing was misunderstanding, and misunderstanding was the evil a
   scholar had to avoid by all means.

   Neither the humanists nor Calvin meant by the literal meaning necessarily an
   unspiritual meaning. The natural interpretation of a passage for them was
   one that did Justice to the intention of the author. When Calvin protested
   against allegorizing, he was protesting not against finding a spiritual
   meaning in a passage, but against finding one that was not there. The Word
   of God written for the upbuilding of the church was of course spiritual, but
   in the primary sense of leading to the knowledge of God and obedience to
   him. Calvin’s “literalism” establishes rather than dissolves the mystery of
   the Word of God, provided for the Christian’s help and comfort.

   2. Calvin as Historian

   As a disciplined humanist, Calvin recognized that the Biblical writers, for
   example the prophets, wrote for their own times and situations. In this
   sense, Calvin is a confirmed “historicist.” When Isaiah, or Hosea, or
   Jeremiah, or a psalmist speaks he speaks for the benefit of God’s people or
   the church in his own day. The Holy Spirit does indeed speak by them
   prophesying the Messiah, and for the future church. Calvin can say that
   Isaiah foresaw the glory of Christ (on John 12:45). But he habitually looks
   at the prophecies quoted in the New Testament, not from the position of the
   prophet, but from that of the apostles or Evangelists who “applied” them to
   their own situation. Even while he assumes that the New Testament writers
   wrote as dictated and directed by the Holy Spirit, as a commentator he is
   concerned with the way they dealt with the Old Testament; and he speaks of
   their activity as applying [traho, apto], both in the active and in the
   passive. [35] His basic conviction in this matter, put in practice
   throughout his Commentaries, is that the Old Testament applied to the
   situation of the early church, especially to the mission of Christ, and that
   the Bible as a whole applies to the situation of the church in his time So,
   he is interested in the way the New Testament writers applied prophecy to
   their own history after Christ. In fact, in the Old Testament itself, the
   exodus from Egypt is more than an incident in the past. It is a parable of
   the life of Israel, and we might add, of human life in general. The same is
   true of the mission of Christ, and his cross. Calvin was profoundly
   impressed with the analogy between Christ’s destiny and that of the church
   in his time. Thus he saw a profound continuity between the Old Testament and
   the New, and between both and the events of his day (on Matt. 3:3).

   To Calvin, the ultimate end of the Bible is the Kingdom of Christ, his reign
   over the people of God, and their faithfulness and obedience to him. This
   end was seen in the Old Testament dimly, or as he likes to say, umbratile,
   in a shadowy way. It was only right that when Christ came, the Evangelists
   should have applied the prophecies to him; for the words fitted him and his
   work far better than they did David, or Cyrus, and their works. Commenting
   on Matt. 27:35, he says that the statement of Ps. 22:18, They parted my
   garments among them, and did they cast lots upon my vesture, applies better
   to Christ than to David who was speaking of himself only by way of metaphor.
   The same according to Calvin is true of Ps. 118:22, The stone which the
   builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner (Matt. 21:42).
   Christ himself applies Jer. 7:11, But you have made it a den of robbers, to
   his own situation, when he cleanses the Temple (Matt. 21:13).

   As a critic Calvin recognized in the Bible a natural working of the human
   mind which is not always too clear or too apt. Commenting on 1 Peter 3:14,
   And be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled, he goes so far as to
   accuse Peter of misconstruing Isaiah (ch. 8). But he excuses Peter on the
   ground that he was only referring to the prophet for a purpose of his own,
   and not explaining “every word used by the prophet.” He says that when Paul
   quoted Ps. 68:19, in Eph. 4:8, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
   captive, and gave gifts to men, he actually changed the wording of the
   psalm, even though “he can hardly be said to have departed from the
   substance.” But he believes that Paul did not actually quote the psalm; he
   “used it as an expression of his own, adapted to the matter on hand.” Paul
   more than once gets into difficulties by using “the Greek translators” (on
   Heb. 10:5, 38), and at least once one cannot tell what prophet he is quoting
   from (on 1 Cor. 15:54). When Stephen says in Acts 7:16 that the patriarchs
   were taken to Shechem and buried in a sepulcher bought by Abraham, he
   clearly contradicts Gen. 50:13, Josh. 24:32. Calvin refers to Jerome’s
   statement that the pilgrim Paula saw the tombs of the twelve patriarchs in
   Shechem. But he is not convinced. He says that perhaps Moses was using
   “synecdoche,” that is, Joseph stands for the patriarchs; or that perhaps
   Luke was following an old tradition. He ends the discussion with, Quare hic
   locus corrigendus est. Hence this verse must be corrected! (See also on
   Josh. 24:32, Gen. 46:8, 47:31.) He also admits that when Luke made Paul
   speak Hebrew in Jerusalem, he may have been mistaken. Calvin thinks Paul
   spoke the common language of the day — Aramaic (Acts 22:2). He thinks Mark
   is less accurate than Luke about Easter morning (on Mark 16:1), and that
   Matthew’s version of Jesus’ denunciation in ch. 23:24 is defective (defecta
   est oratio apud Matthaeum). Even Christ himself does not quote Isaiah
   exactly, but applies his words to his own purpose (on Matt. 15:7).

   3. The Reliability and Inspiration of the Bible

   Calvin studied the Bible as a book composed by human beings, according to
   the interests of the authors, and he followed the practices familiar to
   critics of literature. In this his humanism is obvious. But he also was a
   humanist of the bent of Lefèvre d’Étaples, [36] Erasmus, or Bucer, when he
   put his method to a theological use. Calvin was not interested in the Bible
   as a merely human product. His critical study was inspired by a profound and
   powerful desire to get back, through texts and versions, to “the oracles of
   God.” If some humanists went back to the classical authors for new wisdom on
   man, Calvin, with the other Reformers, went back to the Bible for the wisdom
   of God.

   It is important to remember that the Bible was to him above all the Word of
   God spoken for the edification of the church. This explains his willingness
   to admit many unsolved problems of detail, even while he insists that the
   writers of the Bible were the mouthpieces of God. He sees that the
   Evangelists differ one from another in many a detail (on Matt. 22:2), but he
   insists that they agree on the main points of a story or parable. Where
   there is a question of numbers, as of women and angels at the resurrection,
   he points to the writers’ unconcern for exact information in such matters
   and draws the reader’s attention to the gospel or law. In fact, he sets
   aside a discrepancy of a thousand, between an account of Moses (Num. 25:90)
   and that of Paul, by remarking that the Biblical writers cared no more than
   the ancient Romans for numerical minutiae (on 1 Cor. 10:8). Paul was
   concerned to warn the church at Corinth against idolatry. What mattered was
   the reliability of the Bible with regard to the word of God and the promises
   of God, and not factual accuracy on detail.

   The humanists believed in the wisdom of the classics, feeding their minds on
   the sayings (of which they made collections) of the ancient philosophers;
   but they did so not for mere factual accuracy, but for the edification of
   their age. There is a suggestive analogy between the humanist attitude
   toward the classics and Calvin’s toward the Bible. The Word of God spoken by
   the Spirit was the word of salvation and every blessing that goes with it.
   One had to believe in it and receive it with gratitude. It was worthy of the
   most diligent investigation. So one did one’s best to understand the Bible,
   and to discover its consistency as the Word of God. A man had to attend to
   the chief business on hand. What we have in the Bible is the wisdom of God,
   a “Christian philosophy,” a way of life that will enable us to live and die
   well in a world where the devil rages and perils are always at hand. Indeed
   the humanistic method required that one deal with questions of time, place,
   and authorship raised by the texts; but one also had to be prepared to leave
   them unsettled, and go on to the main point, to what was said of God’s glory
   and man’s duty. [37]

   Calvin knew that there were variant versions of the Bible, but he did not
   know — nobody knew — in his time, that there were various traditions behind
   the Biblical literature. Today we recognize that “contradictions” in the
   Bible are due to “date, authorship, and composition.” But our way was not
   open to Calvin. Both assuming the inerrancy of the Spirit and knowing the
   ways of the human mind, Calvin did his best to harmonize contradictory
   statements. But even where he failed, he was satisfied that the intention of
   the Spirit in dictating “the oracles of God” was fulfilled; that the Word of
   God for the guidance of the church had been properly received and set down
   for the benefit of God’s people.

   Calvin indeed insisted that the Spirit “dictated” the oracles of God. But
   such dictation did not so much establish the authority of the Bible as give
   us the Word of God for the upbuilding of the church and the benefit of the
   Christian in particular situations. Since the Holy Spirit spoke by the
   prophets, God himself spoke; so, when men read the Bible, they attend to
   their God. But what is their business but to listen to him and to hear him
   for obedience? So it is that the Christians read the whole of the Bible as
   the Word of God: not to believe God spoke because the Bible tells us he
   does, but that as they read the Bible, God himself may speak to their
   condition. The authority of the Bible is to Calvin the authority of God
   revealing himself and speaking to a Christian’s specific need; and the
   inspiration of the writers of the Bible is presupposed in God’s
   self-revelation to the Christian who reads it.

   Calvin’s doctrine of the authority of Scripture is discussed at length by
   theologians and church historians. Unfortunately, too many of them rely on
   sections of the Institutes, and fail to test the conclusions they draw by
   the content of the Commentaries themselves. [38]

   Calvin, of course, accepts the whole Bible as the Word of God and he uses
   terms like “dictation” and “amanuensis of the Holy Spirit.” In his
   Commentaries he shifts back and forth between God and the prophet as the
   speaker in the same way in which the prophets alternate the first and third
   person in their oracles. But those who see in such phrases a doctrine of
   inerrant Scripture and exact verbal inspiration forget that Calvin himself
   had a good deal of experience in dictating to secretaries and to students,
   and then correcting the results. God, the Holy Spirit, is of course
   inerrant, and the Word of God given by the Spirit was formulated to serve
   best the needs of God’s church. But the human instruments, being men, were
   certainly not perfect. And they did remain men. Isaiah remained a great poet
   and Ezekiel indulged in wearisome repetitions. Calvin made no assumption of
   a succession of miracles to eliminate every slip. [39]

   Calvin trusted the fidelity of those to whom God had entrusted his Word more
   than he trusted the care of the Jewish rabbis who supplied the vowel points.
   More fundamentally, he trusted the providence of God to provide his chosen
   in all ages with needful instruction. He himself seldom emends (but see
   Ezek. 16:43); however, when he discusses emendations suggested by others, he
   dismisses them, not on the ground of impiety, but because of the better
   sense he can find in the Masoretic text (e.g., Ezek. 14:4). Inerrancy is not
   for Calvin the basis for the authority of Scripture.

   Calvin uses the doctrine of inspiration against the Church of Rome. [40] The
   Bible is the Word of God as over against the word of man as found in the
   papacy. His contention is that the Spirit spoke by the prophets and not by
   the pope or the Roman Church. The fathers could be wrong and often were; the
   councils could be wrong and often were; the tradition and the canon law
   could be and often were wrong. Over against all these, the Bible could not
   be and was not wrong. So when the fathers, the councils, or the tradition in
   general oppose the Bible, the Bible is right, and all the rest are wrong.

   But the things at issue between Rome and the Reformers were not the
   incarnation of our Lord, or his resurrection, or any miracle or prophecy.
   They were not the number of Israelites who came out of Egypt or the
   genealogies of Matthew and Luke. They did not even have to do with “the
   date, authorship, or composition” of the books of the Bible. All such
   questions, which have agitated men from “the age of reason” to our own day,
   were not the points at issue. Therefore, the question of verbal
   infallibility and plenary inspiration, with the relevant questions having to
   do with “science and religion” or “faith and reason,” were not at issue. The
   issue was a proper exposition of the Christian faith: the grace of God, sin,
   justification, the ministry, and the sacraments; in short, the gospel. The
   heart of the Bible to Calvin as to Luther is Christ — the anticipation of
   Christ and the witness to Christ, Christ’s own work and his relation to the
   people of God. [41] This is where the inspiration of the writers is crucial.
   Witness to Christ is the reason for inspiration, as it is also the reason
   for the work of the Spirit in the church. The Spirit spoke by the prophets
   about Christ! And as he spoke about Christ and all that is relevant to our
   salvation by him, he spoke with absolute authority. The Church of Rome had
   corrupted the gospel. The gospel in its purity was to be found in Scripture.
   This purity of the gospel was the work of the Spirit, who had dictated the
   gospel, as found throughout the Bible, to the writers.

   At a later time, inspiration meant infallibility with regard to miracles,
   predictions, and sundry accounts of matters of fact. For the
   “fundamentalists,” the test of belief in inspiration has been an acceptance
   of factual statements that seem contrary to natural process, or others that
   seem to involve contradiction. A grain of historical sense should suggest
   that Calvin was neither liberal, nor orthodox, nor neo-orthodox; even though
   all these can claim him in one respect or another. He was liberal in his
   determination to understand the Biblical writers historically He was
   orthodox in his belief that the Bible was “dictated” by the Spirit. He was
   “neo-orthodox” in making Christ who came to save sinners central to the
   whole Bible.

   4. Knowledge of God

   The language of the Spirit is the language of human beings, and even while
   it is dictated, spoken, it is dictated or spoken not in an alien tongue with
   an alien logic but in the familiar tongue of man with its common logic.
   However, the speech of the Spirit is a heavenly discourse, concerning God
   and his benefits, spoken not to satisfy our curiosity as to his “essence,”
   but that we may know his power. [42] The language of the Bible is intended
   not to disclose God as he is in himself, but as he is toward us. He is
   toward us, not as an informant first but as a Savior, with his power. To
   know God in fact is to know above all his power; and we know his power in
   the faithfulness, peace, joy, the spiritual gifts, we receive from him.
   God’s power and Word go together. According to Calvin, God’s power is
   spiritual and the Spirit of God, who is witness to God’s power above all,
   speaks a spiritual language which is accommodated to our understanding by
   the use of our common language.

   There is a knowledge that gives a man power over the thing known; the
   knowledge of the Christian man is the opposite of this. By the knowledge of
   God the Christian subjects himself to God’s power. The latter knowledge
   differs from “the speculative,” which Calvin considered incongruous with the
   Christian’s relation to God. We know God, not to use him, but to worship and
   obey him. Therefore we know, not God’s essence (as we know the essence of an
   object), but his grace and will by and for worship and obedience. This
   knowledge is one adapted to our role as creatures, and one sufficient for
   this role; not more and not less than we need to believe in God and obey
   him. It is knowledge first and last of God’s love exercised toward us; a
   knowledge carrying with it a certainty all its own by the same acting of
   God; but one in which “facts” as read in the Bible act as “signs” of God’s
   spiritual power, and establish the sovereignty of God as God by pointing to
   him whose “being” is hidden from the mind of man. [43]

   There is of course a singular congruity between the sign and the thing
   signified: as between the resurrection and the victory of God over sin and
   death; or between the ascension and the return of the Son to the right hand
   of the Father. But prior to the congruity we discern, there is the congruity
   of God’s own doing, as established by the Holy Spirit. If we recognize the
   signs as signs, it is because the Spirit gives us light as an aspect of
   God’s redemptive work. When we put Calvin’s doctrine of inspiration in its
   proper context, and remember the unique way in which Biblical language is to
   him a signification of God’s love and power as present in the church, we
   realize that Calvin used the Bible neither as an authoritarian nor as an
   anti-authoritarian, neither as a Hodge nor as a Sabatier; the Bible was to
   him the vehicle of God’s power first, and secondly of our knowledge of Him.

   5. Knowledge of Man

   Calvin’s belief that the Bible is God’s Word, and his discipline as a
   humanist, are not sufficient for explaining his greatness as a commentator.
   What indeed is it that keeps a reader of these volumes of Commentaries
   interested, as he proceeds chapter after chapter, verse after verse? The
   variety in the treatment of the texts of course does a great deal to prevent
   boredom. But the positive interest of the reader is maintained by Calvin’s
   constant concern with the light that the texts throw upon the life of man in
   its many aspects and its tantalizing depth. The Institutes begin with the
   proposition that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man are
   inseparable one from the other, and that they together constitute the only
   true and solid wisdom (vera demum ac solida sapientia). [44] Here in the
   Commentaries Calvin makes full use of this principle. The stories of “holy
   men” like Abraham, Moses, David, Jeremiah, Peter, Paul, and Jesus himself
   become occasions for illuminating comments upon humanity and its ways.
   Calvin does not, any more than the Biblical writers, apologize for God’s
   elect. Aware of God’s faithfulness and grace, he gives the reader
   “realistic” insights into the characters he depicts and helps him to
   understand himself as well as his fellow men. Thus it is that the
   Commentaries remain endlessly and perennially interesting. And the fact that
   Calvin sees all things ultimately in the light of the gospel gives his
   wisdom a special quality which we might well characterize as “Christian
   understanding.” He knows that the wisdom of the Bible is not the wisdom of
   the “philosophers.” [45] But to him it is wisdom, presented to us by the
   Holy Spirit himself, as wisdom without which we would have only our folly.
   It is clear that this conviction kept Calvin’s ardor and his thought alive
   and made him a superb commentator on the Bible.

   The Bible contains a definite perspective upon human life. Calvin
   appropriates it, and uses it freely and variously for an understanding of
   man. Calvin’s interpretation of this perspective may well appear to some
   readers as “pessimistic.” In the light of God’s wisdom, men seem to be given
   to folly which produces in turn the miseries writ large in their history.
   The failings of patriarch, king, and apostle, not to mention those of God’s
   people in general, are set down impressively in the Bible, and Calvin does
   not fail to point them out. He points out the infidelities, rebellions,
   cowardices, and malefactions of men which have brought contempt for God and
   misery upon themselves. History is tragic; but it is neither hopeless nor
   futile. Universal though evil is, men act as responsible beings, under the
   mercy as well as the judgment of God who is wise and knows what he is doing.
   Calvin entertains neither Stoic fatalism nor humanistic “faith in man.” He
   repudiates both fatalism and “free will” because he sees history as the
   drama of God’s sovereign dealings with sinners, for their salvation and the
   fulfillment of God’s purpose. Thus history is suffused, as Jonathan Edwards
   would say, “with a divine and supernatural light” ; in it the Spirit speaks
   with the might of the living God toward faith and a godly life. So, the
   miseries of men are seen in the context of God’s mercy and faithfulness,
   even his judgment and wrath cooperating with his Fatherly benevolence,
   toward the predestined purpose of his self-disclosure to men as illumined by
   Jesus Christ who is God manifested in the flesh.

    IV. INTERPRETER FOR THE SUFFERING CHURCH

   In Calvin’s mind there was a profound and prevailing continuity between
   Christ and the church: between the experience of Christ and the experience
   of God’s people, whether in days of the “fathers,” or in the early Christian
   church, or in his own day. There is hardly a Biblical account of the trials
   and tribulations of the godly that does not occasion a lively discussion
   from Calvin’s pen. He never fails to see Christian life sub specie crucis.
   The prophets were persecuted, and Christ was crucified. Christ’s disciples
   were persecuted, and so were the Christians in the early church; so also
   were Christians in England, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Holland,
   Eastern Europe, and especially in Calvin’s own country, France. News of the
   tortures, exiles, executions from these lands came to Calvin both by letter
   and by word of mouth from the many who sought refuge in Geneva. He spent
   much time and effort helping the refugees in the city, and writing letters
   of comfort and encouragement to Christian people in hopeless situations
   abroad. [46] Geneva itself was an object of ecclesiastical hatred and
   political machination, and in danger of invasion. Within the city there were
   rebellions, divisions, and all manner of restiveness. The fact is that all
   through his ministry Calvin’s mind and soul were preoccupied with the
   sufferings that were the lot of the Protestants among whom he labored and
   for whom he was called upon to provide instruction, guidance, and
   encouragement; sufferings for which there often was no human help.

   Calvin appropriated the sufferings of God’s people depicted in the Bible for
   the evangelicals in Europe and for himself. It is hardly possible, as we
   read his comments on Noah, David, Job, Jeremiah, or on the disciples of
   Jesus, to escape the truth that they all are vivified by their profound
   appropriateness to his condition. [47] Calvin turns again and again to the
   inescapable and bewildering fact that in this world the disciples of Christ
   have suffered far more grievously than the wicked who have abused and
   oppressed them. So it had been in the past; so it was in his own day; so it
   was in his own person. He suffered physically as well as mentally all his
   days. He lived under cares and contentions which gradually killed him at the
   age of fifty-six. The image of Calvin as a stern and insensitive puritan
   overlord does not bear examination. He not only felt the afflictions of his
   fellow evangelicals, but also commented upon them constantly both as an
   interpreter of the Bible and also as a “theologian.” It is quite possible
   and even necessary to see Calvin’s work as a whole in the light of the
   wrongs that were perpetrated against the faithful throughout his ministry.
   It is no exaggeration to say that if one overlooks the mystery of the
   world’s animosity to the gospel and to those who adhere to it, one is bound
   to misunderstand Calvin profoundly and to misconstrue his work both as a
   thinker and as a man of action. The following discussion of particular
   doctrines from this point of view is intended to give the reader a helpful
   clue to Calvin’s mind. It is not meant to be a complete exposition, nor is
   it meant to obscure Calvin’s primary concerns with the “honor of God,”
   justification by faith alone, obedience to God in man’s total life, and so
   on, which are essential for understanding his theology. We have not dwelt
   upon these latter emphases in Calvin because they are commonplaces of all
   adequate expositions of his work.

   I. The Providence of God [48]

   The suffering of the righteous confronts us directly with the providence of
   God; and the doctrine of providence was constantly on Calvin’s mind and to
   it he made a peculiar contribution. It was traditional in medieval theology
   to write on “providence and free will.” The providence of God, although
   welcome as providing for man’s necessities, was a stumbling block in so far
   as it made man’s own freedom doubtful. So the main interest of the
   philosophical theologians was to reconcile God’s providence with man’s
   freedom and responsibility. Now, all this is changed by Calvin. He finishes
   his comments on Acts 20:32 with the characteristic and blunt statement:
   “Since Scripture teaches that we have sufficient help in God’s power, let us
   be mindful that only they are strong in the Lord who renounce their free
   will and lean upon him who alone, as Paul confesses rightly, is able to
   build up.” When people suffered dungeon and exile, yea, were at the brink of
   death in the hands of irresistible foes, it was irrelevant and futile to
   reconcile providence with the free will of man. These victims of oppression
   were not free against the combined power of church and state. The only
   proper question under the circumstances was, “What did God intend by their
   suffering?” What these people needed to know was that God was “at the
   helm” and that neither torture nor death came upon them without the
   providence of God who was their Father. They were comforted, not by the
   knowledge of their freedom, which they did not have, but by faith in the
   sovereignty of God the Father which Calvin would not let them forget.

   When Calvin took up the other matter of providence in relation to human
   wickedness, he insisted upon man’s sin (as in the case of Judas), and upon
   the subtle tyranny of Satan over human beings (Matt. 26:14). But once again
   he insisted upon the proposition that no evil is perpetrated apart from
   God’s providence and his use of it for his glory and the good of his people.
   Even as a sinner, a man could receive hope and courage from the faith that
   his own wickedness was under God’s providence and would further, in spite of
   himself, God’s glory.

   We are not concerned here with justifying Calvin against his detractors. The
   point is that his doctrine of providence grew out of his preoccupation with
   the sufferings of “the elect,” and can be stated and understood properly in
   that context. “Since Scripture teaches!” In a way, it is quite unwarranted
   to claim that Scripture in toto denies man’s freedom in so far as he is a
   responsible being. Calvin himself does not deny, in fact he insists upon,
   the doctrine of man’s responsibility (on Matt. 11:21). But he is far from
   wrong in the insight that Scripture is a celebration of God’s peculiar
   sovereignty as God and Father, and was written above all by men who set
   themselves to instill courage and hope among God’s troubled people,
   declaring God’s control over the affairs of men and the hope of the
   fulfillment of his purpose through all the vicissitudes of human existence.
   In any case, Calvin’s doctrine of providence, with all the thought he spent
   upon it, means that whether we are good or evil, whether we live or die, we
   are God’s.

   The subject of providence requires a discussion of miracles. To Calvin, the
   miracles of the Bible were in a class by themselves. They were the work of
   God the Father, in praise of Christ and for the sake of the church; and the
   knowledge of them was the work of the Spirit. They were to Calvin the means
   with which God revealed himself to his people. They were strictly “signs” in
   the sense of the Gospel of John. God worked them not to inflame man’s taste
   for miracles in general, but as vehicles of his grace suitable for human
   apprehension. What made a miracle a sign was the Word of God. A miracle
   without the Word was to Calvin a prodigy which even the Pharaoh’s magicians
   could perform (Ex. 7:12). It proved, not God’s grace, but his judgment which
   blinded the people and made them deaf to God’s word. Calvin recognized no
   sure way to discriminate between a sign and an imposture except by the Word
   of God as illumined by his Spirit (on 1 John 4:1 f.).

   Calvin was aware that men are always gaping for miracles (on John 11:18).
   The more they feel their weakness before the powers of nature, the more they
   look for a supernatural power that will enable them to overcome the evils
   caused by nature and the climax of these evils in death. The miraclemongers
   care, not about the Kingdom of God, but about their convenience and their
   belly (on John 6:26). They have no taste for the cross, and therefore they
   debase the power of Christ with their “hope of gain.” Calvin knew all this
   as a permanent temptation in the church. He insisted, therefore, repeatedly
   and strongly that miracle and doctrine go together (on Matt. 24:23, Mark
   16:20), and refused to identify God’s power with the working of miracles (on
   1 Thess. 1:4), holding that the Word of God is superior to miracles (on John
   4:48, 20:31). Christians languished and died in prisons without any miracle
   to enable them to escape. These people lived, not by miracles, but by the
   Word of God, by their faithfulness to Christ. What they had available was
   not the hope of physical escape, but the greater miracle of faithfulness and
   joy. Therefore, Calvin received the Biblical miracles as signs of God’s
   power; but he knew the same power by the preaching of the gospel, by the
   miracle of weak men made strong, both as to those who preach and as to those
   who hear (on Mark 16:20).

   2. Predestination

   Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is a complex matter, and is above all
   directed against the Roman Church, in support of “justification by faith.”
   [49] But here it is necessary to keep in mind the persecution of the
   Protestants in his day. As in Scripture, so in Calvin’s mind it was no small
   comfort that the sufferings of the church were predestined according to the
   will and the purpose of God. [50] Predestination meant to Calvin, as to
   Paul, that the sufferings of the Christians were no accident in the history
   of mankind. The unfolding of history was the realization of God’s purpose
   which went back to the beginning. The doctrine of predestination for Calvin
   was bound up with the doctrine of history as the continued fulfillment of
   God’s purpose. There had been, there was, and there was to be nothing
   fortuitous, nothing apart from God’s intention, nothing that originates from
   man’s will and caprice. Jesus Christ had been called and predestined by God
   for his mission, together with his suffering and cross. His gospel, scoffed
   at and rejected by the world, was no novelty. It had been in God’s purpose
   and was promised in prophecy through the ages. So as age followed age,
   fulfillment followed fulfillment, all according to God’s own eternal
   purpose.

   Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was inspired by the need of the
   Protestant churches for a knowledge of the continuity between the gospel
   they believed and for which they suffered, and the promises of God made from
   the beginning and through the ages. Like the early church, like evangelist
   and apostle, the Reformer took great pains to establish the antiquity of the
   gospel he preached. A church under persecution was plagued with profound
   doubts. Excommunicated ex-Romanists, subject to enemy power, deprived of
   home and goods, in exile and at death’s door, these poor people who lived in
   anxiety and despair, subject to miseries from which even the dregs and
   criminals of society were exempt, had nothing to sustain them except the
   promises of God. They were invited by Calvin to turn their eyes to Abraham
   and Moses and Noah and David, to the great deliverance of God, to the
   mysterious workings of his “secret purpose,” to the manifestations of his
   wisdom and power, rooted in his eternal purpose and his predestined end —
   all established in Jesus Christ crucified, risen, ascended, and at the right
   hand of God the Father Almighty. If one abstracts the doctrine of
   predestination before the ages from the promises of God made by creation and
   fulfilled through the ages since, one does violence to Calvin’s mind on this
   matter (see especially on 2 Tim. 1:9–10, Titus 1:2).

   This introduction is not the place for a full exposition of such a complex
   and profound doctrine as predestination. We are interested only in
   indicating that Calvin’s version of this doctrine cannot be understood
   properly except in relation to the suffering church. For instance, it is
   common to think of predestination as deterministic (on Rom. 9:17).
   Determinism means that one fact arises from one or more others by way of a
   natural necessity and that one can discover how one situation determines
   another. But one does not study the condition of the Christians in this
   world and arrive at an understanding of predestination. There is no open and
   comprehensible explanation of God’s ways with his people one by one. God’s
   purpose remains God’s secret, and he alone can justify his deeds among men.
   So, God’s predestination remained a mystery to Calvin, and was affirmed not
   as a doctrine of determinism arrived at by observing “the causes and
   connections of things,” but by fixing the mind and heart upon the Word of
   God, upon Christ and the history of God’s people. Determinism has nothing to
   do with the mystery of evil. On the contrary, it explains the mystery away.
   Predestination as Calvin understands it is inseparable from that same
   mystery and the very ground of courage for living with it.

   3. Faith and Reason

   Calvin refused to “explain” to himself or to others the workings of God’s
   purpose in the fearful destiny of the believers in the world. On the other
   hand, the triumph of Christ, his ascension and sitting at God’s right hand,
   were the immovable signs of God’s sovereignty and thus the certainty of the
   fulfillment of God’s predestined purpose. Predestination therefore meant to
   Calvin hope in a world where “determinism” could have produced only despair.
   This hope Calvin received from Scripture, and he was determined to let
   Scripture rule his mind and keep it within the bounds of sanity.

   But the Word and promise of God made no sense to the carnal mind. The Word
   of God was both a stumbling block and a foolishness, and the flesh recoiled
   from it. There was no way of verifying it while believers were tortured and
   murdered all around him. There was no way of justifying the ways of God in
   His world except by faith.

   Faith which is the proper work of the Spirit must rely upon and draw its
   strength from the promise of God in Christ and Scripture. It has no mandate
   to supersede the Word of God. And this is so because faith is to believe in
   God’s love and care for his people in the midst of their humiliations and
   sufferings. But this love and care we know, not by our cogitations upon “the
   facts of life,” but by adhering to God’s word in the Bible. “Reason,” which
   confronts us with the injustices and cruelties of this world, cannot attain
   to a certain knowledge of God’s beneficence. The usual rational arguments
   for God’s justice and mercy, based upon the observed workings of God’s
   providence, even though Calvin himself used them, gave him no “certain
   knowledge.” There was no use trying to make sense of the suffering of the
   elect by deep or high thinking. Therefore, the primacy of faith in our
   knowledge of God became established as a fixed point in Calvin’s theology.

   But faith did not solve the problem raised by reason to reason’s
   satisfaction. The Spirit did not open to him the “secret counsel” of God,
   because in fact Scripture itself confronted him with this secret counsel,
   rather than removed its secrecy. Faith, therefore, could not, any more than
   reason, penetrate to a knowledge of God as he is in himself. Faith was a
   gift of God whose main function was to create in man a certain knowledge of
   God’s goodness toward us. The miracle of faith was the miracle of joy in the
   midst of suffering. The knowledge of God given by the Word and the Spirit
   was a knowledge which occurred and became established with the joy of
   partaking in the cross of Christ. If the Christians not only bore their
   cross, but also rejoiced in bearing it, it was by the doing of God’s own
   Spirit who regenerated them, made them new creatures. The doctrine of the
   Spirit comes to life in Calvin’s theology, because he recognized that the
   comfort and joy of Christians at their cross is the work of the living God
   who “spoke by the prophets.”

   Faith is the knowledge of God’s goodness toward his suffering people, and
   not a vague and general sense of the divine. Calvin did not deny that the
   carnal mind has a confused and idolatrous awareness of God. But he knew that
   a natural knowledge of God, without his self-revelation in Christ crucified
   and risen, by the inward working of his Spirit, is no match whatsoever
   against the machinations of the devil and the cruelty of men. He knew that
   human cogitation, without God’s illumination and power, is helpless before
   the monstrous evils which proclaim the power of Satan and his reign of
   darkness and death. Calvin knew this, and felt it adequately. He knew the
   misery of this body of death, and he knew also that a mind conjoined with
   this body must inevitably be overwhelmed by a life that is in fact a shadow
   of death (on 2 Cor. 4:11–12). Sufferings of this life act as portents of
   death, and before death, says Calvin, “all the powers of men succumb with
   terror” (on 2 Cor. 1:8). Calvin was deeply impressed, doubtless in himself
   as in others, with the elemental desire to live and the shrinking of the
   flesh from its destruction (on 2 Cor. 5:1, Gal. 2:20, 2 Tim. 4:7). He knew
   how brave men are away from danger, and how they turn into trembling leaves
   when they meet it (on John 18:17). This was no academic matter with him. He
   knew it as a common human reality. And he knew that in the jaws of hell, it
   is only the Lord who gives true courage. “Let us, therefore,” he says,
   “learn to be strong nowhere but in the Lord” (ibid.).

   4. Jesus Christ

   The Commentaries contain numerous and weighty statements that we know God in
   Christ. Commenting on 1 Peter 3:21, Calvin says, “Hence all cogitation on
   God apart from Christ is an immense abyss which immediately swallows up our
   whole mind.” In another place, speaking of the knowledge of God among the
   Athenians, he says that “the Lord allowed the men of Athens to fall into
   extreme madness” (on Acts 17:16). Abyss, labyrinth, madness: such were words
   which came to Calvin’s mind when he considered man’s knowledge of God apart
   from Christ. For those who have taken up their cross for the gospel’s sake,
   there is no knowledge of God’s goodness except in the knowledge of the
   crucified and risen Christ.

   In the context of the Christian life, Christ’s mediatorship was to Calvin a
   continuing experience as well as a historical event. That God had revealed
   himself as Father in a man who was tempted and suffered, who exercised his
   Sonship by the death of the cross, was at the center of the gospel to
   multitudes of Christians who suffered and were tempted under their cross.
   Calvin’s Christ was nothing if he was not the Comforter of the church, the
   source of the Christian’s courage and hope, and his power of endurance.

   This explains two of the characteristic emphases of Calvin: the humanity and
   the Kingship of Christ, perhaps his Kingship and humanity, as two focuses of
   his mediatorship. No one after Paul in the history of the church, so far as
   we know, made so much of the ascension of Christ and his sitting at the
   right hand of the Father, as did Calvin. There is nothing more joyful for a
   Christian than to know that Christ crucified is at God’s right hand as the
   King and comfort of his people, reigning over the church, interceding with
   the Father for his people, protecting and watching over them in their
   tribulations. Hence in Calvin’s thought the death, resurrection, ascension
   of Christ, issue in his sitting at God’s right hand as the climax of his own
   mission; from it they derive their whole glory as elements of the gospel.
   The sitting at the right hand is also the source of all the benefits that
   Christians receive from God the Father. It is not too much to say that if
   one takes away Christ at God’s right hand, the whole gospel as addressed to
   the suffering church falls to pieces, because the Christians are left
   without their Christ, and therefore without their God. Hence, there is no
   image so alive in Calvin’s mind as that of the Son seated next to the
   Father. Calvin insisted upon the ascension of the same Christ who lived and
   died for us. The Christ who sits at God’s right hand is not a spirit who is
   ignorant of our flesh. He has gone from us to lift our minds up to our God
   and his heaven. So it is that he gives us his spiritual gifts, by the
   Spirit, of courage and hope in the midst of our trials. Thus it is that he
   is at once “the vicar of God” (on Mark 16:19) and our brother.

   Calvin was as little concerned with the divine “essence” of Christ as he was
   with the essence of God in general. It is the divine power and grace of
   Christ that he finds of decisive importance for the church. He of course
   never denied, he emphatically affirmed, the union of divine and human
   natures in Christ. By the standard of the Church fathers, he was orthodox
   enough. But the words “essence” or “nature” belonged to contexts of thought
   that were not his own. He had no stomach for the kind of metaphysical
   reflection that is required by the mind’s desire to penetrate to God’s or
   Christ’s essence. The main point of Calvin’s insistence on the deity of
   Christ was that he was the agent of our salvation. Commenting on Col. 1:15,
   he insists that Christ is “the image of the invisible God,” not only by
   virtue of his essence, but also as one in whom God makes himself known to
   us. We know nothing about Christ’s divine nature apart from what he has done
   and continues to do for us. And he has done and continues to do his work as
   a human being and our brother. Our brother is our King, and our King is our
   brother. This situation is stated properly in terms, not of essence, but of
   God’s saving work; provided we bear in mind with Calvin that the one and the
   same saving work was at once the Father’s and the Son’s by the Spirit.

   Calvin’s eloquent comments on the events of Christ’s life and death as
   recorded in the Gospels are clearly intended to show the Christians that
   they are suffering after their King and participating in his life. Here the
   deity of Christ in no wise vitiates his authentically human experience of
   temptation and “Passion.” Calvin pays his tribute to orthodoxy by reminding
   himself that the Son of God put on humanity and shared our life freely and
   voluntarily. He even shows a predilection for the notion that he was “God
   clothed in human flesh” (on Luke 19:41), or “manifested in the flesh” (on
   John 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:16). “And yet, in Christ we see the infinite glory of God
   united with our polluted flesh so that they become one” (on 1 Tim. 3:16).
   Calvin’s concern for the encouragement of the church led him not only to
   emphasize Christ’s common humanity but also to present it as a state of
   creaturely weakness. The human nature of Christ was not that of Adam before
   the Fall! He was no ideal and splendid specimen of humanity such as man is
   supposed to have been before he sinned (Augustine [51] ). He had “our
   polluted flesh” ; our flesh with all its susceptibilities and pains. When he
   was slapped, or whipped, or finally nailed to the wood, he did not look down
   upon the proceedings as a bemused god or hero; he suffered as suffer the
   believers who are tormented by their persecutors.

   It is quite evident that the orthodox understanding of the two natures of
   Christ, as involving a divine and a human essence and even a divine and a
   human consciousness, was, to say the least, awkward in relation to Calvin’s
   concern with Christ’s role as mediator — especially with Christ as the head
   of a church engaged in mortal combat with evil. It is hardly too much to say
   that Christ’s divinity meant to Calvin above all that he, with the Father,
   was the source of the Christian life and its blessings (on 2 Thess. 2:16).
   He insisted that the Biblical statements concerning Christ’s relation to God
   are, as it were, not metaphysical but soteriological or “operational.” They
   refer to his work, to what he is to us and for us. God himself we know by
   his saving work; and as this saving work is done by Christ, we know him as
   God. [52]

   5. The Christian Life and the Last Things

   About the Christian life we need not say much in this place. We have cited
   Calvin extensively on this subject in our selections. Here we shall consider
   his so-called otherworldliness.

   Calvin’s emphasis on self-denial can be understood and interpreted rightly
   only if we keep in mind that there is in fact no victory over the power of
   death without a denial of the self which works by sin and despair. A man has
   to know the death of Christ by his own death, and know the resurrection of
   Christ by the miracle of the victory over death within him; and such
   knowledge is inseparable from the warfare in which he is subject to
   temptation and harassment under the assaults of Satan. Calvin speaks of an
   inner and an outer mortification. The first has to do with the struggle
   against sin or unfaithfulness; the latter with the struggle against the
   powers of this world (on 2 Cor. 4:10). It is quite evident that these two go
   together, since the temptation to deny our Lord rises in the midst of fear
   of the evils to which men expose themselves in the hands of men when they
   set out to obey God and cleave to Christ.

   Calvin knew no antidote to defeat and ruin except to raise our minds to
   heaven. To him, a Christian walked on earth, but his life was hid in heaven.
   He spoke with obvious passion against attachment to this world, and exhorted
   Christians to renounce it in favor of heaven. In a sense, nothing is so
   essential to his theology as the opposition between heaven and earth, and
   the insistence that Christians, with their minds and hearts, leave the earth
   and go up to heaven.

   But Calvin wanted Christians to lift their minds to heaven because Christ is
   there, and it is from there that he reigns over the church in the world. He
   says explicitly that heaven, where God is, and Christ is, is “above all the
   heavens.” It is not the heaven we see and in which the stars shine (on Heb.
   9:24). Calvin is not concerned with it except as the abode of God and
   Christ, and the origin of our salvation; so that, to turn the mind to heaven
   means to turn it to Christ at God’s right hand: to turn to him for strength
   against tribulation and for victory over evil. We must turn to “heaven” for
   victory on earth.

   On the other hand, to turn away from the earth is to Calvin to mortify the
   sinful flesh which shrinks before warfare with evil and the suffering it
   entails. To renounce the world is to renounce Satan and all his evil works.
   It is hard to be faithful to the gospel while the flesh rebels against the
   privations and oppressions which it would avoid at the expense of treachery
   to Christ and his gospel. In short, Calvin’s insistence upon self-denial and
   world renunciation must be understood in the context of the Christian
   warfare and in the light of the sheer necessity of dying to sin if one is to
   live to Christ. It has nothing to do with ascetic contempt for the created
   world, or with an otherworldliness which seeks a heaven because it despairs
   of this world in general. Calvin had only love and respect for the world as
   God’s creation for the use and enjoyment of man. [53]

   Calvin turns the attention of the Christian not only upward but also toward
   the future. Hope, for Calvin, is at the heart of the Christian life. He sets
   before his readers “the blessed and immortal rest of heaven” as the hope
   that will enable them to suffer death with patience, and even to desire
   eagerly what they fear (on Luke 12:50). With Paul, he argues that if there
   be no resurrection of the dead, Christians, who are sheep meant for
   slaughter, are the most miserable of men (on 1 Cor. 15:19). He regards the
   present life of the Christians, with all its travail and groanings, as
   unfulfilled unless our redemption culminates in the resurrection and
   “eternal felicity.”

   But the new life in Christ is itself by a resurrection from the dead (on
   John 5:21). When Paul says that the Spirit of God “shall also quicken your
   mortal bodies,” according to Calvin he means “everything left in us that is
   subject to death. . . . From this we gather that here he speaks not of the
   last resurrection which shall be in a moment, but of the continuous working
   of the Spirit, by which he gradually destroys the remnants of the flesh and
   restores a heavenly life in us” (on Rom. 8:11). In his comments on Acts
   2:19, he identifies the great day of the Lord not with the last things, but
   with “the whole Kingdom of Christ” and the trials of the church. He does not
   postpone the destruction of death prophesied by Paul to the end, but speaks
   of it as having already occurred, as already realized in the deliverance of
   the Christians from the power of death (on 1 Cor. 15:26). The Day of
   Judgment is even now anticipated in the present dread and terror deep in the
   lives of the ungodly, and in the present joy and exultation of the believers
   (on Rom. 2:5). The coming of Christ itself is anticipated when Christians
   obey God and “vie one with another in imitating him” (on Heb. 10:7); when
   Christians, in the extremity of their sufferings, call upon him, and he
   comes to them with power and help (on Matt. 19:23); when he consummates his
   present reign with a complete revelation of his authority in all the earth
   (on Matt. 25:31). Calvin speaks of the last things as a full manifestation
   of what is now hidden or obscure.

   He even, as we say, demythologizes the prophecy “Heaven and earth shall pass
   away,” by calling upon Christians to raise their faith “above heaven and
   earth,” to Christ in God’s heaven (on Matt. 24:35). He calls upon them so to
   meditate upon the last things as to receive patience and perseverance in
   their trials (on 1 John 3:2). Their life is to be a waiting, without any
   clairvoyance as to time and seasons. They are to live every day as though it
   were their last (as it might well have been under the cross), in the hope of
   Christ’s coming, by which they are to be comforted by Christ (on Heb.
   10:25). Calvin was well aware of the absurdity of the Christians’ situation,
   and knew very well how foolish the Christians’ hope looked from the outside.
   But he also knew that the hope which grows within the Christian life, from
   it and into it, has its own peculiar rationale, and flourishes in spite of
   external circumstances, because it is the work of Christ and his Spirit. In
   this way, the eschatological statements of the Bible, with their several
   “metaphors” (on 1 Cor. 15:52, Heb. 10:26–27), illuminate the life of the
   Christians, as well as point to their ultimate destiny with God. But here
   one must remember Calvin’s concern with the present responsibilities of
   Christians and his whole ethical concern to which we have devoted a long
   chapter.

  Introductory Selections from Calvin

    THE TEXT

    I. AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH FROM THE DEDICATION OF THE COMMENTARY ON THE
    PSALMS

   If those who read this commentary, which has cost me much labor, derive some
   benefit from it, I should like to have them know how greatly I have been
   helped [in writing it] through those relatively mild conflicts by which the
   Lord has trained me. My own experience not only aided me in applying to our
   present situation the teaching I gathered [from the Psalms], but also opened
   the way to an intimate understanding of the mind of those who wrote them. It
   gave me no little help in understanding the complaints of David, the
   greatest of the psalmists, about the evils which the church suffered at the
   hands of those who were supposed to be its members, for I myself had had the
   same or similar experiences with enemies within the church. I differ so much
   from David since I lack the many virtues which distinguished him, and I
   labor so much under the corresponding faults, that I am ashamed to compare
   myself to him. But although as I read the records of his faith, endurance,
   ardor, zeal, and sincerity, the difference between us often made me groan,
   yet I found especial help for myself when I saw in the Psalter as in a
   mirror both the requirements of my calling and how ceaselessly [David]
   fulfilled them. . . .

   It goes without saying that my own position is far below David’s. And yet,
   as he was elevated from the sheepfolds to the highest position of authority,
   so God took me also from obscure and small beginnings and honored me with
   the office of herald and minister of the gospel. My father intended me as a
   young boy for theology. But when he saw that the science of law made those
   who cultivate it wealthy, he was led to change his mind by the hope of
   material gain for me. So it happened that I was called back from the study
   of philosophy to learn law. I followed my father’s wish and attempted to do
   faithful work in this field; but God, by the secret leading of his
   providence, turned my course another way.

   First, when I was too firmly addicted to the papal superstitions to be drawn
   easily out of such a deep mire, by a sudden conversion He brought my mind
   (already more rigid than suited my age) to submission [to him]. I was so
   inspired by a taste of true religion and I burned with such a desire to
   carry my study further, that although I did not drop other subjects, I had
   no zeal for them. In less than a year, all who were looking for a purer
   doctrine began to come to learn from me, although I was a novice and a
   beginner.

   Then I, who was by nature a man of the country and a lover of shade and
   leisure, wished to find for myself a quiet hiding place — a wish which has
   never yet been granted me; for every retreat I found became a public lecture
   room. When the one thing I craved was obscurity and leisure, God fastened
   upon me so many cords of various kinds that he never allowed me to remain
   quiet, and in spite of my reluctance dragged me into the limelight.

   I left my own country and departed for Germany to enjoy there, unknown, in
   some corner, the quiet long denied me. But lo, while I was hidden unknown at
   Basel, a great fire of hatred [for France] had been kindled in Germany by
   the exile of many godly men from France. To quench this fire, wicked and
   lying rumors were spread, cruelly calling the exiles Anabaptists and
   seditious men, men who threatened to upset, not only religion, but the whole
   political order with their perverse madness. I saw that this was a trick of
   those in [the French] court, not only to cover up with false slanders the
   shedding of the innocent blood of holy martyrs, but also to enable the
   persecutors to continue with the pitiless slaughter. Therefore I felt that I
   must make a strong statement against such charges; for I could not be silent
   without treachery. This was why I published the Institutes — to defend
   against unjust slander my brothers whose death was precious in the Lord’s
   sight. A second reason was my desire to rouse the sympathy and concern of
   people outside, since the same punishment threatened many other poor people.
   And this volume was not a thick and laborious work like the present edition;
   it appeared as a brief Enchiridion. It had no other purpose than to bear
   witness to the faith of those whom I saw criminally libeled by wicked and
   false courtiers.

   I desired no fame for myself from it; I planned to depart shortly, and no
   one knew that I was the writer [of the book]. For I had kept my authorship
   secret and intended to continue to do so. But Wilhaim Farel [54] forced me
   to stay in Geneva not so much by advice or urging as by command, which had
   the power of God’s hand laid violently upon me from heaven. Since the wars
   had closed the direct road to Strasbourg, I had meant to pass through Geneva
   quickly and had determined not to be delayed there more than one night.

   A short time before, by the work of the same good man [Farel], and of Peter
   Viret, [55] the papacy had been banished from the city; but things were
   still unsettled and the place was divided into evil and harmful factions.
   One man, who has since shamefully gone back to the papists, took immediate
   action to make me known. Then Farel, who was working with incredible zeal to
   promote the gospel, bent all his efforts to keep me in the city. And when he
   realized that I was determined to study in privacy in some obscure place,
   and saw that he gained nothing by entreaty, he descended to cursing, and
   said that God would surely curse my peace if I held back from giving help at
   a time of such great need. Terrified by his words, and conscious of my own
   timidity and cowardice, I gave up my journey and attempted to apply whatever
   gift I had in defense of my faith.

   Scarcely four months had passed before we were attacked on the one side by
   the Anabaptists and on the other by a certain rascally apostate who, relying
   upon the secret aid of certain important people, was able to give us much
   trouble. Meanwhile, internal dissensions, coming one upon another, caused us
   dreadful torments.

   I confess that I am by nature timid, mild, and cowardly, and yet I was
   forced from the very beginning to meet these violent storms. Although I did
   not yield to them, yet since I was not very brave, I was more pleased than
   was fitting when I was banished and forcibly expelled from the city.

   Then loosed from my vocation and free [to follow my own desire], I decided
   to live quietly as a private individual. But that most distinguished
   minister of Christ, Martin Bucer, [56] dragged me back again to a new post
   with the same curse which Farel had used against me. Terrified by the
   example of Jonah which he had set before me, I continued the work of
   teaching. And although I always consistently avoided public notice, somehow
   I was dragged to the imperial assemblies. [57] There, whether I wished it or
   not, I had to speak before large audiences. Afterwards the Lord had pity on
   the City of Geneva and quieted the deadly conflicts there. After he had by
   his wondrous power frustrated both the criminal conspiracies and the bloody
   attempts at force, I was compelled, against my own will, to take again my
   former position. [58] The safety of that church was far too important in my
   mind for me to refuse to meet even death for its sake. But my timidity kept
   suggesting to me excuses of every color for refusing to put my shoulder
   again under so heavy a burden. However, the demand of duty and faith at
   length conquered, and I went back to the flock from which I had been driven
   away. With how much grief, with how many tears, and in how great anxiety I
   went, God is my best witness. Many faithful men also understood my
   reluctance and would have wished to see me released from this pain if they
   had not been constrained by the same fear which influenced me.

   It would make too long a story to tell of the conflicts of all sorts in
   which I was active and of the trials by which I was tested. I will merely
   repeat briefly what I said before, so as not to offend fastidious readers
   with unnecessary words. Since David showed me the way with his own
   footsteps, I felt myself greatly comforted. The holy king was hurt more
   seriously by the envy and dishonesty of treacherous men at home than he was
   by the Philistines and other enemies who harassed him from the outside. I
   also have been attacked on all sides and have had scarcely a moment’s relief
   from both external and internal conflicts. Satan has undertaken all too
   often in many ways to corrupt the fabric of this church. The result has been
   that I, who am a peaceable and timid man, was compelled to break the force
   of the deadly attacks by interposing my own body as a shield.

   In all these five years certain men have had too great an influence, and a
   part of the common people who were corrupted by their alluring propaganda
   have been seeking unrestrained license. We therefore had both to oversee
   discipline and to fight without intermission. For the ruin of the church was
   a matter of no account to profane men and despisers of heavenly doctrine who
   desired and obtained power to gain every indulgence they dared. Some were
   driven mad by famine and hunger, and certain others by insatiable ambition
   or shameful greed for profit; and they all were ready to ruin themselves and
   us by mixing everything up rather than to [allow us to] maintain order. They
   were at it a long time, and I think made use of every tool forged in
   Satan’s workshop. The only possible way to end their wicked plots was to
   destroy the men themselves by a shameful death — a spectacle which grieved
   me very much. For although they deserved any possible punishment, I would
   rather have had them live safe and unharmed. And they could have done so, if
   they had not been wholly impervious to wise counsel.

   This five-year trial, hard and burdensome enough to me, was made still worse
   torture by the ill will of those who never ceased to attack me and my
   ministry with vile slanders. Many were so blinded by their desire to abuse
   me that their effrontery became shamefully outspoken. Others were saved by
   their own craft from conviction and ignominious exposure. But when anyone
   repeats an offense of which he has been accused a hundred times and
   acquitted, the indignity of it all is hard to bear.

   Because I assert that the world is governed by the hidden providence of God,
   insolent men rise up and say that I make God the author of sin — a futile
   and baseless slander which would come to nothing of itself if it did not
   find eager listeners. Envy or spite or ingratitude or wickedness so rules
   men that they recoil from no lie, however absurd and monstrous. Others
   strive to overturn the eternal predestination by which God distinguishes the
   reprobate from the elect; others undertake the defense of free will. And not
   ignorance so much as a kind of perverse zeal brings many adherents to these
   factions.

   When one suffers trials at the hands of professed enemies, one can bear
   them. But when people who hide under the name of brothers, those who not
   only eat the sacred bread but also serve it to others, and who boast loudly
   that they are heralds of the gospel — when these carry on such wicked
   warfare, how detestable it is! It is of this kind of thing that David most
   rightly complains, when he says, The man of my peace and he who ate bread
   with me has lifted his heel against me (Ps. 41:10); and also, My companion
   and associate who used to go with me to the temple of God, with whom I took
   sweet counsel, he like an enemy has handed me over to the wicked (Ps.
   55:14).

   Some men have spread frivolous rumors about my treasures; others about my
   enormous power. Others have talked about my sumptuous table. Does a man live
   in the lap of luxury when he is content with meager food and plain clothing;
   when he requires no more frugality from the poorest folk than he himself
   practices? As for my authority, I wish I could hand it over to them! They
   measure my power by the amount of my labor, by the weight of work that wears
   me down. How much money I have, my death will show — if there are any whom I
   cannot convince while I am alive. But I admit that I am not “poor,” because
   I desire nothing beyond my actual needs.

   These inventions, although they have no basis in fact, are believed among
   many people because the majority think that the only way to cover up their
   shame is to mix black with white. They think the best guarantee of impunity
   and license would be the end of the authority of the servants of Christ. In
   addition there are the mockers at feasts of whom David complains in Ps.
   35:16: not only the plate lickers but those who hunt the favor of the
   powerful with false denunciations. I have become used to swallowing insults
   for so long that I am almost insensitive; yet as their insolence increased I
   could not help feeling some bitter pricks.

   And as though it were not enough for me to suffer the inhumanity of
   neighbors, a throng of evil-driven men from the frozen sea [Germany] stirred
   up (accenderet) against me a storm I have no words to describe. I am still
   speaking of internal enemies of the church, proud proclaimers of the gospel
   of Christ, who because I do not accept their crass explanation of [the
   Lord’s Supper as] devouring the flesh of Christ, are roused against me more
   violently than my open enemies. Here also I can associate myself with David,
   While I seek peace, they rush to war (Ps. 120:7). Moreover they all show
   great ingratitude when they attack on the flank and the rear a man who is
   laboring in defense of the common cause, and deserves their support.
   Certainly, if they possessed the slightest human sympathy, their great
   hatred of me would be placated by the fury the papists pour upon me and the
   way they attack me.

   But this also was David’s experience. He deserved well of his people, yet he
   was hated by many, as he laments in Ps. 69:4: They hate me without a cause.
   . . . I returned what I did not rob. [59] When I was assailed by the
   undeserved hatred of those whose duty it was to help me, I received no small
   comfort from knowing of the glorious example [set by David].

   Now these experiences were a very great help to my understanding of the
   Psalms, since, as I read, I was going through well-known territory. And I
   hope my readers will realize that when I discuss David’s thoughts more
   intimately than those of others, I am speaking not as a remote spectator but
   as one who knows all about these things from his own experience.

   I have striven faithfully to make the value of this treasury [of the Psalms]
   available to all the faithful. And even though I have not accomplished what
   I had desired, I deserve some thanks for my attempt. All I ask is that each
   reader judge my labor justly and honestly by its fruits and the profit he
   finds in it. Certainly, as I said, when a man reads my book, he will see
   that I did not seek to give pleasure unless I also gave help.

   I have kept throughout to a simple method of teaching; and to avoid all
   ostentation, I have refrained for the most part from the refutation of
   others, which readily provides much opportunity for plausible showing off. I
   have not mentioned opinions opposed to mine except where there was danger
   that my silence would leave my readers doubtful or perplexed. I realized, of
   course, that many would have been more attracted and tickled if I had
   included a varied mass of ostentatious and glittering material. But nothing
   meant more to me than to consider the upbuilding of the church.

   May God who gave me this purpose also guarantee its success.

   Geneva, August 10, 1557.

   II. Preface to Olivétan’s New Testament

    II. PREFACE TO OLIVÉTAN’S NEW TESTAMENT

   Epistle to the Faithful Showing that Christ Is the End of the Law [60]

   To all those who love Christ and his gospel, Greetings. God the Creator, the
   most perfect and excellent Maker of all things, who had already shown
   himself more than admirable in their creation, made man as his masterpiece,
   to surpass all other creatures. Man is endowed with a singular excellence,
   for God formed him in his own image and likeness, in which we see a bright
   refulgence of God’s glory. Furthermore, man would have been able to continue
   in the state in which he was formed, if he had been willing to bow down in
   humility before the majesty of God, magnifying him with deeds of grace; not
   to seek his glory in himself, but knowing that all good things come from
   above, always to turn his mind on high and to glorify the one and only God
   to whom belongs the praise.

   But the wretched man, wanting to be somebody in himself, began incontinently
   to forget and misunderstand the source of his good; and by an act of
   outrageous ingratitude, he set out to exalt himself in pride against his
   Maker and the Author of all that is excellent in him. For this reason, he
   went down in ruin and lost all the dignity and superiority of the state in
   which he was first created; he was despoiled and divested of all his glory
   and deprived of all the gifts which were his; and this, to confound him in
   his pride and to constrain him to understand what he was unwilling to do
   voluntarily: that he was by himself nothing but vanity, and would never have
   been anything else except with the help of the Lord of power.

   Therefore, seeing that God’s image and likeness was thus defaced, and man
   was without the graces which God in his goodness had bestowed upon him, God
   began to hold man in abhorrence and disavowed him as his handiwork. Since he
   had put man there and ordained [his life] for his own enjoyment and pleasure
   in him, as a father with his beloved child, He now held him in contempt and
   abomination. Whereas before everything in man pleased him, it now gave him
   displeasure; everything that he would have loved, now aroused his wrath;
   everything that he had contemplated with the good will of a father, he began
   to detest and to look at with regret. In short, the whole man with all that
   he had, his deeds, his thoughts, his words, his life, wholly displeased God,
   as though man were a special enemy and adversary of God; so much so that God
   repented of having made him. After having been thrown into such a confusion,
   man was fruitful in his cursed seed, to beget descendants like himself; that
   is, vicious, perverse, corrupt, void, and deprived of all good, rich and
   abundant in evil.

   Still, the Lord of mercy, who not only loves but is himself love and
   kindness, being ready in his infinite goodness to love him who deserved no
   love, did not altogether destroy men, or overwhelm them in the abyss of
   their iniquity. But on the contrary, he sustained and supported them gently
   and patiently, giving them time and opportunity to return to him and to
   apply themselves again to that obedience from which they had turned aside.
   And even though he disguised himself and kept silent, as though he wished to
   hide himself from them, leaving them to go after their desires and the
   yearnings of their lusts, without law, without order, without any correction
   of his Word, he nevertheless has given them notice enough [of his presence]
   to move them to seek, feel, and find him, and to know him and honor him as
   is his due.

   For he has raised everywhere, in all places and in all things, his ensigns
   and emblems, under blazons so clear and intelligible that no one can pretend
   ignorance in not knowing such a sovereign Lord, who has so amply exalted his
   magnificence; who has, in all parts of the world, in heaven and on earth,
   written and as it were engraved the glory of his power, goodness, wisdom,
   and eternity. Saint Paul has therefore said quite rightly that the Lord has
   never left himself without a witness; even among those to whom he has not
   sent any knowledge of his Word. It is evident that all creatures, from those
   in the firmament to those which are in the center of the earth, are able to
   act as witnesses and messengers of his glory to all men; to draw them to
   seek God, and after having found him, to meditate upon him and to render him
   the homage befitting his dignity as so good, so mighty, so wise a Lord who
   is eternal; yea, they are even capable of aiding every man wherever he is in
   this quest. For the little birds that sing, sing of God; the beasts clamor
   for him; the elements dread him, the mountains echo him, the fountains and
   flowing waters cast their glances at him, and the grass and flowers laugh
   before him. Truly there is no need for long searching, since everyone could
   find him in himself, because every one of us is sustained and preserved by
   his power which is in us.

   Meanwhile, in order to reveal his infinite goodness and kindness more fully
   among men, he was not content to teach all men as we have just described;
   but he made his voice to be heard especially by a certain people, whom he
   elected, by his good will and free grace, from among all the nations of the
   earth. These were the children of Israel, to whom he showed himself clearly
   by his Word, and declared to them by his marvelous works what he intended
   them to know. For, he drew them away from subjection to Pharaoh the king of
   Egypt, under whom they were held down and oppressed, to deliver them and set
   them at liberty. He accompanied them night and day in their flight, as one
   more fugitive in their midst. He fed them in the desert. He made them to
   possess the Promised Land. He gave victories and triumphs to their hands.
   And as though he were nothing to the other nations, he willed expressly to
   be called the God of Israel, and to have Israel called his people, on
   condition that they would recognize no other Lord and receive none else as
   their God. And this alliance (covenant) was confirmed and handed down by
   authentic instruments of testament and testimony given by himself.

   Nevertheless, these people, all of whom shared in the experience of their
   cursed race, showed themselves to be true heirs of the wickedness of their
   father Adam. They were unmoved by all these remonstrances [of God], and did
   not listen to the teaching by which God admonished them. The creatures that
   had the glory and magnificence of God stamped upon them were of no help to
   the Gentiles, and failed to make them glorify him to whom they testified.
   And the Law and the Prophets did not have the authority to lead the Jews in
   the right way. All have been blind to the light, deaf to admonitions, and
   hardened against the commandments.

   It is true enough that the Gentiles, astonished and convinced by so many
   goods and benefits which they saw with their own eyes, have been forced to
   recognize the hidden Benefactor from whom came so much goodness. But instead
   of giving the true God the glory which they owed him, they forged a god to
   their own liking, one dreamt up by their foolish fantasy in its vanity and
   deceit; and not one god only, but as many as their temerity and conceit
   enabled them to forge and cast (feindre et fondre); so that there was not a
   people or place which did not make new gods as seemed good to them. Thus it
   is that idolatry, that perfidious panderer, was able to exercise dominion,
   to turn men away from God, and to amuse them with a whole crowd of phantoms
   to which they themselves had given shape, name, and being itself.

   As for the Jews, even though they received and accepted the messages and
   commandments which their Lord sent them by his servants, they have
   nonetheless intemperately falsified the faith before him, turned carelessly
   away from him, violated and despised his law, hated it, and resisted walking
   in its ways. They have become strangers to the house of God and run as
   dissolute men after other gods, worshiping idols after the manner of the
   Gentiles, contrary to the will of God.

   Wherefore, if God were to approach his people, whether Jew or Gentile, a new
   covenant was needed: one which would be certain, sure, and inviolable. And
   to establish and confirm it, it was necessary to have a Mediator, who would
   intercede and come between the two parties, to make concord between them;
   for without this, man would have had always to live under the ire and
   indignation of God, and would have had no means of relief from the curse,
   misery, and confusion into which he was snared and had fallen. And it was
   our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the true and only eternal Son of God, who
   had to be sent and given to mankind by the Father, to restore a world
   otherwise wasted, destroyed, and desolate.

   Also from the very beginning, the world was not without the hope of
   recovering the loss suffered in Adam. For even Adam, in spite of his
   incontinency after his ruin, was given the promise that the seed of the
   woman would crush the head of the serpent; which is to say that Jesus Christ
   born of a virgin would strike down and destroy the power of Satan.

   After that, this promise was renewed more fully to Abraham, when God told
   him that all the nations of the earth would be blessed in his seed. This
   meant that from his seed would come Jesus Christ according to the flesh, by
   whose blessing all men of every land would be sanctified. And the same
   promise was renewed to Isaac, in the same form and in the same words; and
   after that it was announced often, repeated and confirmed by the testimony
   of the various prophets, so as to state plainly, and most reliably, of whom
   Christ was to be born, at what time, in what place; what afflictions and
   death he was to suffer, and with what glory he was to rise from the dead;
   what was to be his Kingdom, and to what salvation he was to bring his own.

   In the first place, it is foretold for us in Isaiah, how he was to be born
   of a virgin, saying: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son,
   and you shall call his name Immanuel (Isa. 7:14). The time is described for
   us in Moses, when good Jacob says, The scepter shall not be taken from the
   line of Judah, nor the government from his hand, until the coming of the One
   who is to be sent; and the same is the expectation of the nations (Gen.
   49:10). And this was verified when Jesus Christ came into the world; for the
   Romans, after having divested the Jews of all government and rule, had,
   thirty-seven years before [the coming of Christ] ordained Herod king over
   them, whose father was Antipater the Edomite and his mother an Arabian; he
   was therefore a foreigner. It had happened sometimes before that the Jews
   had been without a king; but they had never before been left as they were
   now without counselors, rulers, and lawgivers. Another numbering [of the
   time of Christ’s birth] is given in Daniel, by the reckoning of the seventy
   weeks (Dan. 9:24). The place of his birth was given us clearly by Micah, who
   said, And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, thou are the least among the thousands of
   Judah; but from thee shall come for me the One who shall reign over Israel;
   and his coming shall be for all the days of eternity (Micah 5:2). As for the
   afflictions he was to bear for our deliverance and the death he was to
   suffer for our redemption, Isaiah and Zechariah have spoken of those matters
   fully and with certainty. The glory of his resurrection and the nature of
   his Kingdom, and the grace of the salvation he was to bring to his people
   — these things were fully treated by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah.

   Such promises, declared and testified to by these holy men who were filled
   with the Spirit of God, have been the comfort and consolation of the
   children and elect of God, who have nourished, supported, and sustained
   their hope in these promises, waiting upon the will of the Lord to show
   forth what he had promised. Many kings and prophets among them have desired
   greatly to see its accomplishment, never ceasing all the while to
   understand, in their hearts and spirits by faith, the things they could not
   see with their eyes. And, God has confirmed his people in every possible way
   during their long waiting for the great Messiah, by providing them with his
   written law, containing numerous ceremonies, purifications, and sacrifices,
   which were but the figures and shadows of the great blessings to come with
   Christ, who alone was the embodiment and truth of them. For the law was
   incapable of bringing anyone to perfection; it only presented Christ, and
   like a teacher spoke of and led to him, who was, as was said by Saint Paul,
   the end and fulfillment of the law.

   Similarly, many times and in various seasons, God sent his people kings,
   princes, and captains, to deliver them from the power of their enemies, to
   govern them in peace, to recover their losses, to give them flourishing
   reigns, and by great prowess to make them renowned among all the other
   peoples. He did all this to give them a foretaste of the great miracles they
   were to receive from this great Messiah, who was to be endowed with all the
   power and might of the Kingdom of God.

   But when the fullness of time had come and the period foreordained by God
   was ended, this great Messiah, so promised and so awaited, came; he was
   perfect, and accomplished all that was necessary to redeem us and save us.
   He was given not only to the Israelites, but to all men, of every people and
   every land, to the end that by him human nature might be reconciled to God.
   This is what is stated plainly in the next book (the New Testament), and set
   forth there openly. This book we have translated as faithfully as we were
   able according to the truth and the style of the Greek language, to enable
   all Christians, men and women, who know the French language, to understand
   and acknowledge the law they ought to obey and the faith they ought to
   follow. [61]

   It is to declare this thing (reconciliation), that the Lord Jesus, who is
   its foundation and substance, has ordained his apostles, whom he has charged
   and commanded to publish his grace to the whole world. And the apostles, in
   order to discharge their duty properly and plainly, not only have taken
   pains and shown diligence in fulfilling their embassy by the preaching of
   the word by mouth, but they have also followed the example of Moses and the
   prophets, and have left an eternal remembrance of their doctrine by reducing
   it to writing; in which they have first told the story of the things the
   Lord Jesus did and suffered for our salvation, and then shown us its value,
   what profit we gain from it, and how we are to receive it. This whole
   collection is called the yew Testament, and is called such in relation to
   the Old, etc.

   And this book is called the New Testament in relation to the Old, which, in
   so far as it had to be succeeded by and related to the New, and was shaky
   and imperfect in itself, was abolished and abrogated. It is the new and the
   eternal, which will never grow old and fail, because Jesus Christ is its
   Mediator. He has ratified and confirmed it by his death, by which he has
   accomplished full and complete remission of all sins (prevarications) which
   remained under the first testament.

   Scripture is also called gospel, that is, new and joyful news, because in it
   is declared that Christ, the sole true and eternal Son of the living God,
   was made man, to make us children of God his Father, by adoption. Thus he is
   our only Savior, to whom we owe our redemption, peace, righteousness,
   sanctification, salvation, and life; who died for our sins and rose again
   for our justification; who ascended to heaven for our entry there and took
   possession of it for us and [it is] our home; to be always our helper before
   his Father; as our advocate and perpetually doing sacrifice for us, he sits
   at the Father’s right hand as King, made Lord and Master over all, so that
   he may restore all that is in heaven and on earth; an act which all the
   angels, patriarchs, prophets, apostles did not know how to do and were
   unable to do, because they had not been ordained to that end by God.

   As the Messiah had been promised so often in the Old Testament by the many
   testimonies of the prophets, so also Jesus Christ was by sure and certain
   testimonies declared to be the One, and none other, who was to come and was
   to be waited for. For the Lord God has made us so completely certain in this
   matter, by his Word and his Spirit, by his angels, prophets, apostles, and
   even by all his creatures, that nobody is in a position to contradict it
   without resisting and rebelling against God’s power. In the first place, the
   eternal God has testified to us by his voice itself (which is without doubt
   irrevocable truth), saying, Behold my well beloved Son, in whom I am well
   pleased; hear him (Matt. 9:7). And as Saint John says, the Holy Spirit
   himself is our great witness in our hearts (1 John 5:1). The angel Gabriel,
   sent to the Virgin Mary, said to her: Behold, you shall conceive in your
   womb, and shall bear a Son, and shall call his name Jesus; for he shall be
   great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall
   give him the throne (le siege) of his father David, and he shall reign
   forever in the house of Jacob; and there shall be no end to his Kingdom
   (Luke 1:32–33). This same message was given in substance to Joseph; and
   later also to the shepherds, who were told that the Savior was born, who was
   Christ the Lord (Matt. 1:20–21; Luke 2:10–11). And this message was not only
   brought by an angel, but was confirmed by a multitude of angels, who all
   together glorified the Lord and announced peace upon earth. Simeon the Just
   confessed it nobly in the spirit of prophecy: and taking the little child in
   his arms, he said: Now, O Lord, let thy servant depart in peace according to
   thy word. For my eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared in
   the presence of all peoples (Luke 2:29–31). John the Baptist also spoke of
   him as was fitting, when he saw him coming to the river of Jordan, and said,
   Behold the lamb of God; behold him who takes away the sins of the world
   (John 1:29). Peter and all the apostles have confessed, testified, preached
   all the things which belong to salvation, of which the prophets had foretold
   that they would be accomplished in Christ the true Son of God. And those
   whom the Lord has ordained to be witnesses down to our own age have amply
   demonstrated the same by their writings, as their readers can see well
   enough.

   All these witnesses come together into a unity so well, and they are of one
   accord among themselves so fully, that it is easy to recognize in such
   agreement most certain truth. For there could not be such harmony in lies.
   Besides, it is not only the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the angels,
   the prophets and apostles that bear witness to Jesus Christ; his own
   wonderful works show forth his most excellent power. The sick, the lame, the
   blind, the deaf, the mute, the paralytic, lepers, lunatics, demoniacs, and
   even the dead raised by him have carried the emblems of his power. By his
   power, he has given life; in his name, the works he has had given him to do
   were sufficient witnesses to him (John 10:25). Besides, even the wicked and
   the enemies of his glory were constrained by the very force of truth to
   confess him and to acknowledge something [of his glory]: for instance,
   Caiaphas, Pilate, and his wife. I do not care to bring up the witness of the
   devils and unclean spirits, seeing that Jesus Christ rejected them.

   In short, all the elements and all the creatures have given Jesus Christ the
   glory. At his command, the winds ceased, the raging sea subsided, the fish
   brought two drachmas in his belly, the stones (to render him witness) were
   broken to pieces, the veil of the Temple was torn in the middle, the sun was
   darkened, the graves were opened, the many bodies were restored to life.
   There has been nothing in heaven or on earth which has not witnessed that
   Jesus Christ is God, Lord and Master, and the great Ambassador of the Father
   sent here below to accomplish the salvation of mankind. All these things
   were announced, manifested, written, and signed in this Testament, by which
   Jesus Christ has made us his heirs in the Kingdom of God his Father, and
   declares to us his will (like a testator to his heirs) that it [his
   Testament] be put into execution.

   Furthermore, we are called to this inheritance without respect for persons;
   male or female, little or great, servant or lord, master or disciple, cleric
   or lay, Hebrew or Greek, French or Latin — no one is rejected, who with a
   sure confidence receives him who was sent for him, embraces what is
   presented to him, and in short acknowledges Jesus Christ for what he is and
   as he is given by the Father.

   In the meantime, all we who bear the name of Christians, male or female,
   shall we permit ourselves to dishonor, to conceal, and to corrupt this
   Testament, which is so rightly ours, without which we could not pretend any
   right to the Kingdom of God, without which we should be ignorant of the
   great blessings and promises which Jesus Christ has given us, of the glory
   and beatitude he has prepared for us? We do not know what God has commanded
   or forbidden us; we cannot tell good from evil, light from darkness, the
   commandments of God from the ordinances (constitutions) of men. Without the
   gospel everything is useless and vain; without the gospel we are not
   Christians; without the gospel all riches is poverty, all wisdom, folly
   before God; strength is weakness, and all the justice of man is under the
   condemnation of God. But by the knowledge of the gospel we are made children
   of God, brothers of Jesus Christ, fellow townsmen with the saints, citizens
   of the Kingdom of Heaven, heirs of God with Jesus Christ, by whom the poor
   are made rich, the weak strong, the fools wise, the sinners justified, the
   desolate comforted, the doubting sure, and slaves free. The gospel is the
   Word of life and truth. It is the power of God for the salvation of all
   those who believe; and the key to the knowledge of God, which opens the door
   of the Kingdom of Heaven to the faithful by releasing them from sins, and
   closes it to the unbelievers, binding them in their sins. Blessed are all
   they who hear the gospel and keep it; for in this way they show that they
   are children of God. Woe to those who will not hear it and follow it;
   because they are children of the devil.

   O Christians, men and women, hear this and learn. For surely the ignorant
   man shall perish in his ignorance, and the blind who follows another blind
   man will fall into the ditch with him. There is but one way to life and
   salvation, and that is faith and certainty in the promises of God which
   cannot be had without the gospel; for by hearing it and knowing it living
   faith is provided, together with sure hope, and perfect love for God and a
   lively love toward our neighbor. Where then is your hope, if you contemn and
   scorn to hear, see, read, and retain this holy gospel? Those who have their
   affections fixed upon this world chase with every means whatever they think
   will bring them happiness, without sparing labor, body, life, or reputation.
   And all this is done in the service of this wretched body, which has a life
   so vain, miserable, and uncertain. When it is a question of life immortal
   and incorruptible, of beatitude eternal and immeasurable, of all the
   treasures of Paradise, shall we not endeavor to pursue them? Those who give
   themselves to the mechanical arts, however low and mean these may be, expend
   pain and labor to learn and know them; and those who aspire to a reputation
   of greatest excellence torment their minds day and night, to understand
   something of the human sciences, which are nothing but wind and smoke.
   Should we not then much more be employed and diligent in the study of this
   divine wisdom, which passes beyond the whole world and penetrates as far as
   the mysteries of God, which it has pleased him to make known by his holy
   Word!

   What then shall estrange and alienate us from this holy gospel? Shall
   injuries, curses, disgrace, and want of worldly honor? But, we know well
   that Jesus Christ has traveled the same road which we have to follow, if we
   would be his disciples; that we must not refuse to be despised, mocked,
   humiliated, and rejected before men. For it is thus that we shall be
   honored, prized, glorified, and exalted in God’s judgment. Will there be
   banishments, proscriptions, privation from goods and riches? But we know
   that if we shall be banished from one country, the whole earth is the
   Lord’s, and if we be thrown out of the earth itself, nonetheless we shall
   not be outside of his Kingdom. [We know] that when we are despoiled and
   impoverished, we have a Father who is rich enough to nourish us; even that
   Jesus Christ was made poor, so that we might follow him in his poverty. Will
   there be afflictions, prisons, tortures, torments? But we know by the
   example of Jesus Christ that this is the way to arrive at glory. Finally,
   will there be death? But death does not do away with a life that is worth
   having.

   In short, if we have Jesus Christ with us, we shall come upon nothing so
   accursed that he will not turn it into a blessing; nothing so execrable that
   it shall not be made holy; nothing so evil that it shall not turn into our
   good. Let us not lose our comfort when we see all earthly powers and forces
   against us; for the promise cannot fail, that the Lord on high will hold in
   mockery all the assemblings and efforts of men who would conspire against
   him. Let us not be desolate, as though all hope were lost, when we see true
   servants of God die and perish before our eyes. For it was said truly by
   Tertullian, and so it has been approved and shall be until the consummation
   of the age, that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.

   And we have a still greater and a more sure consolation, when we turn our
   eyes away from this whole world and set aside all that we can see before us,
   to wait with patience for the great judgment of God, by which in one moment
   all the machinations of men against him shall be struck down, brought to
   nought, and overturned. This shall be when the Kingdom of God, which we now
   see in hope, shall become manifest; when Jesus Christ shall appear in
   majesty with his angels. It shall then be that the good and the evil shall
   be present before the judgment seat of this great King. Those who have
   remained firm in this testament, who have followed and kept the will of this
   good Father, shall be at his right hand as his true children, and shall be
   blessed with the fulfillment of their faith, which shall be eternal
   salvation. And since they were not ashamed to own and confess Jesus Christ,
   when he was despised and condemned before men, they shall also share in his
   glory, and shall be crowned with him in eternity. But the perverse,
   rebellious, and condemned, who have despised and rejected this holy gospel,
   and similarly those who for the sake of holding on to their honor, riches,
   and high estate have been unwilling to be humbled and made low with Jesus
   Christ; who for fear of men have cast aside the fear of God and like bastard
   [sons] disobeyed this Father — these shall be on the left hand; they shall
   be executed and cast out; for the reward of their unfaithfulness, they shall
   receive eternal death.

   Therefore, when you hear that the gospel presents you Jesus Christ in whom
   all the promises and gifts of God have been accomplished; and when it
   declares that he was sent by the Father, has descended to the earth and
   spoken among men perfectly all that concerns our salvation, as it was
   foretold in the Law and to the Prophets — it ought to be most certain and
   obvious to you that the treasures of Paradise have been opened to you in the
   gospel; that the riches of God have been exhibited and eternal life itself
   revealed. For, this is eternal life; to know one, only true God, and Jesus
   Christ whom he has sent, whom he has established as the beginning, the
   middle, and the end of our salvation. He [Christ] is Isaac, the beloved Son
   of the Father who was offered as a sacrifice, but nevertheless did not
   succumb to the power of death. He is Jacob the watchful shepherd, who has
   such great care for the sheep which he guards. He is the good and
   compassionate brother Joseph, who in his glory was not ashamed to
   acknowledge his brothers, however lowly and abject their condition. He is
   the great sacrificer and bishop Melchizedek, who has offered an eternal
   sacrifice once for all. He is the sovereign lawgiver Moses, writing his law
   on the tables of our hearts by his Spirit. He is the faithful captain and
   guide Joshua, to lead us to the Promised Land. He is the victorious and
   noble king David, bringing by his hand all rebellious power to subjection.
   He is the magnificent and triumphant king Solomon, governing his kingdom in
   peace and prosperity. He is the strong and powerful Samson, who by his death
   has overwhelmed all his enemies.

   It follows that every good thing we could think or desire is to be found in
   this same Jesus Christ alone. For, he was sold, to buy us back; captive, to
   deliver us; condemned, to absolve us; he was made a curse for our blessing,
   sin offering for our righteousness; marred that we may be made fair; he died
   for Our life; so that by him fury is made gentle, wrath appeased, darkness
   turned into light, fear reassured, despisal despised, debt canceled, labor
   lightened, sadness made merry, misfortune made fortunate, difficulty easy,
   disorder ordered, division united, ignominy ennobled, rebellion subjected,
   intimidation intimidated, ambush uncovered, assaults assailed, force forced
   back, combat combated, war warred against, vengeance avenged, torment
   tormented, damnation damned, the abyss sunk into the abyss, hell transfixed,
   death dead, mortality made immortal. In short, mercy has swallowed up all
   misery, and goodness all misfortune. For all these things which were to be
   the weapons of the devil in his battle against us, and the sting of death to
   pierce us, are turned for us into exercises which we can turn to our profit.
   If we are able to boast with the apostle, saying, O hell, where is thy
   victory? O death, where is thy sting? it is because by the Spirit of Christ
   promised to the elect, we live no longer, but Christ lives in us; and we are
   by the same Spirit seated among those who are in heaven, so that for us the
   world is no more, even while our conversation is in it; but we are content
   in all things, whether country, place, condition, clothing, meat, and all
   such things. And we are comforted in tribulation, joyful in sorrow, glorying
   under vituperation, abounding in poverty, warmed in our nakedness, patient
   amongst evils, living in death.

   This [62] is what we should in short seek in the whole of Scripture: truly
   to know Jesus Christ, and the infinite riches that are comprised in him and
   are offered to us by him from God the Father. If one were to sift thoroughly
   the Law and the Prophets, he would not find a single word which would not
   draw and bring us to him. And for a fact, since all the treasures of wisdom
   and understanding are hidden in him, there is not the least question of
   having, or turning toward, another goal; not unless we would deliberately
   turn aside from the light of truth, to lose ourselves in the darkness of
   lies. Therefore, rightly does Saint Paul say in another passage that he
   would know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And such
   knowledge although mean and contemptible to the mind of the flesh is
   nevertheless sufficient to occupy us all our lives. And we shall not waste
   our time if we employ all our study and apply all our understanding to
   profit from it. What more would we ask for, as spiritual doctrine for our
   souls, than to know God, to be converted (transformez) to him, and to have
   his glorious image imprinted in us, so that we may partake of his
   righteousness, to become heirs of his Kingdom and to possess it in the end
   in full? But the truth is that from the beginning God has given himself, and
   at present gives himself more fully, that we may contemplate him in the face
   of his Christ. It is therefore not lawful that we turn away and become
   diverted even in the smallest degree by this or that. On the contrary, our
   minds ought to come to a halt at the point where we learn in Scripture to
   know Jesus Christ and him alone, so that we may be directly led by him to
   the Father who contains in himself all perfection.

   Here, I say once again, is enclosed all the wisdom which men can understand,
   and ought to learn in this life; which no angel, or man, dead or living, may
   add to or take away from. This is where we ought to stop and put a limit to
   our understanding, mixing nothing of our own with it and refusing any
   doctrine whatever which might be added to it. For anyone who undertakes to
   teach one other syllable beyond what is taught us in it, ought to be
   accursed before God and his church.

   And you kings, princes, and Christian lords, who are ordained of God to
   punish the wicked and to uphold the good in peace according to the Word of
   God — to you it belongs to have this sacred doctrine, so useful and needful,
   published, taught, and understood in all your lands, realms, and lordly
   domains, to the end that God may be magnified by you, and his gospel
   exalted; because by right it is his due that all kings and kingdoms obey him
   in all humility and serve his glory. Remember that sovereign Empire, above
   all kingdoms, principalities, and lordships, was given by the Father to the
   Lord Jesus; and he is to be feared, held in awe, and honored by everyone,
   great or little. Remember [63] what was foretold by the prophets: that all
   the kings of the earth would render him homage as their superior, and would
   adore him as their Savior and their God; let this come true in you. And
   remember that it is no dishonor for you to be subject to such a great Lord,
   as though in this way your own majesty and high place would be reduced and
   become as nothing; for it is the greatest honor you may lawfully desire, to
   be known and regarded as the officials and lieutenants of God. It is
   unthinkable that Jesus Christ, in whom God wills to be glorified and
   exalted, should not have dominion over you; and in fact it is reasonable
   enough that you should be the ones to give him this preeminence, provided
   your own power is founded in him alone. Otherwise what an ingratitude it
   would be that you should want to shut out him who has established you in the
   power you possess, and maintains and keeps you in it! What is more, you
   ought to know that there is no better foundation, nor one firmer, for
   keeping your domains in true prosperity, than to have him as Chief and
   Master, and to govern your peoples under his hand; and that without him they
   [your domains] can be neither permanent nor endure for long, but shall be
   accursed of God and shall consequently fall down in confusion and ruin.
   Since God has thus given you the sword in hand for governing your subjects
   in his name and by his authority; since he has done you the honor of giving
   you his name and title; since he has sanctified your position above those of
   others, to make a portion of his glory and majesty reflected in it — let
   each one of you engage himself by his own hand to magnify and exalt him who
   is God’s true and glorious image, in whom he fully represents himself to us.
   Moreover, to do this, it is not enough merely to confess Jesus Christ, and
   to profess to be his own, so that you have the title without the truth and
   reality of the matter; you must give place to his holy gospel and receive it
   with obedience and humility. This is an office every man must fulfill; but
   it belongs to you especially to see to it that the gospel is heard, to have
   it published in your lands, in order that it may be known by the people who
   have been committed to your charge; in order that they may know you as
   servants and ministers of this great King, and may serve and honor him, by
   obeying you under his hand and under his guidance.

   This is what the Lord requires of you through his prophet, when he calls you
   the guardians of his church. For this tutelage and protection is not a
   matter of enlarging the riches, privileges, and honors of the clergy, which
   makes them high and haughty, living in pomp and in all dissoluteness,
   contrary to their proper estate; much less is it a matter of maintaining the
   clergy in their pride and inordinate displays; it is rather a matter of
   seeing to it that the entire teaching of the gospel is kept in its purity
   and truth; that the Holy Scriptures are faithfully preached, read, and
   perused; that God is honored according to the rule given us in them, and the
   church is well governed; that all which is contrary to the honor of God, or
   to the good government of the church, be corrected and repressed; so that
   the Kingdom of Jesus Christ may flourish by the power of his Word.

   O you who call yourselves bishops and pastors of the poor people, see to it
   that the sheep of Jesus Christ are not deprived of their proper pasture; and
   that it is not prohibited and forbidden to any Christian freely and in his
   own language to read, handle, and hear this holy gospel, seeing that such is
   the will of God, and Jesus Christ commands it; for it is for this cause that
   he has sent his apostles and servants throughout the whole world; giving
   them the power to speak in all tongues, so that they may in every language
   preach to every creature; and he has made them debtors to the Greeks and the
   barbarians, to the wise and the simple, in order that none might be excluded
   from their teaching. Surely, if you are truly their vicars, successors, and
   imitators, it is your office to do the same, watching over the flock and
   seeking every possible means to have everyone instructed in the faith of
   Jesus Christ, by the pure Word of God. Otherwise, the sentence is already
   proclaimed and put down in writing, that God will demand their souls at your
   hands.

   It is the will of the Lord of lights by his Holy Spirit, by means of this
   holy and saving gospel, to teach the ignorant, to strengthen the feeble, to
   illumine the blind, and to make his truth to reign among all peoples and
   nations, to the end that the whole world may know but one God and one
   Savior, Jesus Christ; one faith, and one gospel. So be it.

    III. EPISTLE TO SIMON GRYNAEUS ON THE COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

   John Calvin, to Simon Grynaeus, [64] a most illustrious man.

   I remember that three years ago we had a friendly talk about the best way of
   expounding Scripture. The method which you liked best, I myself approved
   most of all others. We both felt that the chief virtue of an interpreter
   consists in clarity combined with brevity. And indeed, since about the only
   business he has is to lay open the mind of the writer he has set out to
   explain, the more he leads the reader away from it, the more he deviates
   from his own purpose and is sure to wander out of bounds.

   We expressed the desire that, from among all those are today engaged in
   aiding [the cause of] theology with this kind of work, someone would come
   forward who would strive for simplicity and would write so as not to
   discourage his readers too much with long-winded expositions. At the same
   time, however, I know that not everybody agrees with us in this matter; and
   that those who do not accept [our views], have good arguments on their side.
   Still, I cannot budge from my love of brevity. Of course, since it happens
   that there is a variety of disposition among men, and different people find
   pleasure in different things, let everyone, in this case also, enjoy his own
   judgment, provided that he does not try to make it a law for everybody else.
   Let us not, on our part, repudiate or condemn the labor of those who are
   more wordy and expansive in their expositions of the Sacred Books. But let
   them in return do the same to us, even though they may think our
   [exposition] is too compressed and concise.

   I simply could not resist trying my hand at something along this line, which
   might be of benefit to the church of God. I am not sure that I have
   succeeded in doing what we thought was desirable; nor did I hope as much
   when I began. But I did make the effort to discipline my style, so that one
   could see I was aiming at the ideal we set down. How far I have succeeded,
   it is not for me to decide; I leave it to you and others like you to judge.

   I can indeed see that many people will be offended by my undertaking and
   condemn me because of all things I have dared to try [my ability] on this
   epistle of Paul. Since men of excellent learning have already labored at
   expounding it, it is unbelievable that any room is left for others to
   produce something better. And I must say that even though I hoped my labor
   would produce some good results, I was at the beginning deterred by this
   very consideration. I was afraid that, if I set my hand to this task after
   so many excellent workmen, I would incur the reputation of temerity.

   There are commentaries on this epistle by many ancient and many modern
   writers. Indeed they could not have labored at a better task; because when
   anyone understands this epistle, the way is open before him to an
   understanding of the whole of Scripture. I do not need to say anything about
   the ancient [interpreters] whose piety, erudition, saintliness, and age
   invest them with such authority that we should not condemn anything we have
   received from them. As to those who are living, nothing will be gained by
   mentioning all of them by name. I will speak my mind about those who have
   labored zealously and done outstanding work [in the field]. Philip
   Melanchthon, [65] by his singular learning and industry, and the power of
   his competence in every kind of intellectual discipline has shed much light
   on this epistle; more than all who came before him. But he evidently set
   himself to examine closely only those matters which were worthy of his own
   attention; he stopped with these, and deliberately passed by a great deal
   which cannot but trouble the ordinary mind. Then comes Bullinger, [66] who
   also received much praise; and that rightly, because he has combined
   simplicity with learning, and for this he has been highly approved. Finally
   there is Bucer [67] who, by his tireless labors, has just about said the
   last word. He is a man (one of us) of exceptionally profound learning, with
   an immense knowledge of many subjects, endowed with an extraordinarily lucid
   mind; a great reader, possessor of other qualities, many and various, in
   which nobody today can surpass him, few can equal him, and he excels most
   people; and beyond all this, he deserves special praise because I can think
   of nobody who has turned to the exposition of Scripture with equal diligence
   and [desire for] precision. I submit, therefore, it never entered my head to
   compete with such men, as this would have been a most impudent rivalry; nor
   did I want to grab for myself the smallest part of the praise which belongs
   to them. Let them have the blessing, and favor, and authority, which all
   good men acknowledge they deserve. But I hope this much will be conceded to
   me: nothing is so perfect among men that those who come after them will find
   no room for refining and clarifying it, and adding to its beauty. As for
   myself, I do not dare to say anything except that I thought my work might
   perhaps be of some use; and that I undertook it for no other purpose than to
   promote the common good of the church.

   To this end, I hoped that when I wrote in my own way, no [charge of] odious
   rivalry would be pressed against me, as I was at first afraid it would be.
   Philip succeeded in what he set out to do: to clarify to the utmost what is
   essential. He had no intention of preventing others from doing what must not
   be neglected; and he did omit much because he was occupied with the things
   that come first. Bucer is too prolix to keep the interest of busy people;
   his [thoughts] are so high that the lowly and those whose attention is not
   the best are in no position to understand him. Whenever he deals with any
   subject, his unbelievably forceful and fecund mind brings up so many things
   that he does not know how to take his hand off the paper (tabula).
   Therefore, because Melanchthon has not dealt with everything, and Bucer has
   written too much to be read through in a short time, my intention does not
   in the least look like rivalry with them.

   And yet, I wondered for some time whether I would do better to make some
   gleanings from these other men, so as to be able to put together something
   to help those of mediocre mentality; or whether I should compose a complete
   commentary, in which I would have had to repeat much that has been said
   before by all or at least by some of them. But these men often differ among
   themselves, which gives much trouble to readers who are not very acute,
   causing them to hesitate with whom they should agree. Therefore, I thought I
   would not regret my labor if I could point out the best interpretation, and
   thus relieve those whose judgment is not sufficiently strong from the
   trouble of judging; especially since I was determined to compress and be
   succinct, so that my readers would waste no time, and would learn, by
   reading my work, what is in [the books of] the others. In short, I vowed not
   to give just cause for the complaint that much [of my work] has been
   superfluous.

   As to its usefulness, I shall say nothing. However, men of good will who
   read it have acknowledged having benefited from it more than I dare modestly
   promise in so many words.

   It is only right that I should be excused when I at times disagree with
   others and differ from them. [I know that] we must have such reverence for
   the Word of God that we do not, so far as it is possible, set it against
   itself with our contradictory interpretations. I dare not think how much
   damage is done to its majesty, especially when we do not treat it with great
   discernment and sobriety. And, if to contaminate anything dedicated to God
   involves a great crime, anyone who handles the most sacred thing in the
   world with unclean or incompetent hands ought not to be endured.

   Therefore, it is sacrilegious audacity rashly to turn Scripture this way and
   that (as we please), and to fool with it as though it were a game; many
   people have been doing this very thing long enough.

   But we ought always to remind ourselves that even those who have not been
   wanting in zeal for piety, and have handled the mysteries of God with
   conscience and sobriety, have not always agreed among themselves. God has in
   no instance honored his servants with such blessing as to endow them with
   full and perfect knowledge of every subject; and doubtless his reason for
   this has been to keep them humble and desirous to keep in communication with
   their brothers. It is of course highly desirable that we should constantly
   agree in our understanding of Scripture passages. But there is no hope for
   such a thing in this life. Therefore, we must do our best neither to be
   pushed by a desire for novelty, nor to deprecate others through envy;
   neither to be aroused by hatred, nor to be goaded by ambition; rather, we
   should do only what is necessary, our aim being nothing else than to make
   progress, disagreeing only for reasons which are honorable. When we follow
   this rule in our interpretation of Scripture, there will be less license
   with regard to the essentials of our religion, in which principally God
   would have his own of one mind. The readers will easily see that I have
   tried to do both [to make progress and to maintain unity].

   But because it is not proper that I state or establish the value of my own
   work, I am happy to leave criticism to you. Since everybody defers to your
   judgment in many things, I also, who have been intimate with you and know
   very well the kind of man you are, owe you deference in everything.
   Familiarity has a way of diminishing respect, but as men of learning know
   very well, in your case, it greatly increases esteem. Farewell.

   Strasbourg, November 18, 1539.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [1] Opera, in Corpus 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, see Tracts (Edinburgh edition),
   vol. 3, pp. 76 f., or Opera, 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 on Joshua,
   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.

   [24] Doumergue, Emile, Jean Calvin, vol. 3, pp. 592 f.

   [25] Opera, vol. 42, pp. 191–192.

   [26] Ibid., vol. 40, proleg. See Edinburgh edition of Ezekiel, p. xlvii.

   [27] Ibid., vol. 21, pp. 87–88.

   [28] According to Doumergue, Calvin “often preached twice a day; he gave
   lectures; he spoke before the congregation every week. He spoke before the
   consistory every week. He spoke before the council. How often a week?” (Jean
   Calvin, 6, p. 73). See also F. W. Kampschulte, Johann Calvin, 2, p. 375. But
   this writer is dependent to a large extent upon Colladon, whom we have been
   quoting.

   [29] Opera, vol. 21, p. 66.

   [30] Ibid., pp. 108–110.

   [31] Lorenzo Valla was a learned, boisterous, and fearless scholar. He is
   famous for his exposure of “the Donation of Constantine,” which was supposed
   to have established the supremacy of Rome in the church and over Italy and
   Western Europe. He was an accomplished Latinist, a rigorous textual and
   historical critic, and a general nuisance for the tradition. But he escaped
   the inquisition because of powerful friends including two popes (Nicholas V
   and Calixtus III).

   [32] Calvin called Budé “a matchless ornament and crown of literature, by
   whose contribution today our France lays claim to the palm of erudition” (O.
   Breen, John Calvin: A Study on French Humanism, p. 114). He refers to Budé
   often (I Cor. 4:13, II Cor. 1:13, Phil. 2:9, John 2:5, 6:7, etc.) as an
   authority on the languages and civilization of Greece and Rome. De asse at
   partibus eius of Budé was held in highest esteem as a source book on the
   subject. He was critical of the church and defended the primacy of Scripture
   and the cross for salvation, but he refused to join “the Lutherans.” His
   family later found their way to Geneva. (See Josef Bohatec, Budé and Calvin,
   Graz, 1950, for a classic discussion.)

   [33] Erasmus requires no special discussion here. His relation to the
   Reformation has inspired a literature that is copious and readily available.
   See Preserved Smith, Erasmus, 1923; Albert Hyma, The Youth of Erasmus, Ann
   Arbor, 1931; Margaret M. Phillips, Erasmus and the Northern Renaissance,
   London, 1949; Louis Bouyer, Autour d’Erasme, Paris, 1955.

   [34] See pp. 107 f., 307 (cf. 327), 311, 334, 370.

   [35] See p. 91.

   [36] Lefèvre d’Étaples (1450–1536) visited Italy (in 1492, 1500) and brought
   to France new zeal for classical learning. In 1512 he published a commentary
   on Paul’s epistles, and pleaded for the study of Scripture as “the unique
   means of approaching Him who works all things in all” (A. L Herminjard,
   Correspondence des Reformateurs, col. I, p. 6). In 1517 he was denounced by
   the Sorbonne for denying that Mary Magdalene, Mary the sister of Lazarus,
   and “the sinful woman” were the same. After 1520 he became the center of a
   lively reform movement including the Bishop of Meaux and the king’s sister,
   Marguerite d’Angoulême. In 1523 he translated Gospels into French, and
   continued translating the Bible until 1530. He died a fugitive at Nérac in
   1536.

   [37] See the Preface to the Commentary on Hebrews.

   [38] Cf. Davies, Rupert E., The Problem of Authority in the Continental
   Reformers, London, 1946. Exceptions are Emil Kraeling, The Old Testament
   Since the Reformation, Harpers, 1955, and the section in The Interpreter’s
   Bible, vol. 1, pp. 124–126, by John T. McNeill. See also Henri Clavier,
   Étude sur le Calvinism, Paris, 1936, especially pp. 103 f. Dr. Edward A.
   Dowey maintains that Calvin assumes the traditional views of the inerrancy
   of the Bible even while he comments upon it as the work of human beings (The
   Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology, 1952, pp. 90 f.). This position,
   which seems correct, has been debated, and it does not alter our thesis that
   the ground of the authority of the Bible for Calvin was not inerrancy, but
   God who speaks by it. For a fine discussion of the subject, see “The
   Reformer’s Use of the Bible,” by Paul L. Lehmann, in Theology Today,
   October, 1946. See also Kemper Fullerton, Prophecy and Authority, ch. 7.

   [39] But see on Jer. 36:4–6, 28, and Dowey, op. cit., pp. 90 f.

   [40] Institutes, Bk. I, ch 7.

   [41] See pp. 61 f., 93f., 101, 104 f., et al.

   [42] See below, pp. 141, 176.

   [43] See pp. 59–63, 270 ff., 356, 366 ff.

   [44] The first sentence of the Institutes.

   [45] See pp. 127, 131, 279, 313, 341, 389.

   [46] See Letters of John Calvin, ed. by Jules Bonnet, 4 vols. It has an
   excellent index.

   [47] See especially the Autobiographical Sketch, pp. 51, 55–57.

   [48] For the following sections, the reader is referred to the chapter
   corresponding to the following topics.

   [49] See pp. 197 f., the Institutes, Bk. III, chs. 21–24. The position of
   these chapters in the Institutes is itself revealing.

   [50] See especially on Rom. 8:28–30, pp. 306 f.

   [51] City of God, Bk. XII, pars. 9 f., Bk. XXII, pars. 12 f.

   [52] Niesel, Wilhelm, The Theology of Calvin, The Westminster Press, 1956,
   tr. by Harold Knight.

   [53] See pp. 124, 347, 349 f., 355, 356.

   [54] Guillaume Farel (1489–1565), was like Calvin, a Frenchman. He was one
   of the circle of Reformers who gathered around Bishop Briconnet at Meaux
   near Paris. When, after much struggle in which Farel was active, the
   Reformed faith was established in Geneva in 1535, he was the leader of the
   church and induced Calvin to work with him. He was ousted with Calvin in
   1538, and returned with him in 1541, but he left in 1542, and in 1544
   settled in Neuchatel. He remained Calvin’s close friend, and died a year
   after Calvin in 1565 in Metz.

   [55] Pierre Viret (1511–1571), Swiss-born Reformer, helped Farel in Geneva
   and stayed in the city when Farel and Calvin were expelled (1538–1541).
   Thereafter he worked in Lausanne, his birthplace, and also lectured on the
   New Testament in Bern, until he was ousted in 1559 and returned to Geneva.
   After a checkered career in France and much controversy with French
   Catholics, he died at Orthez (south of Bordeaux) in 1571. He was an
   extensive and respected writer as well as an effective preacher.
   Unfortunately he has not been studied fully or properly.

   [56] Martin Bucer (1491–1551) was the Protestant Reformer in Strasbourg,
   where Calvin stayed for three years (1538–1541) when he was forced out of
   Geneva. A man zealous for Christian unity, he had considerable influence
   upon Calvin, especially during this early period in the latter’s activity.
   He commented extensively upon the Bible, and did his best-known work on the
   Gospels. His commentary on Romans was published in Strasbourg in 1536,
   shortly before Calvin began to work on his own. See Henri Strohl, Bucer:
   humaniste étien.

   [57] At Worms in 1540 and at Regensburg in 1541, where the Catholics and the
   Protestants entered into futile discussions on reunion.

   [58] See John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, 1954, ch.
   II.

   [59] Calvin’s wording.

   [60] This preface to Pierre Robert Olivétan’s translation of the New
   Testament, which has had a lasting influence upon the French versions of the
   Bible, was written in 1534, about a year after Calvin’s conversion. We have
   translated it and put it here in the beginning of this volume because it is
   his first statement of faith as a Protestant and an eloquent defense of it.
   Erasmus wrote a similar preface to his New Testament, and so did Lèfevre
   d’Étaples. For the latter, see Herminjard, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 132 ff.
   (No. 69). See also Nos. 1, 49, 79, 202 in the same work. We regret that
   space did not permit us to include at least his “Epistle of Exhortation”
   (No. 69) in this selection. For Erasmus’ preface see Opera Omnia, 1704, vol.
   5, pp. 137 f. This was translated into English in 1529, 1540. Again we
   regret leaving this preface out! The title at the head of Calvin’s preface
   appeared at the beginning of Bibles and New Testaments printed in Geneva and
   elsewhere after 1543. The present text, from the Opera, C. R. 9, pp. 791 f.,
   contains additions Calvin made after 1534.

   [61] Instead of this passage, the treatise of 1543 and all the editions of
   the Bible that reproduce it contain the paragraph which follows in the text.

   [62] This paragraph is not in the 1535 preface. It appears for the first
   time in the treatise of 1543 (C. R. 9, 815).

   [63] See previous note for this passage and the next paragraph.

   [64] Simon Grynaeus (1493–1541), Swabian scholar, professor of Latin and
   Greek in Heidelberg, left for Basel in 1529 to succeed Erasmus. He lectured
   on Greek and later on the New Testament. He took part in the preparation of
   the First Helvetic Confession and attended the Conference of Worms in 1540.
   As the above dedication and other letters make clear, Calvin had a great
   admiration for this linguist, exegete, and theologian.

   [65] 1497–1560. German Reformer and friend of Martin Luther. His annotations
   on Romans were published in 1529 and his commentary in 1532.

   [66] Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), a Swiss Reformer, was the successor of
   Zwingli in Zurich. His commentary on Romans and the other epistles of the
   New Testament was published in 1537.

   [67] See note 3, p. 54.
     _________________________________________________________________

I The Bible

  THE TEXT

  1. THE WORD OF GOD

   I spake not unto your fathers. . . concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.
   But this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice. Jer 7:22–23.

   We know that from the beginning God desired spiritual worship, and that he
   has not changed his nature. Today he approves nothing but spiritual worship,
   for he is Spirit. But equally under the law, he wished to be worshiped with
   a sincere heart. . . . That is why the prophets speak harshly of sacrifice.
   This clear statement removes all ambiguity: God sets obedience against
   sacrifice (even though sacrifice was a part of obedience).

   Now we can continue with the content of the teaching, holding firmly to the
   principle that true religion is founded upon obedience. Unless God sheds
   light for us from his Word, there is among us not true religion, but mere
   sham and superstition. This is how we can distinguish true religion from
   superstition: when the Word of God directs us, there is true religion; but
   when each man follows his own opinion, or when men join together to follow
   an opinion they hold in common, the result is always concocted superstition.

   After we grasp the principle that God cannot be worshiped unless we listen
   to his voice, we must consider, as I said, what God’s voice prescribes to
   us. Since he is Spirit, he demands the sincere love of the heart. And we
   know also how he has revealed to us that he desires us to put our confidence
   in his free kindness; that he wishes us to depend wholly on his Fatherly
   compassion; that he wishes us to call upon him for help, and to offer to him
   the sacrifice of praise.

   But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate
   day and night. Ps. 1:2.

   This verse does not simply declare (as I have said elsewhere) that those who
   fear God are blessed; it equates religion with the study of the law. It
   teaches that God is rightly worshiped only if his Word is obeyed. Therefore,
   men are not free to model a religion, each after his own idea. The standard
   for religion must be taken from God’s Word.

   The law only is mentioned here: but we are not to suppose that the rest of
   Scripture is ignored, since all of it is really an interpretation of the law
   and so is included under that title. The prophet is commending the law with
   its supplement. Indeed, as I just said, the faithful are here urged to read
   The Psalms.

   But the first thing required of the faithful is delight in the law of the
   Lord. These words show us that compulsory or slavish worship is not at all
   acceptable to God. Only those who come happily to the study of the law, who
   enjoy its teaching, who think nothing more worthwhile or pleasanter than to
   make progress in it, are qualified students of the law.

   From this love of the law comes constant meditation on it, as the prophet
   immediately adds. Only those inspired by this love can devote themselves to
   its constant study.

   He will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. Micah 4:2.

   Here in a few words the prophet defines true worship of God. For it would
   not be enough for the nations to come together to one place to confess that
   they are worshipers of one God if they did not also show real obedience.
   True obedience depends on faith, as faith depends on the Word. It is,
   therefore, especially worthy of note that the prophet here sets God’s Word
   in the center to show us that religion is founded on obedience in faith, and
   that God can be worshiped only when he himself teaches his people and tells
   them what they ought to do. When God’s will is revealed to us, we can truly
   adore him. When the Word is taken away, some form of worship of God remains,
   but there is no real religion which could please God.

   Hence we conclude that the church of God can be established only where the
   Word of God rules, where God shows by his voice the way of salvation.
   Therefore, until true doctrine sheds its light, men cannot be gathered in
   one place to constitute the true body of the church. Clearly, then, where
   the teaching is corrupt or is despised, there is no religion approved by
   God.

   Men can, indeed, take God’s name boastfully on their lips; but before God,
   there is no religion except what is measured by the rule of the Word. It
   follows then that there is no church which is not subject to God’s Word and
   is not ruled by it. The prophet here defines both true religion and the way
   in which God gathers his church.

   He twill teach us of his ways. Here we have a third point. God is robbed of
   his right and honor when men usurp the power of teaching. For it belongs to
   God alone to teach his people. There were at that time priests and prophets.
   But Micah here reduces both to their proper place and shows that the right
   and the office of teaching belong to God alone. It is clear that God claims
   this work for himself, to prevent us from wavering and from being pulled
   around by different teachers; to keep us in simple obedience to his Word, so
   that he alone may rule over us. In a word, God is not God and head of the
   church, if he is not the chief and only teacher.

   Now when the prophet says that God will teach us his ways, this must mean
   that he will show the nature of his ways; he means, “The perfect wisdom of
   the people is to know what pleases God and what his will is.” This is all I
   need to say.

   There follows: Let us walk in his ways. By this clause we are warned that
   God’s teaching is not theoretical, as they say, but full of energizing
   power. When God speaks, he does not only intend men to know that what is
   announced by him is true; he also requires their obedience. We shall be
   truly taught by God only if we walk in his ways.

   For it is silly for us to wag our ears like assess and confess God with
   mouth and lips only. Men truly progress in God’s school when they form their
   lives by his teaching, when they have their feet ready to walk, to follow
   wherever he calls.

   If ye will not hearken to me to walk in my law, which I have set before you,
   to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets whom I sent unto you.
   Jer. 26:4–5.

   The prophet here sums up briefly the teaching which he was commanded to
   bring to the people. There is no doubt that he used many words whenever it
   was necessary; but here he holds a few words to be enough to state what he
   has been told. He declares that unless the Jews begin to listen and to
   follow the law, and unless they obey the prophets, the final destruction of
   the Temple and the city is at hand. This is the sum of what he teaches here.
   But we should note the details.

   By the words unless you hear and walk in my law, God shows that his chief
   demand is for obedience. . . . We see that the one and only specific rule
   for living devoutly, rightly, holily, and perfectly is to surrender
   ourselves to God’s piloting. This is his only command.

   But what follows should also be noted: that you walk in my law. For here God
   testifies that his will is not ambiguous, for in his law he has stated what
   is right. If God should descend from heaven a hundred times, he would reveal
   nothing we need to know in addition to what he has said. His law is perfect
   wisdom. If he had said only hear me, men could evade by declaring themselves
   ready to be taught by him. God checks these hypocrites by saying that there
   will be no word from him other than that they should follow his law. And for
   the same purpose he adds which I have set before your eyes. This phrase
   means that there is nothing obscure or uncertain about the teaching of the
   law. As Moses said (Deut. 30:19), I call to witness today heaven and earth
   that I have set before your eyes life and death; and in another place (Deut.
   30:14), The word is in your heart and your mouth — that is, God takes every
   excuse away from you. There is no reason for uncertainty after he has spoken
   plainly to you and explained fully what is necessary.

   Here is the refutation of that impious popish blasphemy which prattles that
   not only the law but even the gospel is obscure. But Paul claims that the
   gospel is plain except to those who are perishing (2 Cor. 4:3); over them a
   veil is thrown because they deserve to be blind (2 Cor. 3:14–15). But, as we
   see, Jeremiah here affirms that the law, even though it is less clear than
   the gospel, is set plainly before the eyes of all, and that all may learn
   from it exactly what pleases God and what is right.

   Now we must consider carefully the statement which follows in the next
   verse; for it unquestionably belongs with the previous one. God demands
   nothing except that men obey his laws, and yet he wishes his servants, the
   prophets, to be heard: That you may hear the words of my prophets whom I
   send to you (he uses the second person, you). Here there seems to be a kind
   of inconsistency. For if the law of God is sufficient, why is hearing the
   prophets added to it? But the two commands are really in perfect agreement.
   The law alone must be heard, and with it the prophets who continually
   interpret it. For God did not send his prophets to correct the law, to
   change something in it, to add to it or subtract from it. There was an
   inviolable decree neither to add nor take away (Deut. 12:32). What then was
   the purpose of prophecy? Truly, it was to explain the law more and more
   fully, and also to fit it to the immediate need of the people. Since, then,
   the prophets do not invent any new teaching, but are faithful interpreters
   of the law, God is not combining here two separate commands. He wishes his
   law and his prophets to be heard simultaneously. The majesty of the law does
   not lessen the authority of the prophets. For the prophets uphold the law;
   they in no way subtract anything from it.

   So this passage teaches that all those who reject the daily exercise of
   learning the Scriptures are godless men and quench, so far as it is within
   their power, the grace of the Spirit. In our day there are many of the
   Anabaptists [68] who act in this way, rejecting all teaching. They say this
   [Scripture] is “the letter,” and they dream that the Holy Spirit is injured
   when men attend to “the letter.” And some dare to utter uglier blasphemies.
   They say that all the Scripture we need is the two commands, “Fear God” and
   “Love your neighbor.”

   But as I have already said, we must consider how it is that God has spoken
   through the law, and whether [it is not true that] our way to him would have
   been blocked had he not explained his will more clearly through the
   prophets; for it is through the prophets that God adapts to our need
   whatever might seem to us remote and of no concern to us. Surely since God
   gave his law and then added to it his prophets, it is obvious that anyone
   who rejects God’s prophets puts no real confidence in God’s law. So today
   those who scorn to go to school to Christ and to train themselves in
   listening to the Word, really mock God himself and judge both the law and
   the prophets — and even the gospel itself — as without value.

   Therefore, this passage is of the highest importance. God wishes his law to
   be our guide and rule, and he binds it to his prophets.

   But the word of the Lord endured forever. And this is the word which by the
   gospel is preached unto you. 1 Peter 1:25.

   The prophet teaches us, not what the Word of God is in itself, but how we
   are to think of it. Since man has emptied himself of life, he must look for
   it outside of himself. And Peter tells us on the authority of the prophet,
   that God’s Word alone possesses the energy and efficacy to bestow upon us
   whatever is solid and eternal. For the prophet knew that our lives have no
   stability except in God, and except as he communicates it to us by his Word.
   Since man’s nature is in itself perishing, the Word himself invests it with
   eternal life, and restores it by a new creation.

   And this is the word declared to you. Peter first warns us that when the
   Word of God is mentioned, we do wrong to imagine something far away, up in
   the air or in heaven beyond; for the Lord himself has shown it to us. What
   then is the Word of God which gives us life; what but the law, the prophets,
   and the gospel? Anyone who wanders away from this revelation will find,
   instead of God’s Word, nothing but Satan’s impostures and madness.
   Therefore, we must keep carefully in mind that godless and devilish men have
   a crafty way of pretending to honor God’s Word, when they turn us away from
   the Scriptures; like that dirty dog Agrippa, [69] who praised the eternity
   of God’s Word to high heaven, and at the same time heaped mockery on the
   prophets and the apostles; in his deceitful way, he covered the Word of God
   with derision.

   In short, as I have already told you, nothing is said here of a Word shut up
   in God’s bosom. We have to do with the Word which came forth from God’s
   mouth and was given to us. So once again, we are to acknowledge that God’s
   will is to speak to us by the mouths of the apostles and prophets, and that
   their mouths are to us as the mouth of the only true God.

   Therefore, when Peter says, the word which has been declared to you, he
   means that we must not look for the Word of God anywhere except in the
   preaching of the gospel; and that we cannot know the power of its eternity
   except by faith. But we do not believe unless we know that the Word was
   destined for us.

   And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham
   thy father and the God of Isaac. Gen. 28:13.

   Here is the third point which I said must be noted. Silent visions are cold,
   and the Word of God is the breath which gives them life. The symbol of the
   ladder is a less important adjunct, with which the Word of God illustrates
   and embellishes itself for the sake of greater clarity — not for greater
   authority. Hence we judge the papal sacraments to be frivolous, since in
   them the voice of God is not heard for the upbuilding of souls.

   We should note, therefore, that whenever God showed himself to the
   patriarchs, he spoke; for a silent vision would have left them dangling in
   uncertainty.

   By the name YHWH, Jehovah, God proclaims that he alone is the maker of the
   world, and that Jacob must seek for himself no other gods. But because in
   itself God’s majesty is incomprehensible, he adds immediately, adapting
   himself to the capacity of his servant, that he is the God of Abraham and
   Isaac. It is necessary to believe that the God whom we worship is he who
   alone is God; but when our minds seek to attain his height, they faint at
   the very start. We need to cultivate moderation and sobriety, and we should
   not attempt to know more of him than he reveals to us. He himself, in his
   great kindness, accommodates himself to our little mold, and he leaves out
   nothing which helps toward our salvation.

   When he says that he had made a special covenant with Abraham and Isaac, and
   proclaims himself as their God, he calls his servant Jacob back to the real
   beginning of faith and keeps him within the eternal covenant. This is the
   holy bond of faithfulness by which all the sons of God are bound together.
   They hear the same promise of salvation, from the first to the last, and
   they agree together in one hope.

   All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for
   doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
   that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good
   works. 2 Tim. 3:16–17.

   All Scripture, or the whole of it; both phrases mean the same. He now
   continues with his praise of Scripture which had been much too brief. He
   commends first its authority, and then the usefulness which proceeds from
   it. He asserts its authority by teaching that it is inspired by God. If this
   is the case, men should receive it reverently and without further argument.
   Our religion is distinguished from all others in that the prophets have
   spoken not of themselves, but as instruments of the Holy Spirit; and what
   they have brought to us, they received by heavenly commission. Any man then
   who would profit by the Scriptures, must hold first of all and firmly that
   the teaching of the law and the prophets came to us not by the will of man,
   but as dictated by the Holy Spirit.

   Somebody may object: But how do we know all this? I answer, the self-same
   Spirit revealed both to the disciples and to the teachers (doctorem) that
   the author of the Scriptures is God. Neither Moses nor the prophets brought
   to us by chance the things we have received at their hands; they spoke as
   moved by God, and testified with confidence and courage that God’s very
   mouth had spoken. The same Spirit who made Moses and the prophets certain of
   their calling, has now testified to our own hearts that he used them as his
   servants for our instruction. It is not surprising that many have doubts as
   to the author of Scripture. For, even though the majesty of God is displayed
   by it, only those illumined by the Spirit have the eyes to see what should
   be evident to all men, but in fact is seen only by the elect. So, the first
   point is that we treat Scripture with the same reverence that we do God,
   because it is from God alone, and unmixed with anything human.

   And is profitable. The second part of this praise of Scripture follows from
   the first; that it contains the perfect rule of a good and happy life. He
   means that Scripture is useful because it is free from the kind of
   corruption which comes with the abuse of God’s Word by sinful men. Thus he
   indirectly rebukes those woolly-headed men who feed the people with empty
   speculations as with wind. For this reason, today, we ought to condemn all
   those who make it their business not to build up the people but to arouse
   them with questions which are as childish as they are clever. Whenever men
   come to us with such clever trifles, we must repel them with the principle
   that the Scripture is for upbuilding. Consequently, it is unlawful to handle
   it as a useless thing. God gave us Scripture for our good, and not to
   satisfy our curiosity, or to indulge our desire for showing off, or to give
   us material for babble and fable. Therefore, to use Scripture rightly is at
   all times to profit by it. . . .

   That the man of God may be whole. Whole means perfect, in the sense of
   unmutilated. He asserts simply that Scripture is adequate and sufficient for
   our perfecting. Therefore, anyone who is not satisfied with Scripture, hopes
   to know more than he needs or than is good for him. But now comes a serious
   objection. Since Paul means by Scripture the Old Testament, how are we to
   believe that it makes us perfect? If the Old Testament makes us perfect,
   then the apostolic additions are superfluous. I answer that, as to
   substance, the apostles added nothing. The writings of the apostles contain
   nothing that is not simply a natural explanation of the law and the
   prophets, together with a straightforward presentation of what they contain.
   Therefore, Paul’s praise of the Old Testament was not wrong. And since its
   teaching is understood more fully and shines more brightly now that the
   gospel has been added to it, must we not hope that the value of Scripture,
   of which Paul speaks, shall be all the more displayed, if only we will try
   living by it and take hold of it?

   Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try spirits whether they are of God;
   because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1.

   Many, as I said before, are so troubled by the discords and wranglings in
   the church that, in their dismay, they run away from the gospel. But the
   Spirit prescribes an altogether different way: that believers be watchful
   not to accept any doctrine lightly and without judgment. We should be
   careful not to be offended by the variety of opinion in the church; we
   should rather discriminate between teachers, with the Word of God as our
   only norm. It is enough to make it our rule not to listen indiscriminately
   to everyone that comes along.

   I take the word spirit as a metaphor, as meaning a man who claims the gift
   of the Spirit, so that he may assume the office of a prophet. Since nobody
   ought to speak in his own name, we must not trust those who do not speak as
   instruments of the Spirit. The prophets spoke with authority because God
   himself honored them with this title, and in so doing, set them apart from
   all other men. These men were called spirit because they gave utterance to
   the oracles of the Spirit, and by their ministry represented God’s own
   person. They offered nothing out of their own heads, neither did they come
   forth among the people in their own names. They were given this high title,
   in order that their own insignificance might not take away from the
   reverence that is due to the Word of God. God has willed it that we always
   receive his Word from the lips of men, as though he himself had appeared
   from heaven.

   But now Satan interferes. He not only places false teachers among the
   people, so as to corrupt the Word of God, but he also calls them prophets,
   so that the people fall [into error] all the more easily. These arrogant
   pseudoprophetic windbags are in the habit of snatching an honor which God
   bestowed upon his own servants. The apostle uses the word spirits purposely,
   to keep us from being deceived by those who pretend falsely to speak in
   God’s name; for in our own day we see many who are stupid enough to be so
   overcome by the mere title of “the church,” that they take sides with the
   pope, and would be damned forever rather than raise a finger against his
   authority.

   It should be noticed that the apostle did not deny outright the claim of
   these men to be prophets. He might have said simply that they ought not to
   be believed. When these false teachers lyingly claimed that they had the
   Spirit, he let them have their way; only he warned that their claim was both
   fictitious and foolish unless they could come forth with the reality of
   prophecy. It is silly to be so taken in by a high-sounding title that one
   does not even dare to see if there be anything behind it.

   Try the spirits. Since not everyone who calls himself a prophet is one, the
   apostle says here that he should be put to a test; not only by the church at
   large, but also by individual believers. But the question arises, Where do
   we get our discernment? When some say that we should judge men’s words by
   the Word of God, they are right so far; but that does not settle the matter.
   I admit readily that men’s teachings should be tested by the Word of God.
   But the truth is that without the good sense we receive from the Spirit, it
   helps us little or nothing to have the Word of God in our hands; for its
   meaning is bound to escape us. For instance, gold is tested with fire or
   touchstone; but only by those who know how to do it. What use is fire or
   touchstone to the ignorant? In the same way, we are fit to judge only when
   we receive discretion from the Spirit and are guided by him. Since we could
   not follow the apostle’s precept, unless the power of judging were added to
   it, certainly the godly shall not be left without the Spirit of sound
   judgment, provided they seek him from the Lord. But it is also true that the
   Spirit will lead us to true discretion only when we bring all our thoughts
   under subjection to the Word of God; for, as we said above, it is, so to
   speak, our touchstone, which should be most precious to us, since it is the
   only source of sound teaching.

   But here comes a difficult question. If everyone has a right to be a judge
   and arbiter in this matter, nothing can be set down as certain; and our
   whole religion will be full of uncertainty. I reply that we must test
   doctrines in a twofold way: private and public. By private testing, each one
   establishes his own faith, and accepts only the teaching which he knows to
   be from God. For our conscience cannot find security and peace except in
   God. Public testing of doctrine has to do with the common consent and polity
   of the church. Since there is a danger that fanatical men may rise up and
   boast rashly that they have the Spirit of God, believers should seek a
   remedy by coming together and reasoning their way to an honest and godly
   agreement. The old proverb is right when it says, “So many heads, so many
   minds.” Therefore, it is a marvelous work of God that, overcoming all our
   perversity, he makes us of one mind, and unites us together in a pure unity
   of faith.

   Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private
   interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20.

   Here Peter begins to teach how our minds must be prepared if we would make
   proper progress in Scripture. There is in this verse a word which may mean
   one of two things. If you read it epēluseōs, as some do, it means an
   impulsion. But if you read it epiluseōs, as I do, it means interpretation.
   In either case, almost all agree that we should not rush at reading
   Scripture rashly, trusting our own wits; because the Spirit who has spoken
   by the prophets is his own interpreter.

   This explanation contains a true, godly, and useful doctrine. The only way
   to read the prophets to advantage is to set aside the mind of the flesh and
   to submit to the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is godless profanity to
   set up our own acumen as capable of understanding Scripture, which contains
   mysteries of God hidden to our flesh and sublime treasures of life which are
   far beyond our powers. This is why we say that the light which shines in it
   comes only to the lowly.

   But the papists are foolish when they conclude that no private
   interpretation by an individual is valid. They abuse Peter’s testimony, in
   order to give their councils alone the right to interpret Scripture. But
   this is childish. When Peter speaks of private interpretation, he does not
   refer to individuals; neither does he forbid them to interpret Scripture. He
   means that it is not godly for them to come out with something out of their
   own heads. Even if all men in the world were to agree and be of one mind,
   the outcome would still be private, of their own. The word private is here
   set against divine revelation; for the believers, illumined inwardly by the
   Holy Spirit, know as truth only what God says by his Word.

   However, I think the simpler meaning of Peter’s statement is that Scripture
   is not of men, or by the initiative of men. You will never come to it well
   prepared to read it, unless you bring reverence, obedience, and
   teachableness with you. But reverence comes from the knowledge that it is
   God who speaks to us and not mortal men. Therefore, Peter in the first place
   urges us to believe without doubting that the prophecies are God’s oracles;
   which means that they were not set in motion by men’s own action.

   What comes next means the same thing. The holy men spoke as they were moved
   by the Spirit of God; that is, they did not babble out fables, moved by
   their own impulse and as they willed. In short, the first step in right
   understanding is that we believe the holy prophets of God as we do him. The
   apostle calls them holy men of God because they performed faithfully the
   task which was laid upon them; and in this service, they were surrogates for
   the person of God. Peter says they were moved, not because they were bereft
   of their own minds (as the Gentiles imagined their prophets to have been
   during their “enthusiasm”), but because they did not dare to say anything of
   their own. They followed the Spirit as their guide and obeyed him to such an
   extent that their mouths became his temple, and he ruled in them.

   The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,
   because he made himself the Son of God. John 19:7.

   The Jews explain that they are pursuing Christ out of regard for the law,
   and not from passion or hatred. For they realize that they are being
   indirectly held in check by Pilate. Knowing that Pilate is ignorant of the
   law, they as much as say to him: “We have a right to live according to our
   customs. Our religion does not suffer a man to give himself airs as the Son
   of God.” Besides, this accusation was not groundless; but they were
   altogether wrong in the deduction they made [from the law]. The general
   thesis was, of course, correct. It was not right for any man to assume
   divine honor; and anyone who took for himself what is God’s alone, was
   worthy of death. Their error was that they applied the law to Christ; for
   they did not consider with what praise Scripture itself had predicted the
   Messiah. If they had done so, they would have inferred readily that he was
   the Son of God. Thus it is evident that having started with a true
   principle, they were led by bad reasoning to a false conclusion.

   Let us be warned by this example to distinguish carefully between general
   doctrine and the particular inferences we make from it. This we should do
   for the sake of inexperienced and simple people who, when deceived by some
   pretended truth, reject even the fundamental doctrines of Scripture; and
   there is too much of this kind of thing going on in our world today. Let us,
   therefore, be careful to shun fallacies, so that truth may remain inviolate
   and faith in Scripture may be not overthrown.

   If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe,
   if I tell you of heavenly things? John 3:12.

   Christ concludes that if Nicodemus and his like do not make progress in the
   knowledge of the gospel, it is their fault. He shows that since he has come
   down to earth itself, he is not to be blamed if not everybody learns his
   doctrine properly. It is too common a vice among men that they want to be
   taught in a subtle and ingenious way: hence most of them are very happy with
   deep and abstruse speculations; for the same reason, many do not think much
   of the gospel: in it they do not find the kind of pompous discourse with
   which they like to fill their ears. They do not care to sink so low as to
   waste their time with the rude and lowly teaching of the gospel. But, it is
   most stupid not to honor the Word of God, because he has lowered himself to
   the level of our ignorance. When we find God prattling to us in the Bible in
   an uncultivated and vulgar style, let us remember that he does it for our
   sake. Anyone who presumes or pretends to be offended by the condescension of
   God so that he will not submit to God’s Word, is a liar. Anyone who cannot
   bear to lay hold of God as he comes down to him will still less soar up to
   him beyond the clouds.

   Some explain earthly things as the ABC of spiritual truth, and speak of
   self-denial as the first step in godliness. But I prefer the view of those
   who think this phrase has to do with Christ’s way of teaching. For even
   though Christ’s discourse as a whole was heavenly, he spoke plainly, as it
   were in an earthly way. Furthermore, this is not true of one discourse only.
   In this verse, Christ’s habitually simple and popular way of teaching is
   contrasted with ambitious men’s addiction to speech that is full of pomp and
   splendor.

   And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the
   princes of Juda; for out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule my
   people Israel. Matt. 2:6.

   There is no doubt that the scribes quoted the words of this passage (Micah
   5:2) in their own tongue, faithfully, as found in the prophet. But Matthew
   was satisfied to refer to it. Because he wrote in Greek, he followed the
   commonly accepted reading of it. From this place and others like it, we can
   readily gather that Matthew did not compose his Gospel in Hebrew. Moreover,
   one must always notice that when the apostles quote a Scriptural testimony,
   they do not give it word for word, and sometimes depart quite far from its
   language; they nevertheless accommodate it (accommodare) in a fitting and
   proper way to their own purpose. Let the readers always keep in mind the
   purpose of the Evangelists in bringing forward passages of Scripture, so
   that they will not insist upon dwelling upon mere words, but will be content
   with the fact that the Evangelists never torture Scripture into a false
   meaning, and apply (aptare) it properly to a genuine use. Since the latter
   intended to feed infants and novices in the faith with milk, because these
   were as yet incapable of taking solid food, there is no reason why the
   children of God should have scruples against a diligent and exact inquiry
   into the contents of Scripture, so that the taste offered them by the
   apostles may lead them to the fountain [of God’s Word].

  2. THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS

   Now all these things happened unto them in examples: and they are written
   for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Cor. 10:11.

   Now he repeats that all these things happened to the Israelites to serve us
   as types, examples by which God sets his judgments before our eyes. I am
   aware that others philosophize more subtly over these words; but I think I
   have understood the mind of the apostle when I say that by these examples,
   as by painted pictures, we are taught what judgment is waiting for
   idolaters, fornicators, and others who treat God with contempt; they are
   living images which present God to us as angry with such sins. This
   explanation, besides being simple and valid, has the advantage of shutting
   the mouth of those madmen who twist this passage to prove that the people in
   old times were given nothing but [empty] shadows. First they assume that the
   people of Israel were only a figure [form without content] of the church:
   and from this they conclude that everything God promised and did among them,
   every good, every punishment, was a mere figure of that which was to become
   actual after the coming of Christ. This is but a pestilential madness, an
   atrocious injury to the holy fathers, and a more atrocious injury to God.
   The people [of Israel] was a figure of the Christian church; but it was
   itself the true church; its condition was a sketch of our own; but as such
   it had even at that time the proper character of the church. The promises
   made to it anticipated the gospel, so as in fact to include it; its
   sacraments served as figures of our own, but even in that age the inherent
   efficacy of their presence made them true sacraments. In short, those who
   used rightly the doctrines and the signs given them were endowed with the
   same spirit of faith as we ourselves. These words of Paul, therefore, give
   no support to those insane people who would have it that the things done at
   that time were types in the sense of unreal and empty shows. Nay, more, as
   we have explained, they teach us plainly that these types are pictures which
   depict events useful for our admonition.

   They were written for our admonition. This second phrase clarifies the
   former. It was not for the sake of the Israelites, but for ours, that these
   things were kept in remembrance. It does not follow that punishments they
   suffered were not real warnings from God and valid for their own correction;
   and yet when God exercised his judgments at that time, he intended that
   there should be a perpetual remembrance of them for our instruction. What
   use is history for those who are dead? And what good is it to the living,
   except as they are warned by the example of others, and come to their
   senses? And now, the apostle confesses the principle with which all
   believers should agree: that there is nothing put forth in Scripture which
   it is not profitable to know.

   Upon whom the ends of the world are come. telē elsewhere means mysteries;
   and perhaps that meaning would not be unsuitable for this passage. However,
   I follow the common rendering, because it is simpler. He says that the end
   of all the ages has come to pass among us and all things are fulfilled and
   come to a head in this age, because it is now the fullness of time. For the
   chief end toward which the law and all the prophets looked is the Kingdom of
   Christ.

   But this statement of Paul contradicts the popular opinion that God, under
   the Old Testament, was more rigid, always armed and ready to punish
   wickedness; that now he has begun to be lenient, and ignores [evil] much
   more readily. Our living under the law of grace is interpreted to mean that
   we have a God who is much more easy to please than the God of the ancients.
   But what does Paul say about all this? If God punished them, he will not
   spare us any more than he did them. Away then with the error of those who
   reason that God is now less strict in exacting the punishment of crimes! I
   must confess that, since the coming of Christ, God’s goodness has been
   poured upon men more strikingly and in more abundance; but how does this
   change the impunity of the wicked who abuse his grace? Only, we must notice
   that today God punishes differently. For, as formerly God showed his
   Fatherly love to the godly with great outward blessings, he showed his wrath
   with severe bodily punishments; now, on the other hand, in the fuller
   revelation which we have, it is not often that he inflicts visible
   punishments: nor does he send physical punishment immediately even upon the
   wicked. About this matter you will find a great deal in our Institutes. [70]

   Of which salvation the prophets inquired and searched diligently, who
   prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or in
   what time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify. 1 Peter
   1:10–11.

   Peter sets high the value of salvation, by referring to the prophets who had
   been intent upon it with all their zeal; since the prophets sought for it
   with burning hearts, he regards it as a thing of great and singular
   excellence. And the goodness of God toward us is all the greater and shines
   all the more brightly, because much more has been revealed to us than was
   sought after by the prophets so long and so eagerly.

   At the same time, Peter establishes the certainty of salvation from its very
   antiquity, because from the very beginning of the world it has received the
   true witness of the Holy Spirit.

   These two things must be kept clearly in mind. He affirms that more is given
   to us than to the ancient fathers; and by this comparison, he magnifies the
   grace of the gospel. Further, what is preached to us concerning our
   salvation cannot be suspected of novelty, because the Spirit, by the
   prophets, has borne witness to it through the ages. Therefore, when he says
   that the prophets sought and searched ceaselessly, he refers not to their
   teachings or writings, but to the inner yearning which agitated them. He
   deals with their public activity in what follows.

   If we would understand the particulars of the verse more clearly, we need to
   break it down into several parts. First, when the prophets prophesied of the
   grace which Christ exhibited to us by his coming, they were anxious to know
   the time of full revelation. Secondly, the Spirit of Christ foretold,
   through them, the true state of the coming reign of Christ, partly as they
   already discerned it, and partly as they looked forward to it in hope; they
   predicted that both Christ and his universal body were destined to enter
   into glory by way of many sufferings. Thirdly, the prophets as they received
   God’s revelation ministered to us more than to their own age; because the
   things of God revealed to them by way of obscure images were exhibited in
   their solid reality in Christ alone. In the fourth place, the gospel, in
   which the Spirit himself speaks, contains not only a clear confirmation of
   prophetic teachings, but also a much fuller and plainer explanation of them.
   For the salvation to which he pointed through the prophets from afar off, he
   now presents to us openly and as it were to our very eyes. The last
   statement [in this passage] adequately confirms the marvelous glory of the
   salvation promised us in the gospel, since even the angels who enjoyed the
   vision of God in heaven, burned with the desire to see it. And what all this
   amounts to is that Christians, raised to such a height of blessedness, ought
   to overcome all the obstacles which the world sets before them; for what
   [suffering] is there that is not mitigated by such an incomparable blessing?

   Of which salvation. But did not the fathers have the same salvation in
   common with us? Why then does he say that the fathers inquired, as though
   they did not have what is now offered to us? The answer is easy; in my view,
   salvation means the clear and visible manifestation of it which we have in
   the coming of Christ. These words of Peter mean nothing else than those
   spoken by Christ: Many kings and prophets have desired to see the things
   which you see, and have not seen them. Blessed therefore are your eyes, etc.
   (Matt. 13:17). Since the prophets had only a small taste of the grace which
   Christ brought to us, their desire turned rightly toward a different manner
   of revelation. When Simeon saw Christ, he made ready for death with a calm
   and peaceful spirit; which shows that he was previously anxious and
   disquieted. Such was the state of all believers [before Christ].

   He indicates how [the fathers] searched, when he adds the phrase, in what,
   or in what manner of time. The difference between the law and the gospel is
   that, under the former, there is a veil interposed, which kept the fathers
   from seeing the nearness of the things which are set before the eyes of us
   [who live under the gospel]. Nor was it indeed proper that when Christ, the
   Son of Righteousness, was yet absent, the fullness of light should have
   shined as at noontime. But though it was necessary for the fathers to stay
   within their prescribed limits, yet they were not rash when they sighed with
   desire for a closer sight of salvation. Even while they yearned for the
   speedy coming of salvation, and for a sight of it, their eagerness did not
   keep them from waiting with patience so long as it pleased God to delay it.

   Also we have a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take
   heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and
   the day-star rise in your hearts. 2 Peter 1:19.

   Also we have. Here he teaches that the truth of the gospel is certain
   because it is founded upon the oracles of the prophets; and he does this so
   that those who embrace the gospel may be free of doubt and subject
   themselves totally to Christ. For anyone who wavers in this matter cannot
   but be lax in his spirit.

   We have may refer to himself and other teachers, as well as to their
   disciples. The apostles regarded the prophets as surety of their own
   teaching; the believers also found the confirmation of the gospel in the
   prophets. So, I am inclined to the view that the apostle is speaking of the
   whole church, and including himself in it. Still, he is speaking
   particularly of the Jews, who were familiar with the doctrine of the
   prophets. In my opinion, this is why he says that the gospel is more sure.
   Those who understand this comparison as establishing the superiority of the
   gospel to the prophets do not pay enough attention to its context. It is
   tortuous to make this phrase mean more sure than the words of the prophets,
   because the gospel is in fact the fulfillment of the promises which God made
   to them concerning his Son. It is enough to establish the truth of the
   gospel in two ways: by God’s own high and solemn praise and approval of
   Christ, and by the fact that all the prophecies of the prophets were made
   with regard to Christ.

   On the other hand, anyone can see immediately how absurd it is that the word
   of the prophets should be more sure than any other word spoken by the mouth
   of our Holy God! First, the authority of God’s Word is from the beginning
   and always the same. Secondly, the coming of Christ established it more
   firmly than ever, as The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us at length. But it
   is not hard to untie this knot. The apostle is speaking to his own people,
   who were passionately attached to the prophets, so that the teaching of the
   latter was beyond controversy among them. Since there was no doubt among the
   Jews that whatever the prophets taught was from the Lord, we should not be
   surprised at Peter’s saying that word of the latter was more sure.
   Therefore, here the question is not whether the prophets deserve to be
   believed more than the gospel. Peter was pointing out the great deference
   the Jews paid to the prophets, whom they accepted without question as
   servants of God, and in whose school they had been educated from their very
   childhood. . . . We must remember that Peter was speaking to these people.
   He was not instructing ignorant novices who knew only the rudiments [of the
   faith]. He had previously testified that his hearers had already received
   the precious things of the faith and had been confirmed in the truth which
   he was presenting to them. Surely such a people could not have been said to
   be in the gross darkness of ignorance. . . . Therefore, as the context makes
   it clear, Peter was speaking to these men; and this statement was
   necessarily made to believers who had received Christ’s name and were made
   partakers of the true light. I, therefore, extend this darkness spoken of by
   Peter to the whole of our lives, and interpret [this statement to mean] that
   the day will shine upon us only when we see face to face what now we see in
   a mirror and darkly. Of course, Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, does shine
   in the gospel. But, until we are brought out of the prison of the flesh and
   taken up to heaven, our minds shall at all times be in part occupied by the
   darkness of death.

   In short, Peter warns that so long as we walk in this world, we need the
   teaching of the prophets for a directing light; because without this light
   we can do nothing but live in darkness and go astray. He is not, therefore,
   separating the prophets from the gospel; he tells us that they shine for us
   to show us the way. His point is that throughout the whole course of our
   life we ought to be directed by the Word of God, because otherwise we shall
   be enveloped on all sides with the darkness of ignorance. The Lord does not
   shine upon us unless we see by his Word as our light.

   This passage is significant in that it tells us how God directs us. The
   papists have it always on their tongue that the church cannot err. They
   forget the Word and pretend to be guided by the Spirit. Peter, on the
   contrary, claims that all those who disregard the light of the Word are
   buried in darkness. Therefore, if you do not want, of your own will, to lose
   yourself in a labyrinth, do your very best to avoid rejecting the guidance
   of the Word even in the smallest matter. The church cannot follow God as its
   guide, unless it observes this rule. With this statement Peter condemns all
   the wisdom of men, in order that we may learn not to seek the true rule of
   understanding in our own minds. Without the Word, there is nothing left for
   us but darkness.

   It is worth noting that here he speaks of the clarity of the Scripture. For
   his eulogy would be false, unless Scripture were apt and able to show us the
   way clearly and certainly. Anyone, therefore, who opens his eyes with the
   obedience of faith shall know by experience that Scripture has not been
   called light in vain. It is indeed obscure to the unbelievers; but those who
   are given up to destruction blind themselves. The blasphemy of the papists
   is damnable, when they pretend that the light of Scripture merely dazzles
   the eye. This is their way of keeping the simple people from reading it.
   But, of course, we need not wonder that the proud, inflated with the wind of
   a perverse self-confidence, cannot see the light with which the Lord favours
   only those who are humble as a child (Matt. 11:25). David praises the law of
   God in a similar vein (Ps. 19 and 119).

   But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the
   Father in spirit and in truth. . . . John 4:23.

   Now there follows the second part, which has to do with the annulling of the
   cultic laws. When Christ says, the hour is coming, or is come, he teaches
   that the Mosaic order is in no way permanent. When he says, the hour now is,
   he puts an end to the ceremonies, and in this way declares that the time of
   training is now over. Still, he puts his approval on the Temple, the
   priesthood, and all the rites that went with them, in so far as these were
   useful in the past (Heb. 9:10). Besides, in order to show that God does not
   wish to be worshiped [exclusively] either in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim,
   he appeals to a higher principle: namely, that a true worship of God must be
   done in the spirit; from which it follows that men may call upon him in all
   places.

   But we must first ask why and in what sense the worship of God is called
   spiritual. If we are to understand this, we must know the difference between
   the spirit and external forms as the difference between shadow and reality.
   The worship of God is said to be in the spirit, because nothing can take the
   place of the inward faith of the heart, which makes us call on God, or of
   purity of conscience and self-denial, by which we may give ourselves to the
   obedience of God as holy sacrifice.

   From this arises another question: Did not the fathers, while under the law,
   worship God spiritually? I answer that since God is always the same, from
   the very beginning of the world, he could not have approved any kind of
   worship except the spiritual, which alone is compatible with his nature.
   Moses himself bears abundant witness to this, when he declares the end of
   the law to be none other than that his people cleave to God in faith and a
   pure conscience. In fact, the same thing is expressed in even a more telling
   way by the prophets, when they inveigh against the hypocrisy of the people
   who thought they could satisfy God by killing their sacrificial beasts and
   making a big show of it. There is no need to produce the many proofs, which
   are found everywhere, the most significant of them being Psalm 50; Isaiah 1,
   58, 66; Micah 5; Amos 7.

   However, even though the worship of God under the law was spiritual, since
   it was hidden under a multitude of external ceremonies it had the taste of
   something carnal and worldly. This is why Paul speaks of ceremonies as flesh
   and beggarly elements of the world (Gal. 4:9). In the same way, the writer
   of The Epistle to the Hebrews says that the ancient sanctuary, with its
   appendages, was earthly (Heb. 9:1). Thus we say properly that the cult of
   the law was spiritual in substance, but with respect to its form somewhat
   carnal and earthly. Therefore, the whole apparatus of the cult, the reality
   of which is now manifest, was a thing of shadows.

   Now we see what the Jews had in common with us, and how they differed from
   us. In every age, God desired to be worshiped by faith, prayer, acts of
   thanksgiving, purity of heart, and innocence of life; and at no time was he
   pleased with other sacrifices; but under the law there were various
   additions made, and the Spirit and truth were covered over and hidden. Now
   that the veil of the Temple is torn, nothing is hidden or obscure. We also
   today have some external exercises of piety, which we need because of our
   inaptitude: but they are characterized by sobriety, and do not obscure the
   naked truth of Christ. In short, what was shadowy to the fathers, we now
   have openly and clearly.

   For if the blood of bulls and of goats. . . sanctifieth to the purifying of
   the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
   Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge our conscience from dead
   works, to serve the living God? Heb. 9:13–14.

   This passage has led many people astray, because they have forgotten that it
   has to do with sacraments, which have a spiritual meaning. They have talked
   about the cleansing of the flesh, such as was practiced by the heathen, who
   tried to blot out infamous crimes by offering some sacrifice of expiation.
   Such an interpretation of this passage is the height of profanity: for it is
   an insult to God that we should limit his promises to merely secular or
   civic matters. Moses teaches often that when sacrifice is offered properly,
   iniquity itself is expiated. Therefore, the doctrine of our faith is
   spiritual. The ultimate purpose of all sacrificial killing was to lead us to
   Christ; it was a testimony to the salvation of our souls in Christ, which
   alone is eternal. Therefore, how could the apostle have spoken of “the
   purification of the flesh” except in a spiritual, or sacramental, sense? If
   even the blood of beasts was a symbol of true purification, so that it did
   cleanse in a sacramental way, how much more shall Christ, who is the truth,
   not merely testify to purification by external rites, but rather establish
   its reality in our consciences! So the argument of this verse is from the
   sign to the reality signified by it; for the effectiveness of reality takes
   precedence by far over the validity of the sign.

   Through the eternal Spirit. Now he shows clearly that the death of Christ is
   to be understood not in terms of outward act, but of the power of the
   Spirit. Christ suffered as a man. If his death has the power to save us, it
   is by the efficacy of the Spirit; for the sacrifice which brought us eternal
   expiation was more than a human act. And the apostle calls the Spirit
   eternal, to teach us that the reconciliation which He works is itself
   eternal. . . .

   By the works of death we may understand either works which produce death, or
   works which are the fruit of death. Since the life of the soul is bound to
   God, those who are by sin alienated from him are to be regarded as dead.

   But let us consider the end of our purification, which is the service of the
   living God. We are washed by Christ, not immediately to bury ourselves once
   again in filth, but so that our purity may serve the glory of God. Besides,
   the apostle teaches us that nothing from us will please God, unless we are
   purged by the blood of Christ. Since before we are reconciled with God we
   all are enemies to him, all our works are worthless before him. Therefore,
   the beginning of the true worship of God is reconciliation. Besides, since
   no act of ours is pure, free from all spot, it cannot please God; it must,
   therefore, be purified by the blood of Christ which blots out all our spots.
   And, of course, the contrast between dead works and the living God is
   beautiful.

   Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when
   Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he
   took the blood of calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and
   hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the
   blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Heb. 9:18–20.

   The apostle wants us to attend not to words but to the substance of what is
   being said. He has found the word testament in the Greek language in which
   he is writing. Since the [Hebrew] word for covenant often becomes testimony
   in Greek, he takes advantage of this fact, and turns it to his own use. He
   eulogizes God’s covenant as a testimony, which is one way of speaking of it;
   and why not, since angels from heaven and so many gifted men on earth, that
   is, all the holy prophets, apostles, and a multitude of martyrs, have been
   witness to it, and at the last, the Son of God himself has sponsored it?
   Hence there is nothing absurd in the apostle’s use of the word testament. It
   is true that the Hebrew word toude does not in fact mean covenant; but since
   nothing which the apostle says is inconsistent with it, we must not be tied
   down to the exact meaning of the word.

   The apostle says that the Old Testament was dedicated with blood; this he
   takes as a warning to the people that it was effective and stable only by
   the interposition of death. But he denies that the blood of beasts was a
   valid confirmation of the eternal covenant. This becomes clearer when we
   consider the rite of sprinkling enjoined by Moses, as described in our text.
   The apostle tells us, in the first place, that the covenant was sanctified,
   not because it was in itself profane, but because nothing is so sacred that
   the people would not profane it by their own impurities, unless it were
   restored by God himself. Therefore, the dedication was on men’s account, and
   only because they were unclean.

   He then adds that the tabernacle with all its vessels, and also the Book of
   the Law itself, were sprinkled. By this rite the people were taught that God
   cannot be sought, or found, for salvation, and neither can he be worshiped
   truly, unless faith at all times uses the requisite blood. It is only right
   that we should find the majesty of God dreadful, and the way to it a
   hopeless labyrinth, unless we know that he turns to us with favor through
   the blood of Christ, and that through this same blood we have an easy access
   to him. Therefore, all worship is unclean and wicked unless purified by the
   sprinkling of the blood of Christ.

   The tabernacle stood for a visible image of God. The vessels of the ministry
   set aside for the service of God were symbols of true worship. But since
   they were without blood useless for salvation, it is evident that unless
   Christ himself appears with his blood, we have no part in God. Even doctrine
   itself, in spite of God’s constant will [to save us], is without power or
   benefit, unless sanctified with blood. Our verse makes this perfectly clear.

   I know that others understand this passage differently. They say that the
   tabernacle is the body of the church; and the vessels, the faithful whom God
   uses in his service. But my view of the matter is far more suitable.
   Whenever the people called on God, they turned to the sanctuary; and it was
   a common saying that when they appeared in the Temple, they stood before the
   face of the Lord.

   This is the blood of the testament. . . . This means that the testament is
   not ratified without blood, and that the blood works no expiation without
   the testament. Therefore, the two must go together. We see that the symbol
   was added after the law was explained: for what is a sacrament unless the
   Word come before it? Therefore, the symbol is an accessory to the Word. And
   mark you, the Word was not murmured as a magical incantation, but spoken
   with a loud and clear voice, because it was meant for the people, so that
   the words of the covenant, which God has commanded you, might ring out.
   Therefore, it is a perverse misuse of the sacrament, and an ungodly
   corruption of it, when no one hears the exposition of God’s commandment,
   which is, as it were, the very soul of the sacrament. Therefore, the papists
   who separate the sign from a true understanding of its substance have
   nothing left but the dead letter.

   Moreover, this passage warns us that we receive God’s promises only when
   they are confirmed by the blood of Christ. All God’s promises are Yea and
   Amen, as Paul testifies in 2 Cor. 1:20, only when by the blood of Christ
   they are inscribed on our hearts as a seal; for, we hear God speaking to us
   only when we see Christ offering himself as a pledge in what is said to us.
   If we could only get it into our heads that the Word of God we read is
   written not so much with ink as with the blood of the Son of God; or that
   when the gospel is preached, his own blood is poured with the voice we hear
   — we would pay far more attention and that with far greater reverence. The
   sprinkling spoken of by Moses was a symbol for the reality which we have
   just explained.

   Of course, all this (which the apostle tells us) is not contained in the
   words of Moses. Moses does not tell us that either the Book or the people
   were sprinkled. He does not tell us that the sprinkling included the goats,
   or the scarlet wool, or the hyssop. We cannot even be sure that he sprinkled
   the Book, even though we may guess that he probably did so, since he brought
   it out before the people after the sacrifice, when he bound them to God by a
   solemn compact. As for the rest (the goats, the scarlet wool, the hyssop),
   it seems to me that the apostle has thrown them together as several kinds of
   offering having the same expiatory purpose. And after all, there is nothing
   absurd in this, since he was dealing with the general question of
   purification under the old covenant. What matters is that the whole thing
   was done with blood. As to the sprinkling with hyssop, and scarlet wool, it
   doubtless represented the mystical sprinkling by the Spirit. We know that
   hyssop has a singular power to purify and make clean. Therefore, Christ in
   turn sprinkles us with his Spirit, to wash us with his blood; to convert our
   minds to true repentance; to make us clean of the lusts of our depraved
   flesh; and to make us beautiful with the hues of his own wonderful
   righteousness. Indeed, it was not for nothing that God commanded this
   practice of sprinkling. Let us remember the words of David in Ps. 51:7,
   Sprinkle me, O Lord, with hyssop, and I shall be clean. That is enough for
   anyone who is minded to philosophize soberly.

  3. THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL

   Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that
   accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. John 5:45.

   It is a mistake to think that this verse sets the office of Moses against
   that of Christ; even though it is the peculiar function of the law to
   convict unbelievers of sin. This was not the intention of Christ; it was
   rather to disarm the hypocrites who gloried in Moses with a false reverence.
   It is like telling the papists today that the holy doctors of the church,
   behind whom they hide, are their worst opponents. Besides, this verse
   teaches us that our boasting in Scripture does us no good unless we worship
   the Son with the true obedience of faith; for, in the last day, all those
   whom God shall raise as witnesses to Christ shall come forth to accuse us.
   When Christ says that his hearers hope in Moses, he does not accuse them of
   superstition, or of thinking that Moses was their Savior. He is rather
   pointing out the folly of their taking refuge in Moses, as though they had
   his backing in their wicked and arrogant rebellion.

   This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with an angel which
   spake to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively
   oracles to give unto us. Acts 7:38.

   Who received living oracles. Erasmus translates this as “the living word” !
   But those who know their Greek must agree that I have given a better
   rendition of what Stephen said; for oracles have more majesty than words.
   What I say is words, but what comes out of the mouth of the Lord is an
   oracle. Besides, these words of Stephen are intended to establish the
   authority of Moses’ teaching, and to impress upon the people that Moses
   spoke only what was from God; from which it followed that in rebelling
   against Moses, they had rebelled not against him but against God; hence,
   their effrontery was obviously all the more brazen. (And, in general, the
   right way to establish [true] doctrine is for men to teach nothing they have
   not been commanded from God.) For, how could any man have dared to look down
   on Moses, who, as the Spirit says, had a right to be believed because he
   explained to the people faithfully the doctrine which he had received from
   God!

   But someone may ask, Why does he call the law a “living word” ? Such praise
   may seem to fit poorly with Paul’s statement that the law is minister of
   death and works wrath, and that it makes us to sin (2 Cor. 3:7). If anyone
   understands “the living word” to mean a word that is valid and effective in
   spite of men’s contempt for it, I will not contradict him, but on my part, I
   interpret “living” as that which is active. Since the law is the perfect
   rule of a godly and holy life, and sets forth the righteousness of God, it
   is rightly thought of as the doctrine of life and salvation; and it is to
   this that Moses bears witness, as he swears by heaven and earth, when he
   presents the law to the people as the way of life and death. In the same
   way, in Ezekiel, chapter 20, God complains that the people have violated his
   law which is good, and his precepts concerning which he had said, Any one
   who does them, shall live in them. The law, therefore, contains life in
   itself. If anyone prefers to interpret “living” as efficacious and full of
   power, I shall not object too strenuously.

   When Paul calls the law the minister of death, he speaks of a characteristic
   which it has contingently, because of the corrupt nature of man. The law
   itself does not produce sin; it finds sin in us. It offers life to us; but
   we, being evil, derive nothing but death from it. Hence, the law works death
   only in relation to man. In this verse, Stephen refers to something more
   than the bare commandments of the law; he speaks of the teaching of Moses as
   a whole, which includes the promises God has made freely, and therefore
   Christ himself, who alone is the life and salvation of men.

   And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye
   believe not. John 5:38.

   We profit from the Word of God only when it takes root in us, and is so
   fixed in our hearts that it remains there. Christ denied that the Jews
   possessed the heavenly doctrine, because they did not receive the Son of God
   who is proclaimed everywhere in it. And he rejected them with good reason.
   God did not speak through Moses and the prophets for nothing. His only
   purpose in speaking to Moses was that he might call everyone to Christ.
   Therefore, it is clear that those who repudiate Christ are no disciples of
   Moses. After all, how can the Word of life be and remain in anyone who
   pushes aside life itself? How does any man hold to the teaching of the law
   when he does his best to extinguish the Spirit of the law? For the law
   without Christ has nothing solid about it, and in fact avails us nothing.
   Therefore, progress in the Word of God goes with a right knowledge of
   Christ.

   Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they
   are they which testify of me. John 5:39.

   As we have pointed out, Christ’s previous statement that the Father is his
   witness in heaven, applies also to Moses and the prophets. Now Christ
   explains the matter more clearly by saying that the Scripture itself is his
   witness. He again attacks the stupidity of those who declared loudly that
   the Scriptures gave them life, while they treated them as dead letter. He
   does not judge them because they sought life in the Scriptures; the
   Scriptures were given to be used for this purpose. But the Jews thought the
   Scriptures gave them life when they had no sense of their true meaning, and
   had even put out the light of life in them. How can the law make alive, when
   Christ alone gives it life?

   Moreover, this passage teaches us that if we would know Christ, we must seek
   him in the Scriptures. Anyone who imagines Christ as he will, gets nothing
   but a mere blur (umbratile spectrum). So, we must first hold that Christ is
   known rightly nowhere but in Scripture. If this be so, our chief purpose in
   reading the Scriptures must be to arrive at a right knowledge of Christ.
   Whoever turns aside from this aim, even though he wear himself out with
   learning all his life, will never arrive at truth; for what wisdom can we
   attain apart from the wisdom of God? Moreover, since we are commanded to
   seek Christ in the Scriptures, he declares that our zeal in this matter
   shall not be in vain; for the Father himself testifies that in them he shall
   certainly reveal his Son to us. Many are deprived of this blessing, because
   they neglect reading the Scriptures, or do it cursorily and superficially.
   But it deserves utmost attention that Christ himself commands us to probe
   deeply into this hidden treasure. It was sheer apathy that led the Jews, who
   had the law in their very hands, to abhor Christ. The glory of God shone
   brightly in Moses, but they put up a veil and darkened it. In this place,
   Scripture means obviously the Old Testament. It is not true that Christ
   appears first in the gospel. It is rather that after the witness of the Law
   and the Prophets, he appeared in the gospel for everyone to see.

   But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Matt. 19:17.

   Some ancients, and the papists after them, have misinterpreted this verse so
   as to make Christ promise that if we observe the law we shall have eternal
   life. Christ was not talking about what man can do; he was answering a
   question as to right conduct or what the law defines as righteous.
   Certainly, God gave his law as the way of a right and holy life, which
   includes righteousness. It is not for nothing that Moses made the statement,
   Anyone who does these things, shall live by them; again, I call heaven and
   earth to witness that today I have put before you life. Therefore, it cannot
   be denied that the keeping of the law is righteousness, and that anyone who
   keeps it perfectly, obtains life. But, since we all are destitute of the
   glory of God [righteousness], in the law we find nothing but a curse; there
   is nothing left for us to do but to fly to a righteousness which shall be
   given us freely. Therefore, Paul presents us with two kinds of
   righteousness: of the law and of faith; the former he makes to consist in
   works, and the latter in the mere grace of Christ.

   From this we gather that the reply of Christ was correct. He had first to
   answer the young man who asked about the right thing to do; for no man is
   righteous before God unless he satisfies the law (which is impossible). He
   did this in order that the young man might acknowledge his inability, and
   look to faith for help. Therefore, I admit that since God has promised the
   reward of eternal life to those who keep the law, it would be right, if it
   were not for the weakness of our flesh, for us to follow this way [to expect
   life through our good works]. But Scripture itself teaches us that we must
   be given what we cannot acquire through our own merit. If anyone object that
   it is frustrating to be confronted with righteousness through obedience to
   the law, if nobody has it in him to achieve it, I answer that the law is
   only the beginning of this matter, and that it is by no means futile if it
   leads us to pray for righteousness. For this reason, where Paul says that
   those who do the law are justified, he also denies that anyone can be
   justified through the law (Rom. 2:13; 3:9–10).

   This passage abolishes all the fictions which the papists have invented in
   order to obtain salvation. Their error is not merely that by their good
   works they want to bind God, and make him grant them salvation as a matter
   of debt; but also that when they gird themselves to do good, they set aside
   the teaching of the law, and become intent upon fictions which they call
   their “devotions.” In this way, they not only repudiate the law of God, but
   also far prefer their human traditions. But what else does Christ say,
   except that God approves only of that worship which he himself has
   prescribed? For, obedience is better to him than all slaughtered sacrifice.
   So then, let the papists be occupied with their silly traditions; if anyone
   would be serious about ordering his life so as to live in obedience to
   Christ, let him devote his whole attention to obeying the commandments of
   the law.

   Who hath also made us able ministers of the new testament, not of the
   letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth
   life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was
   glorious, . . . which glory was to be done away, how shall not the
   ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of
   condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness
   exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this
   respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. . 2 Cor. 3:6–10.

   Paul had before touched upon the comparison between the law and the gospel;
   now he pursues the matter further. However, the occasion for this argument
   is not certain; was it that he saw some Corinthians make a perverse use of
   the law, or was it something else that started him? For my part, I see no
   evidence that false apostles were comparing the law with the gospel. I think
   it is more probable that he had in mind chatterboxes whose lifeless rhetoric
   had the kind of glitter which swept the Corinthians off their feet. He
   wanted to show the latter that the chief glory of the gospel and the chief
   praise of its ministers is the power of the Spirit. It seems to me that he
   embarked upon the following comparison of the law with the gospel because it
   was a good way of proving his point.

   However, there is no doubt that by the letter he meant the Old Testament, as
   by the word Spirit he means the gospel; for, when he calls himself a
   minister of the new covenant, he also adds immediately that he is a minister
   of the Spirit; and it is in this connection that he contrasts the letter
   with the Spirit.

   We must now look into the reason for his use of these words. Origen’s
   invention in this matter has become well established as truth: that the
   letter means the grammatical and genuine meaning of Scripture, or as they
   say, the literal; and that Spirit means the allegorical meaning, which is
   commonly called the spiritual. Thus, through the centuries, it has been
   commonly accepted and passed around that here Paul has provided us with a
   key for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. But nothing was further
   from his mind. By the word letter Paul means preaching which is external and
   does not reach the heart; by Spirit he means teaching which is alive, which
   works mightily in the souls of men by the grace of the Spirit. Letter,
   therefore, means literal, that is, dead and ineffective preaching, which is
   heard only by the ear. Spirit, on the other hand, means spiritual teaching,
   which is not merely a matter of mouthing words, but rather has the power to
   penetrate the soul and bring it to life. Paul had in mind the verse from
   Jeremiah which I cited before, there the Lord says that his law had been
   given by word of mouth, and that it had neither lasted long, nor had it been
   received by the people with their hearts; therefore, he promises the Spirit
   of regeneration in the reign of Christ, who will write the gospel, that is
   the new covenant, in their hearts (Jer. 31:31). Now, it is Paul’s boast that
   this prophecy has been fulfilled in his preaching. He would have the
   Corinthians know that the bombast of the loud mouths amounts to nothing,
   because it lacks the power of the Spirit.

   Now let us consider if, under the Old Testament, God spoke merely with an
   outward voice, or if he did not speak inwardly by his Spirit to the hearts
   of the godly. I answer, in the first place, that Paul here has in mind the
   peculiar function of the law. In so far as God worked by his Spirit, he did
   so not by the ministry of Moses, but by the grace of Christ. As we learn
   from John 1:17, the law was by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ.
   Of course, all that time, the grace of God was not inactive; but also,
   clearly enough, it did not work by the law. Moses’ part was done when he
   gave the way of life, with the threats and promises. Paul calls the law
   letter because in itself it is dead preaching; and he calls the gospel
   “Spirit,” because its ministry is alive and makes alive.

   Secondly, I answer that Paul is speaking of the law and the gospel not in
   general, but in so far as they are opposed one to the other. Even the gospel
   itself is not always Spirit. Still, when it comes to a comparison between
   the two, one must say truly and properly that the nature of the law is such
   that it teaches the letter, without penetrating beyond the ear; on the other
   hand, it is the nature of the gospel to teach spiritually, because it is the
   instrument of the grace of Christ. God has ordained it so, for it has
   pleased him to reveal the power of the Spirit more through the gospel than
   through the law; and it is the Spirit alone that can teach the spirits of
   men. . . .

   For the letter kills. First Origen, and then others, distorted this phrase
   badly, to give it a corrupted meaning; and so arose the most pernicious
   error that Scripture is not only useless but even harmful unless it is
   turned into elaborate allegories. This error became a source of much evil.
   It not only gave license for corrupting the true meaning of Scripture, but
   also led to the notion that the more unprincipled the allegorizer, the more
   expert he was as interpreter of Scripture. So, many of the ancients threw
   the sacred Word of God around as though it were a tennis ball. In this way,
   the heretics too were unbridled and found occasion to trouble the church.
   Now, anybody could do anything, and many did; there was no madness so absurd
   or so great but it could be practiced in the name of some allegory. Even
   good people were caught, and invented many false notions, because they were
   deceived by their fondness for allegory. . . .

   But if the ministration of death. He now magnifies the dignity of the gospel
   so much the more, by insisting that God has conferred great honor upon the
   law, which is as nothing in comparison with the gospel. The prestige of the
   law was established by many miracles. But Paul touches upon one: namely,
   that Moses’ face was bright with such splendor as to dazzle the eyes of all
   those around him — a splendor which was a symbol of the glory of the law. So
   he argues from the lesser to the greater, and presents the glory of the
   gospel as all the more magnificent since it is far superior to the law.
   First, he calls the law the ministry of death; secondly, he says that the
   doctrine of the law consisted in letter, and was done with ink; thirdly,
   that it was written on stones; fourthly, that it was not to last forever,
   but was temporary and meant to pass away; in the fifth place, once again he
   calls it the ministry of condemnation.

   To make the antithesis complete, he should have used the same number of
   points on the opposite side with regard to the gospel; but he calls the
   latter simply the ministry of the Spirit, and of righteousness, which is to
   remain valid at all times. In terms of words, the comparison is not carried
   through; but as to the substance of the matter, what he says is adequate,
   for he has already said that the Spirit gives life; and further, he has
   pointed out that now men’s hearts take the place of stones and inner
   disposition takes the place of ink.

   Let us now examine briefly the characteristics of the law and the gospel.
   But let us remember that the point at issue is neither the whole of the
   teaching we find in the Law and the Prophets, nor the experience of the
   fathers under the Old Testament; but rather the peculiar function of the
   ministry of Moses [or the law]. The law was chiseled upon stones; therefore,
   its teaching was one of the letter. This defect of the law had to be
   corrected by the gospel, since, the law having been consigned to tablets of
   stone, it could not but be breakable. The gospel, therefore, is a holy and
   inviolable covenant because under God it was hewed out by the Spirit. It
   follows that the law was the ministry of condemnation and death; for when
   men were told their duty, they also heard that anyone who does not satisfy
   God’s justice is cursed, and ends in sin and death. Therefore, men get
   nothing from the law but condemnation, for in the law God demands his due,
   but does not confer the power to pay it properly. The gospel, on the other
   hand, which regenerates us and reconciles us with God through the free
   forgiveness of sins, is the ministry of righteousness, and consequently, of
   life itself.

   But now arises the question: If the gospel be to some a deadly odor of
   death, and if Christ be the rock of offense and the stone of stumbling set
   for the ruin of many, why is it that the law alone is blamed for what it has
   in common with the gospel (2 Cor. 2:16, Luke 2:34, 1 Peter 2:8)? If one
   answers that the gospel does not work death in itself, or that it is the
   occasion rather than the cause of death, since its own nature is to save all
   men, one does not get rid of the difficulty, because the same is true of the
   law. Moses himself argued that he set life and death before the people
   (Deut. 30:15); and Paul also said, in Rom. 7:10, that the law is turned into
   a source of ruin for us, not because it is evil but because we are wicked.
   Therefore, since neither the law nor the gospel leads to condemnation in
   itself, our knot is still with us.

   My answer is that, in spite of all this, there is a great difference between
   the law and the gospel. Even though the gospel is an occasion for
   condemnation to many, it is rightly regarded as the doctrine of life,
   because it is the means of regeneration and offers us free reconciliation
   with God. The law, on the other hand, even though it prescribes the rule of
   a good life, does not change the heart for a righteous obedience; and in
   declaring eternal death to sinners, it can do nothing but condemn them. To
   put it another way, it is the function of the law to uncover the disease; it
   gives us no hope of its cure. It is the function of the gospel to bring
   healing to those who are without hope. The law, in so far as it leads men to
   put their confidence in it, consigns them necessarily to death. The gospel,
   on the other hand, leads us to Christ and thus opens the gate to life. Thus,
   in one word, the property of the law by which it kills, even though not
   essential to it, is permanent and inseparable from it; for, as the apostle
   says elsewhere, all those who remain under the law are subject to the curse
   (Gal. 3:10). On the other hand, it is not true of the gospel that it kills
   always, because in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to
   faith; and, therefore, it is the saving power of God to all those who
   believe (Rom. 1:16–17).

   It remains to consider the last contrast made by the apostle when he says
   that the law was for a time, and to be abolished, whereas the gospel is for
   perpetuity. There are many reasons why the ministry of Moses was for a
   season. Shadows had to cease with the coming of Christ. But the statement
   applies beyond the shadows, to the Law and the Prophets until John (Matt.
   11:13). It means that Christ put an end to the ministry of Moses, in all
   that was peculiar to it and apart from the gospel. Finally, in Jer.
   31:31–32, the Lord bears witness to the weakness of the old covenant because
   it was not inscribed upon the hearts of men. I interpret the abolition of
   the law mentioned in this place as referring to the whole of the old
   covenant in so far as it was opposed to the gospel; and that includes the
   Law and the Prophets until John. The context of the present statement
   requires this interpretation. Paul is not arguing only about the ceremonies;
   his point is that the Spirit of God exercises his energy far more powerfully
   under the gospel than he did long ago under the law. . . .

   This is no denial of what is said above, but rather a confirmation of it;
   for Paul means that where the gospel appears, the glory of the law is
   extinguished. As the moon and the stars, which have light enough to illumine
   the whole earth, disappear before the splendor of the sun, so also the law,
   whatever glory it might have in itself, is as nothing before the refulgence
   of the gospel. Hence, it follows that we cannot magnify enough, or treat
   with too much reverence, the glory of Christ which shines in the gospel, as
   the brightness of the sun shines in its rays. It is in bad taste, and a
   foolish profanation of the gospel, when the power and majesty of the Spirit,
   which draw the minds and hearts of men to heaven, are withheld from the
   people.

   But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil
   untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in
   Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their
   heart; nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken
   away. Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
   there is liberty. 2 Cor. 3:14–17.

   He puts the whole blame upon them [the Jews]; for it was because of their
   blindness that they were unable to benefit from the teaching of the law.
   . . .

   He now gives the reason for their continued blindness in the midst of light.
   The law in itself is a source of light: but we enjoy its brightness only
   when Christ appears to us in it. The Jews do all they can to turn their eyes
   away from Christ: it is therefore not surprising that they see nothing,
   since they will not turn to the Sun. This blindness on the part of God’s
   chosen people, especially since it has lasted so long, should warn us that
   we ought to rely upon God’s favors toward us, and not be lifted up with
   pride. (On this, see Rom. 11:20.) And let the reason for blindness given in
   this passage keep us from a contempt of Christ, which exposes us to the
   awful vengeance of God. In the meantime, we should learn that there is no
   light in the law, or even in the whole Word of God, without Christ who is
   the Sun of Righteousness.

   But when it shall have turned to the Lord. So far, this passage has been
   seriously misunderstood; both the Greek and the Latin interpreters [71] have
   thought that it refers to Israel. But Paul is speaking of Moses. He had said
   that when the Jews read Moses, a veil was thrown over their hearts. Now he
   continues that as soon as their heart is turned to the Lord, the veil shall
   be taken away. Who cannot see, as I said, that when he speaks of Moses, he
   is speaking of the law? Since Christ is the end (or fulfillment) of the law,
   the Jews ought to have accepted the truth that the law refers them to
   Christ; when they shut out Christ, they turned the law in another direction.
   Since in reading the law they wandered aimlessly, the law itself has become
   to them a complicated thing, like a labyrinth; and it will remain such until
   it is turned toward its fulfillment, who is Christ. If the Jews seek Christ
   in the law, God’s truth will appear to them clearly; while they continue to
   seek wisdom without Christ, they shall lose their way in darkness and never
   arrive at the true meaning of the law. What is said of the law applies to
   the whole of Scripture: when it is not directed toward Christ as its one
   aim, it is tortured badly and twisted.

   The Lord is the Spirit. This passage also has been interpreted badly, so as
   to make Paul mean that Christ is of a spiritual essence; people do this by
   tying it up with John 4:24, where we read God is a Spirit. As a matter of
   fact, this statement has nothing to do with Christ’s essence; it simply
   points out his office. It goes with what Paul said above: namely, that the
   teaching of the law is literal, not only dead but also a source of death.
   Conversely, he now calls Christ the Spirit of the law, which means that the
   law is living and life-giving only in so far as it receives the breath of
   Christ. When the soul is united with the body, there is a living man,
   endowed with intelligence and perception, competent for living behavior;
   take the soul away from the body, and what do you have but a useless corpse,
   empty of all sensibility?

   This verse is of particular value; for it tells us how we are to reconcile
   the praises with which David commends the law to us (in Ps. 19:7–8: “the law
   of the Lord converts the soul, enlightens the eyes, and imparts wisdom to
   babes,” and other statements like it) with Paul’s statements which
   apparently contradict them: that the law is the ministry of sin and death,
   which only kills (2 Cor. 3:7). When Christ gives life to the law, David’s
   praises apply to it; when Christ is taken away, the law is altogether as
   Paul describes it. Therefore, Christ is the life of the law.

   Where the Spirit of the Lord. Now Paul describes the way Christ gives life
   to the law, which is, by giving it his Spirit. The meaning of the word
   Spirit here is not the same as it is in the previous verse. There it means
   soul, and is used as a metaphor for Christ; here, it refers to the Holy
   Spirit himself, who is the gift of Christ to us. In regenerating us, Christ
   brings the law itself to life, and reveals himself as the fountain of life.
   He acts like the human soul, which is the source of all human vitality.
   Therefore, Christ is (so to speak) the soul of all beings; not as their
   essence, but by the action of his grace. Or, if you prefer it, Christ is the
   Spirit because he makes us alive by the vivifying power of his Spirit.

   And of his fullness have we all received, grace for grace; for the law was
   given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1:16–17.

   Now John embarks upon the mission of Christ, which contains the abundance of
   all blessings, for there is not a thing belonging to our salvation which we
   need seek elsewhere. God indeed is the fountain of life, and righteousness,
   and power, and wisdom; but he is a fountain hidden and inaccessible to us.
   All these blessings are presented to us in Jesus Christ in all fullness, so
   that we may look for them in him. And he is ready to make them flow upon us,
   if by faith we build the proper pipeline. In short, in every part of this
   sentence John makes but one point, namely, that we must not look for any
   good outside of Christ. First, he makes it clear that we are utterly
   destitute and empty of all spiritual good. For if Christ himself abounds, it
   is to fill our emptiness, to relieve our poverty, and to satisfy us who are
   hungry and thirsty. Secondly, the writer warns us that no sooner do we turn
   away from Christ than we look in vain for a single drop of good; because it
   was God’s will that every good should reside in him. Therefore, we find men
   and angels dry, the heaven empty and the earth sterile, when we try to have
   a part in God’s gifts by any means but Christ. In the third place, he
   assures us that we shall want nothing whatsoever if we draw upon the
   fullness of Christ, which is in every respect so rich that we shall never be
   able to drain it off. John includes himself with all men, not because of
   modesty, but to make it clear that no one is excepted.

   There is some doubt as to whether John speaks of mankind in general or only
   of those who, after Christ’s coming in the flesh, have shared more fully in
   his blessings. It is certain that those who lived under the law drew from
   the fullness of Christ. But since John distinguishes between the time before
   the Advent and the time after, he is more probably speaking of the new
   abundance of good which Christ at his coming brought with him. We know that
   when Christ appeared in the flesh, the benefits which were enjoyed in a
   limited way under the law were, so to speak, scattered abroad with a full
   hand; so that we have more than enough. This does not mean that each and
   every one of us is superior to Abraham in the grace of the Spirit. I am
   speaking of the greater extent to which God now distributes his gifts, and
   of the way and manner in which he does it. John’s purpose in emphasizing all
   men’s poverty with regard to the good offered us richly in Christ, was to
   invite his disciples to him the more persuasively. At the same time, it
   would not be absurd to extend the meaning of this statement further. In
   fact, the context itself justifies us in adding that all the fathers, since
   the beginning of the world, have drawn every good they have enjoyed from
   Christ. Since Moses gave them the law, they received grace from another
   hand. But I have already stated the interpretation I prefer: which is that
   John compares us with the fathers, in order to impress upon us the riches of
   the gift we have in Christ Jesus.

   And grace for grace. Augustine’s exposition of this verse is well known.
   [72] He says that the continued blessings of God, and finally life eternal
   itself, are not rewards due us because of our merits, but acts of divine
   generosity with which by grace God rewards what we do and crowns his own
   gifts to us. All this is intelligently said; but it has nothing to do with
   this verse. We would get its simple meaning if we took anti in a comparative
   sense, which would give us the statement: All the graces alike which God
   showers upon us come to us from the same source (which is Christ). This
   verse might also be taken to point out that grace is given us for salvation,
   which is the completion of grace. But I myself agree with those who believe
   that it refers to the graces which are poured out in Christ, and over us
   like water upon a dry land. But, even while we receive these graces from
   Christ, he does not act as God (who is the source), but rather as the
   channel through which the bountiful Father pours them upon us. So it is that
   he was anointed for our sake, to anoint us all with him: wherefore, he was
   called Christ and we, Christians.

   For the law came by Moses. Here he anticipates a likely objection. The Jews
   had such a high regard for Moses that they would admit nothing as true if it
   differed from his teaching. The Evangelist, therefore, shows how inferior
   the ministry of Moses was to the power of Christ. At the same time, this
   comparison sheds no little light on the authority of Christ. Since there was
   no deference the Jews did not pay Moses, the Evangelist points out that what
   he brought was little when compared with the grace of Christ.

   Another difficulty was that the Jews thought they received from the law what
   is not given us except in Christ. Therefore, the Evangelist contrasts the
   law with grace and truth, and implies that both were lacking in the law.
   Truth, in my judgment, indicates a fixed and firm stability in things. By
   grace I understand the spiritual fulfillment of the things which the law
   contains as mere letter. And these two words may be said to be figures of
   speech with the same meaning: namely, that the truth of the law consists in
   the grace which was exhibited in Christ. It does not much matter whether
   these two words are put together or separated one from the other, for either
   way the sense of the statement is the same. This much is certain: according
   to John, the law contained the shadowy image of the spiritual goods which we
   find in Christ; from which it follows that when the law is separated from
   Christ, nothing is left but empty forms. This is why Paul said that the law
   is shadows, Christ the substance (Col. 2:17). But we must not imagine that
   the law gives us only falsehood; because even though the law in itself is
   dead, Christ himself is the soul of the law and makes it alive. Still the
   question here has to do with the power of the law apart from Christ; and the
   Evangelist asserts that without Christ the law is nothing but a shadow,
   without substance and without power. This truth consists in the fact that
   through Christ we obtain a grace which is not available through the law. By
   grace in general, I understand the free forgiveness of sins and the renewal
   of the heart. With this word John states briefly the distinction between the
   Old and the New Testaments (which was done more fully in Jer. 31:31), and
   includes in it all that has to do with spiritual righteousness. But this
   righteousness consists of two parts: namely, that God is reconciled to us
   freely, not imputing our sins to us; and that he has engraved his law within
   us and renewed us by his Spirit for obedience to it. It follows that the law
   is expounded wrongly and falsely when it keeps us to itself and even
   prevents our access to Christ.

  4. EXAMPLES OF EXEGESIS

   When was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In
   Rama there was a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning,
   Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they
   are not. Matt. 2:17–18.

   It is certain that the prophet was describing the destruction of the tribe
   of Benjamin as it occurred in his time (Jer. 31:15). He had already
   predicted the destruction of Judah, to which had been attached half the
   tribe of Benjamin. He put this mourning in dead Rachel’s mouth by way of
   personification (prosopopoeia), which is very effective in rousing the
   feelings. Jeremiah did not use rhetoric merely to embellish his speech. He
   did it because there was no way to correct the stupidity and
   hard-heartedness of the living, except by calling the dead out of their
   graves, to weep over the chastisements of God which most people laughed at.

   Since the prediction of the prophet had already been fulfilled, Matthew did
   not take it as a prophecy of what Herod was going to do; rather he meant
   that with the coming of Christ there was to be a recurrence of the
   affliction which the Benjamites suffered many centuries before. He wanted to
   meet an objection which might have troubled and shaken the believers’ minds:
   for how could one hope to be saved by a man because of whom, and at whose
   very birth, there had been a massacre of infants? It was surely a dark and
   dreadful omen that the birth of Christ kindled a flaming fire of such fury
   as we do not meet even in wars of greatest cruelty! But as Jeremiah promises
   a restoration after the slaughter of the people down to the infants, so
   Matthew argues that in spite of Herod’s wholesale murder, Christ would
   surely come forth as the Redeemer of the nation. We know that in the same
   chapter of Jeremiah (31), mourning is followed by tender words of comfort.
   For immediately after the mournful complaint come the words: “Refrain thy
   voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be
   rewarded, and there is hope at the end,” etc. Such then was the likeness
   between the former calamity suffered by the tribe of Benjamin and this
   latter one [which occurred under Herod]; and they both were preludes to the
   restoration of well-being which was soon to follow.

   And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled
   which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Matt. 2:23.

   Matthew does not derive “Nazarene” from “Nazareth,” as though there were a
   real and certain and etymological connection between the two words. What we
   have here is a mere allusion. Nazir means holy and devoted to God, and is
   otherwise derived from nazar, which means to separate. It is true that the
   Hebrews called a certain flower (or rather, the insignia of the royal
   diadem) a nazar. But there is no doubt that Matthew used the word as meaning
   holy. We read nowhere of the Nazarenes as flourishing; but we do read, as in
   Num. 6:4, that they were consecrated to God as prescribed by law. We are,
   therefore, to understand Matthew’s statement as follows: Although it was
   fear that drove Joseph to a corner of Galilee, God had a higher purpose; for
   Nazareth was ordained to be Christ’s home, so that he might bear the name of
   Nazarene which was rightly his.

   But it might be asked what prophet gave this name to Christ; for there is in
   fact no such testimony in Scripture. Some think it is enough to answer that
   Scripture often calls him holy; but this is a poor solution of the problem.
   Matthew, as we have seen, emphasizes the word Nazarene, and by it refers to
   the ancient Nazarenes, who were considered especially holy. He as much as
   says that the holiness foreshadowed in the Nazarenes, as selected
   firstfruits before God, was perfected in the person of Christ.

   But we must still face the question as to where the prophets gave this name
   to Christ. Chrysostom, [73] who was unable to unravel the knot, settled the
   matter by saying that many books of the prophets have perished. But this is
   a careless answer. For even though the Lord punished his ancient people by
   depriving them of a part of Scripture, or suppressed those parts which were
   of lesser importance, nothing has been lost since the coming of Christ.
   People have been misled on this point by a passage in Josephus, [74] where
   he says that Ezekiel left behind two books. But Josephus may have been
   referring to Ezekiel’s prophecy of the new Temple and new Kingdom, which is
   obviously distinct from his former prophecies, and amounts to a new book. In
   any case, we still have safe and sound all the books which were extant in
   Matthew’s time, and they are preserved in good condition. Therefore,
   somewhere we should come across his citation from the testimony of the
   prophets.

   I think Bucer’s judgment with regard to this matter is the best. He thinks
   we find the reference we need in Judg. 13:5. [75] This verse has to do with
   Samson, who is called deliverer in so far as he prefigured Christ; and the
   salvation which came by his hand and ministry was a shadowy prelude to the
   fullness of salvation which was exhibited to the world in the Son of God.
   Anything good said about Samson in Scripture must by right be transferred to
   Christ. If anyone prefers it that way, Christ is the original exemplar, and
   Samson is the inferior copy (antitype). We must understand that when Samson
   was invested with the honors due to the person of the Savior, the titles
   which adorn that high and truly divine office were intended not for him but
   for Christ. The fathers had only a taste of that grace of redemption which
   we who are in Christ have received in full.

   It is easy to see why Matthew spoke of prophets in the plural: The Book of
   Judges was composed by a number of prophets. But I think that the reference
   to the prophets in this place has a wider significance. For, the patriarch
   Joseph, who was called a Nazarene by his brothers, was a temporal savior of
   the church; he was in many respects a type of Christ, and even his living
   image (Gen. 49:26, Deut. 33:16). God, therefore, intended that the high
   dignity conferred upon Joseph should have reappeared in the person of
   Samson, who therefore received the title Nazarene. In all this, it was
   God’s purpose to provide for the training of the faithful: to fix their
   hearts upon the Redeemer to come, who was set apart from all men, to be the
   firstborn among many brothers.

   And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might
   be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among
   them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. Matt. 27:35.

   It is quite certain that it was the custom of the soldiers to divide the
   spoils of a condemned man among themselves; even though it was perhaps
   unusual to cast lots for a seamless coat. So, nothing happened to Christ
   that did not happen to all condemned men. And yet this story deserves utmost
   attention. The Evangelists present us with a Christ stripped naked of his
   clothes, to impress upon us that by his nakedness we are covered with riches
   which adorn us before God. The Son was stripped by God’s will, to clothe us
   with his righteousness and an abundance of all wealth. So it is that whereas
   before our rags and filth made us unfit for heaven, now we all can appear
   with God’s angels, in his presence, boldly and without fear. Christ himself
   let the soldiers tear his seamless coat in pieces, like beasts at their prey
   to enrich us with the riches of his victory.

   Moreover, as Matthew says, this happened in fulfillment of David’s prophecy,
   They divided my garments among them (Ps. 22:18). This bitter complaint is a
   metaphor, and its language is figurative. But as applied to Christ, its
   meaning is, as we say, literal; for it states a matter of fact. By garments,
   David means his wealth and honor; he means that he had been a prey to his
   enemies, who had in his own lifetime and under his very eyes despoiled his
   house of everything he possessed, and gone so far as to ravish his wife.
   When he writes that his garments were divided by lot, he is using a metaphor
   to express the cruelty of his enemies.

   Since David was an image and foreshadowing of Christ, he was endowed with
   the Spirit of prophecy, and predicted the sufferings of Christ. We must not
   forget that when the soldiers robbed Christ of his garment, they did this
   outrage according to signs and tokens indicated a long time before. When we
   see this, we are no longer troubled by the scandal Christ’s nakedness causes
   to the carnal mind. We now understand that he suffered everything rightly
   and properly as the Redeemer, and as prophesied and declared by the Spirit.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [68] Anabaptists is a loose and derogatory term applied to radical sects of
   the Reformation era. Calvin was especially opposed to them; not so much
   because they opposed infant baptism as because they claimed revelation
   beyond Scripture and because they advocated a complete separation of church
   and state.

   [69] Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim of Cologne (1486–1535). A man
   in the stereotype Renaissance style. He was a Neoplatonist and worked at
   “occult philosophy.” His unorthodoxy and skepticism aroused the ire of the
   Catholics, and the Protestant Reformers regarded him as a heretic and a
   charlatan.

   [70] Bk. II, ch. ii, par. 3.

   [71] When Calvin speaks roundly of Greek and Latin interpreters, he means
   primarily Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, whose works were continually
   before him. But he knew many of the other fathers of the ancient church (see
   Introduction, p. 22).

   [72] The anti-Pelagian writings, De gratia et libero arbitrio, ch. 21, and
   De correptione et gratia, ch. 41. See also his Tractates on the Gospel of
   John, No. 3, Sec. 9.

   [73] John Chrysostom (347–407), the bishop of Constantinople, was a man much
   after Calvin’s heart. He was a powerful preacher who aimed at reform. He
   practiced “lucidity and brevity” in his voluminous Biblical homilies and
   commentaries. He was a brave critic of the mighty both in the church and in
   the state. He made many enemies and ended in exile.

   [74] Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37–95?), Jewish antiquarian and historian, has
   put all subsequent historians of the Bible in his debt. His two books, On
   the Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, have been “primary sources” for our
   knowledge of events, places, parties, etc., having to do with the New
   Testament. Calvin seems to have had his works before him as he dictated his
   New Testament Commentaries at home.

   [75] Bucer’s In sacra quatuor evangelia, enarrationes perpetua, 1536, on
   Matt. 2:23.
     _________________________________________________________________

II The Knowledge of God

  THE TEXT

   In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne,
   high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the
   seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with
   twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto
   another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth
   is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him
   that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me! for
   I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of
   a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of
   hosts. Isa. 6:1–5.

   We may ask how Isaiah could see God who is spirit and is therefore not
   visible to bodily eyes. Since the minds of men are incapable of mounting to
   the infinite height of God, how can man apprehend God under any visible
   form? But we must realize that whenever God revealed himself to be seen by
   the fathers, he never appeared as he is in himself but as he could be
   understood by human minds. Since men crawl on the ground, or at least dwell
   far below the heavens, there is no absurdity in the statement that God
   descends to them in order to turn upon them, as though he used a mirror,
   some reflected rays of his glory. Therefore Isaiah was shown a form of a
   kind which enabled him with his own understanding to taste the inconceivable
   majesty of God. This is the reason that he attributes a throne, a robe, and
   a bodily appearance to God.

   From this passage we may derive the valuable assurance that whenever God
   gives any sign whatever of his presence he is in truth present with us. He
   does not play a game with such meaningless shapes as men use when they
   impiously distort him with their inventions. Since the vision was in no way
   a false symbol of the presence of God, Isaiah is right in asserting that he
   saw God. Similarly when John is said to have seen the Holy Spirit in the
   form of a dove, the name Spirit is transferred to the symbol and there is
   nothing false in the statement. John did not indeed see the essence of the
   Spirit, but he did have certain, clear, and unambiguous evidence that the
   Spirit of God dwelt in Christ.

   In the second place we may ask, Who was that Lord? John (ch. 12:41) teaches
   that he was Christ; and this is true because God never revealed himself to
   the fathers except in his eternal Word, his only-begotten Son. Yet, in my
   judgment, it is wrong to restrict this vision to the person of Christ, since
   the prophecy refers rather to God without any differentiation. Nor does the
   use of the name ’adonai (Lord), which may seem more appropriate to Christ,
   support the restriction, for it is often used simply for God. Here then God
   is meant. Yet it is correct to say that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ,
   because Christ was the image of the invisible God.

   Sitting upon a throne the prophet could have found no better image than that
   of a judge to impress the Jews with the majesty of God. And later we shall
   hear the severe sentence which the Lord pronounces from his judgment seat.
   But we should not suppose that the prophet deliberated about the way in
   which he should depict God. He described faithfully the form which was
   disclosed and exhibited to him.

   We may wonder whether the prophet was led into the Temple, or whether the
   whole vision appeared to him in his sleep. Many arguments are offered on
   both sides, but they leave us uncertain. If he was not in the Temple, the
   revelation could have been given him at home or in a field, where other
   prophets received their visions.

   His extreme parts (extrema) filled the temple. Almost all interpret as “the
   fringes of his garments,” although the word may equally well refer to the
   edges of the throne, to emphasize its great size, which was as large as the
   whole Temple. The purpose of the statement in any case is to attribute to
   God a grandeur beyond any human form.

   The vision had the more authority because it appeared in the Temple. God had
   promised that he would meet his people there, and the people expected his
   voice to come from there, as Solomon had said at the dedication. Therefore,
   in order that the people might know that this vision came from the God whom
   they daily invoked, in whom they were boasting without warrant, it was
   granted to the prophet in the Temple. For thus no little assurance was given
   them that this was not the speech of any mortal man but a heavenly oracle
   pronounced by the God whose name they used so presumptuously whenever they
   wished to obtain something more for themselves. . . . The prophetic word was
   harsh and hateful, and it greatly needed confirmation. So it is not unusual
   for the prophets to say that God speaks from his Temple, his sanctuary.

   Seraphim. After the statement that God had appeared to him, full of majesty
   and glory, he adds that angels were standing near God; and he calls them
   seraphim because of their fiery zeal. Although the derivation of this word
   [from saraph, burn] is known, various explanations of it are offered. Some
   say they are called seraphim because they burn with the love of God; others,
   because they are swift like fire; others, because they shine. Whatever may
   be the reason, the description shows us the radiant splendor and the
   boundless majesty of God, so that we learn to understand and hold in
   reverence his matchless and immeasurable glory.

   Many think there were two seraphim, corresponding to the two cherubim above
   the Ark of the Covenant. I like this idea, but I do not dare to affirm what
   is not stated in the text. However, in general, descriptions like this one
   use symbols which were familiar and well known to religious people; and this
   may well be the case with this prophecy. So I accept the guess of two as
   probable, leaving open the possibility of more; for Daniel saw not two
   angels but myriads.

   Six wings. This figure has a meaning: the wings so placed represent a
   mystery which God did not wish left wholly hidden.

   The two wings with which the angels fly represent simply the swiftness and
   readiness with which they carry out God’s commands. Since this analogy is
   very obvious, only contentious men will raise objections.

   The two wings with which they covered their faces show clearly enough that
   not even angels can endure the full glory of God, and so they shade their
   eyes as we do when we wish to look at the sun. But if angels cannot endure
   God’s majesty, how great is the rashness of men who try to penetrate it! Let
   us learn then that we ought to limit our inquiries to what is within our
   capacity and fitting for us, so that our understanding may soberly and
   modestly taste what is beyond our powers. The angels do not cover their
   faces so completely that they have no joy in the sight of God (and they can
   still see to fly without deviating from their course). So we also should
   behold God, but only so far as our nature can bear.

   It is more difficult to interpret the two lower wings. Some think the feet
   of the angels were covered so as not to touch the earth and become unclean
   as human feet do. For whenever we walk we pick up dirt and filth, and so
   long as we wander on earth we are always contracting some contagion or
   other. The believing are then warned that they will have no dealings with
   angels until they have risen and are no longer tied to earth. Some give this
   explanation, but I agree more with others who think that the purpose of
   these wings is the opposite of the upper ones. As with the upper wings the
   angels cover their faces lest they be annihilated by the splendor of God, so
   also they have the lower wings by which they themselves are hidden from our
   sight. But if it is true that the faint beams of divine glory shining out
   from the angels cannot be seen by us without destroying us, how can we
   behold God’s most glorious and splendid majesty which overwhelms all sense?
   Let men learn that since they cannot even look at the angels, they are very
   far from the perfect knowledge of God. This seems to me the better
   interpretation, but I do not exclude the others.

   They were crying. When we read that the angels are busy proclaiming the
   glory of God, we know that their example is presented for our imitation. For
   the holiest service of all that we can offer God is to occupy ourselves in
   praising his name. Such adoration links us with the angels, so that even
   while we sojourn on the earth we are yet joined to the citizens of heaven
   and somewhat resemble them. But if there is to be true harmony between all
   the chords of the angels and our own, we must strive earnestly that there
   may be a correspondence between the praise of God with our tongues and all
   the actions of our lives. This aim will be achieved at the last if we keep
   our eyes fixed as steadily as possible on the glory of God.

   Holy, holy, holy. The ancients used this passage when they wished to prove
   against the Arians that there are three persons in the one divine essence. I
   do not reject this interpretation, although if I were dealing with heretics
   I should prefer to use clearer evidence. . . . And although I do not doubt
   that the one God in three Persons is here meant by the angels (for certainly
   God cannot be praised without honoring Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
   together), yet I think clearer passages should be used in defending our
   faith, lest we incur the ridicule of heretics. Surely the repetition proves
   rather the unwearied zeal of the seraphim; the prophet meant that the
   angelic song has no end, for God’s holiness furnishes to them and to us an
   inexhaustible theme.

   The whole earth is full. The fullness could refer to the fruits and the
   living creatures with which God so abundantly fills the earth, and the
   meaning would then be that the glory of God shines out in the enticing
   variety of the beauty of the earth, which is evidence of his Fatherly love.
   But a simpler and truer interpretation is that the glory of God fills the
   whole world or extends to all the quarters of the earth. Here, in my
   judgment, is an implied contradiction to the foolish self-conceit of the
   Jews who thought that the glory of God did not exist apart from them, and
   wished to confine it to the Temple. This latter meaning is consistent with
   the prophecy of the destruction of the Jews which follows. For access to the
   church of God was open to the Gentiles who were to take the place left empty
   by the Jews.

   And the posts shook. This tremor is a sign that it was not a human voice
   which the prophet heard. For no human voice can shake foundations and
   pillars. God did not intend that the authority of his words should have been
   recognized by the prophet alone; he meant it to be sanctified to all
   posterity, for all generations, and without ceasing. By this trembling we
   are led to realize that this voice of God is valid for us today; when he
   speaks we tremble. For if inanimate objects and dumb creatures are shaken by
   it, what must we do, who have feeling, smell, taste, and understanding, in
   order to obey his word devoutly and reverently?

   Woe is me: for mine eyes have seen. The prophet’s reaction is not
   surprising. The whole carnal man must be reduced to nothingness that he may
   be renewed by God. For how does it happen that men live, or rather think
   they live, and are puffed up with vain confidence in their shrewdness and
   power? Only because they do not know God. Before he reveals himself to us we
   think ourselves to be not men, but rather gods. But when the Lord appears to
   us, then we begin to sense and realize what sort of beings we are. Humility
   arises from and consists in this: that man claim nothing more for himself
   and depend wholly on God.

   This passage and others like it must be carefully considered. It was
   customary for the ancients, whenever they saw God, to speak in this way: “I
   am undone. It’s all up with me.” Before our minds seriously approach God,
   our life is an empty sham. We walk in shadows in which it is hard to
   distinguish true from false. But when we come into light, the difference is
   clear and easy to know. When God comes to us, he brings light with him, and
   we see our emptiness. . . . But does the sight of God really bring death to
   men? It seems absurd that the sight or nearness of God should destroy life
   of which he is origin and giver. I answer that it does this contingently,
   since death results from our fault and not from the nature of God. For death
   is already in us, but we do not perceive it except when it is contrasted
   with the life of God. This truth the prophet clearly and certainly knows.

   Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let
   the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches.
   But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth
   me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment and
   righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.
   Jer. 9:23–24.

   From the second part of this passage we learn that men are stripped of all
   their glory, not to leave them groveling in their own shame, but to clothe
   them with another that is better. For God does not take pleasure in men’s
   shame. But since men claim for themselves more than is good for them, and
   even intoxicate themselves with self-flattery, God takes away from them
   their false glory. After they have learned that whatever they think they
   possess, either by nature, or their own efforts, or through other creatures,
   is a mere phantom, then they may seek true glory.

   In understanding and knowing me. Although the prophet means the same thing
   by both verbs, he does not use the two without a reason. When men belittle
   the knowledge of God, they must be warned that to know God is the sum of
   perfect wisdom. Jeremiah wishes to correct a perverse error under which the
   whole world suffers. Today all sorts of subjects are eagerly pursued; but
   the knowledge of God is neglected. We see with what zeal everyone follows
   his own interests, while scarcely one man in a hundred deigns to devote half
   an hour a day to the knowledge of God. And from pride arises men’s second
   mistake: they think the knowledge of God to be a common possession. So we
   see why the prophet used two verbs to name the same thing: he wanted to
   arouse greater zeal in men, since he saw that all were so lazy in the
   pursuit of this knowledge. Yet to know God is man’s chief end, and justifies
   his existence. Even if a hundred lives were ours, this one aim would be
   sufficient for them all. But, as I said, men despise the thing which should
   be preferred above all else.

   Afterwards he adds that I am the Lord doing mercy and judgment and justice.
   God wishes to be so known. He alone is exalted; yet he comes down, so to
   speak, within our sight. The words which follow must be carefully
   considered. If God had said only, that I am the Lord, this would have been a
   complete doctrine; but it would not have been sufficiently clear. . . for
   men would think it enough to confess that there is one God. Therefore we
   must carefully note these words: God does mercy, judgment, and justice. We
   see today among the papists the name of God rashly flaunted aloft. There is
   no one of them who will not reiterate again and again that he worships God.
   But meanwhile they all profane the name of God. They rob God of his honor
   and distribute the spoil to the dead. This passage shows that the name of
   God by itself is of no importance when it is emptied of its true content.

   The true knowledge of God is not only to know him as the maker of the world,
   but also to be persuaded that the world is directed by him, and further to
   know the nature of that direction. He does mercy and judgment and justice.

   Moreover, the first thing to know about God is that he is kind and
   forbearing. For without God’s forbearance, what would become of us? It is
   true and right that the knowledge of God should begin with the assurance
   that he is merciful towards us. For what use would it be to us to know that
   God is just unless we already know his mercy and his free kindness? But we
   know God by also knowing ourselves, for these two things are bound together;
   and if anyone scrutinizes himself, what will he find but reason for despair?
   As often as the thought of God’s justice comes into our minds, we should
   shudder and despair. Truly all would flee from God unless he attract them by
   the sweetness of his grace. Therefore it is with good reason that Jeremiah,
   when he ordered men to glory in the knowledge of God, gave the highest place
   to God’s compassion, and then added judgment and justice.

   The Lord God is truth (Those who translate God of truth do not attend to the
   syntax of the Hebrew, for that would need to read ’elohe ’emeth); God
   himself is life and the king of the ages. Jer. 10:10 (Calvin’s wording).

   Here the prophet exalts and triumphs in God’s name, and speaks of him as
   having overthrown and destroyed the falsehoods of the nations. He exposes
   their gross errors and shows up the wisdom of the world as absolutely
   worthless, because they stupefy themselves with [the worship of] wood and
   stone.

   He exalts the glory of God magnificently, by saying: For the Lord is God;
   that is, the nations worship their gods by telling fables about their powers
   and falsely inventing many miracles. For, when we examine everything
   honestly, it becomes certain that there is only one God; and all the gods of
   the nations vanish of themselves. This is what the prophet means: God is
   sufficient to destroy all the falsehoods of the nations. When his majesty
   comes forth, its splendor is such that all others which receive the
   admiration of the world are reduced to nothingness. After this, he speaks of
   truth; then he opposes truth with vanity. Before he had said that wood is
   vanity; now he says, Eternal God is truth; which means that He has no need
   to take on colors. The idols of the nations are painted, dressed up,
   decorated; but all such images are empty show. Jehovah, on the other hand,
   is Lord; that is, he does not in any way change; he desires nothing which he
   does not possess, and his own perfection carries all authority.

   God, then, is truth; and God is life. After the prophet has declared that in
   the essence of the one God there is true and substantial glory, he adds
   another certitude which he derives from the experience of men: God is life.
   For although God is in himself incomprehensible to us, he not only sets his
   glory before our eyes, but even offers himself to our touch, as Paul says
   (Acts 14:17). For Paul knew that God can be found by touch, even by men who
   are blind. Although the blind are deprived of sight, yet when they walk
   around a hall, they find the way out by touch, or they locate by touch the
   door out of a room, and when they wish to go in again they find the door.
   And Paul says that we have no need to go outside of ourselves, for whoever
   searches himself will find God within. For, in him we live, move, and exist
   (Acts 17:28). Hence if we raise the objection that God is beyond our
   comprehension, and that we cannot rise to the height of his glory, yet
   certainly life is in us. If life is in us, then so is evidence for God. Who
   is foolish enough to say that he lives of himself? Since men do not create
   their own life but obtain life precariously from another, it follows that
   God dwells in them.

   Now the prophet, after he has spoken of the essence of God, comes down to
   his activity. And surely this is the true knowledge of God — not to
   speculate in the air as the philosophers do when they argue, but to know by
   experience that there is one God. How do we know? Because we exist; not,
   strictly, exist, but subsist (live in). And if we live in, truly that in
   which we live must be taken into account. And, to speak accurately, our
   subsisting will be found to be within the one God. Whence it follows that
   the life of man is an excellent index to the only God.

   God therefore is life and the king of the ages. First the earth was founded,
   and since then the years follow one another; in this cycle, there is great
   variation from one year to another yet there is regular and right order in
   their procession. Who will not recognize the glory of God in this ordering
   of the world? Therefore the prophet called God king of the ages.

   And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have wrought with you for my
   name’s sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your
   corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord God. Ezek. 20:44.

   Here God declares that his glory will be especially manifest when, solely
   for his name’s sake, he has compassion freely upon the desperate and lost.
   And Paul, in the first chapter of Ephesians, especially praises God’s
   gracious kindness when he calls the compassion with which God honors his
   elect, the glory of God kat' exochēn. [76]

   Now the glory of God includes more than his compassion. As thy name, so is
   thy praise through all the countries of the earth (Ps. 48:10). God deserves
   no less to be glorified when he destroys the wicked than when he takes pity
   on his people. But Paul calls God’s especial glory the undeserved kindness
   with which he embraces his chosen whom he has adopted. So God says here, You
   will know that I am the Lord when I deal with you for my name’s sake, and
   not according to your crimes.

   Moreover, since God wishes his glory to shine pre-eminently in his free
   mercy, we must conclude that those who obscure his compassion or minimize
   it, or attempt to reduce its greatness to nothing, are the most hardened and
   open enemies of his glory.

   And we know that the teaching of the papacy aims in that direction. For in
   it, God’s free kindness lies buried, or is hidden in a fog, or has wholly
   vanished. For they set forth merits of various sorts which they oppose to
   God’s grace. And they divide merits into preparations, good works by which
   they gain God’s favor; and satisfactions, by which they escape the penalties
   they would otherwise pay; and finally they add the interposition of the
   saints (as they call them). They invent for themselves a host of patrons and
   then devise countless other things for no other purpose than to keep the
   glory of God from being seen by men, or at most to allow only a few sparks
   to glow dimly. When we see the whole papal organization moving in this
   direction, we know that they are openly opposing God’s glory, and that all
   who defend those abominations are worse than sworn enemies of God’s glory.

   As for ourselves, let us learn that God cannot be known as Savior unless we
   accept from him what is essential to our salvation. For if we wish to keep
   accounts of what we give and what we receive, or to make any claim whatever,
   we reduce his glory. And so far as in us lies, we throw away the inestimable
   privilege which the prophet here extols.

   Therefore let us strive to know God through this Word. He deals with us
   according to his great mercy and compassion, that is, for his name’s sake,
   and not according to our wrongdoing. But if these words were spoken to the
   ancient people because they had returned to the Land of Canaan, how much
   more today, when the Kingdom of Heaven lies open, God’s free kindness
   deserves to be praised! Today, when he openly calls us to himself, to
   heaven, to the hope of the blessed immortality which is given us through
   Christ!

   [This was Calvin’s last lecture. His closing prayer was:]

   Grant, Almighty God, since we have already entered in hope upon the
   threshold of our eternal inheritance, and know that there is a mansion for
   us in heaven since Christ, our head and the first fruits of our salvation,
   has been received there, grant that we may proceed more and more in the way
   of thy holy calling until at length we reach the goal, and so enjoy that
   eternal glory of which thou givest us a taste in this world by the same
   Christ, our Lord. Amen.

   And he built there an altar, and he called the place El Beth-el. . . . And
   God went up from him in the place where he talked with him. Gen. 35:7, 13.

   Now we know why the holy fathers had to have their own altar, distinct from
   those of other nations. It was to bear witness that they worshiped not the
   various gods who were recognized everywhere in the world, but a God of their
   own.

   For although God is worshiped in the heart, yet external confession is the
   inseparable accompaniment of faith. And there is no one who does not know
   how helpful it is to us to be roused to the worship of God by external aids.

   If anyone objects that this altar looked no different from the others, I
   answer that the actual difference was very great. Others built altars,
   rashly and with thoughtless zeal, to unknown gods. Jacob bound himself
   always to the Word of God. No altar is legitimate unless it is consecrated
   by God’s Word. Jacob’s worship excelled that of others simply because he did
   nothing without the command of God.

   In calling the place God of Bethel, he may seem to be too bold; and yet the
   faith of the holy man is praiseworthy at this point also, and that rightly,
   since he keeps himself within the limits set by God. The papists are stupid
   when they claim to honor humility by exhibiting dull moderation. Humility
   deserves praise truly when it does not seek to know more than the Lord
   permits. But when he descends to us, adapting himself to us and prattling to
   us, he wishes us also to prattle back to him. And true wisdom is to embrace
   God exactly as he adapts himself to our little measure. Thus Jacob does not
   dispute with learned arguments about God’s essence, but according to the
   oracle he has received he brings God near and makes him accessible to
   himself. Because he opens his mind to the revelation his prattling and his
   simplicity are, as I said, pleasing to God.

   Today, when the knowledge of God shines clearer, and when God in the gospel
   has undertaken the role of nurse, let us learn to yield our minds to him.
   Let us remember that he came down to us to raise us up to him. He does not
   adopt an earthly fashion of speech to keep us at a distance from heaven, but
   rather as a means of raising us up to heaven.

   Meanwhile we must keep to this rule of interpreting [Jacob’s action]: since
   the altar was commanded by a heavenly oracle, the building of it was truly
   and duly a work of faith. Where the living voice of God does not sound, pomp
   and ceremony, however elaborately observed, are like empty phantoms. So, we
   should see that papacy is so much wind.

   God’s ascent is like his descent. For God who fills heaven and earth does
   not change location. He is said to come down to us when he shows us a sign
   of his presence suited to our littleness. He ascended from Jacob when he
   disappeared from his sight or when the vision ended.

   By this way of speaking, God shows us the value of his Word which is always
   near us, as witness to his grace. Because of the great distance between us
   and his heavenly glory, he himself came down to us through the Word. This he
   did wholly and finally in the person of Christ; and Christ by his ascent
   into heaven has so elevated our faith that by the power of his Spirit he
   dwells always with us.

   And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness comprehended it not.
   John 1:5.

   It may be objected that Scripture in many places calls men blind, and that
   the blindness to which they are condemned is a matter of common knowledge
   — that all men’s reasoning is a miserable business and comes to nothing.
   Where do all the labyrinths of error in the world come from [the objector
   will continue], if not from the fact that when men follow their own minds
   they land in vanity and lies? So long as men are without the light, the
   knowledge of Christ’s divinity, mentioned above by the Evangelist, is
   extinct among them.

   The Evangelist anticipates this objection, and cautions us first that we
   must not judge the light given to man in the beginning by his present
   condition, because in man’s present corrupted and degenerate nature, light
   has been turned into darkness. Nevertheless, he denies emphatically that the
   light of intelligence is entirely extinct, because some sparkling bits of
   light keep darting out of the deep and heavy darkness of the human mind.

   And the darkness comprehended it not. Even though, through the feeble bit of
   light left in men, the Son of God has always invited them to himself, the
   Evangelist tells us that this has not done any good, because “they saw but
   did not see.” After man was alienated from God, his mind was oppressed by
   such ignorance that any light left in him was quenched and useless. This is
   proven daily by our experience. Still, even those who are not regenerated by
   the Spirit of God enjoy some rationality; which shows that man was made not
   only to breathe but also to understand. But it is none the less true that
   men do not come to God by way of their own reason; neither do they in this
   way get near to him, because all their intelligence is but vanity. Whence it
   follows that the salvation of men is hopeless unless God come to their aid
   with a new help. For even while the Son of God pours out his light upon
   them, they are so dull that they do not know the source of it; on the
   contrary, carried away by their own sickly and depraved imaginations, they
   only become insane.

   The chief parts of the light which remain in our corrupt natures are two:
   first, everyone has a certain seed of religion implanted in him; and
   secondly, every man’s conscience is capable of distinguishing good from
   evil. But then, what happens except that religion degenerates into a
   thousand chimeras of superstition; and consciences pervert every act of
   judgment, so that one cannot tell vice from virtue? In short, natural reason
   can never guide men to Christ. Even though prudence teaches men to regulate
   their lives, and though they are born capable of the arts and sciences, the
   whole thing vanishes and leaves nothing behind.

   Further, it ought to be clear that the Evangelist is speaking only of man’s
   natural endowments, and does not touch upon regenerating grace. The Son of
   God possesses two distinct powers: the first is known from the structure of
   the world and the order of nature; the second is the power by which he
   renews and restores our fallen nature. Since he is the eternal Word of God,
   the world was created by him and it is by his power that all retain the life
   they have received. By him also, man was adorned with the gift of the
   singular imprint of intelligence; and although by his defection he lost the
   light of intelligence, he still sees and understands, so that what he has
   naturally by the grace of the Son of God is not completely abolished. But
   since he has darkened the light which he retains by his stupidity and
   wickedness, it is necessary that the Son of God take on a new office, that
   of mediator, and restore the ruined man by the Spirit of regeneration.
   Therefore, those who confuse the light of which the Evangelist speaks with
   the gospel and the doctrine which deals with our salvation, philosophize
   absurdly and in an irrelevant manner.

   That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the
   world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world
   knew him not. John 1:9–10.

   The true light here is not opposed to the false. The Evangelist meant to
   distinguish Christ from all others, so that no one would think He has the
   light in common with men and angels. The distinction is made to point out
   that whatever is bright in heaven and on earth derives its splendor from
   another; Christ on the other hand is himself light, and his brightness is
   his own, filling the whole world with his radiance; and there is no other
   source or cause of light. He is called the true light because it is his
   nature to illumine.

   Which lighteth every man. The Evangelist insists on this chiefly because he
   wants to base his teaching that Christ is the light upon the effects which
   he produces in us and in our experience. He might have argued more subtly by
   saying that since Christ is the eternal light, his radiance is inborn and
   not derived from another. But he turns our attention to our common
   experience. The argument is that since Christ makes all of us to share in
   his light, we should honor him alone as the Light.

   Now this passage is usually explained in two ways. Some restrict every man
   to those who, having been regenerated by the Spirit, partake of the
   life-giving light. Augustine gives the example of a schoolmaster who, if he
   has the only school in a town, is said to be everybody’s teacher, even
   though many may not go to his school. Some people understand the statement
   that Christ enlightens everyone in the sense that no one can boast of having
   received the grace of the light of life otherwise than from him. But since
   the Evangelist speaks in general of all those who have come into the world,
   the next explanation pleases me better: namely, that rays from this light
   are diffused in all of mankind, as I have already said. We know that men,
   above all other living beings, have the singular superiority of having been
   endowed with reason and intelligence, and that they have engraved in their
   consciences the ability to discriminate between right and wrong. There is
   therefore no one who is without some intuition of the eternal light. But
   there are fanatics who are somehow insane enough to twist and torture this
   passage, and to infer from it that the grace of illumination is offered
   equally to all. But let us remember that this statement has to do with the
   common light of nature which is far inferior to faith. For no man will ever,
   with all the sharpness and perspicacity of his mind, penetrate to the
   Kingdom of God. It is the Spirit of God alone who opens the gate of heaven
   to the elect. Further, let us remember that the light of reason which God
   gave men is obscured by sin; so that in the deep darkness of dreadful
   ignorance and the abyss of errors there are hardly any sparks which are not
   utterly put out.

   He was in the world. He accuses men of ingratitude because they had so
   blinded themselves as not to know the cause of the light they enjoyed. This
   is true of every age. For even before Christ appeared in the flesh, he
   displayed his power everywhere. Therefore those daily effects he produces
   ought to shake people out of their torpor. What is more absurd than to draw
   water from a running river, and not to think of the fountain from which the
   river flows? Wherefore, there is no just excuse for the world’s ignorance of
   Christ before he appeared in the flesh; it was due to their apathy and
   wickedness, because he has always been present among them with his power. In
   short, Christ was at no time so absent from the world that men might not
   have been aroused by his light and have raised their eyes to him. It follows
   that the blame is theirs.

   Let not your heart be troubled: Ye believe in God, believe also in me. John
   14:1.

   This might be taken as imperative: “Believe in God, and also believe in
   me.” But the other reading is more exact, and has been more generally
   accepted, as I have pointed out. Here we find that the way to stand fast is
   to let our faith rest in Christ and to recognize that he is all ready to
   come to our help with outstretched arms. One might wonder, however, why he
   puts faith in God first. Maybe he should have told his disciples that having
   believed in him, they should believe in God: for Christ is the very image of
   the Father, and we should fix our eyes first on him. Besides, he descended
   to us so that our faith, starting with him, might ascend to the Father. But
   Christ has something else in mind. All confess that we ought to believe in
   God. This is a fixed axiom to which all subscribe without controversy. Yet
   there is hardly one in a hundred who really believes it; not so much because
   the sheer majesty of God is too distant from us, but because Satan puts
   every kind of cloud between us and God, so as to keep us from the vision of
   God. So it is that our faith vanishes even while it seeks our God in his
   heavenly glory and inaccessible light. Our own flesh comes up spontaneously
   with a thousand fancies which turn us away from a right apprehension of God.

   Christ therefore presents himself to us as the proper object of our faith.
   If we direct our faith to him, it will immediately find certainty and rest.
   He is Immanuel, who responds within us to our inquiring faith. It is a basic
   article of our faith that if we do not wish to go around and around
   endlessly, we must direct our faith to Christ alone. If our faith is not to
   waver in the midst of temptations, it must be fixed on him. And this is the
   evidence of faith that we never allow ourselves to be torn away from Christ
   and the promises we have in him. The papal theologians dispute, or rather
   chatter a great deal, about the object of faith; but they leave Christ out,
   and mention only God. Those whose knowledge comes from their writings must
   needs waver with the least breath of a breeze. Proud men are ashamed of the
   lowliness of Christ; therefore they fly to the incomprehensible deity of
   God. But faith seeks to attain heaven only by submission to Christ, whose
   countenance seems to reveal a lowly God; and it finds no stability unless it
   find support in the weakness of Christ.

   If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and hence forth ye
   know him, and have seen him. John 14:7.

   This confirms what we have already said; namely, that the curiosity by which
   people, not content with Christ, seek God in devious byways is at once
   stupid and harmful. They admit that there is nothing better than the
   knowledge of God. But when he is near them and speaks to them as a friend,
   they wander around looking high and low, and search for him beyond the
   clouds because they are too proud to see him nearby. Christ therefore
   reproaches his disciples because they do not know that God has been revealed
   to them fully in him. “I see,” he says, “that so far you have not known me
   rightly because you have not seen the living image of God in me.”

   And henceforth. He adds this not only to tone down his reproach, but also to
   accuse them of ingratitude and apathy because they have not done justice to
   the Father’s gift through him. He says it in praise of his teaching rather
   than of their faith. What he means, therefore, is that they would even now
   see God, if they would only open their eyes. But by ” see,” he means the
   certainty of faith.

   Then they said unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither
   know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father
   also. John 8:19.

   Instead of doing them the honor of a direct reply, he reproaches them
   briefly for their ignorance and their complacency. They asked about the
   Father; and yet, here was the Son before their eyes, and they, seeing, did
   not see. It was, therefore, the just punishment of their pride and impious
   in gratitude that when they despised the Son of God who was there for
   everyone to see, they had no access to the Father. How can any mortal being
   rise to the height of God except he be raised there by the Son’s own hand?
   Moreover, God has lowered himself in Christ to the mean condition of man, so
   as to stretch out his hand to him; and do not those who reject God’s
   approach to them deserve to be excluded of heaven?

   Let us then know that it was said to us all: anyone who does not begin his
   way to God with Christ, must wander, as it were, in a labyrinth. It is not
   for nothing that, as we read elsewhere, he is called the image of the
   Father. Besides, all those who storm heaven like giants, without Christ’s
   help, are deprived of any right knowledge of God. Anyone, on the other hand,
   who turns his mind and all his senses to Christ is led directly to the
   Father. The Apostle therefore is not deceiving us when he says that in the
   mirror of the gospel we see God clearly in the person of Christ (2 Cor.
   3:18). And certainly the priceless reward of the obedience of faith is that
   a man who humbles himself before Christ rises above all heavens and
   penetrates the mysteries which the angels witness and adore.

   Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of
   thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me, and they
   have received them, and have known surely that I come out from thee, and
   they have believed that thou didst send me. John 17:7–8.

   Here we are told the chief thing about faith: which is, so to believe in
   Christ that our belief rests not in an apprehension of the flesh, but rather
   in the contemplation of his divine power. When he says, “ They knew whatever
   thou gavest me as from thee,” he means that believers recognize all they
   have as divine and from heaven. And certainly, unless we apprehend God in
   Christ, we are bound to be always wavering.

   He now declares that men have this knowledge when they receive what he
   teaches them. But anyone who thinks that his doctrine is from man, or that
   it is from this earth, will not acknowledge that its author is God. Hence he
   says, The words which thou gavest me, I gave them. And when he says that he
   taught as he received from God, he speaks as the mediator or the servant of
   God. He refers to God as his Father because he is in the lowly state of the
   flesh, and has concealed his divine majesty under the form of a servant. At
   the same time, we must hold on to John’s initial testimony that, in so far
   as Christ was the eternal Word of God, he had always been one God with the
   Father. The point here, therefore, is that Christ was to his disciples a
   faithful witness to the Father; that, since the Father himself had spoken in
   the Son, their faith had its foundation in the sole truth of God. Moreover,
   he points out that if they accepted his words, it is because he has given
   them an effective revelation of the name of the Father by the power of the
   Spirit.

   And have known surely. He repeats with other words what he has already
   touched upon. The statement that Christ came from the Father and was sent by
   him means the same thing as that whatever he has is from the Father. In
   short, faith ought to look at Christ rightly, not to know him in his flesh
   and humiliation, but to rise to a knowledge of his divine power; for thus it
   becomes established that he has in himself God and whatever is God’s. It is
   important to notice that in the former clause the Evangelist uses the word
   to know. In the latter, to believe takes its place. We are thus warned that
   we can know nothing of God rightly except by faith. But there is such
   certainty in faith as to justify our calling it knowledge.

   But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know,
   and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. John 10:38.

   He puts faith after knowledge, as though it were of a lower order, because
   he has to do with unbelieving and wrong headed men, who will not yield
   unless they are overcome and forced by experience. Such rebels insist that
   they must know before they believe. And our God indulges us to the extent of
   preparing us for faith through a knowledge of his works. However, true
   knowledge of God and of the secret of his wisdom comes from faith, because
   the obedience of faith opens to us the gate of the Kingdom of Heaven.

   And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and
   Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3.

   He now enlightens the elect in the true knowledge of God; and in so doing,
   he declares the way in which we receive life. He does not here deal with the
   ultimate enjoyment of life which is our hope, but rather with the way men
   attain life. If we are to understand this statement rightly, we must first
   realize that unless God, who alone is life, illumine us, we are all dead.
   Where, therefore, he has shone, we possess him by faith; and at the same
   time enter into the possession of life. This is why the knowledge of him is
   truly and properly said to be saving. Almost every word of Christ in this
   place is weighty. We are not concerned here with just any kind of knowledge
   of God, but with the knowledge which transforms us into the image of God,
   and the beginning and the end of it is faith; rather it is the same as that
   faith by which, ingrafted into the body of Christ, we are made to partake of
   the divine adoption and are made heirs of heaven.

   And Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except
   a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3.

   By this statement, he means, “So long as you lack what is first in God’s
   Kingdom, it does not impress me that you call me Master. For the first step
   into the Kingdom of God is that you become a new man.” This sentence is so
   weighty that we must look into each part of it separately. To see the
   Kingdom of God is to enter it, as we shall soon see from the context. But
   those who identify the Kingdom of God with heaven are mistaken; the Kingdom
   means rather the spiritual life, which begins in this life by faith, and in
   which we grow daily as we progress in a constant faith. This statement means
   that no one truly belongs to the church and is counted among God’s children,
   unless he first becomes a new man. This verse shows briefly how one begins
   the Christian life. It also teaches us that we are born exiles and complete
   strangers to the Kingdom of God and that we are perpetually at war with it,
   until he makes us other than we are by a new birth. This verse therefore
   applies universally to the whole human race. If Christ had said to one man
   or to a few that they could not enter heaven except by being born again, we
   might imagine that he referred only to certain people. But this is not the
   case. He was speaking of all men, without excepting any. The wording conveys
   no impression of limitation. It is a universal statement which means that
   all those who are not born again, cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

   Moreover, being born again means not the improvement of a part but the
   renewal of the whole of one’s nature. It follows that there is nothing in us
   that is not corrupted. If we must be renewed part and whole, it follows that
   this corruption is spread throughout our being. Of this we shall soon speak
   more fully. Erasmus, following Cyril’s [77] opinion, has translated the
   adverb anōthen incorrectly as “from above.” I confess that the meaning of
   this word in Greek is unclear. But we must remember that Christ spoke with
   Nicodemus in Hebrew; and in Hebrew, this word is not ambiguous. There was no
   reason why Nicodemus should have been deceived and shrunk from the prospect
   of a physical second birth. Therefore, he understood Christ’s words well
   enough as meaning that, unless a man be born again he is not reckoned as
   belonging to God’s Kingdom.

   For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
   burnt offerings. Hos. 6:6.

   This passage is especially important because it was cited twice by the Son
   of God (Matt. 9:13 and 12:17). . . . For a better understanding of the
   prophet’s meaning, we must first notice that under the terms sacrifice and
   burnt offerings the outward worship of God and all formal ceremonies are
   included. The part is put for the whole (synecdoche). The same is true of
   the word chesed, mercy or kindness. There is no doubt that the prophet is
   setting faith or devotion to God and love of neighbor in opposition to all
   external ceremonies.

   I desire mercy (or “compassion pleases me”) more than sacrifice, and the
   knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Here the knowledge of God is
   certainly to be understood as faith or devotion to God. Since hypocrites
   think that they worship God properly when they use many rites, both clauses
   must be read together. It is faith with kindness that pleases God. Faith by
   itself cannot please him, since without love of neighbor there is no faith.
   And kindness alone would not be enough. If a man refrains from doing injury
   to others and does not harm his brothers, but is blasphemous and despises
   God, certainly his humanitarianism would be of no account.

   So we see that these two clauses cannot be divided, for to give the right
   sense to the prophet’s words love of God must be joined with love of
   neighbor. . . .

   Further, it is important to notice that faith is called knowledge of God.
   This makes it clear that faith is not some cold and empty formula. When
   God’s will is revealed to us and we so far accept it that we can honor and
   serve him as Father — that is faith. The knowledge of God is a necessity of
   faith.

   Then spoke Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he
   that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of
   life. John 8:12.

   It is a most beautiful praise of Christ that he is called the light of the
   world. With this statement, we who are by nature blind are offered a remedy,
   by which we are snatched and freed from darkness and made to share in the
   true light. This blessing is not offered to this or that individual only;
   Christ declares himself the light of the whole world. By this universal
   statement, he takes away the distinction not only between the Jew and the
   Greek, but also between the learned and the ignorant, the distinguished and
   the common people.

   But first we must inquire as to why it is needful to seek after this light.
   Men will not turn to Christ for light until they know this world as darkness
   and themselves so profoundly blind. Let us know, therefore, that when our
   minds see the way we obtain this light in Christ, we are all condemned as
   blind, and whatever light we have from elsewhere is judged as darkness and a
   deep night. Christ here refers not to what he has in common with others, but
   to that which is his own and his alone. Whence it follows that apart from
   him there is not a spark of true light. Every other brilliance is like
   lightning which merely dazzles the eye.

   In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen. 1:1.

   In the beginning. To interpret the beginning as meaning Christ is too
   frivolous. Moses meant simply to say that the world at its beginning was not
   the finished product we see today, but was created an empty chaos of sky and
   earth. . . .

   By the word create, he shows that something was made which did not before
   exist. For he does not use the verb yatsar which means shape or form, but
   bara’. What he means is that the world was created from nothing.

   This refutes the futility of those who imagine that formless matter was
   always in existence and who get nothing more from Moses’ statement than that
   the world was fitted with a new look, clothed with form which it had
   previously lacked. This is the general opinion of unbelievers to whom only
   an obscure report of God’s truth has come. Men usually mix God’s truth with
   alien inventions. But it is absurd and most intolerable that Christians
   should labor to adopt this stinking error (as Steuchus [78] does).
   Therefore, the first article of the creed is: The world is not eternal, but
   was created by God. . . .

   God. The word Elohim, which Moses uses, is plural, and it is customary to
   conclude that here the three Persons in the Godhead are specified. But this
   does not seem a solid proof for so great a truth, and I do not agree with
   it. Rather readers should be warned to be on their guard against false
   glosses of this kind.

   They think that here they have evidence to prove against the Arians [79] the
   divinity of the Son and Spirit. But meanwhile they involve themselves in
   Sabellianism. [80] For immediately afterwards Moses adds that God (Elohim)
   spoke, and that the Spirit of God brooded upon the waters. If you would see
   three Persons [in this verse, you will not succeed, because] you will find
   here no distinction between them. . . .

   It seems to me sufficient to understand the plural as expressing the powers
   of God which he exercised in creating the world. I recognize that although
   the Scripture often recounts many divine powers, it always calls us back to
   the Father, his Word, and the Spirit. But those who twist what Moses is
   saying of God himself into a reference to the three Persons are presenting
   us with absurdities. I set it down as indisputable from the context that
   this passage names God and includes by implication the power of his eternal
   essence.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [76] The phrase kat' exochēn; occurs in the New Testament only once, Acts
   25:23, but the sense agrees with the emphasis in Eph., ch. 1. This is one
   example among many to prove that Calvin relied largely on his prodigious
   memory to provide him with the material needed for his Commentaries. The
   mistake here illustrates both the extraordinary range of his memory and its
   occasional fallibility.

   [77] Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315–386) tried vainly to keep to a middle way
   in the Arian controversy. After a career of conflicts, of exile and return,
   he enjoyed four years of peace until his death. He is most famous for his
   Catechetical Lectures to the Illumined (The Library of Christian Classics,
   The Westminster Press, Vol. IV). See Lecture II, 4 f.

   [78] Augustinus Steuchus or Agostino Steucho (1496–1549) was an influential
   Roman churchman and director of the Vatican Library. He was a philosopher
   and a scholar. He wrote De perennia philosophia and many works on Biblical
   antiquities and literary exegesis.

   [79] Arius of Alexandria in the fourth century denied that the Son was of
   the same essence as the Father. He made of Christ a divine being of
   secondary rank. The term “Arian” was later used loosely to include
   Unitarians who asserted that Jesus was man only.

   [80] The Sabellians declared that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit represent
   aspects or functions of God. They thus denied the three Persons of the
   Trinity and consequently the reality of the humanity of Jesus. Both Arianism
   and Sabellianism are recurrent under various labels in Western Christianity.
     _________________________________________________________________

III Jesus Christ

  THE TEXT

  1. THE MEDIATOR

   Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. Heb. 13:8.

   The only way to continue in the right faith is to keep to the foundation and
   not to turn away from it a single inch. If a man does not hold on to Christ,
   his wisdom is mere folly, even though he comprehend heaven and earth; for
   all the treasures of heavenly wisdom are contained in Christ. Therefore,
   this is a remarkable verse, because from it we see that there is no other
   rule of true wisdom except to set our whole minds on Christ alone. And,
   since the writer had to do with the Jews, he teaches that Christ has at all
   times in the past reigned as he does today, and that he will reign till the
   end of the world as he has reigned to the present time. Yesterday he says,
   today, and the same also forever; by these words he means that Christ, who
   is now manifested to the world, has reigned from the beginning of the world,
   and that, when we come to him, we must go no further. Yesterday therefore,
   includes the whole duration of the Old Testament. The word is used to
   establish that, even though the gospel has been preached but recently, this
   does not justify jumping to the conclusion that it will soon disappear; in
   fact, Christ has been revealed recently for the very purpose that men might
   know him from that time on and ever after. From this it is evident that the
   apostle is speaking not of Christ as he is in eternity, but of our knowledge
   of him, which the godly have always had, and which is at all times the
   foundation of the church. Of course it is true that Christ was, before he
   revealed his power. But about what is the apostle speaking? I say that in
   this verse he is speaking not of Christ’s being but, so to say, of his
   quality (or of how he acts towards us); the question is not his eternal
   presence before the Father, but what men have known of him. Moreover, even
   though, with regard to external form and manner, Christ was manifested
   differently under the law and in our time, the apostle nonetheless speaks
   truly and properly when he says that the faithful have always had their eyes
   fixed upon Christ.

   The sun of righteousness shall rise to you who fear my name, and with
   healing in his wings; and you will go forth and leap like well-fed (or
   fattened) young bulls. Mal. 4:2. (Calvin’s wording.)

   Now the prophet directs his words to the faithful. Up to this point, he had
   been threatening the hypocrites who arrogantly claimed holiness for
   themselves alone, although they had never ceased to provoke God’s anger.
   Now, as I said before, he is addressing the others when he says shall rise
   to you. He distinguishes those who fear God or worship him purely from the
   multitude with which he has so far been disputing.

   The antithesis is important. Although the people as a whole had been
   infected with the general disgrace, God had kept a few untouched by it. He
   had been contending with the majority of the people; now he gathers the
   chosen apart by themselves and promises that for them Christ will be the
   author of true salvation. We know that the faithful would be terrified at
   God’s threats of punishment and would almost cease to breathe, if God did
   not soften the severity of his condemnation. Whenever he announces
   punishment to sinners, most of them either laugh, or become angry, or else
   pay no attention at all. So it happens that the wicked continue securely in
   their crimes, while God thunders. But the faithful are terrified at one word
   from him and would be wholly discouraged if God did not bring some remedy.

   Therefore the prophet softens the harshness of the preceding threat, as if
   to say that he had not proclaimed the terror of Christ’s coming with the
   purpose of filling their hearts with fear. Its dreadfulness did not concern
   them; he had described it only to frighten the wicked.

   This, then, is what he means: “Come near, you who fear the Lord, for I have
   a different word for you. The Sun of Righteousness will rise and will bring
   healing in his wings. Let those perish who despise God, who even fight
   against him and wish to hold him in subjection to themselves. But you, lift
   up your heads and wait patiently for that day. In the hope of it, endure all
   misfortunes calmly.”

   Now we come to the high point of the verse. There is no doubt that Malachi
   here calls Christ the Sun of Righteousness, and the words appear especially
   appropriate when we consider how the situation of the fathers differed from
   our own. God always gave light to his church, but the full light was brought
   by Christ; as Isaiah also taught (60:1 ff.), The Lord will shine upon you
   and the glory of God will be seen among you. This is fulfilled only in the
   person of Christ. Then behold shadows will cover the earth. . . and the Lord
   will shine upon thee; and also, There will be no sun and moon by day or
   night, but God alone will shine. All these passages show that the name of
   sun is appropriate to Christ because God the Father shines upon us so much
   more brightly in his person than formerly in the law and all the additions
   to the law.

   For the same reason Christ calls himself the light of the world. Not that
   the fathers wandered like blind men in a mist, but that they had to be
   content with the light of early dawn or with the moon and stars. We know how
   obscure the teaching of the law was, so that it is truly called a
   “shadow.” But when the heavens were finally opened by the gospel, then
   indeed did the sun rise; and when the risen sun gives light the full day
   comes. It is Christ’s true office to give light. Therefore John begins by
   saying that the true light was from the beginning and lights every man
   coming into the world; and that the light itself shines in darkness. For
   some sparks of reason remain in men even when they have become blind by
   Adam’s Fall and the corruption of their nature.

   But Christ is fittingly called light in relation to the faithful whom he has
   rescued from their natural blindness and has raised up to be ruled by his
   Spirit. This is the meaning of sun when the name is given metaphorically to
   Christ. He is called sun because without him we can only wander and go
   wrong, but when He leads us we keep on the right road; as he says, Who
   follows me does not walk in darkness.

   It must be noted that this promise is not restricted to the physical
   presence of Christ, but refers also to the gospel; as Paul says, Wake, you
   who sleep, and rise from darkness and Christ will give you light (Eph.
   5:14). Every day, Christ enlightens us by his teaching and his Spirit; and
   although we do not see him with our eyes we know by experience that he is
   our sun.

   Further, he is called in the Hebrew sun of righteousness, that is perfection
   of justice, either because in him nothing will be incomplete or because the
   righteousness of God will be seen in him. But in order to comprehend the
   light which we enjoy through him and which comes to us from him to shine
   upon us, we must keep our eyes not on temporary advantages but on the
   spiritual life. This is the one requirement. Christ acts as our sun, not to
   direct our hands and feet in earthly actions, but to bring to us the light
   which shows the road to heaven and the direction by which we come to a happy
   and eternal life.

   Also we must note that this spiritual light cannot be separated from
   righteousness. In what sense is Christ our sun? Because he rescues us from
   the shame of the world and transforms us to the image of God. This is the
   force of the word righteousness.

   The prophet adds healing in his wings, calling the rays of the sun wings.
   This metaphor has much charm, because it is taken from nature itself and is
   beautifully suited to Christ. For we know that nothing is more health-giving
   than the sun’s rays. We should be overcome in a short time — even in one day
   — by evil smells, if the sun did not cleanse the earth of its refuse.
   Without the sun, we could not breathe.

   Also we feel a lift of the spirit at sunrise. For night is like a burden to
   us, and when the sun sets we feel a heaviness in all our limbs. But in the
   morning, even the sick are encouraged and feel some change just from the
   effect of the sun’s nearness, because it does indeed bring healing in its
   wings.

   But the prophet is here saying more than that a bright sun in a clear sky
   brings health. There is also an implicit contrast between storm clouds and
   fair, clear weather. In good weather we feel much more alive — I mean all
   men, both sick and well. There is no one who does not get some sense of
   revival from a clear sky; but when the weather is cloudy even the strongest
   of us feel some discomfort. In this sense, Malachi says that healing will be
   in the wings of Christ, although we must still bear many ills.

   If we think back to the history of those times, we realize that the
   condition of the people was most miserable. The prophet now promises them a
   change, [a time] when the restoration of the church will bring them joy. We
   see then how he understands the healing in Christ’s wings. Christ will
   disperse the darkness, and bring back from behind the clouds a serene sky,
   giving courage to the minds of the faithful.

   To call the faithful those who fear God is an ordinary usage in Scripture;
   for, as we have said, the center of righteousness and holiness is the
   worship of God. But here something new is expressed. It is the mark of true
   religion that men submit themselves to God although he is not seen, and
   although he does not speak face to face, and does not openly show his hand
   holding the scourge. When men willingly honor God’s glory and acknowledge
   the world to be ruled by him and themselves to be under his authority, then
   they give true evidence of religion. This is what the prophet means by fear
   my name. Those who fear the name of God, do not desire to bring him out of
   heaven, nor do they demand obvious signs of his presence; they are content
   to show their faith by adoring and serving God, although they do not see him
   face to face, but only in a mirror or a riddle, or through his righteous and
   powerful judgments and the other great acts which he presents to our eyes.

   After saying that the sun of righteousness will rise for the Jews, Malachi
   adds that this will give them joy. As sadness oppresses the faithful when
   they are without Christ, or think him to be far away, so his favor is their
   greatest happiness and a solid delight. Therefore the angels proclaiming
   Christ’s birth to the shepherds began, Behold I give you tidings of great
   joy. And although the metaphor may seem harsh, the prophet has a good reason
   for saying that the Jews will be like fattened calves. He is describing an
   unbelievable change and he must put it before them in vivid terms, to give
   them the greater hope.

   A contrast is implied in the verb go out. Their anxiety had long held them
   captive; now there would be freedom to go out. When things change for the
   better with us, we show the joy of our hearts openly to others, and seek a
   stage on which to express our feelings. Now we can see why the prophet says
   the Jews will go out. They have before been shut in by hard times. Now God
   will grant them room for lively rejoicing. So Paul says (2 Cor. 3:17), Where
   the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

   And he dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and the top of
   it reached to heaven: and behold, the angels of God were ascending and
   descending on it. Gen. 28:12.

   Behold a ladder. Here we have the description of a vision in which form and
   content are closely related. God showed himself perched upon a ladder, the
   ends of which touched heaven and earth. And angels were using it to go back
   and forth between heaven and earth.

   The ladder is taken by some Jewish commentators as a symbol of divine
   Providence which includes both heaven and earth under its direction. This
   interpretation is not satisfactory, for God would have given a more suitable
   symbol.

   But for us who hold the truth that the covenant of God was founded on Christ
   and that Christ was always the same eternal image of the Father and revealed
   himself to the holy patriarchs, nothing in this vision is perplexing or
   ambiguous. For men are separated from God by sin, although his power fills
   and sustains all things; and we do not see the line of communication which
   draws us towards him. Rather there is between us such a gulf that we flee
   from him, believing him to be hostile to us. The angels who are assigned the
   guardianship of the human race do not deal with us in a way which makes us
   familiar with their nearness and reveals it to our senses.

   It is Christ alone who joins heaven to earth. He alone is Mediator, reaching
   from heaven to the earth. He it is through whom the fullness of all heavenly
   gifts flows down to us and through whom we on our part may ascend to God.
   . . . Therefore, if we say that the ladder is a symbol of Christ, the
   interpretation is not forced. For the metaphor of a ladder is most suited to
   a Mediator through whom the service of angels, righteousness, and truth, and
   all the spirits of holy grace descend to us step by step. We, on our part,
   who are firmly fixed not only upon the earth but in the abyss of the curse,
   and are submerged in hell itself, through him climb up to God.

   Moreover the God of hosts tops the ladder because the divine fullness dwells
   in Christ, who therefore reaches heaven. For although all power was given by
   the Father to Christ’s human nature, yet he would not be the support of our
   faith if he were not God manifest in the flesh. The fact that the body of
   Christ is finite in no way prevents his filling the heavens, since his grace
   and power is spread over all. To this Paul bears witness when he says that
   Christ ascended to heaven to fill all things.

   Those who translate ’al as near wholly distort the meaning [of this verse],
   for Moses wished to say that full deity dwelt in Christ. In fact, Christ
   does not so much come to us as become encumbered with our nature to make us
   one with him.

   Confirmation of the ladder as a symbol of Christ is found also in this
   consideration (and nothing has been more fully agreed by all): God
   sanctified his eternal covenant with his servant Jacob in his Son. And
   incalculable joy comes to us when we hear that Christ who excels all
   creation is joined to us. Indeed the majesty of God, plainly shown in his
   Son, must inspire terror so that every knee bows to Christ, all creatures
   pray to him and adore him, and all flesh is silent before him. Yet at the
   same time Christ shows himself to us as friendly and gentle, and he makes
   known to us by his descent that heaven is open to us and the angels are made
   our companions; with them we have a brotherly communion, because our common
   Head took his place on earth.

   The angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. Gen. 48:16.

   Jacob joins the angel to God as an equal. He worships him and asks from him
   the same things he asked from God (v. 15). If you take this verse as a
   reference to an ordinary angel, the words are absurd. . . . It is necessary
   to understand them of Christ, who is intentionally given the title of angel
   because he has been the perpetual Mediator. Paul testifies that He was the
   leader and guide of the journey of his ancient people [through the
   wilderness].

   Christ had not yet been sent by the Father to take on our flesh that he
   might come nearer to us; but he was always the link joining men to God, and
   God did not reveal himself otherwise than through him. Therefore he is
   rightly called angel, messenger. . . . For there has always been between God
   and man a distance too great for any communication to be possible without a
   mediator.

   But although Christ has appeared in the form of an angel, we must hold to
   what is said in Heb. 2:16; he did not put on the nature of an angel and
   become one of the angels, as he did become true man. When the angels are
   clothed with a human body, they do not become men.

   Moreover we are taught by these words that the true gift of Christ to us is
   that he guards us and rescues us from all evils. And we must therefore take
   heed that our faithless forgetfulness does not bury this gift, which has
   been shown to us more clearly than it was formerly to the saints under the
   law. For Christ proclaimed openly that the faithful are given into his
   custody and that no one of them will perish. Therefore trust in his
   guardianship ought to flourish better in our hearts, and we ought to
   celebrate it with fitting praise. And also we should be roused to seek
   primarily the help of our best Guardian.

   His help is indeed especially necessary for us today. For if we think over
   all the dangers which surround us, we can find scarcely a day on which we
   were not rescued from a thousand deaths. And how does this happen except
   that we are under the care of God’s Son, who took us over from his father’s
   hand to watch over us.

   . . . The first tabernacle was yet standing, which was a figure for the
   times then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that
   could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the
   conscience. . . . But Christ being come as a high priest of good things to
   come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is
   to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but
   by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained
   eternal redemption for us. Heb. 9:8–9,11–12.

   The Greek word for figure is parabolē which in my judgment is about the same
   as antitupon. The apostle means that the Tabernacle was a secondary exemplar
   which corresponded to the original; as the picture of a man ought to
   correspond to himself, so that when we see it we are immediately reminded of
   him.

   Besides, when he says that the first Tabernacle was a likeness for that
   time, he means that it was valid so long as the external observances were in
   force. In this way, he restricts its use to the period of ancient law. This
   is almost the same as what he says soon after: that the ceremonies were in
   effect until the time of reformation (under the gospel). . . .

   As pertaining to conscience. This means that the ancient gifts and
   sacrifices could not penetrate the soul so as to make it truly holy. Some
   use here the word perfect, which I do not reject; but I think sanctify fits
   the context better. [81] But, if the reader is to understand the words of
   the apostle, he had better watch the contrast between the flesh and the
   conscience. What the apostle does is to deny that the legal sacrifices
   cleansed inwardly and spiritually those who performed them; and the reason
   he gives for his denial is that all the rites of the first Tabernacle were
   of the flesh or carnal. Then what good were they? There is a common notion
   that they were intended to teach people honesty and good manners. But those
   who think this way forget the promises which were added to these
   observances. Therefore we must reject their invention. It is all wrong and
   absurd to think that the flesh itself was justified by these rites, as
   though they were good only for the cleansing and purity of the body! The
   apostle’s judgment is that they were earthly symbols which failed to
   penetrate to the soul. They were testimonies to perfect holiness, even
   though they neither contained it nor could confer it on men. They were helps
   given to the faithful, which laid hold of their hands and led them to
   Christ, to seek in him what was lacking in the symbols.

   But, someone will ask, Why did the apostle show so little respect for
   sacraments instituted by God, treating them with contempt, and going even so
   far as to rob them of all power? He did so, because he was thinking of them
   as they are when separated from Christ. We know that considered in
   themselves, they are niggardly elements of this world, as Paul himself
   called them (Gal 4:9). . . .

   But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater
   and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands. . .

   He now presents us with the reality behind the symbols of the law, in order
   to turn our eyes to it. For, anyone who believes that the things
   foreshadowed [in the law] have been revealed truly in Christ, will no longer
   hold on to the shadows. He will embrace the substance in all its solid
   reality.

   Nevertheless, we must see carefully and in detail how he compares Christ
   with the ancient high priest. He has already said that the high priest alone
   entered the sanctuary once a year, carrying blood with which to expiate
   sins. Christ is like the ancient high priest, in that He alone is honored
   with this dignity and office; but he is different in that he brings with him
   gifts which are eternal and establish his priesthood forever. Secondly, the
   ancient high priest and our own are alike in that they both entered the Holy
   of Holies through the sanctuary; but they differ in that Christ alone
   entered heaven by way of the temple of his own body. Even though the Holy of
   Holies was opened to the high priest once a year for a solemn performance of
   expiation, this was only a poor figure for the matchless [self-] offering of
   Christ. Indeed, they both went in. But the one entered into an earthly
   place; the other, into heaven, forever, even to the end of the world. Both
   offered blood, but there is all the difference in the world between blood
   and blood; the ancient high priest offered the blood of cattle, Christ
   offered his own. They both made expiation; but the one made under the law
   was ineffectual and had to be repeated each year; Christ’s expiation kept
   its vigor forever, and is the source of our salvation in eternity. Hence,
   every word of the apostle is heavily weighted. Some change Christ being come
   to “Christ being nearby.” But this does no justice to the apostle’s thought.
   What he means is that after the Levitical priests had performed their
   office, at a fixed time they were removed, and Christ was chosen in their
   place. But this is obvious from ch. 7 of this epistle.

   Of good things to come means of things eternal. As mellon kairos is set
   against ton enestēkoti, so future goods are opposed to the present. In
   short, the priestly work of Christ brings us to the heavenly Kingdom of God,
   and makes us to partake in spiritual righteousness and eternal life:
   therefore, no good comes from looking for something better. We need not go
   beyond Christ, because he himself possesses all that we need, and he will
   fill us.

   And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of
   death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first
   testament, they which were called might receive the promise of eternal
   inheritance. Heb. 9:15.

   He concludes that there is no further need for another priest, because
   Christ himself fulfills this function under the New Testament. Besides, he
   does not claim the title of Mediator for Christ to let others share it with
   him; on the contrary, he contends that when this office was attached to
   Christ, all other mediators were repudiated. . . . He confirms this more
   fully when he states specifically how Christ discharged the office of the
   Mediator by the intercession of his death. If this happened only in Christ,
   and in no one else, it follows that he alone is the true Mediator. . . .

   Now, if anyone asks whether the sins of the fathers were forgiven under the
   law, the answer is the same as I gave before: they were forgiven, but
   through the benefit of Christ; in terms of the physical acts of expiation,
   we must always hold and maintain that they remained guilty. For this reason,
   Paul says that the law is a handwriting against us (Col. 2:14). When a
   sinner came forward, confessing openly that he had done evil before God and
   killed an innocent animal, he admitted that he was worthy of eternal death.
   And what did his victim do for him except that by it he sealed his own death
   as it were by his own handwriting? In short, only those who looked at Christ
   found peace in the forgiveness of sins. If looking to Christ only takes away
   sins, those who remain under the law do not find freedom. David himself
   declares, Blessed is the man to whom sins are not imputed (Ps. 32:2); but if
   a man is to share in this blessing, he must, setting aside the law, fix his
   eyes on Christ; for if he stays with the law, he is not set free from guilt.

   For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a
   dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see him, there
   is no beauty that we should desire him. Isa. 53:2.

   This statement turns our minds to what we said before: namely, that Christ
   at the beginning [of his life on earth] is to show neither splendor nor
   beauty before men, but before God he will nonetheless be highly exalted and
   beloved. Hence we see that the glory of Christ must not be judged by human
   eyes. What the holy books teach about him must be understood by faith.
   Therefore, the phrase before him is to be contrasted with the human senses
   which cannot grasp the wonder of Christ.

   The prophet used a similar metaphor in ch. 11:1: a branch will come from the
   trunk of Jesse. He compared the house of David to a dry trunk with no
   strength in it and no beauty; and he did not name the royal house, but Jesse
   whose name by itself was obscure. Here he adds in desert ground, by which he
   means that Christ’s strength will come not like a tree from the humidity of
   the soil, but from outside the ordinary course of nature.

   Those who philosophize from this passage about the Virgin Mary, supposing
   that she was called desert ground because she conceived from the Holy Spirit
   and not from man’s seed, are beside the point. For the passage deals not
   with the birth of Christ but with his whole reign. It states that he will be
   like a branch growing from dry ground, which is not expected to reach the
   right size.

   We should think of the whole history of his planting, of the men whose work
   he has used, of the small beginnings of the church and of the many
   adversaries who oppose it. Then we can easily see that all things happened
   as predicted. What kind of men were the apostles who could subdue so many
   kings and nations by the sword of the Word? Are they not deservedly compared
   to branches in a desert? The prophet is describing the ways by which the
   Kingdom of Christ was founded and established, so that all men may not judge
   it by human reason.

   The ugliness which he next mentions ought also to be understood not only of
   the person of Christ who was despised by the world and condemned to a
   shameful death, but of his whole reign. For that reign has had, in men’s
   eyes, neither beauty nor splendor nor magnificence. In fact, it has nothing
   which could by its appearance attract men or charm their eyes. And although
   Christ rose from the dead, the Jews think of him always as crucified and
   dishonored, and look on him with disgust and contempt.

   But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our
   iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes
   we are healed. Isa. 53:5.

   In order to counteract the offense which people might take, the prophet
   repeats the reason for Christ’s great suffering. The sight of the cross of
   Christ offends many so long as they consider only what their eyes see, and
   pay no attention to the purpose. But all offense is certainly taken away
   when we understand that by this death our sins are atoned for, and salvation
   is won for us.

   Chastisement of our peace. Some think this is called chastisement of our
   peace because men feel so secure and remain so stupefied in their evil ways
   that Christ’s suffering was required to move them. Others apply peace to
   conscience. Christ suffered that we might have a quiet conscience; as Paul
   said (Rom. 5:1), We, justified through Christ by faith, have peace with God.

   But I take it simply as reconciliation. Christ paid the price of our
   chastisement, that is, the chastisement due to us. By him, God’s anger,
   which was inflamed against us, was appeased. The peace in which we are
   reconciled came from him who is the Mediator. Thus we have the general
   doctrine that we are freely reconciled to God because Christ paid the price
   of our peace.

   This doctrine, indeed, the papists confess, but then they restrict it to
   original sin; as if after baptism there were no more place for free
   reconciliation, and satisfaction were to be made by our merits and works.
   But the prophet here is not treating of a single aspect of forgiveness; he
   extends God’s forgiving kindness through the whole course of our lives.
   Therefore the doctrine cannot be attenuated or restricted to any specific
   time without great sacrilege. . . . Our prophet teaches plainly that the
   penalty for our sins was transferred to Christ. What then are the papists
   claiming for themselves but equality with Christ and a share in his
   authority as his partners?

   With his stripes. Again we are recalled to Christ, called to flee to his
   wounds if we wish to regain life. Here he is set in contrast to us. In us
   are only destruction and death; in Christ alone is life and safety. He alone
   brings us a remedy. He provides health for us by his weakness, and wins our
   life by his death. He alone satisfies the Father; he alone reconciles us to
   him.

   We could say many things here about the fruit of Christ’s suffering, but our
   task is to interpret, not to preach; and we must be content to state the
   plain meaning [of the verse]. Let each one of you take comfort for himself
   from this passage and fit its use to his own need. For these words were
   spoken not only publicly to all, but to each man individually.

   All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way,
   and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa. 53:6.

   In order to impress on our minds the greatness of the blessing given us in
   Christ’s death, he shows us how great is our need for healing. For unless we
   realize our own helpless misery, we shall never know how much we need the
   remedy which Christ brings, nor come to him with the fervent love we owe
   him. But as soon as we know ourselves to be lost and realize our own
   wretchedness, we rush eagerly to seize the remedy, which otherwise we should
   hold in contempt. To know the true flavor of Christ, we must each of us
   carefully examine ourselves, and each must know himself condemned until he
   is vindicated by Christ. No one is exempt. The prophet includes all. If
   Christ had not brought help, the whole human race would perish. . . .

   The prophet makes the comparison with sheep, not to lighten our guilt, as if
   straying were a minor misdemeanor; but to teach more plainly that it was the
   work of Christ to gather those who were scattered like foolish animals.

   By adding each to the general statement including all men, he appeals to
   every individual to ponder whether this is not true of himself. For we are
   little moved by a generalization unless each one of us separately feels that
   it applies to him. Therefore let every one of us rouse his own conscience
   and take his place before God’s tribunal. Then will each one of us know his
   own bankruptcy.

   Next the prophet declares more plainly what this wandering is: every one has
   followed the way of his own choice; he has chosen to live as it pleased him.
   This means that there is only one way of living rightly; and if any man turn
   away from it, he can find nothing but ways which send him in the wrong
   direction. He is not speaking so much of actions as of our nature itself,
   which always sends us wandering. For if by natural instinct or wisdom we
   could bring ourselves back to the road and escape from error, we would have
   no need for Christ. But we all by ourselves perish unless we are freed by
   Christ our Savior. The more we trust our own wisdom and industry, the more
   quickly we rush to ruin. Here the prophet has shown us what sort of
   creatures we should be if Christ had not redeemed us. And all are included
   in the same condemnation. There is no one who is righteous; no one who
   understands; no one who inquires of God. All have gone astray and become
   unprofitable. There is none who does well, not one, as Paul said more at
   length (Rom. 3:10).

   And the Lord hath laid on him. Here we have a beautiful antithesis. In
   ourselves we are scattered, in Christ we are collected; by nature we go
   astray and are driven headlong to destruction, in Christ we find the road by
   which we are led to the gate of salvation. Our sins overwhelm us; but they
   are transferred to Christ, in whom we are acquitted. When we were perishing,
   separated from God and hastening to hell, Christ took upon himself the filth
   of our iniquities and rescued us from eternal destruction. (This refers of
   course only to the punishment of sin, for he was free from all guilt.) Let
   each one of us weigh his own sins carefully, that he may truly taste the
   grace [of Christ] and begin to see the fruit of his death.

   He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his
   knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their
   iniquities. Isa. 53:11.

   Isaiah continues the same theme. Now he declares that Christ, after he has
   suffered, will see the reward of his death in the salvation of men. For, to
   He will see, we must add the “fruit” or the “result” [of his labor]. These
   words are full of comfort. For Isaiah could not have expressed better the
   greatness of Christ’s love for us than by saying that his delight will be in
   our safety; that he will be content with the fruit of his labor, like a man
   whose one wish and longing has been fulfilled. No man is satisfied except
   when he obtains the one thing he has most desired; then he disregards all
   else and is content with it alone.

   Afterwards the prophet shows the way or method by which we may rightly
   appreciate the force and efficiency of Christ’s death and realize its fruit.
   The way he shows is the knowledge of him. I admit that the word da’ath can
   be read passively or actively, as knowledge of him or his knowledge.
   Whichever way we take it, it is easy to see what the prophet means. However
   insolently the Jews may quibble and in spite of their objections, we need
   not twist the meaning of what is here said plainly: that Christ alone is
   both master and author of man’s justification.

   The work of Christ is stated in the words He will justify many; which mean
   that in the school of Christ, men are not merely taught about justification;
   they are made just by what he has done for them. And this is the difference
   between justification by law and justification by faith. For although the
   law shows what it is to be righteous, as Paul says, it cannot produce
   righteousness; and experience shows the same thing. The law is for us a
   mirror showing us our own unrighteousness. But the way to obtain
   righteousness, as taught by Christ, is simply to know him; and this is
   faith. In faith we lay hold on the benefit of his death and find full rest
   in him.

   The philosophers have given many excellent rules by which they think
   righteousness may be established; but they cannot give righteousness to
   anyone. For who by their rules has achieved the good life? And it is of
   little help to know what righteousness is, if we remain without it.

   But let us leave the philosophers aside. The law itself, which contains the
   most perfect rule of life, could not, as we said, confer righteousness. Not
   that there was anything lacking in the law; Moses declared that he set
   before the people good and evil, life and death. But because of the
   corruption of our nature the law was not enough to insure righteousness.
   Even as Paul taught (Rom. 8:3), the defect was in our flesh, not in the law.
   When the law speaks, nature drives us in the opposite direction, and our
   desires break out with the greater force, like untamed wild elephants,
   against God’s command. Thus the law works wrath rather than righteousness.
   The law holds all guilty, and by exposing sin takes away from men every
   excuse. Therefore we must seek another way to righteousness: the way which
   is in Christ, whom the law itself set forth as its fulfillment.

   The righteousness of the law said, Who does these commandments, shall live
   in them (Lev. 18:5). But none did them. Therefore there had to be another
   righteousness; one that Paul taught, from Moses himself: The word is near,
   in your mouth and in your heart; this is the word of faith which we preach
   (Rom. 10:8). It is this doctrine that justifies us — not the bare doctrine,
   but because it offers us the fruit of Christ’s death, by which our sins are
   forgiven and we are reconciled to God. For if by faith we grasp this gift,
   we are counted as righteous before God.

   The prophet expresses this teaching clearly and shows its meaning. For these
   two clauses belong together: He will justify by his doctrine or by the
   knowledge of him, and He will bear our iniquities. He made atonement for us
   once for all; but now, by the teaching of the gospel, he is inviting us to
   accept the fruit of his death. Therefore the death of Christ is the
   substance of the doctrine that he justifies us. Paul adhered closely to the
   prophet’s word when he taught that Christ was offered as sacrifice for us,
   so that in him we might become the righteousness of God; to which he added
   that Christ is our advocate, and urged us to be reconciled to God (2 Cor.
   5:20).

   My righteous servant. The prophet teaches that Christ justifies us not only
   as God, but also as man, since he won righteousness for us in his flesh. For
   the words are not my son but my servant. Therefore, let us not think of
   Christ only as God, but let us study his human nature in which he practiced
   the obedience by which we are forgiven before God. For this, the sacrifice
   of himself which he offered, is the foundation of our salvation. As he
   himself said, I consecrated myself for them that they themselves might be
   holy (John 17:19).

   Therefore will I divide for him a portion with the great, and he shall
   divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul unto
   death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of
   many, and made intercession for the transgressor. Isa. 53:12.

   Here the figure is changed to one drawn from the customary celebration of
   military triumphs, where the leaders are generally received and honored with
   a magnificent exhibition of the spoils of victory. So Christ like a strong
   and noble general triumphs over his conquered enemies. The second clause has
   the same meaning as the first, for such repetition is usual in Hebrew. Those
   whom he first calls great he next calls powerful or strong. Those who
   translate rabbim as “many” in my opinion misinterpret the prophet’s meaning.
   There is only this difference between the two clauses: in the first, God
   states what he will give to Christ; the second adds that Christ will rejoice
   in the gift. Christ rejoices not for his own sake but for ours, since he
   gives the fruits of his victory to us. For us, Christ conquered death, the
   world, and the devil.

   He prayed for the transgressors. It is Christ’s prayer to the Father in our
   behalf which ratifies the forgiveness won for us by his death. Therefore
   this addition is essential. In the old law the priest, who did not come to
   the altar without the blood of sacrifice, prayed there for the people; and
   so he foreshadowed what was fulfilled in Christ. For first Christ offered
   the sacrifice of his body, and poured out his blood to pay the penalty which
   we owed. Then to make the atonement effective, he performed the work of
   advocate and made intercession for all who in faith accepted for themselves
   his sacrifice. To this he testified in the words written for us by the hand
   of John: I pray not for these only, but for all who believe in me by their
   word (John 17:20). If we are to be numbered with the faithful, let us not
   doubt that Christ suffered for us and that even now we receive the fruits of
   his death.

  2. THE PERSON OF CHRIST

   And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth: and
   the heavens are the works of thine hands; they shall perish, but thou
   remainest. . . . Heb. 1:10–11.

   At first this testimony may seem not to fit the case of Christ, since it has
   to do with the creation of heaven and earth. But this whole passage has to
   do with the glory not of God but of Christ. It is true that the psalm is a
   celebration of God’s majesty, and makes no mention of Christ. I admit this.
   At the same time, it is clearly a public praise of God’s Kingdom, and
   everything that is said in it fits Christ very well. For, where are the
   following prophecies fulfilled except in Christ: “Thou shalt arise and have
   mercy on Zion, that the nations may fear thy name, and all the kings of the
   earth thy glory” ; or again, “When the people shall be gathered together,
   and the kingdom, to serve the Lord.” Where except in Christ are we to look
   for this God by whom the whole world shall be united in one faith and
   worship of God? All the rest of the psalm fits the person of Christ; among
   other things, because he is the eternal God, the Creator of heaven and
   earth, everlasting and changeless; therefore, high and lifted up in majesty,
   and set apart from all that has been created. David declares that the
   heavens shall pass away; but some get around this statement by making him
   say, “should the heavens pass away,” as though he had made no positive
   assertion. But what reason is there for such a strained exposition? After
   all, we know that everything comes to an end. And why do even the heavens
   yearn and travail with hope for a renewal, unless they are marked for
   destruction? Besides, the eternity of Christ affords no small comfort to the
   believers who, according to the psalm, shall participate in it as Christ
   communicates himself and all his riches to his body.

   And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I
   had with thee before the world was. John 17:5.

   He declares that he has no desire except for what is his own; that he only
   wants to be seen in the flesh with the glory which was his before the world
   was made; or, more plainly, that the divine majesty which was eternally his
   might shine in the person of the Mediator and in the human flesh he has put
   on. This is a striking passage which teaches us that Christ is not an
   upstart and temporary God. For as his glory was eternal, so he himself
   always was. Add to this that there is here a distinction made between him
   and the Father; which means that he is not only God eternal but also the
   eternal Word of God begotten of the Father before all ages.

   Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom
   Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of
   Joseph. John 1:45.

   Many argue deeply about Christ, but they get so subtle and involved that
   they can never find him. So it is with the papists who refuse to call Christ
   the son of Joseph. They are particular about his name: but yet they so empty
   him of his power, that in Christ’s place they have a ghost. Were it not
   better to babble crudely with Philip and hold on to the real Christ, rather
   than with clever and high-sounding talk end up with only a fiction? There
   are many poor dunces today who, even though they speak as rude and ignorant
   men, teach Christ much more faithfully than the theologians of the pope,
   with their deep speculations. So we are warned that when we hear simple and
   ignorant men speak inaptly, we should not take offense and reject them,
   provided they lead us to Christ. However, we must seek pure knowledge from
   the Law and the Prophets, in order that we may not be driven away from
   Christ by falsehoods invented by men.

   Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth
   unto everlasting life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you; for him
   hath the Father sealed. John 6:27.

   He confirms the first part of this verse by saying that the Father has
   appointed him for this end (to give us an imperishable food). The ancient
   fathers tortured and misused this verse in order to prove the divine essence
   of Christ; as though sealed here meant that Christ bore the stamp of the
   Father. But he speaks here, not subtly of his eternal essence, but of his
   mandate and mission in our behalf, and of what we are to hope and expect
   from him. By an apt metaphor, he refers to the ancient custom of sealing
   with a ring, which made an agreement authoritative and binding. Christ’s
   intention is to declare that his task was imposed upon him by the Father,
   and that the appointment of the Father is as a seal engraved upon him. In
   this way, he emphasizes that all he has is from the Father. In short, it is
   not for everybody to feed souls with incorruptible food, when Christ comes
   forth with the promise of so great a blessing. He adds that he has God’s
   approval and has been sent to us with God’s own seal as the mark of his
   mission.

   I and my Father are one. John 10:30.

   He sets out to meet the mockery of the wicked, who claimed that he was in no
   position to protect his disciples, since he did not possess God’s power. He,
   therefore, testifies that his business and the Father’s are one; which means
   that the Father will never deny his help to him or to his sheep. The ancient
   fathers misused this verse when they brought it up as proof that Christ is
   homoousios (of one essence) with the Father. Christ is not here arguing that
   he is one substance with the Father, but that he is of one mind with him;
   which means that whatever Christ does has behind it the power of God.

   Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words
   that I speak unto you I speak not of myself. John 14:10.

   These words refer not to Christ’s divine essence, but to the manner of
   revelation. For, as to his secret deity, Christ is known to us no better
   than the Father. He is rightly called the express image of God, for the
   Father revealed himself totally in the Son: but in the sense that God’s
   unbounded goodness, wisdom, and power appeared in him. Therefore, the
   fathers were not wrong when they found in this verse a basis for asserting
   the divinity of Christ. Still, since Christ is here speaking not of what he
   is in himself, but of what he is toward us, it is a question of power rather
   than of essence. The Father therefore is said to be in Christ because the
   fullness of Divinity dwells in him, and manifests his power in him. On the
   other hand, Christ is said to be in the Father, because by his divine power
   he shows that he is one with the Father.

   The words which I speak to you. He proves by the effects of his words that
   we should seek God nowhere but in him. He contends that his teaching, which
   is heavenly and truly divine, is evidence and the brilliant reflection of
   God’s own presence. If anyone objects that the prophets also were sons of
   God, because, inspired by the Spirit, they spoke in a divine manner, so that
   God was the author also of their teaching — the answer is easy. We should
   consider the content of their teaching: the prophets send their disciples to
   someone else; Christ on the other hand holds them as his own. We must keep
   in mind what the apostle says in the first chapter of Hebrews: namely, that
   God spoke by the mouth of his Son from heaven; whereas he spoke by Moses, as
   it were, from the earth.

   Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away and come again unto you. If ye
   loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father; for my
   Father is greater than I. John 14:28.

   This passage has been variously distorted. The Arians, in order to prove
   that Christ is beneath (second to) God, objected that he is less than the
   Father. The orthodox fathers, in order to cut such calumny short, said that
   this statement refers to Christ’s human nature. Even though the Arians
   abused this statement wickedly, the answer given by the fathers was neither
   right nor relevant. It is a question neither of the human nature of Christ
   nor of his eternal divinity, but of mediation between us and God because of
   our own weakness. Since it is not given to us to go up to the height of God,
   Christ came down to us in order to raise us there. Rejoice, he says, because
   I return to the Father; because this is the ultimate destination at which
   you yourselves ought to aim. With these words he does not show how he
   differs from the Father; he tells us that he descended to us, to unite us
   with God. Unless we arrive at this point, we remain stranded midway. Unless
   he lead us to God, we only imagine a mutilated Christ, cut into half.

   Of a similar import is 1 Cor. 15:24, where Paul says that Christ will turn
   over the Kingdom to God and the Father, that he be all in all. Obviously,
   Christ does reign not only in his human nature, but as God manifest in the
   flesh. How then will he put aside his Kingship? Plainly, the divinity which
   we now discern only on the face of Christ will then be seen openly and
   conspicuously in him as his. The only difference is that Paul is here
   referring to the ultimate and perfect manifestation of divine brightness,
   whose rays began to shine when Christ ascended to heaven. To make the matter
   more plain, let us speak more bluntly. Here Christ does not compare the
   divinity of the Father with his own; neither does he compare his human
   nature with the divine essence of the Father. But rather, he contrasts his
   present state with the glory of heaven where he was soon to be received
   again. What he means is, “You want to keep me in this world, but it is
   better that I ascend to heaven.” So therefore let us see Christ emptied of
   the flesh, that he may lead us to the fountainhead of blessed immortality.
   He is our leader, not in order to raise us to the sun or to the moon, but to
   unite us with God the Father.

   Jesus answered, and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my
   record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go: but ye cannot
   tell whence I come, and whither I go. John 8:14.

   Though I testify. Christ answers that the authority of his witness is
   sufficient as the ground for faith, because the status (persona) he bears is
   very different from that of a private man picked out of a crowd of common
   people. He sets himself apart from the common run of men by saying that he
   knows where he comes from and where he is going. What he means is that
   although we must suspect an ordinary man who pleads his own cause, and
   although our own laws warn us not to believe a man who speaks on his own
   behalf, we are not to apply such reservations to the Son of God who has a
   pre-eminence above the whole world. Christ, who has the privilege from the
   Father to bring all men in line (ordo) by his mere word, must not be
   reckoned as of the order (ordino) of men.

   I know whence I came. By these words he discloses that he is not of this
   world, but has come from the Father; and that for this reason it is foolish
   and wicked to subject his teaching, which is from God, to human standards.
   These people treated him with contempt because he had put on our lowly flesh
   and was among them in the form of a servant; therefore, he turns their
   attention to the future glory of his resurrection, in which his divinity,
   now hidden and unknown, was to shine forth in all its proper glory. The
   lowly position of Christ among them should not have prevented the Jews from
   submitting to the unique Ambassador of God, who had been promised shortly
   before in the law itself.

   When he says that he knows and they do not know, he means that their
   unbelief does not in the least take away from his glory. Besides, since he
   has given the same testimony to us, faith ought to despise all the
   chicaneries and vicious outcries of wicked men; for, if it is founded upon
   God, it is far above the loftiness of the world. Moreover, if the majesty of
   his gospel is to remain before us, we need to see him always in his heavenly
   glory; we need so to hear him speaking in the world that we may keep in mind
   where he came from and what sovereignty he has obtained, now that his work
   as ambassador is finished. For, as he humbled himself for a season, so he
   now sits at the right hand of the Father, that every knee may bow to him.

   And the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. John
   14:24.

   No matter how great, therefore, the mad insolence of the world, let us
   follow the teaching of Christ which rises high above heaven and earth. When
   Christ denies that the word is his own, it is for his disciples’ sake. He
   means that the Word is not from man, and that he teaches by the authority of
   the Father. Still we know that since he is the eternal wisdom of God, he is
   the foundation of all doctrine; and all prophets since the beginning have
   spoken by his Spirit.

   And the Word was made flesh. John 1:14.

   The Evangelist has already spoken of Christ’s coming. He now tells us he
   came putting on our flesh and showing himself openly to the world. He
   touches briefly upon the ineffable mystery that the Son of God put on human
   nature. Even though brief, he is astonishingly clear. At this point, some
   mad people amuse themselves with frivolous subtleties and make fools of
   themselves. They say, The Word is said to have been made flesh in the sense
   that God conceived the Son in his own mind and then sent him into the world
   as a man; as though the Word were I do not know what sort of shadowy image.
   But we have shown that the statement refers to a real hypostasis in the
   essence of God.

   By saying “flesh,” the writer expresses himself more forcibly than if he had
   said He was made man. He means to state that the Son of God, for our sakes,
   left the height of his heavenly glory and humbled himself to a state at once
   low and abject. When Scripture speaks of man with contempt, it calls him
   flesh. In spite of the vast distance between the spiritual glory of the Word
   of God and the stink of our filthy flesh, the Son of God stooped so low as
   to take upon himself this same flesh which is subject to so many miseries.
   Flesh here means not, as so often with Paul, our nature corrupted by sin,
   but mortal men in general. Still, it refers to our nature with disdain as
   frail and perishing; so we read in Scripture in Ps. 78:39, Thou art mindful
   that they are flesh, and in Isa. 40:6, All flesh is grass. (There are other
   passages of this kind.) At the same time, however, we must notice that this
   is a figure of speech: [flesh] which is one part of man, stands for him as a
   whole. Therefore Apollinaris [82] was foolish to fancy that Christ put on a
   human body without the soul.

   Now my soul is troubled. . . . John 12:27.

   At first this verse seems to differ greatly from the preceding discourse.
   There he showed more than heroic courage in exhorting his disciples not only
   to undergo death, but to face it willingly and eagerly whenever needful. But
   now he shrinks from death and seems to go soft. However, here we do not read
   anything that does not agree with the believers’ own experience. If scoffers
   laugh at this, it is no wonder; one cannot understand it except by
   experience.

   Besides, it was necessary for our salvation that the Son of God should have
   been affected in this way. In his death, we must first consider the work of
   expiation which appeased the wrath and curse of God; this he certainly could
   not have done unless our sin had been transferred to him. The death,
   therefore, to which he was subjected had to be dreadful even to him, because
   he could not have made satisfaction for us unless he had known God’s
   dreadful judgment; we know better the enormity of sin because the Heavenly
   Father exacted such a dire punishment of his only-begotten Son. Therefore,
   we must realize that death was not a pleasure or a game for Christ, and that
   he suffered excruciation to the utmost for our sakes.

   And it was not absurd that the Son of God should have been thus troubled. In
   the act of expiation, the secret divinity of the Son was quiescent and did
   not exercise its power. Christ in fact put on not only our flesh but also
   our human feeling; and this he did voluntarily. He was afraid not by
   constraint, but because he willingly subjected himself to fear. It must be
   firmly held that his fear was real and not fictitious. But he was unlike the
   rest of mankind in that, as we have said elsewhere, his feelings were
   tempered by obedience to the righteous God.

   Christ’s humanity in feeling has a further value for us. If Christ had not
   been troubled by the fear of death, which of us would take his example
   seriously? It is not given to us that we should face death without a
   troubled mind; so, when we hear that he was not made of iron, we gather our
   forces and set out to follow him; and the weakness of our flesh which
   troubles us at death does not hinder us from joining our Leader in battle.

   Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a
   pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast
   thyself down; for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning
   thee; and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash
   thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou
   shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

   Again the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth
   him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. . . . Matt. 4:5–8.

   It is no great matter that Luke puts this temptation second, while Matthew
   puts it last. The Evangelists did not arrange their stories exactly in time,
   but so as to put together, as in a mirror or picture, the main events which
   are most useful for our knowledge of Christ. It is enough to learn that
   there were three temptations of Christ. It is foolish to worry our heads
   over which came second and which third. In this exposition, I shall follow
   Matthew’s text.

   It is said that Christ was placed on the pinnacle of the Temple. But the
   question is whether he was actually lifted up there, or whether this
   happened in a vision. There are many who assert obstinately that Christ was
   taken up there, as we say, really and truly; because, they say, it was
   unworthy of Christ that he should have been subject to delusion at the hand
   of Satan. This objection is easily disposed of, since it would by no means
   have been absurd for Christ to have been tempted with God’s permission and
   his own willing subjection [to God’s will], provided he did not yield inside
   himself, that is, in his mind and spirit. And what is said further, namely,
   that he was shown all the kingdoms of the world, or, as Luke has it, that in
   the twinkling of an eye he was carried to faraway places, fits best the
   supposition that all this happened in visions. In a doubtful matter like
   this, where ignorance does no harm, I prefer to pass no judgment, rather
   than to provide contentious people with something to quarrel about. It is in
   fact probable that the second temptation was not continuous with the first,
   or the third with the second. It may well be that some time elapsed between
   the first temptation and the second, and the second and the third. This may
   be so in spite of Luke’s saying that Christ rested awhile, which suggests
   that the time in question was short.

   He will charge his angels concerning thee. Satan’s malice should not escape
   us. He misuses the testimony of Scripture, to make the life (Scripture)
   deadly for Christ, or to turn bread itself into poison. He does not cease
   using the same trick daily. When the Son of God chose to submit to this
   trial in his own person, he became an example to all believers, so that they
   may carefully avoid falling into Satan’s snares by a wrong use of Scripture.
   And without a doubt, the Lord gives our enemy so much leeway, not to put us
   at our ease and make us lazy, but that we may rather be on our guard. We
   must be especially careful not to be like those preposterous people who,
   just because Satan corrupts Scripture, throw it aside as much too doubtful.
   According to this rule we should stop eating, since there is always danger
   of being poisoned. Satan does profane the Word of God and twist it around
   for our undoing; but still Scripture was ordained for our salvation. Shall
   God’s purpose become invalid, just because our own indolence keeps us from
   using it for our good?

   There is no need to argue this point at length. Let us only see what Christ
   prescribes by his example, which is the rule we are to follow. Does he yield
   when Satan gives Scripture a wicked twist? Seeing that Satan had armed
   himself with Scripture, does he let him hold on to it and make away with it?
   On the contrary, he in turn takes up Scripture, and with it refutes the
   wicked calumnies which Satan had thrown at him. In the same way, when Satan
   hides his deceptions under Scripture, or when godless men attack us and try
   to subvert our faith under the pretext of using Scripture, we should borrow
   our arms from Scripture alone, and so defend our faith.

   Now, even though the promise, He shall charge his angels concerning thee,
   belongs to all the faithful, it applies peculiarly to Christ; because as the
   head of the church, he has authority over the angels, and they watch over us
   by his command. Satan was not wrong in using this text to show that the
   angels were given to Christ as his servants, to protect him and bear him
   upon their hands. He was wrong in presenting angelic protection as something
   vague and haphazard; on the contrary, it is promised to the children of God
   only as they keep to the way which leads to the fulfillment of God’s purpose
   for them. Whatever the force of the phrase in all thy ways (Ps. 91:11),
   Satan wickedly corrupts and mutilates the prophet’s words, and both tortures
   and confuses them when he makes them include any kind of way, however wrong
   and errant. God commands us to walk in the ways he has set before us, and in
   this connection declares that his angels shall protect us. When Satan brings
   up the matter of angelic protection, his intention is to make Christ walk
   into any danger that comes along; what he says amounts to this: “If you
   throw yourself at death in defiance of God, his angels will defend your
   life!”

   It is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Christ answered most
   aptly that believers cannot hope to receive the promise of God’s help except
   as they humbly let him guide them. We are in no position to rely upon God’s
   promises unless we obey his commandments. Now, we tempt God in many ways.
   But here to tempt is to neglect the means he puts in our hands. This is what
   men do when they make trial of God’s power and prowess, at the same time
   that they set aside the means provided by God; this is like cutting off a
   man’s hand and arms, and then telling him to do something! In short, whoever
   desires to experiment with God’s power unnecessarily, tempts God by
   subjecting his promises to unlawful scrutiny.

   The devil takes him to a high mountain. As I have said before, we must
   remember that Satan had this power over Christ’s eyes not because of a
   weakness in his nature, but by a free purpose and permission. Even though
   Christ’s senses were affected and moved by the glory of the kingdoms
   presented to him, no inward lustful desire pierced his soul; quite otherwise
   the lusts of the flesh lay hold of us like powerful beasts, and drag us to
   the things that give us pleasure. Christ had our feelings, but not our
   unruly appetites. Now, the temptation put before Christ was to seek the
   inheritance God has promised his children elsewhere than in God. And the
   daring sacrilege of the devil appears in his seeking to rob God of his
   empire and to usurp it for himself. “All these things,” he said, “are mine;
   and no one can have them except by my power.”

   We ourselves have to struggle with the same imposture, which every believer
   knows within himself, and which we see even more clearly in the whole life
   of the ungodly. For, even though we know that we owe our security, goods,
   and comforts to the blessing of God, our senses flatter and bewitch us into
   seeking Satan’s help, as though God were not enough for us. Therefore, the
   greater part of mankind deny God’s authority and sovereignty over the whole
   world, and imagine that the giver of every good thing is Satan. For, how
   does it come about that men are universally addicted to evil machinations,
   to rapine and fraud, if not because they credit Satan with what God alone
   can do; namely, enriching us by his benediction and according to his good
   pleasure. They say with their mouth that God gives them their daily bread;
   but with their mouth only. In fact, they set Satan up as one who dispenses
   all the riches of the world.

  3. ASCENSION: EXAMPLES OF EXEGESIS

   Then the disciples went away again unto their own homes. But Mary stood
   without at the sepulcher, weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and
   looked into the sepulcher, and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at
   the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. John
   20:10–12.

   It may well be that when the disciples returned home, they were full of
   doubt and hesitation. Although John says that they believed, it is evident
   that their faith was not firm. They had a confused feeling that a miracle
   had happened; but they went about as it were in a trance, until something
   better confirmed them in their faith. It is evident that the sight they saw
   was not enough in itself to produce solid faith. What is more, Christ did
   not reveal himself to them until they were aroused from the stupidity of the
   flesh. When they ran to the sepulcher, they did indeed give a praiseworthy
   evidence of their zeal; still, Christ hid himself from them because their
   search for him was much too superstitious.

   But Mary stood. Now the Evangelist begins to tell the story of how, when
   Christ testified to his resurrection, he appeared to the women as well as to
   the disciples. Even though here Mary alone is mentioned, it seems to me
   probable that the other women were with her. It is not rational to suppose
   that these other women had fainted out of fear. The writers who take this
   view try to escape a contradiction in our story which, as I have shown, does
   not exist.

   We need not praise the women because they remained at the sepulcher, while
   the disciples returned home; for the latter went home comforted and full of
   joy, whereas the women indulged themselves in stupid and pointless weeping.
   What kept them at the grave was mere superstition, together with the
   feelings of the flesh.

   And seeth two angels. What wonderful forbearance our Lord shows toward Mary
   and her companions in putting up with their many faults! He does them no
   small honor by sending them his angels and then by showing himself to them
   — an honor which was denied even to the disciples. Even while the apostles
   and the women labored with the same disease, the stupidity of the former was
   the less excusable because they had learned so little from the careful and
   exact teaching of Christ. Certainly, it was to shame them that Christ chose
   to show himself first to the women.

   It is not certain whether Mary recognized the angel or took him for a man.
   We know that white garments symbolize heavenly glory. When Christ revealed
   his majesty to his three disciples on top of the mountain, there he also was
   clothed in such white garments. Luke says the same thing of the angel who
   appeared to Cornelius. I do not deny that Mary might have taken the angel
   for a man, because Eastern peoples often wore white garments. But the
   garments with which God adorned his angels were peculiar to them; they were
   marks by which men might see and recognize them. Besides, Matthew compares
   to lightning the countenance of the angel who spoke to the women. But still,
   probably the women’s wonder worked only fear; they seem to have stood there
   struck with stupor and beside themselves.

   Moreover, when we read that angels appeared in the visible form of men and
   clothed in garments, we must remember that this was done to offset human
   weakness. I have no doubt angels were at times clothed with a body; but as
   to whether these particular two angels merely appeared to have bodies, that
   is not the main question, and I shall not settle it. For me it is enough
   that the Lord gave them a human form, so that they might be seen and heard
   by the women. They were covered with uncommon splendor, so that they might
   be distinguished from human beings and show forth what is heavenly and from
   God.

   One at the head, and the other at the foot. The fact that Matthew mentions
   only one angel does not contradict John’s story. Both angels did not speak
   to Mary at once; this was done by the one who was commissioned for it. There
   is not much to Augustine’s allegory that the position of these angels
   indicates the course of the future preaching of the gospel, from the place
   where the sun rises to the place where it goes under. In this place, it is
   more worth-while to notice the auspices under which Christ ushered in the
   glory of his Kingdom. When the angels honored Christ’s grave [with their
   presence], they exhibited his celestial majesty. But they did so without
   abolishing the ignominy of the cross.

   Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not ascended to my Father: but
   go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your
   Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17.

   This does not seem to agree with the account in Matthew (28:9): for he
   writes openly that the women embraced the feet of Christ. Now, since Christ
   allowed himself to be touched by his disciples, why did he forbid Mary? The
   answer is easy, if we only remember that Jesus did not repel them until they
   overdid their desire to touch him. When it was a matter of removing doubt,
   then surely he did not forbid them. But when he saw that they held on to his
   feet, he calmed their excessive zeal, and corrected it. They clung to his
   bodily presence, because they knew only an earthly way of enjoying him. The
   truth is that Jesus did not forbid them to touch him until he saw their
   stupid and excited desire to keep him here on earth. Let us note therefore
   the reason he gave for the prohibition: for I am not yet ascended to the
   Father. By these words, he commanded the women to control themselves until
   he was received into heavenly glory. Finally, in this way, he pointed out
   that the purpose of his resurrection was quite different from their fancy
   about it. He was come to life again not to triumph in the world, but rather
   to ascend to heaven and to take possession of the Kingdom which had been
   promised to him; to reign over the church at the right hand of God, by the
   power of his Spirit. . . .

   I ascend unto my Father. With the word ascend, he confirms what I have said
   before. For certainly he rose from the dead not to linger awhile longer on
   earth, but so that, having entered the heavenly life, he might draw the
   faithful to him. In short, with this word the apostle forbids us merely to
   stop with resurrection. He bids us to go forward until we arrive at the
   spiritual Kingdom, at heavenly glory, at God himself. Therefore this word,
   ascend, is very emphatic; Christ stretches out his hand to his own, so that
   they may seek their happiness nowhere but in heaven. For where our treasure
   is, there also must our heart be (Matt. 6:21). Now, Christ declares that he
   is about to ascend on high; therefore, let us also rise with him, if we
   would not be separated from him. Furthermore, when he adds that he will
   ascend, he quickly dispels the sadness and anxiety of his disciples because
   he was to leave them behind. He wants them to know that by his divine power
   he will always be with them. Ascend indeed implies distant places; but even
   though Christ is absent bodily, because he is with God, his spiritual power,
   which works everywhere, shows clearly that he is present with us. Why indeed
   did he ascend to the Father, except, seated at his right hand, to reign in
   heaven and on earth? Finally, with this statement Jesus intended to commend
   the divine power of his reign, so that his bodily absence might not trouble
   his disciples.

   And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of
   holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Rom. 1:4.

   If you prefer, “designated” to be the Son, etc. (definitus). He means that
   the power of the resurrection, by which he was pronounced the Son of God,
   was as it were a decree; as in Ps. 2:7, I have this day begotten thee.
   “Begotten” in this verse means actually “made known.” Some find in this
   verse three evidences of the divinity of Christ: his power for working
   miracles, the witness of the Spirit, and his resurrection from the dead. I
   prefer to put the three together into one as follows: Christ was designated
   the Son of God when he rose from the dead, by an open exercise of true
   heavenly power, which was the power of the Spirit; but the knowledge of this
   power is sealed in our hearts by the same Spirit. The language of the
   apostle agrees well with this interpretation. The power with which he was
   declared, or the power which shone forth in Christ, that is, in his
   resurrection, was God’s own power; and this proves that he was God. The same
   point becomes clear in another place where Paul confesses that Christ’s
   death revealed him as subject to the infirmity of the flesh, and extols the
   power of the Spirit in his resurrection (2 Cor. 13:4). But this glorious
   work cannot be known by us unless the Spirit himself impresses it upon our
   hearts. The very fact that Paul calls the Spirit the Spirit of holiness,
   shows that in his mind the same wonderful efficacy of the Spirit revealed in
   the resurrection of Christ from the dead is to be seen in the witness which
   individual believers know in their hearts. He means that as the Spirit
   sanctifies, he shows and ratifies the power which he exercised once before
   in raising Christ from the dead. The various titles which Scripture gives to
   the Spirit fortify the present argument. For instance, our Lord calls him
   the Spirit of truth, because he effects truth in believers (John 14:17).

   Besides, the power shown forth in Christ’s resurrection was his own as well
   as God’s; as is evident from the sayings: Destroy this temple, and in three
   days I will raise it up (John 2:19); and, No one takes my life; of myself,
   etc. (John 10:18). For he did not beg his victory over death (to which he
   yielded by the infirmity of the flesh) from another, but achieved it by the
   working of his own Spirit.

   Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive,
   and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also
   descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the
   same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all
   things.) Eph. 4:8–10.

   Because Paul makes this testimony fit his purpose by turning it aside from
   its original meaning, the wicked accuse him of abusing Scripture. And the
   Jews go further. They are malicious enough to pervert the natural meaning of
   this verse, so as to lend color to their calumny that what is said here of
   God, applies to David and the people of Israel! David, they say, or the
   people, ascended up on high, when, elated by many victories, they were set
   high above their enemies. But when one weighs carefully what the psalm as a
   whole says, it becomes clear that the above words apply only to God. The
   whole psalm is as it were an epinicion, a song of triumph, which David sings
   to God, celebrating the victories given him by God. He makes the recital of
   his own exploits in this psalm an occasion for commemorating God’s own
   wonderful acts in the deliverance of his people. His aim is to open the eyes
   of the people to God’s glorious power and goodness in the Church. And so,
   among other things, he says, He ascended up on high. When God does not
   exercise his judgment in an obvious way, the mind of the flesh thinks that
   he is idle or gone to sleep. So, according to the judgment of men, when the
   church is oppressed, God himself is brought low. But when he stretches out
   his arm in vengeance, he is said to arise and ascend to his judgment seat.
   This way of speaking is common and well known; so the deliverance of the
   church is called the ascension of God.

   When Paul saw that in this psalm David celebrated the triumphs of God with
   which he wrought salvation in the church, he rightly applied this verse
   about the ascension of God to the person of Christ. The greatest victory of
   God took place when Christ, having overcome sin, conquered death, and put
   Satan to flight, was lifted up to heaven in majesty, that he might reign
   gloriously over the church. Therefore, there is no reason why anyone should
   object that Paul’s use of this prophecy was contrary to the mind of the
   psalmist. Since David saw the glory of God in the continuance of the church,
   it is evident that no ascent of God shall be more victorious and memorable
   than that which occurred when Christ ascended to the right hand of the
   Father, to bring to subjection all principalities and dominations, and then
   to become in eternity the defender and protector of the church.

   He led captivity captive. Captivity here is a collective noun for captive
   enemies. It means simply that the mighty God has overcome his enemies; but
   this was done more thoroughly in Christ than in any other way. He has
   overthrown not only the devil, sin, death, and all hell, but also the lust
   of our flesh, thus by his word making us rebels into an obedient people. On
   the other hand, he binds his enemies, that is, all the wicked, with chains
   of iron, and restrains their fury by his power, so that they can do no more
   than he permits.

   The next phrase, and gave gifts to men, is especially difficult. According
   to the psalmist, God receives gifts. Paul speaks of giving gifts, which
   seems to be quite the opposite of what the psalmist says. Still, this is not
   absurd. Paul is not interested in quoting Scripture word for word. All he
   wants to do is get at the real meaning of the passage he mentions. Certainly
   God received the gifts David speaks of, not for himself but for his people,
   A little before, the psalm itself had said that the spoils of war had been
   divided among the families of Israel. Since God received in order to give,
   even though Paul altered the wording of the psalm he did not depart from its
   meaning.

   At the same time, I am inclined towards another opinion; namely, that Paul
   changed the word received intentionally. When he did this, he intended not
   to misquote the psalm but to coin an expression of his own which would serve
   his present purpose. Having quoted a few words from the psalm, with regard
   to Christ’s exaltation, he added that he gave gifts. He wanted to show that
   God’s ascent in Christ’s person was more excellent than his victories in the
   ancient church [Israel]. What he does is to compare the lesser with the
   greater; for after all, when a victor gives freely and bountifully to all
   his men the spoil taken from his vanquished enemies, his glory is greater
   than if he gathered it up for himself. The view of others who say that
   Christ gave us what he received from the Father is forced and has nothing to
   do with this verse. Thus, in my judgment, the most natural explanation of
   this passage is that, after quoting the psalm briefly, Paul takes the
   liberty of adding a phrase of his own, because it is suitable for Christ.
   The point is that the ascension of Christ is more excellent and wonderful
   than God’s glorious deeds as recounted by David.

   Now that he ascended. Now the false accusers belabor Paul again, saying,
   What frivolous and childish argument is this that forces a figure of speech
   about the manifestation of divine glory, to apply to the real ascension of
   Christ! Who does not know, they say, that the word ascended is a metaphor?
   And why infer that he must have first descended? My answer is this. Paul
   does not here argue like a logician about what follows necessarily or what
   we may infer from the words of the prophet. He knew very well that what
   David said of God’s ascension was metaphorical. But still, it cannot be
   denied that God’s exaltation indicates a previous humiliation. Paul has a
   good reason for inferring the descent from the ascent. And when did God come
   down lower than he did when Christ emptied himself? If God was ever brought
   down ingloriously, and then ascended with glory, it was when Christ, from
   the depths of our condition, was received to the glory of heaven.

   In short, here we must not look for a careful and literal interpretation of
   the psalm. What we have is a mere allusion to the word of the prophet. Paul
   does the same thing in Rom. 10:6, when he turns a passage from Moses to his
   own use (Deut. 30:12). If there be any doubt about the rightness and
   propriety of Paul’s application of this passage to the person of Christ, it
   is removed by the evidence of the psalm itself, which is a song in
   celebration of his Kingdom; because, for one thing, it contains a distinct
   prophecy of the calling of the nations.

   Into the lower parts of the earth. There is no sense in torturing this
   phrase to make it mean purgatory, or hell. Paul is speaking simply about our
   condition in the present life. The argument from the comparative lower is
   very weak. What we have here is not a comparison of one part of the earth
   with another, but of the whole earth with heaven. He means that Christ left
   his exalted seat and came all the way down into our own deep abyss.

   He . . . ascended up above all heavens: that is, beyond the created world.
   When we say Christ is in heaven, we must not imagine that he is somewhere
   among the cosmic spheres, counting the stars! Heaven means a place far
   beyond all the spheres, destined for the Son of God after his resurrection.
   When we speak of it as another place outside the universe, we do so because
   we must speak of the Kingdom of God using the only language which we have.
   There are those who claim that no space separates Christ from us, because,
   they say, above all heavens and ascended into heaven amount to the same
   thing! But they forget that whether he be above heavens or in heaven, he is
   beyond everything under the sun and stars, beyond all the spheres which
   surround the earth, beyond the whole machinery of the visible world.

   That he might fill all things. Since to fill often means to accomplish, we
   may so understand it in this place. When Christ ascended to heaven, he came
   into possession of the dominion given him by the Father, to rule and direct
   all things by his power. I think we might arrive at an even more beautiful
   conception if we put together two ideas which, contradictory though they
   seem, are in fact perfectly congruous one with the other. So soon as we hear
   that Christ is ascended, we fancy that he is far away from us; as he indeed
   is in his humanity or in the body. But Paul reminds us that although he is
   absent from us bodily, he nevertheless fills all things by the power of his
   Spirit. Whenever the right hand of God, which embraces heaven and earth, is
   revealed, Christ’s spiritual presence fills all things with the exercise of
   his boundless power. And this is so, even though, according to Peter, his
   body is and remains in heaven (Acts 3:21).

   Thus, we see that Paul, by indulging in an apparent contradiction, added not
   a little to the grace of his exposition. Christ, who was before enclosed in
   a narrow space, ascended to fill heaven and earth. But, did he not do this
   before? Yes, I admit, he did it before in his divinity. But, after he took
   possession of his Kingdom, he began to exercise the power of his Spirit in a
   new way; and in the same Spirit, he revealed his presence among us. As John
   says: The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet
   glorified (7:39); and again, It is expedient for you that I go away; for, if
   I go not away, the Comforter will not come to you (16:7). In short, when he
   began to sit at the right hand of the Father, he began also to fill all
   things.

   But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and
   saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said,
   Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right
   hand of God. Acts 7:55–56.

   He saw the glory of God. As I said before, Luke means that when Stephen
   raised his eyes to heaven, immediately Christ appeared to him. But before
   that he tells us that Stephen was given other than earthly eyes, whose
   vision enabled him to rise as far as the glory of God. From this we receive
   the general consolation that God shall be no less with us, provided, leaving
   the world behind, all our senses seek after him; not that he will appear to
   us in an external vision as he did to Stephen, but that he will so reveal
   himself within us as to give us a true knowledge of his presence. And this
   way of seeing should be enough for us, since, by his grace and power, God
   not only shows that he is near us, but also proves that he lives in us.

   Behold, I see the heavens. God did not intend to have only private dealings
   with his servant. He wanted to trouble and vex his enemies. For, when
   Stephen declares openly that he was given this miracle, he offers them a
   powerful insult. But it may be asked, How were the heavens opened? So far as
   I am concerned, I judge that nothing was changed as to the nature of the
   heavens, but that Stephen was given a new sharpness of vision which,
   overcoming all obstacles, penetrated to the invisible Kingdom of Heaven.
   For, even if heaven had been torn apart, no human eye could have reached so
   high as to see it. Therefore, only Stephen saw the glory of God. As to the
   wicked who stood there, not only was this spectacle hidden from them, but
   also they were so blinded within themselves as not to perceive the open
   light of truth. Therefore, he says that the heavens were opened to him,
   because nothing prevented him from seeing the glory of God. From this it
   follows that the miracle was wrought not in the sky, but in his eyes.
   Therefore, we should not dispute about a physical vision, because certainly
   Christ did not appear to him in a way and order that is natural, but in a
   new and singular fashion. And, pray tell me, what were the colors of God’s
   glory that they might have affected naturally the eyes of flesh? Therefore
   in this vision we should consider nothing but what belongs to God. Besides,
   it is very much worth noting that the glory of God appeared to Stephen not
   strictly as it was but in so far as a man is capable of seeing it. For the
   immeasurableness of God’s glory cannot be comprehended by the measure of the
   creature.

  4. CHRIST THE KING AND THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST

   Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou
   art the King of Israel. John 1:49.

   It is not surprising that Nathanael knows Jesus as the Son of God because of
   his divine power. But why does he call him the King of Israel? For, these
   two things do not seem to be related. But Nathanael is looking deeper. He
   had heard that Christ is the Messiah; and now he confirms this doctrine
   which was given [by the prophets], with the further statement that He is the
   Son of God. Moreover, he reminds himself of the self-evident truth that the
   Son of God shall appear to become King over God’s people. He is therefore
   right in confessing that the Son of God is also the King of Israel. Faith
   not only should be fixed upon the essence of Christ (as they say), but
   should also attend to his mission and power. It avails little to know who
   Christ is, without knowing also what his will for us was to be and to what
   end he was sent by the Father. This is why the papists have but the shadow
   of Christ; they care only to know his bare essence, and neglect his Kingship
   which consists in his power to save us.

   Moreover, when Nathanael calls him the King of Israel, he shows that he is
   of little faith; because the Kingship of Christ extends to the ends of the
   world. His faith had not made enough progress for him to realize that Christ
   was destined to be the King of the whole world, or that the children of
   Abraham would be gathered together from all parts, so that the whole world
   might be the Israel of God.

   For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day
   I have begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be
   to me a Son? Heb. 1:5.

   Thou art my Son. It cannot be denied that this was spoken of David, but in
   so far as Christ was in him; [83] therefore, the things we find in this
   psalm were foreshadowed in David, but manifested in Christ. When David
   conquered the many enemies surrounding his kingdom and enlarged its borders,
   there was a foreshadowing of the fulfillment of the promise, I shall give
   the nations for thine inheritance. But how little this was compared with the
   Kingdom of Christ, which extends from East to West! Again, David was called
   the Son of God because he was called to do great things. But his glory was a
   mere spark compared with that which shone forth in Christ, who bore the very
   image of the Father. Christ alone deserves the singular honor of bearing the
   name Son because the Father has sealed him alone, and no one else, with his
   image. Therefore, it is blasphemous to give the title Son to anyone but
   Christ.

   But the argument of the apostle does not seem to be very strong. He claims
   that Christ is superior to the angels because he is called the Son. But
   Christ has this name in common with the princes and all those who are high
   in power, of whom it is written: Ye are gods, and the sons of the most high.
   Besides, the prophet conferred a greater honor upon the whole people of
   Israel when he called them the first-born of God (Jer. 31:9). In fact, in
   Scripture they are often called sons. Again, elsewhere, David calls the
   angels also sons of God; as when he says, in Ps. 89:6, Who is like the Lord
   among the sons of God? But, the answer to all this is not difficult. The
   princes are given this name because of their peculiar position; Israel,
   because by God’s grace they were his chosen people; the angels are called
   sons of the gods figuratively, because they are heavenly spirits and taste
   of divinity in their blessed immortality. But when David, representing
   Christ’s Person, calls himself without qualification the Son of God, he
   means something unique, an honor far above that of the princes, or of the
   angels, or of the whole people of Israel. But it were most inapt and
   improper to set Christ above all others as the Son of God, if he had nothing
   more than they. For the expression Son of God sets him apart from the class
   and number of all other beings. Since thou art my Son is spoken to Christ
   alone, it follows that no angel shares this honor with him.

   If again someone takes exception to this argument and says that it raises
   David above the angels, I reply: It is not absurd that David should be set
   above the angels, in so far as he is the image of Christ; just as it was not
   an insult to the angels that the high priest who expiated sins was called a
   mediator. Neither David nor the high priest received the title for himself;
   but in pointing to the Kingdom of Christ, each derived his title from Him.
   The sacraments also, which are in themselves without life, are honored with
   titles which even the angels cannot claim without blasphemy. Hence it is
   clear that the argument from the use of the word Son is valid.

   As to Christ’s being begotten, briefly speaking, I take it that in this
   verse it has to do with his relationship to us. Augustine’s subtle
   reasoning, according to which today means in eternity or perpetuity, is
   frivolous. Of course, Christ is the eternal Son of God, because he is the
   wisdom of God begotten before time. But this has nothing to do with our
   verse, which expresses the truth that men know Christ as the Son of God
   because the Father has revealed him as his Son. Similarly, the declaration
   mentioned by Paul in Rom. 1:4, was, so to speak, a kind of outward
   begetting. The secret and inward begetting which went before, was beyond
   human knowledge; it was above our understanding, until God gave us visible
   evidence of it.

   I will be to him a Father. The same is true with regard to this second
   testimony, which refers to Solomon. Although Solomon was inferior to the
   angels, yet when God promises to be his Father, he was set apart from the
   commonality of men. God was to be a Father to him, not as to one of the sons
   of Abraham, or to one of the princes, but as to one who had pre-eminence
   over all the rest. The same preference which made him a Son, excluded all
   others from an equal honor. But now, the context of this verse makes it
   clear that Solomon is declared the Son, not in himself but as a figure, an
   exemplar of Christ. The universal kingship here mentioned as destined for
   the Son, is also said to be a kingdom without end. The kingdom of Solomon,
   on the contrary, was narrowly bounded; and it was far from being perpetual,
   since it was divided soon after his death; and a little while after it fell.
   Besides, in that psalm, the Lord makes a vow, with the sun and moon as
   witnesses, that so long as they shall shine in the heavens, his Kingdom
   shall stand. But this does not apply to David’s kingdom which collapsed in a
   short while and finally was utterly destroyed. Further, we may gather
   readily from many passages in the prophets, that such promises belong to no
   one but Christ. And let nobody cavil that this is a new invention of ours.
   For, the Jews called Christ, commonly and usually, the Son of David.

   But to which of his angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until
   I make thine enemies thy footstool? Heb. 1:13.

   Again, he exalts the superiority of Christ by another testimony, in order to
   show the pre-eminence of Christ over the angels.

   This verse is taken from Ps. 110, which can be made to apply only to Christ.
   We know very well from the story of Uzziah’s leprosy, that even the kings
   had no right to act as priests (2 Chron. 26:18). Since it is clear that
   neither David nor the kings who followed him were ordained to be priests, it
   follows that here we have a prophecy of a new kingship and a new priesthood,
   in which king and priest were to be one. Besides, the eternal priesthood
   spoken of in this psalm fits the case of Christ alone.

   Now, at the beginning of the psalm, he is put at God’s right hand; which
   means, as I have said, that he is given a position second only to the
   Father. What we have here is a metaphor which signifies that Christ is the
   Father’s agent and his head ambassador who exercises his power, so that the
   Father reigns by his hand. No angel was ever honored in this way. Christ
   therefore is exalted far above the host of angels.

   Until I make. Since there never is any dearth of Christ’s enemies who set
   themselves against his Kingdom, the church is always in peril; especially
   because his foes, who seek to overthrow it, are among the great men of this
   world; men who both resort to artifice and attack repeatedly with fury and
   violence. When we look at what is before our eyes, we cannot but conclude
   that the Kingdom of Christ is about to fall in ruin. But the promise made in
   this psalm takes away all our fear, because Christ shall not leave his seat
   [at the Father’s right hand] until he has prostrated his last enemy to the
   ground. There are two things to keep in mind. First, there shall never be
   quietness for the Kingdom of Christ in this world, because it will always be
   infested and troubled by its enemies. Secondly, no matter what evils they
   perpetrate, the enemies of Christ shall not prevail, because Christ sits at
   God’s right hand, not for a time but in eternity. Therefore, all those who
   do not submit to his sovereignty shall be thrown down and trodden under his
   feet.

   That I may lead forth a people, blind who have eyes and deaf who have ears.
   Isa. 43:8. (Calvin’s wording.)

   The brevity of this verse makes its meaning unclear. There are some who
   translate “I will bring forth the blind and him who has eyes” ; that is,
   both the blind and the seeing, both the deaf and the hearing. Others explain
   blind as those who have eyes, but eyes which are too dim to be able to
   perceive the secrets of heavenly wisdom. But taking everything into
   consideration, I prefer to separate the two parts. “I will lead forth the
   blind, and restore sight to them; I will free the deaf, and they will regain
   their ears.” So the words run: lead forth the blind, and they will have
   eyes; the deaf, and they will have ears.

   The content of this verse requires careful consideration. First the people
   are freed; then eyes and ears are restored to them. The Lord fulfilled this
   promise when he led his people from Babylon, but the prophecy certainly
   extends beyond that to the Kingdom of Christ. For in his Kingdom the
   faithful have been gathered not only from Chaldea, but also from all parts
   of the earth. This began conspicuously long ago at the time of Peter’s first
   speech (Acts 2:41), when great numbers from different countries joined in
   one confession of faith. But later others, who seemed wholly alien, joined
   with the same body and showed themselves sons of Abraham.

   Therefore if we seek the full truth of this prophecy we must come to Christ,
   by whom alone we are delivered from slavery to the devil and confirmed in
   liberty. He restores eyes and ears to us who were formerly by nature both
   blind and deaf.

   Further we must remember, as I have emphasized rather often, that the return
   of the people from exile is connected with the restoration of the church
   accomplished by Christ. For what God began when he brought the people out of
   exile, he continued and fulfilled in the coming of Christ. So the redemption
   is one. And hence it follows that the blessing here described cannot be
   limited to any one short period of time.

   And in mercy shall the throne be established; and he shall sit upon it
   securely in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and
   hasting righteousness. Isa. 16:5.

   The Hebrews apply the whole verse to Hezekiah, but this interpretation is by
   no means acceptable. The prophet is describing a greater restoration of the
   church. (Besides, the Moabites did not suffer punishment in the time of
   Hezekiah, nor did God’s blessing then begin to shine among the Judeans.)
   What he means is: All the enemies of the chosen people are planning the
   destruction of the Kingdom which God had promised would be firm forever. But
   the faithful must not lose courage when they are miserably scattered; they
   must remember this well-known oracle which attests the continuance of God’s
   Kingdom. And this passage can be interpreted as referring to none other than
   Christ; although I admit that Hezekiah stands as a symbol of Christ, as did
   David and his other successors. But all these [men] point us to Christ
   himself, who alone redeems and leads his people, who alone gathers his
   scattered remnant.

   In this way the prophet recalls the faithful to Christ; it is as if he said:
   “You know the God whom you serve. He declares himself the guardian of your
   safety to keep you always secure and unharmed under his protection. And if
   all things have slid down to disaster, he has promised you a Redeemer under
   whom a wholly new happiness will rise and prevail. At the very moment of
   despair the Redeemer of the church will come and restore you to the full
   flower of freedom. Therefore be perfectly calm and wait for him, even when
   you see the church poor and scattered.”

   We must note these words carefully. All other comforts are temporary and
   illusory unless we depend wholly upon Christ. Therefore if we wish to be
   blessed and happy let our eyes be fixed upon him. He has promised that we
   shall be blessed even under the cross; that crucifixion and torture will be
   the door to a blessed life; that whatever hardships we suffer will end for
   us with the fullness of felicity.

   In mercy. As Isaiah shows, this is no human achievement, but results from
   the goodness of God who is its sole architect. Therefore we must acknowledge
   his free favor, and accent the establishment of this holy throne among us as
   his gift. This the prophet asserts plainly. We should seek no other reason
   for God’s kindness to us except his pure compassion; and truly there is no
   other cause for it.

   Neither honor nor merits (of which surely there are none) can be brought
   forward as a reason for God’s raising again the throne which had fallen
   through the guilt and the crimes of the people. Quite otherwise, when he saw
   that those whom he had chosen were lost, he willed to give an example of his
   infinite goodness. If God is the maker of this throne, by whom can it be
   overturned? Are the wicked stronger than he?

   He will sit firmly in the tent of David. Almost every separate word has its
   own force, and this little clause is worth careful study. I like the
   allusion to the tent here because Christ was certainly a man of the common
   people before he was called to his throne. Also the prophet wishes to give a
   picture of the church which bears no resemblance to the thrones of kings and
   princes, and does not glitter with gold and gems. And in addition to
   presenting the spiritual rule of Christ under a humble and inglorious
   aspect, he declares at the same time that it will be revealed on earth and
   among men. For if he had said only that the throne of Christ would be
   erected, we could wonder if it would be located in heaven or on earth. When
   he says in the tent of David, he shows that Christ reigns not only among
   angels but also among men. Therefore, we should not think that we must
   penetrate the heavens to seek him.

   The ungodly think that what we proclaim about the reign of Christ is
   ridiculous; as if it were some phantasm of our own imagination. They wish to
   see with their eyes something open to their senses. But we have no need to
   receive any physical sign from him, and are content with his power and
   goodness.

   In firmness (firmly). ’emeth means sometimes certainty, sometimes truth.
   Here the prophet means that Christ’s Kingdom will be firm and enduring, even
   as Daniel (2:44; 7:14) bore witness, and the Evangelist also: Of his kingdom
   there will be no end (Luke 1:33). This permanence distinguishes it from the
   ordinary kingdoms. For although they are established with great and
   plentiful resources, they totter or sink by their own weight, so that they
   are no firmer than images of melting wax.

   But Isaiah declares that the empire of Christ, although threatened often by
   destruction, will endure forever because it will be upheld by God’s hand. We
   must keep his testimony on hand as a weapon against the temptations which
   arise when Christ’s Kingdom is attacked by so many mighty enemies that it
   seems about to fall. For although the world plots [against it] in every way,
   and hell itself pours out fire and flame against it, the promise stands.

   Who will judge. I take judge (shaphat) as “govern” ; as if the line ran “who
   will govern.” We often see a magnificent throne without an occupant; and it
   often happens that kings are either figureheads or cattle, so that they are
   without good judgment, or prudence, or wisdom. But on this throne, the
   prophet says, will sit one who truly fulfills the office of Governor. Then
   he makes a further addition to assure us that Christ will be our protector.
   For when he attributes justice and righteousness to him, he displays the
   royal banner under the protection of which Christ receives us and which he
   will not allow to be violated. And so long as we give ourselves to faith in
   him, with calm and quiet minds, he will not permit the wicked to injure us
   with impunity.

   The word hasten is used to teach us that our reward will be swift and
   prompt; and this speed must be set against our impatience. For he never
   seems to us to bring aid quickly enough. But when we are tormented with
   fervent longing, let us remember that we suffer from impatience because we
   do not give room enough to his Providence. When to our carnal mind he seems
   slow, he is really fitting his acts of judgment to the time which he best
   knows. Let us then submit to his will.

   He will judge among many peoples and accuse (or blame) strong nations afar
   off; and they will beat their swords into plowshares and their lances into
   sickles. They shall not lift the sword, nation against nation, and they will
   no more be accustomed to war. Micah. 4:3. (Calvin’s wording.)

   Here the prophet describes the fruits of the teaching of God’s word. God
   will recall all peoples to gentleness, so that they will strive to promote
   brotherly peace among themselves and will lay aside all desire to inflict
   injuries. As he said before, the church of God can be established in no
   other way than by the Word. True service of God cannot be begun, nor can it
   endure, except where God is served by the obedience of faith. Now he shows
   the goal to which the teaching leads. Those who once lived in mutual
   hostility and burned with the desire to hurt one another, now, with
   character transformed, are wholly intent on mutual kindness.

   But before the prophet comes to this point, he says he will Judge among many
   peoples and accuse strong nations. The word judge, shaphat, in Hebrew also
   means govern. God is certainly the subject of the sentence. The prophet is
   saying that although formerly men did not obey God, they will in the future
   know him as King and concede supreme power to him. God indeed has always
   governed the world by his hidden providence and so governs it now. However
   much the devil and wicked men may rage, however much they boil with their
   own unrestrained anger, there is no doubt that God checks and curbs their
   madness with a hidden bridle.

   The Scripture speaks in two ways of God’s rule. God governs the devil and
   all the wicked, but not by his Word nor by the Spirit’s sanctification. They
   obey God against their wish and will. God’s special rule applies to his
   church alone, where God by his Word and Spirit turns the hearts of men to
   obedience, so that they follow him freely and voluntarily. They are
   thoroughly taught within and without; within, by the inspiration of the
   Spirit, without, by the preaching of the Word. Then, as Ps. 110:3 says, your
   willing people will assemble. Such is the Kingdom of God, which the prophet
   here describes.

   God will judge, not as he now governs the whole world, but in a special way
   he will subject the faithful to himself so that they desire nothing so much
   as to surrender themselves wholly to him.

   But because men must be subjugated before they offer such submission to God,
   the prophet has added in plain terms He will convict (or accuse) many
   people. And this addition must be carefully noted, because from it we learn
   that our inborn pride is too great for anyone, unless mastered by force, to
   be ready to be God’s pupil. The teaching by itself would congeal in the
   great corruption of our nature, if God did not convict us, that is, unless
   he prepared us beforehand by force and violence. Now we see the prophet’s
   wisdom in including correction in God’s rule. The verb yakach means
   sometimes “remonstrate with,” “accuse,” sometimes “convict.” In any case, it
   here implies the wickedness and perversity of our flesh, since even the best
   of men never surrender themselves to God until they are subdued. Subdued
   how? Truly by God’s use of force in their correction.

   Such are the beginnings of the reign of Christ. The prophet speaks here of
   strong peoples to glorify that reign and to illuminate it by his words. We
   see here the power of the teaching of the Word, because, after receiving its
   correction, strong men offer themselves without any hesitation to be ruled
   by God. The correction is very necessary, but God does not use external
   force nor any armed soldiers when he wishes to subdue his church. And yet he
   gathers in it strong men. The power of the teaching is therefore undeniable.
   For among men, where there is strength, there also is assurance and pride,
   and afterwards rebellion. But the Word, without any external aid, corrects
   men’s obstinacy, and we see that God works in an unbelievable way when he
   gathers his church.

   There is certainly no doubt that this passage must refer to the Person of
   Christ. Micah speaks of God without specific mention of Christ, because
   Christ had not yet been manifested in the flesh. But we know that God’s rule
   of the world and the submission of the peoples of the whole earth to him had
   its fulfillment in Christ. Also we have affirmed that Christ is true God,
   for he was not called his Father’s servant like Moses or the other prophets.
   He was supreme King of his church.

   But before I come to the fruits of Christ’s reign, the phrase inserted here,
   ’ad rachoq, must be noted. Both length of time and distance of place can be
   so expressed. The Targum of Jonathan [84] takes it as length of time,
   because God accuses people through the ages. But I have no doubt that the
   prophet wished to include far-separated regions; as if he said, God would be
   King not of one people only: his Kingdom would be extended to the farthest
   ends of the earth. Therefore he will convict nations afar off.

   Then the prophet describes the consummation: They will beat their swords
   into plowshares and their lances into sickles. I have already stated briefly
   his meaning. He speaks of the great change which will come when the nations
   have been taught the Word of God. Then all will strive to devote their work
   and their kindly acts to their neighbors. When he talks of swords and
   lances, he shows with few words that men have always been prone to unjust
   violence until they were tamed by the Word of God. Such a change would be
   impossible while every man followed his own nature. There is no one who does
   not want his own private comforts; so insatiable is man’s greed. Therefore,
   when all are so intent on gain, when each one is blinded by his self-love,
   cruelty bursts out from this evil source. Men cannot cultivate peace among
   themselves, because each one wishes to be first, and snatches everything for
   himself. No one yields willingly. Thence come disagreements, and from
   disagreements, wars. This the prophet knows. Yet he adds that as the result
   of Christ’s teaching those who had before then been bristling brutes would
   become tame. Therefore they will beat their swords into plowshares and their
   lances into sickles. They will not, he says, draw sword, nation against
   nation, and they will practice war no more.

   This puts more clearly what I said before. The gospel of Christ will be like
   a signal of peace for the nations. When a battle standard is displayed, the
   soldiers gather for the fight and their ardor is kindled. Micah ascribes the
   opposite result to the gospel of Christ. It will recall men, formerly bent
   on evil-doing, to a desire for peace and concord. When he says they will not
   draw swords, nation against nation, he shows, as I have said, that where
   Christ does not reign men are wolves to men. Each one would gladly devour
   all the others.

   By nature, men rush blindly to attack one another, and the prophet says this
   madness can be corrected, so that wars cease and men refrain from doing
   injury, only when Christ is made their teacher. For by the word lamad, he
   means that in general men are always struggling with one another and are
   always ready to inflict injuries unless they change their natures. Whence is
   gentleness born? Truly from the teaching of the gospel. This passage is
   memorable because we learn from it that the truth of the gospel has not
   reached us, unless mutual love and friendliness prevail among us, and the
   desire to do kindness.

   And although today the pure gospel is preached among us, yet if we consider
   how little each one of us practices brotherly love, we shall rightly be
   ashamed of our negligence. Daily God declares himself reconciled to us in
   his Son. Christ bears witness in this law of love that he is [the giver of]
   peace with God. He offers himself for us, so that we may willingly and
   quickly be brothers to one another. And we desire indeed to be enrolled as
   sons of God; we desire to enjoy the reconciliation won for us by the blood
   of Christ. But meanwhile we tear at one another; we sharpen our teeth; our
   minds are wholly ruthless. If we wish to prove ourselves disciples of Christ
   we must heed this part of his teaching and each one of us strive to help his
   neighbors.

   Now this cannot be done without opposition from the flesh; for we are prone
   to love ourselves and to seek too much our own private advantage. We must
   shed these immoderate and hurtful emotions of self-interest, if brotherly
   love is to take their place. We are warned here that it is not enough to
   refrain from doing injury; a man must be helpful to his brothers. The
   prophet could have said simply “they will break their swords and lances and
   refrain from inflicting further damage.” But he does not say merely this; he
   adds, They will turn (or beat) their swords into plowshares and lances into
   sickles. That is: when they have ceased doing evil, they will desire to
   concern themselves with acts of kindness. So Paul (Eph. 4:28) urges those
   who steal to steal no more and also to work with their hands to serve others
   Therefore unless we want to help our brothers’ need and to offer them our
   aid, we are only half converted. Many people are not cruel, they rob nobody,
   they give nobody reason to complain; but they live for themselves and enjoy
   a useless leisure. This idleness the prophet indirectly condemns when he
   speaks of plows and sickles.

   But the question may be raised: How has this been fulfilled by Christ’s
   coming? The prophet is not describing here the state of the church at any
   time; he is showing what Christ’s Kingdom will be like at the end. Moreover
   we know that when the gospel was first preached, the whole world was more
   savagely embroiled in war than ever before; and now, although in many places
   the pure gospel is preached, disagreements and quarrels do not cease. We see
   greed, ambition, covetousness flourishing; and from them arise both
   dissensions and bloody wars. Yet it would seem to be an absurdity for the
   prophet to speak this way about the reign of Christ, if God did not mean to
   execute in reality what was predicted. I answer, the reign of Christ had
   already begun when God wished the gospel to be preached everywhere, and
   today it is still in progress and not yet complete. Consequently what the
   prophet describes here does not yet appear before our eyes. And because the
   number of the faithful is small and the majority of men despise and reject
   the gospel, robbery and evil deeds do not cease in the world. Do you ask
   why?

   The prophet speaks of Christ’s followers. He shows the fruit of the
   teaching. And truly it bears fruit wherever it takes good root. But the
   teaching of the gospel takes root in hardly one out of a hundred. We must
   look at the amount of progress. For in so far as any man has taken hold of
   the teaching of the gospel he becomes gentle and desires to help his
   neighbors. But since we still carry around with us in our flesh the remains
   of sin, and a perfect knowledge of the gospel does not exist in us, it is
   not strange that no one has rid himself wholly of the unrighteous and stupid
   desires of his flesh.

   Hence it is easy to see how limited is the imagination of those who on the
   basis of the gospel wish to remove the use of the sword from the world. We
   know how the Anabaptists have clamored that the whole political order is the
   enemy of Christ’s Kingdom; as if the Kingdom of Christ were bound up in one
   doctrine — there shall be no use of force. This teaching would indeed hold,
   if in this world we were angels. But as I have said the number of the
   faithful is small and therefore it is necessary that the rest of the crowd
   be restrained by a forcible curb. For the sons of God are intermingled with
   great, savage beasts, or with wolves and false men. For some are openly
   rebellious against God and others are hypocrites. Therefore the use of the
   sword will continue until the end of the world.

   Now we must notice under what circumstances our prophet was speaking. Isaiah
   used the same words, and it is probable that Micah was Isaiah’s disciple.
   For although they held their prophetic office at the same time, Isaiah was
   the elder. But Micah was not ashamed to follow Isaiah and to borrow words
   from him. Nor was he so concerned for his own importance that he had to
   produce everything himself. He conformed to what Isaiah had done, and
   repeated his words exactly, showing the agreement between himself and God’s
   illustrious servant, in order to give the teaching greater authority. We
   recognize his humility when he gave no thought to ill-natured and spiteful
   men who might say: “What! He’s only repeating somebody else’s words.” He
   cared nothing for such slander, and was content to affirm faithfully what
   God commanded.

   The words afar off are not in Isaiah, but otherwise the two passages agree.

   Behold the days will come, saith the Lord, and I will raise up for David a
   righteous Branch, and he will reign as king and act wisely (or prosper). He
   will do judgment and righteousness on the earth. Jer. 23:5. (Calvin’s
   wording.)

   The prophet confirms what he has just said about the restoration of the
   church. For it would not have been enough to promise shepherds who would
   faithfully perform their duty, if that one Shepherd on whom God’s covenant
   was founded had not been assured to them. For, the fulfillment of every good
   for which men can hope must be sought in him.

   It is usual for all the prophets, whenever they want to give the people hope
   of a happy future, to declare the coming Messiah. For in him have always
   been all the promises of God, now and forever, amen. This appears more
   clearly in the gospel; but the faith of the fathers could be complete only
   when they turned their thoughts to the Messiah. For apart from Christ, the
   fathers could not have had assurance of the love of God, or sure evidence of
   his kindness and fatherly goodness. This is the reason the prophets set
   Christ before men’s eyes when they wish to inspire good hope in the
   distressed, who would otherwise be overcome by their sorrow and yield to
   despair.

   We should notice how often the prophets do this, so that we may realize how
   cold God’s promises would be to us, how they would hang in the air or vanish
   completely if we do not turn our minds to Christ, and seek in him the answer
   we shall find nowhere else.

   There follows: He will act wisely (or prosper), and will establish
   righteousness and judgment on the earth. Shakal has both meanings, “act
   wisely” and “prosper,” but the prophet seems to be speaking of just judgment
   rather than of good success, because the two clauses should be read
   together: “The Messiah will act wisely and then establish righteous
   judgment.” He apparently means that Christ will be endowed with both wisdom
   and a spirit of right and justice, and so will fulfill all the requirements
   for a good and perfect king. And the first necessity is wisdom; for honesty
   is not enough in a king (indeed even among private citizens it gets only
   moderate praise); if he lacks intelligence, his honesty is of little use.
   Therefore the prophet here praises Christ for his true wisdom and then
   speaks of his love for justice and right.

   These words are not adequate for honoring Christ. But the figure is taken
   from human experience; and it is true that the first gift of kings is
   wisdom, the second integrity. We know that Christ is often compared to
   earthly kings, or the picture of an earthly king is drawn for us to help us
   see Christ. For God adapts himself to our dull capacity. Since we cannot
   comprehend the unthinkable justice or wisdom of Christ, God brings us by
   easy steps to the knowledge of him by giving us a shadow of him in these
   similes. . . .

   But the difference between the justice of Christ and the justice of other
   kings must be thoroughly understood. Those who rule well among men can
   exercise justice and judgment when they try to gave every man his just due,
   by restraining the boldness of the wicked and protecting the good and
   harmless. This is all that can be asked of earthly kings.

   But Christ is altogether different. Not only is he wise to perceive what is
   best and right, but also he endows his servants with wisdom and insight. He
   not only does judgment and justice by defending the harmless and aiding the
   oppressed, by helping the poor and checking the wicked; but also he
   establishes justice in regenerating us by his Spirit. And, he establishes
   justice further by putting a bridle on the devil.

   Now we see what I meant when I said that we must attend to both Christ’s
   unlikeness and his likeness to earthly kings. His unlikeness is exceedingly
   great; yet the comparison has value for us.

   And on that day, Israel will be, with Egypt and Assyria, a third blessing in
   the midst of the earth. For the Lord of hosts will bless saying, Blessed be
   my people Egypt, and Assyria the work of my hand, and Israel my inheritance.
   Isa. 19:24–25. (Calvin’s wording.)

   Isaiah ends the promise with the addition that there will certainly be a
   blessing for Egypt and Assyria as well as for Israel. Earlier God’s grace
   was in a sense limited to Israel, because with them the Lord had entered
   into a covenant. For the Lord had extended his cord to Jacob, as Moses and
   David say (Deut. 32:9; Ps. 147:20). He hath not so dealt with every nation
   and revealed to them his judgments. The blessing of God dwelt in Judea
   alone.

   But the prophet says this blessing would in the future belong also to the
   Egyptians and the Assyrians. Under these names he includes all nations. He
   specifies these two, not to honor them, but because, since they had been
   continual enemies of God, they seemed the most alien and the farthest from
   hope of favor. God had earlier adopted only the sons of Abraham; he now
   wished to be called the Father of all nations without distinction.

   The third. The interpretation of some that Israel will have third place does
   not please me. For since the Hebrew word is feminine, it ought to be joined
   to barakah, blessing. This blessing is to be understood as an example or
   mirror of all blessings.

   Because he will bless. The repetition serves to explain the preceding. The
   prophet teaches that by God’s free kindness, Assyria and Egypt will be
   united and associated with the chosen people. He means, “Although this title
   belonged only to Israel, it will be given also to other nations whom the
   Lord shall adopt for his own.” There is a mutual relation between God and
   his people. They whom God by his own mouth names a holy people rightly call
   him their God. And this public naming is now extended to Egyptians and
   Assyrians.

   But although the prophet meant to unite distant nations with the Jews, he
   differentiates their appropriate positions with suitable labels. By calling
   the Egyptians the people of God, he means that they will share the
   distinction with which God had formerly honored the Jews alone. By calling
   the Assyrians the work of his hands, he distinguishes them by the praise
   suited to God’s church. We have said elsewhere that the church is called to
   poiēma of God (Eph. 2:10), or his work, because the faithful are remade by
   the spirit of regeneration and bear the image of God. The prophet means by
   the work of God’s hands, not that we were first created by God, but that we
   who are separated from the world and are made new creatures, are transformed
   for a new life. As we well know, nothing in that new life is to be ascribed
   to us; for we know it all to be God’s work.

   Israel he honors with its own unique privilege. Because it is God’s
   inheritance, it keeps the right and honor of the first-born among its new
   brethren. Certainly God’s covenant, which he first made with them, gave to
   them a priority which not even their own ingratitude could erase.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [81] Notice the contrast with the King James Version.

   [82] Apollinaris (d. 392) taught that Christ had a human body and the life
   of a man, but that in him the rational soul or mind was replaced by the
   logos. Thus he represented Christ as neither God nor man, but a mixture
   (mi/jic) of the two. He was repudiated, but orthodoxy was permanently
   infected by him.

   [83] Literally, he bare the Person of Christ.

   [84] The Targums are Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. Such
   translations were first made orally in the synagogues to convey the meaning
   of the Hebrew text to the Aramaic-speaking congregations (cf. Ezra 4:7; Neh.
   8:7). Later, written translations were made. That of Onkelos on the
   Pentateuch is a very literal and exact translation; but the Targum of
   Jonathan on the Prophets is an edifying paraphrase rather than a
   translation. It was probably written in the first century A.D., although the
   tradition of interpretation which it represents is much older.
     _________________________________________________________________

IV The Christian Life

  THE TEXT

  1. SALVATION

   For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that
   whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. John
   3:16.

   Here Christ presents us with the cause and as it were the fountain of our
   salvation, so as to remove all doubt; for our minds cannot come to rest in
   tranquillity unless they arrive at the free love of God. Since we are not to
   seek the ground of our salvation anywhere but in Christ, we must try to find
   out where he came to us from and why he was offered up to be our Savior.
   This verse distinctly teaches both truths: faith in Christ means life to all
   men, and Christ had this life because God loved mankind and would not let it
   perish. This sequence must be carefully noted. When it is a question of the
   source of our salvation, we must consider the inborn and wicked ambition of
   our nature, which traps us into the devilish fancy that we deserve to be
   saved. Therefore we imagine that God is good to us because he judges us
   worthy of his favor. But Scripture praises everywhere his pure and unmixed
   mercy, which does away with all merit.

   By this text, Christ means to do nothing else than establish the love of God
   as the ground of our salvation. When we try to go beyond this, the Spirit
   himself slams the door in our face; he teaches us by Paul’s mouth that
   God’s love is founded in his own will and purpose (Eph. 1:5). And it is
   obvious that Christ spoke as he did so as to turn men’s attention from
   themselves to the mercy of God alone. God does not declare that he was led
   to deliver us because he found us worthy of such a blessing. On the
   contrary, he attributes the glory of our deliverance solely to his love.
   This appears more clearly from the added statement: the Son was given to men
   that they may not perish. Therefore, unless Christ rescues the lost, all are
   doomed to eternal ruin. Paul expresses the same thing in terms of temporal
   sequence: We were loved while we were enemies because of sin (Rom. 5:10).
   For surely, where sin reigns, there is only the wrath of God which carries
   death with it. It follows that mercy alone reconciles us to God and, in so
   doing, restores us to life.

   The above may seem to conflict with many testimonies of Scriptures that
   Christ is the ground of God’s love for us, since apart from him they present
   God as hating us. We must remember what was said before: the secret love
   with which our Heavenly Father embraces us, being his eternal purpose for
   us, takes precedence over all other reasons for our deliverance. But it is
   true that the grace which God wanted to show us, and by which we are moved
   to the hope of salvation, appeared with the reconciling work of Christ.
   Since sins are of necessity odious to God, how can we maintain that God
   loves us freely, unless an offering has been made for these same sins which
   are offensive to him? Hence, before we receive any knowledge of God’s
   Fatherly good will for us, the blood of Christ must intercede for us and
   restore us to God’s favor. Besides, as we were formerly told that God so
   loved us as to give up his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added
   that in a strict sense faith should look to Christ alone.

   He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
   perish. Faith looks to Christ rightly when it sees in him the heart of God
   overflowing with love. Faith rests upon the death of Christ as upon a firm
   and solid support, and finds in it the only surety of salvation.
   Only-begotten is emphatic, commending to us God’s love in all its fervor.
   And because it is hard for men to be persuaded of God’s love, he removes all
   doubt by saying, We are so dear to God that for our salvation he did not
   spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has testified to his love
   for us so sufficiently and abundantly, anyone who is not content and still
   doubts offers no small insult to Christ, as though he were someone who was
   killed by accident. Rather, we ought to reconsider that since God had the
   highest regard for his only-begotten Son, our salvation must be very
   precious to him, because he was willing to pay for it with the Son’s death.

   That whosoever believeth in him may not perish. What a praise of faith, that
   it delivers us from eternal destruction! Christ means clearly that even
   though we are born for death, by faith in him we are offered a sure
   deliverance from it; therefore, we ought not to fear the death which still
   awaits us. And now he adds a universal call, inviting all men without
   exception to share in life, and leaving unbelievers without an excuse. The
   word world, in the previous phrase, has the same significance. Even though
   there is nothing in the world worthy of God’s favor, he shows himself
   gracious toward the whole world, and he invites all men without exception to
   faith in Christ, which is nothing less than entering into Life.

   On the other hand, let us remember that while life is promised in Christ to
   all who believe, only a small part of the people are believers. Christ is
   indeed presented to all, but God opens the eyes of the elect alone, and
   enables them by faith to seek after him. The wonderful effect of faith is
   also seen in our receiving Christ from the Father, who has in Christ truly
   freed us from the punishment of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal
   life; for by the sacrifice of his death, Christ has expiated our sins; and
   now nothing keeps God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since therefore
   faith embraces Christ, together with the efficacy of his death and the fruit
   of his resurrection, it is no wonder that by faith likewise we obtain the
   very Life of Christ.

   It is not yet quite clear as to why and how faith gives us life. Is it
   because Christ himself regenerates us by his Spirit, so that the
   righteousness of God may live and flourish in us; or is it because, purged
   by his blood, by God’s free forgiveness, we are accounted righteous before
   him? Of course these two go together. Still, when it comes to the certainty
   of salvation, we must hold to it that we live because God loves us, and that
   freely; this he shows by not imputing our sins to us. Sacrifice is here
   mentioned because by it sin, curse, and death have been abolished. As I have
   already explained, the two clauses put together in this verse mean that,
   having lost life, we recover it in Christ. In this wretched state of
   mankind, ransom comes before salvation.

   As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
   John 15:9.

   There is much more in this verse than is commonly believed. Those who think
   that he is here speaking of the eternal and secret love of the Father,
   philosophize beside the point. It was rather Christ’s purpose, in effect, to
   deposit in our laps a sure pledge of God’s love toward us. The abstruse
   question of how God in eternity loved himself in the Son has nothing to do
   with this verse. The love in question here has to do with us, because it is
   as the Head of the church that Christ testifies to God’s love for him. Any
   man who tries to find out how God loved Christ, apart from his office as
   Mediator, gets caught in a labyrinth, without path or exit. Let us therefore
   fix our eyes on Christ, because it is in him that we see the pledge of
   God’s love clearly exhibited. For, God poured his love upon him, so that it
   might flow from him to the members of his body. This is also the
   significance of the title, the beloved Son, in whom the will of the Father
   is satisfied; and we must consider the purpose of this love, which is that
   God in Christ may be well pleased with us. Therefore, we must not look at
   God’s love from afar off or in a mirror. Christ was loved by the Father not
   in and for himself alone, but that he might with himself unite us with the
   Father.

   Continue ye in my love. Some explain these words to mean that Christ
   enjoined his disciples to love one another. Others explain it better when
   they say that they refer to the love with which Christ loves us. He in fact
   bids us live always in the joy of the love with which he once and for all
   loved us, warning us not to deprive ourselves of it. For many reject the
   grace offered them, and many throw away what they have in their hands. So
   then, once we are beneficiaries of the grace of Christ, let us see to it
   that we do not fall away from it through our own fault.

   It is foolish to infer from the above words that, without the help of our
   constancy, God’s grace avails nothing. I do not concede that the Spirit asks
   no more from us than what is within our ability. Rather, he shows us where
   we must turn when we lack the strength to obey him. When we hear Christ, in
   this verse, exhort us to perseverance, we must not rely on our own energy
   and industry; we must rather pray him who commands us to confirm us in his
   love.

   For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet
   glorified. John 7:39.

   We know that the Spirit is eternal. But the Evangelist denies that the grace
   of the Spirit which was poured upon men after the resurrection of Christ was
   manifested in public while Christ was in the world in the form of a humble
   servant. He draws a similar contrast between the New Testament and the Old.
   In the New Testament, God promises his Spirit to believers as though he had
   never given him to the fathers. But of course the disciples had already
   received the first fruits of the Spirit; for where is faith from except from
   the Spirit? The Evangelist does not deny the presence of the Spirit among
   the godly before Christ’s death; he only says that it was not so conspicuous
   and striking as after [the resurrection]. This then is the highest adornment
   of the Kingdom of Christ, that he rules over his church by his Spirit. He
   came to a proper and solemn possession of his Kingdom when he ascended to
   the right hand of the Father. No wonder then that the full revelation of the
   Spirit was deferred until that time.

   But there is one question left. Does the Evangelist mean here the visible
   graces of the Spirit, or that true regeneration which is the fruit of
   adoption? I answer that the Spirit, which was promised with the coming of
   Christ, was seen in visible gifts as in a mirror; but here we have to do
   with the power of the Spirit by which we are born again in Christ and become
   new creatures. If now we are left on earth, poor, dry, and almost empty of
   spiritual goods, while Christ sits on the right hand of the Father glorious
   with the majesty of empire, it is because our faith is too puny and we are
   too slow [to rise to him].

   He who heareth my word, and believeth in him who sent me, hath eternal life
   . . . hath passed from death to life. John 5:24.

   Certain later Latin copies have changed passed into shall pass. But they
   have done this out of ignorance and rashness; not knowing what the
   Evangelist meant, they have presumed to do more than what was right. The
   Greek word is not in the least unclear. There is nothing wrong about saying
   has passed from death, because the children of God even now have in them the
   incorruptible seed of life, by which they are called and sit with Christ, by
   faith, in heavenly glory. Thus they have the Kingdom of God established
   firmly within them (Luke 17:21; Col. 3:3). Even while their life is hid,
   they nevertheless by faith do not fail to possess it. Even while they are
   besieged by death, they have peace because they know that Christ defends
   them adequately, and that they are safe. The state of the believers in this
   life is such that they always carry about the stuff of death in themselves.
   But the Spirit who lives in them is Life itself, and will at the end destroy
   what is left of death. Paul was right in saying that death shall be the last
   enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26). But obviously this verse has nothing
   to do with the coming full destruction of death, or with the ultimate
   complete manifestation of Life. The point here is that though life in us is
   only begun, Christ announces it to the believers as their sure possession.
   Thus he removes the fear of death from them. And this is not surprising,
   since they are united with (insiti sint) him who is the inexhaustible
   Fountain of Life.

   Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in
   me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. John 11:25.

   This is the exposition of the second clause. It tells us that Christ is the
   Life, because he will never let the Life he has given us be destroyed, and
   will on the contrary preserve it till the end. What would happen to us if
   we, who are flesh and weak, having received the Life, should be left to our
   own strength? Therefore, if Christ is to finish what he has begun, it needs
   be that we continue in Life through the power of Christ himself. Believers
   are said never to die because their souls, born again of an incorruptible
   seed, enjoy the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, who gives them Life
   without ceasing. While the body is subject to death because of sin, the
   Spirit is Life because of righteousness (Rom. 8:10). The fact that the outer
   man decays from day to day does not hurt the believers’ true Life. It even
   helps its growth, because the inner man in turn is renewed day by day (2
   Cor. 4:16). What is more, death itself is in its way an emancipation from
   bondage to death.

   And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither
   shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:28.

   We have this matchless fruit of faith that, by Christ’s command, we live
   with confidence and safety when we are gathered in his fold. At the same
   time let us keep in mind the support which makes this confidence firm; for
   he testifies that he has our salvation in his hand and will remain its
   faithful guardian. And as though this were not enough, Christ says that his
   disciples shall be defended by God’s power. This is a striking passage. We
   are taught that the salvation of all the elect is as certain as that God’s
   power is invincible. Besides, Christ was not beating the air. He wanted to
   give them a word of promise and to fix it deeply in their minds. Therefore,
   we must understand this statement of Christ as showing that the salvation of
   the elect is sure and firmly established. We are besieged by powerful foes;
   and we are so weak that every moment might well be our last. But because our
   salvation is in the hands of One who is greater, who is mightier, than all,
   we ought not to tremble as though our very life were in peril.

   From this we gather further how insane is the trust of the papists which
   rests on free will, on one’s own virtue and the merit of works. Far
   differently, Christ teaches his own that they must think of themselves as in
   a forest, surrounded by a host of robbers, knowing not only that they are
   unarmed and open prey, but also that they carry the stuff of death around
   with them. Hence, if they would live in safety, they can do it only by
   confidence in God’s protection. The only reason for security is that our
   salvation is in God’s hand. Our own faith is unfirm and we ourselves tend
   greatly to waver. But God who has taken our salvation into his hands is
   mighty enough to scatter all the weapons of our foes with one puff of his
   breath. The most important thing we can do is to turn our eyes to this
   [power of God], if we are not to be overcome by the fear of temptations. For
   Christ wanted to show us how the sheep are enjoying peace and quiet even
   while they wander among wolves.

   And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath, I am from above; ye are of this
   world, I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you that ye shall die
   in your sins, for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
   John 8:23–24.

   Since they did not deserve instruction, he wanted to confound them with a
   curt reproof. So, in this place, he declares that they reject his teaching
   because they absolutely abhor the Kingdom of God. Under world and below he
   includes whatever men have by nature, and brings out the difference between
   his gospel and the sharpness and penetration of the human mind: the gospel
   is heavenly wisdom, but our minds are of the earth. No one, therefore, is
   fit to be Christ’s disciple unless he is refashioned by his Spirit. And
   faith itself is so rare in the world because by nature all men, except those
   he lifts up by a special grace of his Spirit, are turned against Christ and
   estranged from him. If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your
   sins.

   The lost have no way of recovering salvation except by going to Christ. That
   I am here is emphatic, because it includes all that Scripture says of the
   Messiah and all that it bids us to hope in him. He is talking primarily
   about [his work in] the restoration of the church, which exists by the light
   of faith, and the righteousness and new life which grow from it. Some of the
   ancients have interpreted this passage as having to do with the divine
   essence of Christ. But in this they are wrong, because he is speaking of his
   office [or work] in our behalf. This statement is worthy of special notice.
   Men are always ignoring the evils which surround them. Even when they have
   to admit their peril, they neglect Christ and look all around for some other
   useless remedy. The fact is that unless we are extricated by the grace of
   Christ, we remain subject to the violence of a whole mass of innumerable
   evils.

   For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. Phil. 1:21.

   In my Judgment, interpreters so far have given a wrong translation and
   exposition of this passage; for the distinction they make is that, to Paul,
   Christ was life, and death gain. I, on the other hand, take Christ to be the
   subject of both the phrases in this statement, so that he is said to be gain
   in life and in death. (It is common in Greek to imply the word pros without
   using it.) This interpretation, besides being less forced, goes better with
   what went before and expresses our faith more fully. Paul affirms that it
   makes no difference to him, and is the same thing, whether he lives or he
   dies, because having Christ, he is the gainer either way. And certainly, it
   is Christ alone who makes both our life and our death blessed; otherwise, if
   death be misery, life is no better. Hence without Christ, there is little to
   choose between life and death. On the other hand, if Christ be with us, he
   will bless our death equally with our life; and we shall look ahead to both
   with hope and gladness.

   Which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead and set him at
   his own right hand in the heavenly places. Eph. 1:20.

   The Greek word is energēsen, whence comes energeia. In Latin you might say:
   According to the efficacy which he effected. My translation means the same,
   and is not as awkward.

   However, here Paul rightly enjoins us to consider the power of Christ; for,
   so far, its presence in us is hidden, and God’s power is perfected in our
   weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). How are we ahead of the children of this world,
   except that our situation seems to be worse than theirs? Even though sin
   does not reign in us, it is still there. Since death itself is working in
   us, the blessedness we have by hope is totally hidden from the world; for
   the power of the Spirit is something flesh and blood knows nothing about.
   Meanwhile, we are exposed to a thousand distresses, and more than all other
   men are become objects of derision.

   Hence, Christ alone is the mirror in whom we are able to see the glory which
   is altogether blurred in us who live in weakness under the cross we
   ourselves bear. Since it behooves us to raise our minds on high, to believe
   in righteousness, blessedness, and glory, let us learn to turn them to
   Christ. For we now live subject to the dominion of death; but he, having
   been made alive again by power from heaven, even now has life and dominion.
   We labor in servitude to sin; and besieged by a thousand afflictions, we are
   engaged in a dreadful warfare (1 Tim. 1:18); he on the other hand, being
   seated at the right hand of God, has received all government in heaven and
   on earth, and triumphs wondrously over his foes as he defeats and overthrows
   them. We bite the dust, covered with contempt and ignominy; to him is given
   a name which fills men and angels with reverence, and makes devils and
   godless men grovel in fright. Here we are impoverished, so poor that we lack
   everything we need; he on the other hand has been appointed by the Father to
   possess all blessings and to dispense them according to his good pleasure.
   In view of all this, we shall be the gainers if we turn our minds to Christ,
   so that in him, as in a mirror, we may contemplate the wonderful treasures
   of divine grace and the infinite greatness of God’s power, all of which we
   can hardly discern at present in our own lives.

   Yet a little while, and the world shall see me no more; but ye see me:
   because I live, ye shall live also. John 14:19.

   He continues to speak to his disciples of his special favor toward them,
   which should have been enough to mitigate and even take away their sorrow.
   “When I go away,” he says, “and the world no longer sees me, I shall no less
   be still with you.” If we are to rejoice in such secret vision of Christ, we
   must not judge his presence or absence with the eyes of the flesh. We must
   rather be intent upon discerning his power with the eyes of faith. Thus it
   is that Christ is always present to the believers and seen by them in the
   Spirit, even though they are bodily far from him.

   Because I live. This may be taken in two ways. It may simply confirm what
   went before, or it may go with the next phrase, which says that the
   believers shall live because Christ lives. I accept the former alternative,
   even though we may also learn from it that we live because Christ lives.
   Christ points out why it is that his disciples shall see him, while the
   world shall not: Christ cannot be seen except in the spiritual life which
   the world does not possess. No wonder the world does not see Christ, for it
   is blind because of death. But no sooner does a man begin to live by the
   Spirit than he is given eyes with which to see Christ, because our life
   flows from the life of Christ as from its source. Otherwise, we have no
   life. We in ourselves are dead, and the life we boast is a most awful death.
   Therefore, when it comes to obtaining life, our eyes must be upon Christ,
   and his life must be given us by faith. So it is that we receive confidence
   that, while Christ lives, we are safe from the peril of destruction. For it
   remains an immovable truth that while he is alive the members cannot be
   dead.

   Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is
   dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If any man keep my saying, he shall
   never taste of death. John 8:52.

   The reprobate who keep on with their stupidity are not touched by promises,
   whether small or great. Hence they can neither be led nor drawn to Christ.
   Some think that the Jews slandered Jesus and twisted his words around when
   they spoke of tasting death, because they had not heard him saying anything
   of the sort. But I think this objection is flimsy. I rather think that the
   Hebrews meant the same thing by tasting death and seeing death. Both
   expressions meant simply “to die.” Of course, to apply the spiritual
   teaching of Jesus to the body is to interpret it falsely. No believer shall
   see death, for he is born again of an incorruptible seed. Even though
   believers die, being united with Christ their head, they shall be not
   snuffed out by death. Their death is simply a transition to the Heavenly
   Kingdom; the Spirit dwelling in them is Life because of righteousness, and
   what is left of death in them is consumed. Those who are carnal know nothing
   about freedom from death except in an obviously physical sense. And this
   disease is much too common in this world, since many have only contempt for
   the grace of Christ, which they judge merely by the senses of their flesh.
   If we do not wish the same blindness to affect us, let us arouse our minds,
   so that they may discern spiritual life in the midst of death.

   And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also
   himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be
   all in all. 1 Cor. 15:28.

   Will God be all in all also in the devil and the ungodly? Far from it,
   unless perhaps we choose to accept “to be” as meaning to be known and openly
   be seen. If so, the statement would mean: “Since now the devil is at war
   with God, since the wicked confound and confuse the order established by
   him, since we see an infinity of scandalous deeds with our own eyes, it is
   by no means clear that God is all in all. But when Christ executes the
   judgment commanded him by God, and overthrows Satan and all the wicked, then
   in their destruction the glory of God shall be revealed. The same may be
   said of powers which are sacred and legitimate in themselves, for they now
   prevent, in their way, God’s appearing to us rightly and as he is in
   himself. But then, God shall be all in the sense that he shall reign alone
   and directly in heaven and earth, and will therefore be in all; not only in
   all persons, but in all creatures.”

   Now, this is a pious interpretation, and since it agrees well enough with
   the apostle’s purpose, I am willing to accept it. However, there would be
   nothing wrong in taking this verse as having to do with believers, in whom
   God has already begun his Kingdom and shall then perfect it, so that they
   shall cleave to him completely.

   Both these interpretations in themselves are sufficient refutation of those
   who pretend that this verse proves their wicked deliriums. Some imagine that
   God shall be all in all, in that all things shall vanish and become nothing.
   But Paul’s words mean only that all things shall be brought back to God as
   their only beginning and end, and shall thus be bound firmly to him. Others
   infer from this verse that the devil and all the wicked shall be saved, as
   though the fullness of God would not be more striking in the destruction of
   the devil than if he made him his associate and equal. We see therefore with
   what impudence such madmen torture Paul’s statement when they use it to
   establish their blasphemies.

  2. THE CHRISTIAN WARFARE

   But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of
   faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. 1 Thess. 5:8.

   Paul adds this in order that he may shake us the better out of our torpor.
   He calls us as it were to arms, to impress upon us that it is no time for
   sleep. He does not, indeed, mention war. But when he bids us to arm with a
   breastplate and a helmet, he is in fact calling us to warfare. It goes
   without saying that anyone who expects a surprise attack must rouse himself
   and keep watching. Having warned us to be watchful while we have the truth
   of the gospel for light, he now stirs us up with the argument that we have a
   battle to fight with the enemy, and that it is much too dangerous to be
   doing nothing. We know that soldiers, who may ordinarily be rather
   loose-living fellows, when they are near the enemy and in danger of being
   killed, avoid getting drunk or any other way of “having fun” so that they
   may watch and be wary. So, since Satan is always breathing down our necks,
   and is ready and scheming to plunge us into a thousand perils, we ought to
   be no less watchful and on our guard.

   Some interpreters are much too clever in their handling of the pieces of
   armor mentioned by the apostle. This verse is quite different from Eph.
   6:14, where Paul by “breastplate” means “righteousness.” Here it is enough
   to understand that the whole life of Christians is like a perpetual warfare,
   since Satan never stops attacking and troubling them. It is therefore
   necessary to be prepared for resistance; and of course we are warned that we
   had better be well armed against such a powerful enemy. However, Paul does
   not in this place go into detail about the armor we must have; he merely
   mentions two pieces, the breastplate and the helmet. But he leaves out
   nothing a man needs for this spiritual warfare. For anyone who is provided
   with faith, hope, and love has all the weapons he needs.

   Stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of
   the gospel, and in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them
   an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
   Phil. 1:27–28.

   In the second place, he commends to the Philippians an indomitable spirit,
   that they may not be confounded by the fury of their enemies. At that time
   the fires of savage persecution blazed almost everywhere, because Satan
   fought with all his force to prevent the inauguration of the gospel; and the
   more Christ exercised the grace of his Spirit, the greater was the impotent
   rage of Satan. The apostle, therefore, enjoins the Philippians to stand firm
   and not to be perturbed.

   Which is to them an evident token of perdition. This is the proper meaning
   of the Greek, and those who translate as “cause” have no good reason for
   doing so. When the wicked strive against the Lord, they engage in a
   preliminary battle which anticipates their ultimate ruin; and the greater
   the outrage they do against the godly, the more they are bent on their own
   perdition. Of course, Scripture does not teach us anywhere that the
   afflictions which the godly suffer at the hands of the godless become the
   cause of their salvation. Paul calls afflictions evidences or proofs [of
   salvation] in another place also (2 Thess. 1:5). Instead of the word
   endeixin, which we have here, there he uses the word endeigma. It is,
   therefore, a singular comfort that the attacks and troubles we suffer at the
   hands of our enemies are visible evidences of our salvation. Persecutions
   are for God’s children the seals of their adoption if they bear them with
   courage and a calm spirit. The ungodly, on the other hand, produce a token
   of their condemnation; they hit their foot against a stone which shall be
   their downfall.

   And that from God. This is put here as the last clause, so that it may, with
   God’s grace, mitigate the bitter taste of the cross. It goes against nature
   to see in the cross a sign or proof of salvation. In fact, the cross and
   salvation seem to be contraries. Therefore, Paul asks the Philippians to
   consider that God turns those things which make for our misery into
   occasions of well-being. In this way, he shows that enduring the cross is a
   gift of God; for it is certain that everything which is for our good is
   God’s gift to us. “To you,” he says, “it is given not only to believe in
   Christ, but also to suffer for him. Therefore your very sufferings are
   witnesses to the goodness of God, because in them you have a real evidence
   of your salvation.” If only we were convinced deep in our hearts that
   persecutions are among God’s blessings, what progress we should make in the
   knowledge of divine truth! What is more certain than that the highest honor
   which grace bestows upon us is that we suffer reproach, or prison, or
   troubles, or tortures, or even death itself, in his name? For so it is that
   he decorates us with his medals. And yet there are many who would tell God
   to take such gifts away, rather than embrace with grateful hearts the cross
   offered to them. But so much the worse for our stupidity!

   For unto you is given in behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but
   also to suffer for his sake. Phil. 1:29.

   He is wise to join faith inseparably with the cross, for in this way the
   Philippians are taught that they have been called to faith in Christ to the
   end that they may endure persecution in his name. In other words, their
   adoption could no more be separated from the cross than Christ could be
   severed from himself.

   Thou therefore endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ. No man that
   warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life: that he may please
   him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. 2 Tim. 2:3–4.

   It was very necessary to add this second warning. For, anyone who offers to
   obey Christ, must be ready to endure hardship; there is no perseverance
   without patience in enduring evil. Therefore he adds, As becomes a soldier
   of Christ: which means that anyone who is in the service of Christ is a
   soldier, and that such soldiering consists not in doing evil but in
   patiently bearing it.

   It is absolutely necessary for us to think these things over. How many
   people we see every day who throw their spears away, people who had passed
   themselves off as good soldiers! And why does this happen, except because
   they cannot get used to the cross? In the first place, they are so soft that
   they cannot stand the thought of battle. Secondly, their idea of the warfare
   is to get into an [immediate] fight with their enemies. They cannot bear to
   learn what it is to possess their souls in patience.

   He continues with the simile from warfare. Strictly speaking, at first he
   spoke of a “soldier of Christ” in a metaphorical sense. Now he definitely
   compares military warfare with the spiritual warfare of the Christian man.
   Military discipline requires that, as soon as a soldier puts himself at the
   disposal of a general, he leaves his home and every business behind, and
   thinks of nothing except the warfare to which he is committed. So also we,
   if we are to give ourselves wholly to Christ, must break away from all the
   entanglements of this world.

   By the affairs of this life he means the care of maintaining a home and
   other ordinary occupations. The farmers leave their farming, and the
   merchants their shops and their business until they have served their term
   as soldiers. So also, whoever wants to fight under Christ must lay aside all
   the involvements and preoccupations of the world, so that he may apply
   himself wholly to the warfare. In short, let us keep in mind the old
   proverb, Hoc age; this do: which means that in doing our holy duty nothing
   should hinder our zeal and attention. The common translation, “No one who
   fights for God,” etc., corrupts the whole meaning of what Paul has in mind.

   Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and
   followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them. . . .
   Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
   mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a
   hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Matt. 19:27–29.

   Peter tacitly contrasts himself and the other disciples with the rich man
   whom the world had turned away from Christ. Since they led a life of
   privation and wandering, and suffered insults and sundry vexations, without
   hope of a better future, he asks rightly whether it was for nothing that
   they had left behind everything they had and had devoted themselves to
   Christ. It was absurd that when they had been despoiled by the Lord, they
   should not receive back more than they had lost.

   But then, what were all those things they had left behind? Being poor and
   low-class folk, they did not even have a house to leave behind; hence, their
   boasting was nothing less than ridiculous. Our own experience shows that
   people commonly overestimate the things they do in the way of duty before
   God. There are people who were hardly more than beggars under the papacy;
   and now they go around arrogantly, complaining that they have made great
   sacrifices for the sake of the gospel. However, there was some excuse for
   the disciples who, although they did not possess splendid fortunes, lived by
   the labor of their hands, and were no less happy in their homes than people
   of great riches. And we know that humble people, who are used to a quiet and
   decent life, find it harder to be torn away from their wives and children
   than those who are driven by ambition, or thrown this way and that by the
   winds of prosperous fortune. Of course, unless there was some reward waiting
   for the disciples, they had been foolish to change their way of life. Still,
   although one might excuse them on that ground, they were wrong to demand a
   taste of triumph before their warfare was finished. When annoyance at the
   delay of our reward creeps upon us, and lures us to impatience, let us first
   learn to consider the consolations with which the Lord reduces the
   bitterness of the cross in this world, and then let us raise our spirits to
   the hope of heavenly life. Christ’s answers make these very two points.

   And whosoever shall leave. After having raised their minds to the hope of
   the future life, he offers them comforts for the present life, and fortifies
   them for bearing the cross. God does not allow his people to be grievously
   afflicted, at times even to the point of forsaking them, without making up
   for their sufferings with his help. Jesus does not say this to the apostles
   only; he takes the occasion to address his words to all believers in
   general. The point is that those who willingly give up all for the sake of
   Christ, have their chief reward in heaven; and yet, even in this life, they
   are happier than if they had kept everything.

   However, it does seem that the hundredfold compensation provided them is not
   in line with the facts. For in most cases, those who have been deprived of
   their parents, or children, or other relatives, wives who are widowed and
   those stripped of their fortunes, all because they have borne testimony to
   Christ, do not recover their losses; on the contrary, in exile, lowly and
   forgotten, they struggle bitterly with poverty and hardship. To all this I
   answer: When we consider God’s grace with which he relieves the miseries of
   his own, we must confess that it is to be preferred to all the riches of the
   world. For while the unbelievers flourish, they do not know what is waiting
   for them on the next day; therefore, they must always live in turmoil
   because of perplexity and fear; neither can they enjoy the smile of fortune
   without, one way or another, stupefying themselves. Meanwhile, God gives his
   own a glad heart, so that to them the little they enjoy is worth much more
   than if without Christ they were affluent with an abundance of riches. I
   interpret with persecutions added by Mark as follows: Christ means that even
   though the godly are always persecuted in this world, and live as though the
   cross were tied to their back, still, the condiment of God’s grace is so
   sweet that it exhilarates them, and makes their condition more desirable
   than the luxuries of kings.

   [I] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and complete that which is behind
   in the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the
   church. Col. 1:24.

   The apostle had previously claimed for himself the authority which was his
   by virtue of his calling. Now he is concerned that the Colossians do not
   detract from the honor due him as an apostle because he had been in bonds
   and was persecuted for the sake of the gospel. For, Satan uses these
   occasions to bring contempt upon the servants of God. Further, the apostle
   encourages them by his example not to be terrified by persecutions; and he
   reminds them of his zeal, so that his words may carry more weight. Nay more,
   he settles the matter with an appeal to his love for them, and asserts that
   he is joyful and only too willing to suffer affliction for their sakes.
   Someone will ask, “But where is this joy from?” It is from the fruits which
   [his labors] have produced. “It is pleasant for me to be afflicted for you,
   because I do not suffer in vain.” In the same way, in a former letter to the
   Thessalonians, he says that, having heard of their faith, he rejoices in all
   privations and afflictions.

   And fill up that which is behind, etc. I take and to mean because; he says
   that he is joyful because in suffering he is associated with Christ. He
   desires nothing more blessed than such fellowship with Christ. He presents
   all believers in common with the comfort that in all tribulations,
   especially in those they suffer for the gospel, they share the cross of
   Christ, to the end that they may rejoice in sharing his blessed
   resurrection. Nay more, he affirms that in this way what is lacking in
   Christ’s own afflictions is completed. Romans 8:29 says the same thing:
   “Whom God has chosen, them he has predestined that they may conform to the
   image of Christ, who is the first-born among the brethren.” [85] Moreover,
   we know that since the Head and the members are united, the name Christ
   sometimes includes the whole body. This is evident from 1 Cor. 12:12, where,
   speaking of the church, the apostle finally concludes that being in Christ
   is like being [a member] in the human body. Therefore, as Christ suffered
   once in himself, so he now suffers every day in his members; and the
   sufferings which the Father decreed and appointed for his body are completed
   [in the church].

   There is a second consideration, which ought to encourage and comfort our
   spirits in affliction: God himself has fixed and appointed by his providence
   that we be conformed to Christ by enduring the cross, and that our communion
   with him extend to this very point.

   To this, he adds a third reason: that the sufferings of Christ bear fruit
   not only for the few, but for the church as a whole. He had before said that
   he suffered in behalf of the Colossians; now he declares more inclusively
   that the fruit of his sufferings extends to the whole church. Philippians
   1:12 also speaks of this same fruit. What other explanation of this verse is
   clearer, simpler, and less forced? Paul rejoices in tribulation because, as
   he writes elsewhere, he considers that if Christ’s life is to be manifest in
   us, we must carry about his death in our own bodies (2 Cor. 4:10). He says
   the same in the letter to Timothy: “If we suffer with him, we shall also
   reign with him: if we die with him, we shall also live with him” (2 Tim.
   2:1). All will end in joy and glory. Hence, if the members of Christ are to
   have a symmetry with the Head, they must not reject the state which God
   himself has appointed for his church. The third point is this, afflictions
   must be borne to the end willingly, because they are useful to all the godly
   and promote the well-being of the whole church, by giving a peculiar beauty
   to the truth of the gospel.

   Then they shall deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye
   shall be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. Matt. 24:9.

   Now Christ predicts for his disciples another kind of temptation which shall
   try their faith; namely, that besides the common afflictions [of man] they
   shall be hated and detested by the entire world. It is hard enough and sad
   enough for the children of God to be afflicted without distinction from and
   together with the wicked and despisers of God, and to be subjected to the
   same punishments which come upon the latter because of their crimes. It
   appears the height of injustice that they should be oppressed with the
   hardship of greater evils which do not touch the ungodly. Just as wheat,
   after being beaten with a flail together with the tares, is ground under a
   millstone and crushed, so also God not only afflicts his own with the
   wicked, but in addition subjects them to a cross which goes beyond what
   others [have to endure] so that they appear to suffer far greater misery
   than all the rest of the human race.

   Christ here is speaking of the afflictions which the disciples were to
   suffer for the gospel. What Paul says in Rom. 8:29 is of course true. Those
   whom God elects, he destines to bear a cross, so that they may conform to
   the image of the Son. But there Paul means more than persecution at the
   hands of the enemies of the gospel. Here, on the other hand, Christ is
   speaking of the kind of cross which the faithful have to carry because of
   their witness to the gospel; for this makes it necessary for them to incur
   the hatred of the ungodly, to face their insults and provoke them to fury.
   He wants to warn his disciples that, as he had explained to them before, the
   doctrine of the gospel, of which they were to become witnesses and heralds,
   would at no time please the world or receive its applause. So he prophesies
   that they will not be fighting with only a few enemies, but that, everywhere
   they go, nations shall rise against them.

   It was monstrous and incredible, calculated to amaze and trouble the
   strongest minds, that the name of the Son of God should become so infamous
   and hateful as to create hatred everywhere toward those who honored it.
   Therefore, Mark says, take heed to yourselves; and in this way he brings out
   the purpose and use of the above warning that they be prepared to endure,
   lest, being incautious, they be overcome by temptation. It is added further
   by the same Mark that when the disciples of Christ shall be brought before
   kings and rulers, it will be a testimony against them. Luke puts it a little
   differently: This will happen to you in testimony; but it means the same
   thing. For Christ says that, where his gospel is defended at the peril of
   death, there the testimony for it shall be all the greater.

   Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep
   for the slaughter. Ps. 44:22.

   The faithful here plead for God’s mercy, not because they are punished for
   their own evil deeds, but because they are hated by unbelievers for the name
   of God.

   At first sight, this seems a foolish complaint, and Socrates’ answer seems
   the more admirable when, in answer to his wife’s reproach, he said that it
   was better to die innocent than for his own wrongdoing. Furthermore, the
   consolation which Christ offered (Happy are those who are persecuted for
   righteousness’ sake, Matt. 5:10) appears very different from the words of
   the psalm. Peter also said the same thing: Anyone who suffers for Christ’s
   name has all the more reason for joy and thankfulness (1 Peter 4:14).

   But I answer that although the best comfort for our sorrow is that its cause
   is connected with Christ, yet the faithful do not complain to God in vain or
   wrongly when they say that they are suffering unjustly for his sake. For in
   this way, they want him to come forward with more vigor as their defender,
   since it is right that he himself take care of his own glory, when the
   impious insult and deal cruelly with his worshipers. . . .

   It is also right to remind ourselves that the faithful have not been so pure
   of all stain that God would be unjust in exacting punishment for their sins.
   But, by his incomparable indulgence, he does bury our sins and subject us to
   unjust persecution, so that we may glory in bearing the cross of Christ and
   may therefore be sharers and companions of his blessed resurrection.

   This doctrine we must take for our own use. First, we must be ready, after
   the example of the fathers, to bear calmly any suffering by which our
   loyalty to the confession of our faith is validated. Secondly, in the
   deepest shadows of death we must constantly call on the name of God, and we
   must stand fast in fear of him.

   Paul (Rom. 8:23) goes further and asserts that this passage does not merely
   offer us an example, but describes the perpetual situation of the church.
   Therefore we are assigned, by God’s decree, the perpetual warfare of bearing
   the cross. At times God spares our weakness by allowing a truce, or a
   relaxation [of the warfare]. But although swords are not always drawn
   against us we must, because we are members of Christ, be always ready to
   share his cross. Let us not then be terrified by the bitterness of the
   cross, and let us keep this picture of the persecuted church always before
   us. So long as we are adopted by God in Christ, we are destined for
   slaughter. If we are to prevent the wearisome weight of the cross or our
   fear of it from turning us away from our faith, we must keep this thought
   continually in our hearts. The cup which God pours for us we must drink; no
   man can be a Christian who does not offer himself in sacrifice to God.

   Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. . . . For whom
   the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
   Heb. 12:4, 6.

   The apostle goes further and reminds us once again that, even while the
   wicked persecute us in Christ’s name, our warfare is with sin. Christ
   himself was free from this struggle, because he was clean and unspotted by
   any sin. In this respect we are unlike him, for sin dwells in us at all
   times; and our afflictions serve to overcome and rout it.

   In the first place, we know that all the evils in the world come from sin;
   and so came in the beginning death itself. But this is not what concerns the
   apostle. His point is that the persecutions we suffer are useful to us,
   because they are medicine for destroying sin. For in this way, God keeps us
   under the yoke of his discipline, so that our flesh may not play loose with
   sin. At times he checks our hot blood; at other times he punishes our
   misdeeds in order that we may afterwards become more careful. Therefore,
   whether he sets out to heal our vices, or to prevent us from doing evil, as
   the apostle says, he is training us for the struggle against sin. And when
   we suffer for his gospel, the Son of God himself honors us with his favor,
   and does not count our sufferings as punishment of sin. Still we must
   acknowledge the validity of what the apostle says: When we act against the
   ungodly in defense of the cause of Christ, we at the same time battle
   against sin which is the enemy within us. Thus the grace of God is double;
   he converts the remedy he uses for curing us from our vices into a means of
   defending his gospel.

   Let us remember that the apostle is speaking to people who had thrown away
   their possessions and suffered many indignities; and had done all that
   willingly and with joy. And yet, he charges them with indolence because,
   exhausted while the battle was still in progress, they had not kept up the
   strenuous march to the end. It is not for us to ask the Lord to discharge us
   from his army, no matter what fighting we have done. For Christ will have no
   discharged soldiers, except those who have overcome death itself. . . .

   For whom the Lord loveth. The reasoning of this verse seems rather shaky.
   The Lord afflicts the elect and the reprobate without distinction, and his
   scourges are evidence of his wrath more often than of his love. So says
   Scripture, and experience confirms it. And yet, with regard to the
   believers, it is not surprising that the apostle refers only to the benefit
   they derive from the troubles they experience. When God punishes the
   reprobate he shows himself as a severe and wrathful judge; with his elect,
   he has no other purpose except to promote their salvation;