Creator and Creation according to Calvin on Genesis [1 ed.] 9783666540837, 9783525540831

Citation preview

Rebekah Earnshaw

Creator and Creation according to Calvin on Genesis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Reformed Historical Theology Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in Co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Benyamin F. Intan, Elsie Anne McKee, Richard A. Muller, and Risto Saarinen

Volume 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Rebekah Earnshaw

Creator and Creation according to Calvin on Genesis

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

This dissertation has been revised for publication Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de.

© 2020, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2198–8226 ISBN 978–3–666–54083–7

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

7

Abbreviations .....................................................................

8

A note on translations and sources ..........................................

9

1. In the Beginning ............................................................. 1.1 Creation and Genesis ........................................................ 1.2 Calvin on Genesis ............................................................ 1.3 Calvin and Creation ......................................................... 1.4 Biblical Theologian ........................................................... 1.5 Piety and the Usefulness of Scripture .................................. 1.6 Creator, Act of Creation, Creatures, and Providence ..............

11 13 16 25 31 38 41

2. Creator ......................................................................... 2.1 And................................................................................ 2.2 Knowledge of God the Creator ........................................... 2.3 God the Creator ............................................................... 2.3.1 L’Eternal.......................................................... 2.3.2 Infinitely Distinct ............................................. 2.3.3 Abundantly for Creatures .................................. 2.3.4 Virtues ............................................................ 2.4 Calvin’s Creator: Full, Engaged, and Concrete.......................

43 44 47 55 57 62 68 77 84

3. The Agent and Act of Creation ............................................. 91 3.1 A Trinitarian Account....................................................... 92 3.2 Theological Cosmology..................................................... 96 3.3 From Nothing.................................................................. 101 3.4 In and with Time ............................................................. 108 3.5 A Purposeful Beginning .................................................... 115 4. Creatures ......................................................................121 4.1 Creaturely Goodness ........................................................ 122 4.1.1 Beginning of Creaturely Goodness...................... 123 4.1.2 End of Creaturely Goodness............................... 125 4.1.3 Knowing Creaturely Goodness ........................... 130

6

Contents

4.2

4.3

4.4

Created Order ................................................................. 132 4.2.1 Invisible and Spiritual Creation .......................... 133 4.2.2 Visible Non-Animate Creation ........................... 135 4.2.3 Visible Animate Creation .................................. 144 Corruption and Disorder .................................................. 152 4.3.1 Its Source ........................................................ 152 4.3.2 Its Total Scope ................................................. 154 4.3.3 Disordered Animals and Humans ...................... 155 Use of Created Goodness, Order, Corruption, and Disorder ... 163

5. Providence ....................................................................167 5.1 Providence and the Promise: Abraham................................ 170 5.2 Providence, the Church, and the Wicked: Joseph .................. 176 5.2.1 Fatherly Care for the Church.............................. 178 5.2.2 Restraining the Wicked ..................................... 183 5.2.3 The Providential Agent and Means...................... 187 5.3 Creatures under the Creator’s Providential Governance ......... 193 6. In the End......................................................................201 Bibliography .....................................................................211 Sources and Translations............................................................ 211 Other Sources........................................................................... 212

Acknowledgements As a rebellious creature I owe my existence, redemption, and hope to my God and Saviour. With thanks and praise, I offer my heart promptly and sincerely. I owe great thanks to my family, to my friends who are like family, and to my housemates, who became like family, for making this project possible. Thank you for your endless encouragement, visits, calls, letters, and innumerable acts of kindness, especially sending Tim Tams. From beginning to end, God has graciously provided through my church families at Chatswood Presbyterian and Cornerstone St Andrews. Thank you for your friendship, practical care, and prayers. Thank you for pointing me to Jesus. There are many more who have shared in this labour by their generous giving, faithful prayers, and receiving newsletters, over many years. The financial support of Anglican Deaconess Ministries, Sydney, and the oversight of Sydney North Presbytery, PCNSW, also made this possible. God has formed my character, practice, and thought through my colleagues at the University of St Andrews. In the Roundel, theology seminars, and reading groups, thank you for asking hard questions and spurring me on. Thanks also to those who played golf and cricket with me. Conferences and placements across Europe, the UK, and the USA have shaped my development, so I thank those who contributed to those experiences and made them possible. The H. Henry Meeter Center of Calvin University, Grand Rapids, and Institut de Langue et Culture Français, Paris, are worthy of mention. With his patient guidance and eye for detail in his supervision Professor Mark Elliott has helped me finish and made this work better. Professor John Webster oversaw this project from its beginning, modelled humility and intellectual generosity, and prompted theological consideration of creation that the Creator may be praised. I thank God for his life and work.

Abbreviations

CO Comm. CTJ DCP IJST Inst. LW MT PRRD Serm. SC THG

— — — — — — — — — — — —

Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia Commentary Calvin Theological Journal Dieu, la création et la Providence dans la prédication de Calvin International Journal of Systematic Theology Institutes of the Christian Religion Luther’s Works Modern Theology Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Sermon Supplementa Calviniana The Theater of His Glory

A note on translations and sources The sources of primary interest in this project are Calvin’s 1554 Latin commentary on Genesis found in CO 23, the sermons from diverse passages in Genesis (14:13–24, 15:4–7, 21:33–22:14) which follow in the same volume, the preface to the 1563 French translation in CO 20, sermons on Genesis 25:12–27:38 available in CO 58–59, and the sermons found in SC 11/1–2 which span Genesis 1:1–20:7. These are the only Genesis commentary and sermons by Calvin published in critical editions at this time. These sources, and others, from CO and SC are indicated with a volume number/part number, if relevant, and then page or column reference in the formats as follows: CO 23:1 or SC 11/1:1. Where the citation comes from commentary, sermons, or the Institutes this is preceded by a reference in the following format: Comm. Gen 1:1 or Serm. Gen 1:1 or Inst. 1.1.1. In text translations of individual words or phrases are my own. Longer English translations of a sentence or more are given from the following: John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King, 2 vol. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947); John Calvin, Sermons on Melchizedek & Abraham: Justification, Faith & Obedience, trans. Thomas Stocker, ed. Richard A. Muller (Pennsylvania: Old Paths Publications, 2000); John Calvin, Sermons on Election & Reprobation, trans. John Field, ed. Richard A. Muller (New Jersey: Old Paths Publications, 1996); John Calvin, Sermons on Genesis, Chapters 1:1–11:4: Forty-Nine Sermons Delivered in Geneva between 4 September 1559 and 23 January 1560, trans. Rob Roy McGregor (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2009); John Calvin, Sermons on Genesis, Chapters 11:5–20:7: FortyEight Sermons Delivered in Geneva between 24 January 1560 and 15 May 1560, trans. Rob Roy McGregor (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2012).

1. In the Beginning Au commencement Dieu crea le ciel et la terre… Genèse 1:1 As long as we live in this world, may he by his grace cause us so to regard his works that, as we enjoy the good things we receive from them, they will stir us to love and honour him with greater affection and have greater admiration for his wisdom, goodness, and power.1 This work provides a theological analysis of Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis.2 This brings together three elements: a doctrinal locus, a man, and his exposition of a biblical book in commentary and sermon. Until now, this combination has not been thoroughly scrutinised. Therefore, the question at hand is what contribution do these texts make to our understanding of Calvin’s theology in this area and, hence, in what areas might contemporary theological research be furthered by heeding this new insight. This investigation is prompted and shaped by four factors of increasing specificity: theological interest in Creation, the inclusion of exegesis of Genesis in previous theological work on Creation, publication and translation of Calvin’s Genesis sermons, and limited attention to Genesis in earlier treatments of Calvin on Creation. Each of these makes the present question significant and can be considered in turn. Within the doctrine of Creation the relation of Creator and creatures is noteworthy for this research. The twentieth-century has wrestled afresh with defining the relation of Creator and creatures. Amidst a strong critique of dualism in this period, expressions of this relation that draw on ‘classical theism’ as well as other historical accounts have been challenged by an emerging emphasis on ‘relationality’ and ‘participation’ in both the relation itself and nature of God. Calvin has a highly developed expression of this relation due to his tight interweaving of creation and providence. Further, in the sixteenth-century Calvin rebutted both the separation of the Creator from creatures and the collapse of Creator into creatures. Therefore, Calvin’s theological concerns are in parallel with contemporary questions. The identity of Creator, creatures, their relation in the beginning, and in an ongoing manner will therefore be key in addressing this question. 1 Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:53 2 When circumstances allow, in what follows ‘Creator and creation’ will be shortened to ‘Creation’ capitalised and used substantively to name the whole doctrinal locus inclusive of the Creator, the act of creation, creatures, and providence.

12

In the Beginning

Further, as will be outlined below, in contrast to earlier treatments of this locus, Genesis appears to be playing a receding role in present theological discussions, perhaps partly due to the volume of debate surrounding Genesis and questions of science. Theologically analysing Calvin’s treatment of Genesis, therefore opens a complementary perspective to doctrinal issues and re-elevates a scriptural and theological discussion. This also illuminates a methodological contrast between Calvin and contemporary approaches. Calvin’s integration of theology, scripture, and the life of faith is not insignificant to the theological question. Therefore, the example of Calvin’s practice and his ‘use’ of the doctrine in this sense must be considered. The final two factors form a pair. Again as outlined below, access to primary materials means analysis such as this is lacking from Calvin studies prior to this point. Additionally, theological analysis has not been undertaken with close attention to Calvin’s sermon material. Therefore, taking the commentary and sermon material together in a theological analysis addresses a lack in Calvin research and will raise further questions. In summary then, in light of this question and its significant shaping factors, it is hoped this work may open discussion in three areas: historical theologians may gain new insights on Calvin’s thought; theologians currently contemplating Creation may find a fruitful conversation partner; and those reflecting on their practice may see an example of a biblical and pastoral theologian. While I gesture towards the latter two, due to limited scope, the first of these is the burden of this work. By way of orientation, theological and historical context, previous literature, and methodology are considered. This section will proceed by presenting the three possible pairs from the elements of the topic: Creation and Genesis; Calvin and Genesis; Calvin and Creation. The first of these surveys recent work on Creation and observes the place of Genesis. The second briefly presents Calvin as commentator and preacher of Genesis. It includes a brief history of the transmission of Calvin’s sermons that makes this work timely. The third pairing considers previous treatments of Calvin on Creation, especially observing the limited place of Genesis in these accounts. These pairings will shed further light on the background and significance of the question at hand. After these three pairs, I will pause to reflect on the connection of biblical, doctrinal, and moral reason in Calvin’s work. I argue that an integrated theological analysis of Calvin’s thought matches the coherence of Calvin’s own approach. Finally, I offer a preliminary outline, in which I will highlight the structure of the subsequent chapters and some discussions with which they engage. The analysis itself will follow.

Creation and Genesis

1.1 Creation and Genesis

Many factors have prompted a resurgence of interest in Creation. Some of these are cultural, such as ecological concerns, interest in spirituality and embodiment, or the pressures of scientific-naturalism or late-modern scepticism.3 Other factors prompting interest in creation are more properly theological as the implications of trinitarian theology flow through to the works of God. For example, Wolfhart Pannenberg highlights the Son’s differentiation in the unity of the trinity as ground for creaturely being;4 Jürgen Moltmann explicates his social trinitarianism and panentheism in the face of concerns of the late twentieth-century;5 Robert Jenson draws out the significance of the divine narrative to approach creation in a lively trinitarian manner.6 In other circles questions over divine aseity, impassibility, and immutability have lead to new theological articulations of creation such as Whiteheadian process theology, radical orthodoxy, or refreshed sacramentalism.7 Neo-thomistic compatibilism or non-competitive relations are other approaches to ‘the Christian distinction’

3 For examples of theological responses to ecological issues with increasing urgency see the series of papal encyclicals cited by Pope Francis I in Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015): 4–7. Feminist theologies were among the first to raise the importance of embodiment and pursue it in this area. See for example Sallie McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theory (London: SCM Press, 1993). Determination to wrestle with theological implications of science taken as science is illustrated by T.F. Torrance in both Divine and Contingent Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981) and Time, Space, and Incarnation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997). 4 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). 5 Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation (London: SCM, 2000). 6 Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology Volume 2, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Robert Jenson, Theology as Revisionary Metaphysics: Essays on God and Creation (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2014). 7 Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011); Hans Boersma, Matthew Levering, and R.W.L. Moberly ed., The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); John B. Cobb and David Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976); Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ: The Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of a Global Renaissance (Melbourne: Collins Dove, 1989); John Milbank, Beyond Secular Order: The Representation of Being and the Representation of the People (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014); Simon Oliver and John Milbank, The Radical Orthodoxy Reader (London: Routledge, 2009); James K.A. Smith, Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition: Creation, Covenant, and Participation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). For a Reformed appropriation of some of these ideas see: James K.A. Smith’s three volume Cultural Liturgies series: Desiring the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010); Imagining the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013); Awaiting the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, (forthcoming) 2017).

13

14

In the Beginning

and its place within the locus of Creation.8 And in further contrast, Matthew Levering seeks to engage the doctrine of creation in light of science, but not dominated by it, nor by trinitarian and revisionist proposals.9 We see that in diverse ways and for diverse reasons creation has become increasingly prominent in theological discourse. Recent theologies of creation are, like any other, products of their circumstances. These contrast with those of another era, for example in a different level of engagement with scripture. This is not to say that present doctrines of creation are anti- or a-scriptural, but it is rather simply an observation that sustained engagement with biblical text is not a standard feature. David Fergusson’s guide to the theology of creation, admittedly a survey work, begins with scripture as a historical basis, but scripture is not the primary theological foundation for what follows except where other theologians made it so.10 The second chapter of Colin Gunton’s historical and systematic study devotes as much time to Greek philosophical considerations as biblical material.11 The post-critical divide between biblical studies and systematic treatments reveals itself in the doctrine of creation just as it does in other places. Nathan MacDonald, Mark Elliott, and Grant Macaskill edited a volume bridging biblical theology and scripture;12 but perhaps the last sustained theological engagement with scripture in a treatment of creation was volume 3 of Barth’s Church Dogmatics.13 Where scripture does receive more recent attention, Barth’s focus on Genesis contrasts with Ian McFarland’s more recent preference for the

8 David Burrell and B. McGinn ed. God and Creation: An Ecumenical Symposium (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990); David Burrell, Janet M. Soskice, and William Stoeger ed. Creation and the God of Abraham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Robert Sokolowski, The God of Faith and Reason (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982); Katherine Sonderegger, Systematic Theology: Volume 1, The Doctrine of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015); Janet M. Soskice, “Athens and Jerusalem, Alexandria and Edessa: Is there a metaphysics of Scripture?” IJST 8, no. 2 (2006): 149–62; Janet M. Soskice, “Creation and the Glory of Creatures,” MT 29, no. 2 (2013): 172–85; Kathryn Tanner, Christ the Key (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Kathryn Tanner, “Creation Ex Nihilo as Mixed Metaphor.” MT 29, no. 2 (2013): 138–55; Kathryn Tanner, God and Creation in Christian Theology: Tyranny or Empowerment? (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004); John B. Webster, “‘Love is also a lover of life’: creatio ex nihilo and creaturely goodness.” MT 29, no. 2 (2013): 156–71; John B. Webster, “Trinity and Creation.” IJST 12, no. 1 (2010): 4–19. 9 Matthew Levering, Engaging the Doctrine of Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, forthcoming). 10 David Fergusson, Creation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014). 11 Colin E. Gunton, The Triune Creator (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 12 Nathan MacDonald, Mark Elliott and Grant Macaskill ed., Genesis and Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). 13 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, volume III (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960).

Creation and Genesis

gospel of John.14 Scripture is not absent from present theological discussions of creation, but its voice echoes from a distance and in a different tone than heard by previous generations. This contrast between current and former doctrinal treatments of creation is strengthened further when earlier treatments engaging Genesis are considered. Augustine wrote three times on Genesis alone, and it features prominently in both his Confessions and City of God.15 Basil and Ambrose’s hexameral sermons are rich enough that Calvin directs his readers there many years later.16 Luther spent ten years lecturing on Genesis and Calvin spent more than twenty returning to Genesis in one way or another.17 None of these are systematic treatments in twenty-first century terms, but each is exegetical and theological, such that they have produced significant material, to which present theologians are heir. Depending on one’s perspective this inheritance might be viewed as more or less valuable, to be retrieved or discarded accordingly, because of its contrast to the present situation.18 For the moment it is sufficient to summarise the following observations. First, the doctrine of creation is of current interest due to a combination of cultural and theological concerns. For both Calvin and recent thinkers, the God-world relation is a shared point of interest as theological background to pressing questions. Second, present theological approaches to creation contrast with many previous treatments in their engagement with scripture, particularly Genesis. Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis therefore addresses similar questions to contemporary theologians, but offers contrasting answers. This provides background and context for this work as well as Calvin’s possible present theological contribution.

14 Ian McFarland, From Nothing: A Theology of Creation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014). 15 Augustine, On Genesis, ed. J.E. Rotelle. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002); Augustine, Confessions, ed. Gary Wills (New York: Penguin Books, 2008); Augustine, The City of God: VII-XVI, trans. Gerald G. Walsh and Grace Monahan, vol. 14, The Fathers of the Church (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 2008). 16 Ambrose, Hexaemeron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel, vol. 42, The Fathers of the Church, trans. John J. Savage (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1961); Basil, Exegetic Homilies, vol. 46, The Fathers of the Church, trans. Sister Agnes Clark Way (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003). 17 LW vol. 1–8, Lectures on Genesis. 18 This is a selective genealogy motivated to show a particular difference rather than continuity between past and present accounts. Palamas, Lombard, Bonaventure, Thomas, and many more besides, engage with scripture in their own mode in their theologies of creation.

15

16

In the Beginning

1.2 Calvin on Genesis

No theology occurs in a vacuum.19 The circumstances of Calvin’s engagement with Genesis are important background. T.H.L. Parker’s work on Calvin’s sermons and commentaries remains foundational among English treatments.20 Concerning Genesis in particular, a July 1542 letter to Guillaume Farel indicates that Calvin began preaching on Genesis as early as that year.21 The publication of Calvin’s Genesis commentary in French with his harmony of the other four books of Moses in 1564 means that he formally laboured with the text of Genesis for more than twenty years. Parker dates the preparation of Calvin’s Genesis lectures to 1550 prior to the first publication of his commentary in 1554.22 Randall Zachman highlights the busy and controversial times that faced Calvin in these years, which brought doctrinal issues to pressing intensity as Calvin approached the text.23 Max Engammare affirms the theological richness of Calvin’s Genesis material when he draws attention to the Monday, 4th September 1559 date of Calvin’s sermon on Genesis 1:1-2, shortly after the establishment of the Geneva Academy in June and the August publication of the final Latin edition of the Institutes in the same year.24 While the genres are varied and the time span somewhat elongated, Calvin on Genesis presents a mature theological thinker wrestling with scripture, who seeks to bring it to bear on himself, his students, and his congregation. Further, especially the sermon material provides a new avenue for research. Calvin’s Genesis commentary went through four Latin editions in the sixteenth century: 1554, 1563, 1583, and 1595. The first French translation of the commentary appeared in 1564 and was among the last projects completed by Calvin. The first English translation was printed in London in 1578.25 Images of the title pages of these editions are below.

19 Compare: Herman J. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms: Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 23. 20 T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971); T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986); T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992). Elsie McKee’s work provides important historical investigation and theological comment on Calvin’s sermons within the framework of pastoral ministry and worship. Elsie Anne McKee, The Pastoral Ministry and Worship in Calvin’s Geneva (Genève: Librarie Droz S. A., 2016), 441–567. 21 CO 11:418; SC 11/1:ix 22 Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament, 29. 23 Randall C. Zachman, “Calvin as Commentator on Genesis,” in Calvin and the Bible, ed. Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 2. 24 SC 11/1:xlii 25 London: Imprinted for J. Harison and G. Bishop, 1578.

Calvin on Genesis

The transmission of Calvin’s sermons is more complicated than that of the commentaries. Denis Raguenier was employed by the Genevan authorities to record Calvin’s sermons during his preaching. We have little record of Calvin’s preaching prior to this time. By the end of his life Raguenier worked with a team who have proved reliable and thorough in their work.26 Calvin’s sermons were popular and collections were published and re-published, for example: Melchizedek (1560, 1565), Abraham’s faith and the sacrifice of Isaac (1561, 1565), and Jacob and Esau (1560, 1562). The title page of a pocket-sized format of Calvin’s sermons on Melchizedek, justification by faith, and Abraham’s sacrifice published in French in 1565 is shown with the title pages of the commentary editions. These collections appeared in English translation in 1579 (Jacob and Esau) and 1592 (Melchizedek, Abraham, and Isaac). Together these collections cover Genesis 14:13-24, 15:4-7, 21:33-22:14, and 25:12-27:38. These are important because Calvin’s treatment of Genesis has not reached the twenty-first century intact:27 The reader who is unacquainted with what happens next will be impatiently wondering why we do not simply write to the Bibliothèque publique et universitaire de Genève and settle the matter [of cataloguing Calvin’s sermons] once and for all. Alas! the catastrophe has not yet been recounted. In the year 1805, Senebier was instructed by the directors of the Bibliothèque to sell to the booksellers Cherbuliez et Manget a copy of any books of which the library possessed duplicates. When he did so, he also threw in the manuscript sermons for good measure.28

Genesis was not the selected specimen copy kept from these voluminous and almost illegible manuscripts. None of the Genesis manuscripts were among those later recovered. Richard Stauffer provides the first account of the previously unpublished Genesis sermons.29 Providentially, in 1957 the Bodleian library disclosed it had a presentation copy of some Genesis sermons. Thomas Bodley had been a student at the Genevan academy. Lambeth Palace purchased a similar presentation copy of some Genesis sermons from the Bristol Baptist College in 1963. Together these new copies covered sermons from Genesis 1:1–20:7. There are also 2 partially preserved manuscripts of Genesis sermons held by 26 Parker, Calvin’s Preaching, 65–75. 27 Bernard Gagnebin, “L’histoire des manuscrits des sermons de Calvin,” in Jean Calvin, Sermons sur le Livre d’Esaïe, chapitres 13–29, publiés par Georges A. Barrois (SC 2), (Neukirchen: 1961), xv–xvii; T.H.L. Parker, Supplementa Calviniana: An Account of the Manuscripts of Calvin’s Sermons Now in Course of Preparation (London: Tyndale Press, 1962). 28 Parker, Calvin’s Preaching, 68. 29 Richard Stauffer, “Les Sermons Inédits de Calvin ser le livre de la Genèse,” Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 15, no. 3 (1965): 26–36.

17

18

In the Beginning

Fig. 1 1554 Latin Commentary

Calvin on Genesis

Fig. 2 1563 Latin Commentary

Fig. 3 1564 French Commentary

the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. Stauffer commenced the editorial work on Supplementa Calviniana volume 11 and it was completed under Engammare’s supervision. Further manuscript details of the sermons, another account of their history, and samples of manuscripts are found in the introduction and appendices to SC 11. The bizarre and recent history of the Genesis sermons explains why a project such as this has not yet been completed.30 It also highlights the ongoing provisional status of this analysis as future discoveries may require its revision.31 30 Nico Vorster starts to bring sermon material to bear on the question of the image of God in Calvin’s thought. Like the image of God debate in general Vorster focuses on selected verses without attention to Calvin’s broader treatment of Genesis, his exegesis, or the use of scripture in this context. This is the general pattern in which Calvin’s work on Genesis is brought to bear on particular topics of interest within Calvin studies or theology more broadly. More concerning the image of God in Calvin’s thought will be treated in chapter four on creatures. Nicolaas Vorster, “Calvin on the Created Structure of Human Nature: the Influence of his Anthropology on his Theology,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 151, no. 1 (2015): 162–81. 31 This is true for the section addressing providence in the Joseph narrative for which the sermons remain unknown. Engammare presents an overview of the publication of the Joannis Calvini Opera which finishes open-endedly, “Editer des Opera omnia est une enterprise jamais achevée.”

19

20

In the Beginning

Fig. 4 1578 English Commentary

Fig. 5 1565 French Sermons

However, these discoveries also make this presentation timely. These last critical volumes of sermons were published in 2000 and were therefore unavailable to many who previously investigated Calvin’s thought in this area. Others have examined Calvin more generally as a commentator on both the Old and New Testaments and as a Hebraist. Examples pertinent to Calvin on Genesis include Zachman on Calvin as Commentator on Genesis and Tony Lane’s detailed analysis of Calvin’s sources for his Genesis commentary.32 Therefore Max Engammare, “Joannis Calvini Opera (1552–2014)” in Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 178. 32 Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament; Parker, Calvin’s New Testament; David Lee Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995); John L. Thompson, “Calvin as Biblical Interpreter,” in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, ed. Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 58–73; Richard A. Muller, “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom,” in Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 68–82; Randall C. Zachman, “Gathering meaning from the context: Calvin’s exegetical method,” The Journal of Religion 82, no. 1 (2002): 1–26; Zachman, “Calvin as Commentator on Genesis,”; Anthony N.S. Lane, John Calvin: Student

Calvin on Genesis

Fig. 6 1583 Latin Commentary

Fig. 7 1595 Latin Commentary

the role of the present work is not to probe further the details of Calvin’s writing process in this instance. Further, various researchers have presented small sections of Calvin’s Genesis commentary in works of comparative exegesis. For example, Kathryn Greene-McCreight presents Augustine, Barth, and Calvin on Genesis 1–3 ad litteram; Stauffer compares Calvin and Luther on Genesis 1:1–3; David Steinmetz compares Calvin, Luther, and Denis the Carthusian on Genesis 32:24–32; Jon Balserak compares Calvin, Luther, and Musculus on Genesis 22; Bruce McNair looks at Calvin and Luther on Melchizedek; Hwang Dae-Woo

of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999); Antoine Jean Baumgartner, Calvin hébraïsant et interprète de l’Ancien Testament (Paris: Librarie Fischbacher, 1889); John D. Currid, Calvin and the Biblical Languages (Fearn: Mentor, 2006); Richard C. Gamble, “The Sources of Calvin’s Genesis Commentary: A Preliminary Report,” Archiv Für Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 206–21; H. van Rooy, “Calvin’s Genesis Commentary - Which Bible Text Did He Use,” In Our Reformational Tradition (Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 1984), 203–16; Max Engammare, “Calvin Connaissait-Il La Bible? Les Citations de l’Écriture Dans Ses Sermons Sur La Genèse,” Bulletin de La Société de L’histoire Du Protestantisme Français 141, no. 2 (1995): 163–84.

21

22

In the Beginning

compares Capito and Calvin on Genesis 1; Pierrick Hildebrand considers Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17:1.33 Other works more generally place Calvin in his sixteenth-century context highlighting the connections between writers such as Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, Cajetan, and Calvin as commentators on scripture or pointing to the scholarship of Lefèvre d’Étaples, Erasmus or Nicholas of Lyra as forerunners to Calvin’s work.34 Such studies contextualise Calvin and may emphasise the continuity between Calvin and both his predecessors and contemporaries. This aspect of Lane’s work is also worthy of comment as his examination of sources illuminates connections between Calvin and Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Bernard of Clairvaux, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Gregory the Great, Irenaeus, Jerome, Leo the Great, Lombard, Origen, as well as the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Hebrew Bibles of his time.35 Moving from commentary to sermons, the importance of Calvin as preacher has been overlooked in the past. An extensive recent work on Calvin as a preacher comes from Olivier Millet in his Calvin et la dynamique de la parole.36 Millet analyses Calvin’s training and exposure to classical rhetoric as well as sixteenth century developments such as those made by Melanchthon. As a result of 33 Kathryn Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the “Plain Sense” of Genesis 1–3, Issues in Systematic Theology, vol. 5 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999); Richard Stauffer, “Johannes Calvin,” in Reformationszeit, 2 (Stuttgart: Verlag W Kohlhammer, 1981), 211–40; David C. Steinmetz, “Calvin as an Interpreter of Genesis,” in Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Pub, 1997), 53–66; Jon Balserak, “Luther, Calvin and Musculus on Abraham’s Trial: Exegetical History and the Transformation of Genesis 22,” RRR 6, no. 3 (2004): 361–73; Bruce G. McNair, “Luther, Calvin and the Exegetical Tradition of Melchisedec,” Review & Expositor 101, no. 4 (2004): 747–61; Hwang Dae-Woo, “God’s Creation in Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis and in Capito’s Hexameron Dei Opus,” in Calvinus Clarissimus Theologus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 286–300; Pierrick Hildebrand “Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17,” in Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 297–304; John L. Thompson, “Hagar, Victim or Villain? Three Sixteenth-Century Views,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59, no. 2 (1997): 213–33. 34 See for example: John L. Thompson ed., Reformation Commentary on Scripture Old Testament I: Genesis 1–11 (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012); David C. Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); Richard A. Muller The Unaccommodated Calvin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson ed., Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); David M. Whitford, “Erasmus Openeth the Way Before Luther Revisiting Humanism’s Influence on The Ninety-Five Theses and the Early Luther,” Church History and Religious Culture 96, no. 4 (2016): 516–40; Magne Saebø ed., Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation: Volume II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, (Göttenburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008). 35 Lane, John Calvin. 36 Olivier Millet, Calvin et la dynamique de la parole: étude de rhétorique réformée (Genève: Editions Slatkine, 1992).

Calvin on Genesis

this formation Calvin’s style was remarkable, unique, and widely imitated. Millet brings this to bear in his careful examination of the transformation of Calvin’s written work, especially changes in elements of style seen in Calvin’s translation of his own work from Latin to French. As Millet has written elsewhere, Calvin’s practice as a preacher flowed from his dynamic theology of the word of God as very much alive in the present.37 While Millet’s work is extensive, unlike Herman Selderhuis’ observations of Calvin on the Psalms, neither Millet, nor anyone else has yet presented a theological analysis of the Genesis’ sermons on this doctrine, and so the inclusion of sermon material alongside commentary is appropriate.38 This analysis builds on Millet’s findings against Serene Jones’ reading of rhetorical forms in the first book of Calvin’s Institutes.39 Elsie McKee’s volume on pastoral ministry and worship in Geneva devotes a significant section to “Calvin the Preacher of Geneva”.40 McKee presents the historical background to ‘expository’ preaching from the lectio continua in Geneva, as well as a thorough outline of when, where, and what was preached by Calvin and how these were preserved. McKee also describes Calvin’s practice of bringing the text to his audience extempore, for the learned and the simple, for locals and refugees, for those with varied religious experience, and she canvases some reactions to Calvin’s preaching. Rhetoric is often an oral art but Calvin’s sermons, in written form, are the object of analysis here.41 Reading a sermon is different to hearing one, as Calvin’s early publishers were aware.42 Studying transcripts of sermons is limited by the differences between oral and written communication. However, the prevalence of rhetoric as a structuring pattern across Calvin’s forms of communication means that the written presentation represents Calvin’s thought in a way at least comparable to other genres without large concessions needing to be made for changes in style. This also raises the difficulty of treating together commentary and sermons, which are distinct genres delivered for different readers and hearers. However, as mentioned above, Calvin’s application of rhetorical forms to the whole of his work and development of his clear and direct style in preaching means that there is more stylistic consistency between sermon and commentary than might be otherwise supposed. The early publishers of Calvin’s sermons affirm the doctrine 37 Olivier Millet, “Calvin, Homme de Parole, Interprète de la Bible et écrivain.” La Revue Réformée 61, no. 5 (2010): 39. 38 Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 17. 39 Serene Jones, Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995). 40 McKee, The Pastoral Ministry, 441–567. 41 Calvin’s publishers were concerned that critiques would seize on the unusual rhetorical style of Calvin’s sermons. McKee, The Pastoral Ministry, 550–51. 42 McKee, The Pastoral Ministry, 552–53.

23

24

In the Beginning

and teaching they conveyed.43 The difference between written and oral style is further minimised when it is remembered that the commentary began its life as theology lessons.44 Both commentary and sermons were originally oral communications. Also, the structural similarities in presentation of the two are striking.45 The differences noted by Engammare are: a more pedagogical use of summary and repetition in the sermons, more flowery language and illustration.46 The sermons are less technical and less concise, yet the first Genesis sermon and Argument to the commentary have similar content on many counts.47 Engammare notes other differences, but in terms of doctrinal content he concludes that the Genesis commentary and sermons remain fairly even.48 He concludes that the differences are smaller than might be expected and the differences are far less striking than the similarities.49 The approach of this analysis is thus consonant with the findings of Richard Muller’s examination of Calvin’s rhetoric in the sermons on Melchizedek and Abraham.50 Muller refutes William Bouwsma’s poorly founded contrast between commentary and sermons with regards to rhetorical approach. Calvin’s preaching bears greater resemblance to earlier practices of glossing the text verse by verse, and therefore to his commentarial practice, than to contemporary orations in the pulpit.51 Still, Calvin is preaching rather than lecturing. In his sermons he amplifies the text and asks rhetorical questions; he uses short punctiliar sentences and fewer technical terms. While differences should not be overlooked, their consistency gives grounds to consider the two genres together. The analysis of Calvin’s Genesis commentary and sermons is not largely here a comparative exercise, but rather a cumulative one. The placement of detailed content from commentary and sermons alongside each other in the body of this 43 McKee, The Pastoral Ministry, 555. 44 Engammare quotes Beza that ‘Calvin spoke as he wrote’. Max Engammare, “D’une Forme L’autre: Commentaires et Sermons de Calvin sur la Genèse,” in Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2004), 127. 45 Engammare, “D’une Forme L’autre,” 117. 46 McKee offers similar observations. 47 Engammare, “D’une Forme L’autre,” 119–22. 48 Engammare, “D’une Forme L’autre,” 127–28. 49 Engammare, “D’une Forme L’autre,” 136. 50 Richard A. Muller, “An ‘Immeasurably Superior’ Rhetoric: Biblical and Homiletical Oratory in Calvin’s Sermons on the History of Melchizedek and Abraham,” in Biblical Interpretation and Doctrinal Formulation in the Reformed Tradition: Essays in Honor of James de Jong, ed. Arie C. Leder and Richard A. Muller, 33–50 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014). See especially, William J. Bouwsma, “Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica,” in Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica, ed. Wilhelm Wuellner, 1–21 (Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1986). 51 Muller, “An ‘Immeasurably Superior’ Rhetoric,” 39. See also McKee, The Pastoral Ministry, 441–67.

Calvin and Creation

work will validate Engammare and Muller’s conclusions. The similarities affirm that both Genesis commentary and sermons illuminate Calvin’s doctrine. While acknowledging the distinction between the genres, commentary and sermons provide complementary accounts of Calvin’s doctrinal thought working exegetically for the sake of the church. Therefore, despite the importance of holding the genres as distinct for detailed historical analysis, for a theological analysis it is appropriate to treat them together. Much will be made of the details of Calvin’s theological engagement with Genesis, which is informed by his hermeneutics, rhetorical style, and biographical circumstances, but these later considerations are not the primary issue at hand. The approach of the following theological analysis of a single doctrinal topic from a single Old Testament book most closely parallels Selderhuis’ approach to Calvin’s Psalm’s commentary and therefore some similar preliminary remarks may be made. Biography and theology are related and therefore historical sensitivity is required when undertaking theological analysis. I hold a distinction of commentary and sermons from loci (places) yet defend the appropriateness of a theological analysis of these works on this doctrinal topic. Calvin’s unified approach to Old and New Testaments makes analysis of his theology from Genesis an appropriate exercise in Christian theology. I will offer some, but not extensive, comparison of Calvin’s work with contemporaries and emphasise what Calvin says rather than his non-scriptural sources. The focus on Genesis will also mean limited reference to Calvin’s other works. These limitations allow the present analysis to remain theological in its scope. Theological analysis of Calvin on Genesis is the most outstanding unexamined aspect of that work and this is prepared for by the substantial historical investigation that Calvin on Genesis has enjoyed.

1.3 Calvin and Creation

Before moving to previous expositions of Calvin on this topic, we again affirm that historical and theological contexts are needed to understand an issue rightly. Alternative worldviews and movements in the sixteenth century shaped Calvin on Creation. This may be illustrated by considering Calvin’s concern to defend providence that informs and is informed by his broader theology of Creation according to Genesis. In general Calvin’s treatment of providence occasions more interest than his teaching on the beginning. Interest in Calvin on providence arises at least partly because of the controversial context.52 Susan Schreiner summarises and gives an 52 For example Paul Helm, The Secret Providence of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010).

25

26

In the Beginning

overview of the historical circumstances surrounding Calvin on this issue, “in Calvin’s view, both the Libertines and Stoics were guilty of tying God too closely to the world and they fell, therefore, into determinism. The Epicureans and the ‘Sophists’ shared the guilt of separating God too far from his creation”.53 Calvin’s polemical style, theological convictions about his opponents, and concern for the pastoral implications make detailed characterisation of them difficult so that any description remains “informed suggestion”; nonetheless, enough historical details remain to show the theological shape of the two groups, or at least Calvin’s diagnosis thereof.54 The sixteenth century saw a Stoic revival that found a reception amongst French humanism and the “rationalists”.55 While Calvin sympathised with an emphasis on providence and some Stoic morality, he defined his own position in opposition thereto: “we are falsely and maliciously charged with this very dogma. We do not, with the Stoics, contrive a necessity out of the perpetual connection and intimately related series of causes, which is contained in nature; but we make God the ruler and governor of all things”.56 His 1545 treatise against the Libertines, prompted by French Quintinists, offers Calvin’s most robust defence of secondary causality.57 Calvin denies divine 53 THG, 16. 54 THG, 16. These two groups are commonly spoken of as the background to Calvin’s teaching on providence. As well as Schreiner, see: Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 109–13; Charles Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 97–145; Sung-Sup Kim, Deus Providebit: Calvin, Schleiermacher, and Barth on the Providence of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 64–76; Paul Helm, “Calvin, the ‘two issues,’ and the structure of the Institutes,” CTJ 42, no. 2 (2007): 341–48; W.J. Torrance Kirby, “Stoic and Epicurean? Calvin’s Dialectical Account of Providence in the Institutes,” IJST 5, no. 3 (2003): 309–22. Bavinck picks up this aspect of the context of the doctrine of providence when he considers it in contrast to both pantheism and deism. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, vol. 2, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 598–604. 55 Léfèvre and Erasmus are key humanist figures influencing France at this time. For discussion of Calvin and humanism see: Josef Bohatec, Budé und Calvin: Studien zur Gedankenwelt des französischen Frühhumanismus (Graz: Verlag Hermann Bohlaus Nachf, 1950); Josef Bohatec, “Calvin et l’humanisme,” Revue Historique 183, no. 2 (1938): 207–41; Christoph Burger, “2. Calvin and the Humanists” in The Calvin Handbook, 137–42; Anne Pascale Pouey-Mounou and Bénédicte Boudou ed., Calvin et l’humanisme: Actes du symposium d’Amiens et Lille III (25–26 Novembre 2009) (Geneva: Droz, 2012). Calvin encounters these ideas during his education in Paris, Orléans, and Bourges. Calvin’s commentary on Seneca’s De clementia is his earliest published work. For a biographical treatment of these influences see: Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 11–30. 56 Inst. 1.16.8; CO 2:151. Melanchthon was among those who criticised Calvin for being a Stoic. 57 As Mirjam van Veen notes, libertine is an insult in the sixteenth-century and Calvin generally associates libertines with belief in a world-soul (The Calvin Handbook, 158–60). Mirjam van

Calvin and Creation

omni-causality that then reduces God to the only causality. He attacks a pantheist spirit which encloses God within nature, compromising divine freedom, power, and fatherly care, as well as making God the author of evil: “they maintain as a principle that both Scripture and nature teach us that the eternal Spirit of God is the source and origin of everything. This we readily concede. But it does not follow from this that He did not give each creature a unique being and substance. It is quite another thing to say that every creature comes from God and that what God has created is God himself ”.58 In Calvin’s judgement this determinism eliminates the distinction of good and evil and any role for conscience with the result that all is permitted. This highlights that the debates about causality are rooted in larger questions of the identity of the Creator, the act of creation, the nature of creatures, and only afterwards their ongoing relation. On the other side Calvin opposed resurgent Epicurean and Aristotelian Scholastic influences.59 Calvin denied Averroistic rationalists who promoted a universal rather than individual providence. God cannot be first mover in any way that leaves nature to its course following chance or impersonal motion.60 “Truly God claims, and would have us grant him, omnipotence—not the empty, idle, and almost unconscious sort that the Sophists imagine, but a watchful, effective, active sort, engaged in ceaseless activity”.61 A blind first motion and prevailing fortune denies the Creator’s ongoing fatherly care and judgement, which leaves the faithful without refuge and gives misplaced glory to the stars. The challenge to providence is again symptomatic of a very different conception of the Creator’s identity, the act of creation, the nature of creatures, and the underlying cosmological and temporal structures of the world. Therefore, from this multifaceted concern for doctrinal controversy, the historical complexities open theological horizons, which can be surveyed in other contexts of Calvin’s thought, and the present theological analysis demonstrates that it is fruitful to do so. Our understanding of Calvin’s polemical teaching on providence will be enriched by the broader context of theological analysis of Creation according to Genesis. And Creation according to Calvin on Genesis is not sealed off from his broader historical context and doctrinal concerns.

58 59 60 61

Veen, “‘Supporters of the Devil’: Calvin’s Image of the Libertines,” CTJ 40, no. 1 (2005): 21–32; Allen Verhey, “Calvin’s Treatise Against the Libertines,” trans. Robert G Wilkie and Allen Verhey, CTJ 15, no. 2 (1980): 190–219. Benjamin Farley provides a more detailed introduction to the French Quintinists in his editorial introduction: John Calvin, Treatise Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, ed. and trans. Benjamin W. Farley (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), 161–85. Calvin, Against the Libertines, 231. Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy, 97–104. Kirby, “Stoic and Epicurean?”. Inst. 1.16.3–4 Inst. 1.16.3

27

28

In the Beginning

This reference to Calvin’s polemical work affirms the vast scope and variety of Calvin’s corpus and that Calvin on Genesis is not the only material relevant to his teaching on Creation. Like most scholars Cornelis van der Kooi draws on the widely available Calvini Opera and Opera Selecta volumes. The use of such sources yields significant references to the Institutes, Job sermons, Psalms commentary, and the Argument to Calvin’s commentary on Genesis.62 Selderhuis’ Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms includes chapters on “God the Creator” and “God the Caring” which confirms the Psalms commentary as important in this area.63 While making some mention of Genesis, Stauffer and Schreiner draw their structure from the Institutes with the most significant input from Calvin’s Job sermons.64 Earlier works, such as those of John Murray and B.B. Warfield, are dominated by the Institutes.65 Likewise, works that concentrate on elements within the broader topic of Creation have not majored on the particular contribution of the Genesis material. For example, Davis Young presents a survey of Calvin’s references to natural philosophy without reference to the Genesis sermon material.66 The debate surrounding Calvin’s interaction with Copernicus focuses on only a few passages.67 Discussion of the image of God in Calvin’s thought primarily draws on Genesis 1 and 2 commentary and the Institutes, for example T.F. Torrance’s Calvin’s Doctrine of Man.68 Exposition of providence in Calvin’s thought

62 Cornelius van der Kooi, “Calvin’s Theology of Creation and Providence: God’s Care and Human Fragility,” IJST 18, no. 1 (2016): 47–64. 63 Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology. 64 DCP; THG. 65 B.B. Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of God,” The Princeton Theological Review 13 (1915): 190–255; John Murray, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Creation,” WTJ 17, no. 1 (1954): 21–44. 66 Davis A. Young, John Calvin and the Natural World (Lanham: University Press of America, 2007). 67 At present I think there is little evidence that Calvin had read Copernicus. Christopher B. Kaiser, “Calvin, Copernicus, and Castellio,” CTJ 21, no. 1 (1986): 5–31; Pierre Marcel, “Calvin and Copernicus,” Philosophia Reformata, no. 1 (Saint-Germain-en-Laye: [Soc. calviniste de France], 1980); Robert White, “Calvin and Copernicus: The Problem Reconsidered.” CTJ 15, no. 2 (1980): 233–43; Edward Rosen, “Calvin’s Attitude Towards Copernicus,” Journal of the History of Ideas, no. 3 (1960): 431–41; Joseph Ratner, “Some comments on Rosen’s ‘Calvin’s attitude toward Copernicus’,” Journal of the History of Ideas 22 (1961): 382–85; Edward Rosen, “A Reply to Dr. Ratner,” Journal of the History of Ideas 22 (1961): 386–88; Richard Stauffer, “Calvin et Copernic,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 179, no. 1 (1971): 31–40; Edward Rosen, “Calvin n’a pas lu Copernic,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 182, no. 1 (1972): 183–85; Richard Stauffer, “La reponse de M. Edward Rosen a notre article ‘Calvin et Copernic’,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 182, no. 1 (1971): 185–86. 68 Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin’s Doctrine of Man (London: Lutterworth, 1949).

Calvin and Creation

normally focuses on the Institutes and his polemical works, for example Josef Bohatec, Paul Helm, Sung-Sup Kim, and Michelle Sanchez.69 Somewhat more obliquely, the topic of Creation is significant background for other works where it is related but not the primary locus, for example Van der Kooi’s contrastive work on Calvin and Barth.70 Creation also stands in the background of Zachman’s diachronic study of image and word in Calvin’s thought, of Todd Billings’ exposition of participation in Calvin, and of John Wyatt’s treatment of the relation of Christ and creation.71 The broader locus also stands behind particular papers such as that of John Bolt.72 Further, Calvin’s thought on Creation features in both general surveys of his theology and incidentally in the course of works focused further afield. In these general works the contribution of Calvin’s work on Genesis has not been in view. For instances of the topic of Creation in surveys of Calvin’s thought see: The Calvin Handbook, The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, Engaging with Calvin, John Calvin & Evangelical Theology, John Calvin’s Ideas, The Christian Faith, Calvin’s Theology, and (twice over) The Theology of John Calvin.73 Unhappily, creation is sometimes omitted.74

69 Josef Bohatec, Calvinstudien: Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvins (Leipzig: R. Haupt, 1909); Helm, The Providence of God; Kim, Deus Providebit; Michelle Chaplin Sanchez, Providence: From Pronoia to Immanent Affirmation in John Calvin’s Institutes of 1559, unpublished PhD thesis (Harvard Divinity, 2016). 70 Cornelis van der Kooi, As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God: A Diptych, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, vol. 120, trans. Donald Mader (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 71 Randall C. Zachman, Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2007); J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Peter Wyatt, Jesus Christ and Creation in the Theology of John Calvin, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1996). 72 John Bolt, “Spiritus Creator: The Use and Abuse of Calvin’s Cosmic Pneumatology,” in Calvin and the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1989), 17–33. 73 Herman J. Selderhuis and Henry J. Baron ed., The Calvin Handbook (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); Donald K. McKim ed., The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Sung Wook Chung ed., John Calvin & Evangelical Theology: Legacy and Prospect (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009); Mark Thompson, ed., Engaging with Calvin: Aspects of the Reformer’s Legacy for Today (Nottingham: Apollos, 2009); Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Brian A. Gerrish, Christian Faith: Dogmatics in Outline (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015); I. John Hesselink, “Calvin’s Theology,” in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, 74–92; Partee, Theology of John Calvin; Karl Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). 74 Alister McGrath’s summary of Calvin’s thought argues for the supremacy of the Institutes and as a result omits the doctrine of creation almost entirely. McGrath admits that the commen-

29

30

In the Beginning

This sweeping survey of treatments of Calvin on Creation cannot do justice to their scholarship. However, the purpose here is more modestly to identify that within these earlier works there has been some reference to Calvin’s treatment of Genesis, but there has been no study of its contribution as a whole in this area. The brief comments from the end of Book One of the Institutes remain the authoritative account despite more recent broadening of the horizons within Calvin studies to focus on other texts or diachronic analysis. The limited source material means that the key features of Calvin’s doctrine of Creation remain relatively consistent across the works surveyed and are reflected in the headings provided in Ford Lewis Battles’ translation of the Institutes. Besides Battles’ liking for exclamation points in subtitles, these show the proximity in arrangement of both the act of creation and nature of creatures to the doctrine of God and providence. These also show Calvin’s focus on the nature of humanity, rather than other creatures, and the usefulness of the knowledge of providence for the faithful. These features are commonly observed. The usefulness of angels is less commonly noted, although Schreiner’s exposition is exceptional in this regard. Another relevant observation at this point is the brevity with which Calvin treats the history of the creation of the world, that is the act of creation, in the Institutes.75 Calvin’s extensive engagement with Moses at this point also fulfils his own two-fold directive from the Institutes to seek a fuller account of the history of creation from Genesis. If anyone should more attentively ponder what I only briefly touch upon, it will be clear that Moses was a sure witness and herald of the one God, the Creator.76 But since it is not my purpose to recount the creation of the universe, let it be enough for me to have touched upon these few matters again in passing. For it is better, as I have already warned my readers, to seek a fuller understanding of this passage from Moses and from those others who have faithfully and diligently recorded the narrative of Creation. 77

taries and sermons are not ‘totally eclipsed’ by the Institutes, but his omission of Creation demonstrates an area where their contribution should be heard. As will be evident, I do not commend McGrath’s approach at this point. Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 145–47, 155–56. 75 Calvin’s decision here may be compared with Melanchthon’s choice, in his Loci Communes, to pass over ‘the greatest topics such as, God on the Unity and Trinity of God, on the great mystery of Creation, and on the mode of Incarnation’. Philip Melanchthon, The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1944), 67–68. 76 Inst. 1.14.2; CO 2:118 77 Inst. 1.14.20; CO 2:132

Biblical Theologian

Note that what is translated as “this passage” is in fact huis loci, which is to be more fully understood. Calvin is aware that his outline of Creation, specifically the initial history of creation at its very beginning, is brief in the Institutes.78 Therefore readers are directed to Genesis because it is “from this history we shall learn”.79 Those who wish to follow Calvin’s lead theologically on Creation are obliged by Calvin’s directions to seek Moses’ counsel on the topic. It is evident that there is scope for further treatment of Calvin on Creation, which has not been examined extensively from his material on Genesis. As such, Calvin’s direction to Genesis regarding this locus has not been heeded, nor any complementary emphases from his work on Genesis brought to bear on summaries of his thought. This work will seek to address this lack.

1.4 Biblical Theologian

Another implicit priority throughout this work is the integration of exegesis, theology, and application through the example of Calvin’s practice as a biblical theologian for the church. Holding sermons and commentary together for theological consideration may be considered from some scholarly perspectives, both those of historians and theologians, to transgress a boundary. This is because, in addition to claiming that historical documents are fruitful for present theological analysis, this examination of Calvin brings together scriptural exposition and explicit doctrinal analysis. Oftentimes, however, systematic theologians and biblical scholars presently do not need to cross paths and, likewise, both may be shunned by those pursuing ethics or practical theology. Further, historicalliterary approaches are distinguished from constructive theological endeavour even within the systematic sphere. To consider this topic in Calvin’s commentary and sermons, a unity must be assumed or uncovered between biblical, doctrinal, and moral reasoning and such unity demonstrated within Calvin’s work. In order to uncover such it is important to note the anachronism which would label Calvin theologian or exegete in any particular context by applying present criteria, because Calvin would not be at home in present departments of biblical studies or systematic theology. Neither could Calvin be secluded within the realm of ethics, pastoral theology, or practical ministry as presently defined. 78 Gunton’s remark that there is ‘surprisingly little interest in’ ‘creation from nothing’ in the Institutes therefore does not pay great attention to the sixteenth century context, nor the context of Calvin’s own work. Calvin has specific purposes in the Institutes which are not served by exposition of the history of the creation of the world at that point. Gunton does not explain the basis for his surprise. Gunton, The Triune Creator, 150. 79 Inst. 1.14.20; CO 2:131

31

32

In the Beginning

Acknowledgement must be given to a naturalistic premise that is foundational to much of biblical studies, which excludes consideration of God alongside literary-historical analysis and which may justify pragmatic ministry strategies and energetic social activism when God is excluded from these spheres. Moreover, even theology may deny its source and end by pursuing fallen reason without reference to the Creator, Redeemer, and Perfecter of all things. Such a naturalistic assumption is foreign to Calvin. Calvin preceded the denial of the theological nature of the world and the separation of exegesis, dogmatics, and moral reasoning.80 This very different assumption makes analysis of Calvin by some present measures difficult. There is the danger of imposing a framework on Calvin that is as foreign to him as the aforementioned naturalistic premise. At its best this work explicates Calvin’s practice of engaging with scripture, thinking doctrinally, and expanding this into the lives of the faithful. It will express in a more formal tone what arises organically from Calvin himself. Therefore, the close reading below is methodologically inductive in a significant manner. In this task categories of analysis are best stated explicitly in order that their fittingness may be evaluated. This work argues that Calvin’s practice of scriptural exegesis, doctrinal reflection, and application to himself, his students, and his congregation exemplifies integration of the theological task across the spheres of biblical, dogmatic, and moral reasoning. The plausibility of such an argument can be demonstrated by reflection on the broad scale connection Calvin himself makes between exegesis and doctrine as well as scripture, doctrine, and their use. These are here examined in turn under the headings of Calvin as biblical theologian and Calvin on the usefulness of scripture. This work is not the first to describe Calvin as a biblical theologian but the term requires definition and a range of different but connected elements of Calvin’s work to which the term may refer are here presented. At its barest it may simply acknowledge that Calvin produced directly exegetical and expository works as well as works of a more doctrinal nature. It may redress the imbalance observed by Parker and Steinmetz that Calvin’s expository and exegetical work had been ignored.81 Parker says: “the literature on Calvin’s New Testament commentaries is meagre and disappointing”.82 Steinmetz comments: “although Calvin considered himself to be primarily an interpreter of the Bible, and although his sermons and commentaries outnumber in length and quantity his systematic and polemical writings, far 80 John B. Webster, “Biblical Reasoning,” in The Domain of the Word (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012). 81 Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis, 12. 82 Parker, Calvin’s New Testament, ix.

Biblical Theologian

more is known about Calvin as a systematic or polemical theologian than as an interpreter of the Bible”.83 Blacketer writes: “Calvin considered himself first and foremost an expositor of Holy Scripture… the reformer’s first love was the study and interpretation of texts, and particularly the texts of Scripture”.84 More recent descriptions of Calvin as a biblical theologian may simply acknowledge the varied nature of the genres of Calvin’s work. To use the description in this way has a corrective purpose. A second claim acknowledges interaction between Calvin’s doctrinal and biblical works. Steinmetz speaks of the interplay of Institutes and commentary.85 Similarly, Ganoczy identified Calvin’s method as dialectical between the two.86 Again, Selderhuis notes the older characterisation of Calvin as a man on one book, the more recent balancing of this issue, and the need for Calvin’s works to be read together.87 As long ago as 1978 Stauffer admonished that a full picture of Calvin’s thought required not only the Institutes but Calvin’s commentaries and sermons as well.88 Thompson summarises that despite varying genres of exegetical and doctrinal work “the two labors were by design intertwined and interdependent”.89 Without denying the importance of detailed verbal, literary, rhetorical, and historical analysis of the text, Calvin approached it with his loci communes (common places) or sacred doctrine in mind and in this way he used theologically crafted tools to gain theological understanding to prompt theologically shaped devotion. Distinct genres bring to the foreground textual analysis or forms of Christian doctrine, but there are not solid divisions between text and theology as the two inform each other and work for a single end. Hence, to use the designation biblical theologian in this way claims that the two are mutually informing. A stronger claim starts to outline the interaction of Calvin’s theology and work with the biblical text. Therefore, a third aspect considers that being a biblical theologian means Calvin’s exegesis is concerned to lay out the full scope of the sense of scripture. David Puckett offers a survey of opinions on Calvin’s exegesis. Puckett arranges the opinions in a way that draws out the ‘humanist’ and ‘theological’ elements in Calvin’s approach to scripture. Puckett argues for Calvin charting a middle

83 David C. Steinmetz, “Calvin and Abraham: The Interpretation of Romans 4 in the Sixteenth Century,” Church History 57, no. 4 (1988): 443–55. 84 Raymond Blacketer, “2. Commentaries and Prefaces,” in The Calvin Handbook, 181. 85 Steinmetz “John Calvin as an interpreter of the Bible,” 291. 86 Alexandre Ganoczy, The Young Calvin (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 186. 87 Herman J. Selderhuis, “The Institutes,” in The Calvin Handbook, 199. 88 Richard Stauffer, “Quelques aspects insolites de la théologie du premier article dans le prédication de Calvin,” in Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor (Kampen: Kok, 1978), 67–68. 89 Thompson, ”Calvin as Biblical Interpreter,” 62.

33

34

In the Beginning

course in his exegesis, which is “one which betrays neither his historical sensitivities nor his theological commitments”.90 According to Puckett Calvin is more than simply a literal-historical exegete because of his conviction about the divine nature of scripture and hence the exegete’s need for the Spirit to give her understanding of the Bible as a whole, even if she humanly stumbles on the details.91 Steinmetz likewise argues that Calvin’s exegesis is theological in nature as far as that means it is in service of the divine Word to the hearer.92 Steinmetz also draws attention to Calvin’s discovery of a full meaning in the text while emphasising a literal sense.93 In this discussion of Calvin’s exegesis being theological, Steinmetz then describes Calvin as a biblical theologian because he argues that Calvin viewed the Bible itself as a theological text and as a result only theological reading did justice to what the Bible is.94 In more detail, Calvin’s hermeneutic has been outlined focusing on the combination of ‘humanist’ historical-literary verbal features and more directly theological considerations such as the unity of scripture as defined by its scopus (matter) in Christ or reading scripture in and for the church.95 When painted with such a broad brush Calvin is not unique in his hermeneutical approach.96 In such terms Calvin may be idiosyncratic, but is not alone when he reads scripture theologically. Muller likewise emphasises the continuity between Calvin’s interpretation and those who preceded him in the practice of pre-critical exegesis.97 If Steinmetz, Muller, and Thompson’s assessment is correct then to label Calvin as biblical theologian on the grounds of his theological hermeneutic will also mean that the title applies to many of his contemporaries. In this way

90 91 92 93 94 95

Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis, 18. Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis, 143. David C. Steinmetz, “Calvin and the Irrepressible Spirit,” Ex Auditu 12 (1996): 104. Steinmetz, “Calvin and the Irrepressible Spirit,” 104. Steinmetz, “Calvin and the Irrepressible Spirit,” 105. Emphasis added. This is typical of the older analyses such as Hans-Joachim Kraus, “Calvin’s Exegetical Principles,” Interpretation 31 (1977): 9–18. These hermeneutical descriptions contrast with works such as those of Olivier Millet and Serene Jones who have identified rhetorical analyses and presentation within Calvin’s work. Like work which analyses Calvin’s “humanism”, rhetorical analysis of such a kind focuses on Calvin’s approach to the text rather than the theological interaction with text. Olivier Millet, Calvin et la dynamique de la parole. Serene Jones, Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety. 96 Thompson, “Calvin as biblical interpreter,” 59. This directly counters the intention of Kraus to specify Calvin’s hermeneutic principles in some detail. 97 Muller, Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 8.

Biblical Theologian

the label does not differentiate Calvin from his contemporaries, but affirms his places within a wider tradition of Christian theology.98 A fourth aspect is that labelling him a biblical theologian emphasises Calvin’s continual reference back to the text of the Bible as he thinks doctrinally. Calvin used a new set of words, but he wanted “to find, if possible, the rich range of spiritual meanings inside the letter of the text rather than behind or beyond it”.99 Calvin is aware of history and the author, the present and the reader, the future and the promise, but he does not wish to dwell behind, in front of, or beyond, but in and with the text itself.100 Expounding this assessment Barth writes: “we can learn from Calvin what it means to stay close to the text, to focus with tense attention on what is actually there. Everything else derives from this. But it has to derive from this. If it does not, then the expounding is not real questioning and readiness to listen”.101 Barth again says that in exegesis or eisegesis Calvin “keeps his eye firmly on the actual text. He proceeds methodically and steadfastly, seeking diligently to follow the text in all its twists and turns. His aim is to do justice to everything in it”.102 Similarly emphasising focus on the text, Greene-McCreight suggests that Calvin reads with constraints from both analysis of the text itself and the demands of the apostolic faith expressed as a “ruled reading”.103 She suggests that for Calvin (as well as Augustine and Barth) this creates a literal sense that is a full sense: “for Calvin… the letter is “spiritual” and that the spirit comes in the form of the letter”.104 Greene-McCreight assesses that “there is conceivably no place where textual matters would not bear on doctrine, because for Calvin doctrine is to be discussed only with reference to the text”.105 In this sense being a biblical theologian would mean that Calvin does his theology in and with the text. This means Calvin’s theology conforms to the scopus (matter) of the text and does not deviate from it. However, it is difficult to specify what this lack of separation means without also describing a move from the text. This is a move from the text, not to something different, but to something that is inherent in the text itself, which Calvin can describe in words 98 Greta Kroeker argues that Erasmus exemplifies ‘humanist theology’ which Calvin also practiced. Greta Grace Kroeker, Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul: A Pauline Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011). 99 Steinmetz, ”Calvin and the Irrepressible Spirit,” 101. 100 Compare Richard E. Burnett, Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 233, 264. 101 Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, 389. 102 Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, 390. 103 Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram,148. 104 Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram,149. 105 Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram,142.

35

36

In the Beginning

other than the scriptural ones. Even while remaining in the text Calvin must move from the text. Hence, there is a fifth way of speaking that slightly nuances the fourth, which is that the label biblical theologian means Calvin works theologically from the text to expound both the theological message and purpose of the text. This considers biblical theologian as a broad and almost all-embracing designation. Ford Lewis Battles sees Calvin wrestling with scripture, focused not on the details but on a message that is apart from the words themselves.106 This indicates something akin to more recent descriptions of Calvin working towards the scopus (matter) of scripture. Jack Rogers and Donald McKim saw Calvin placing philosophical and humanist tools subordinate to a higher task of “expounding the truth of Scripture” and discovering authorial intention.107 They call this Calvin’s contextual approach where content was decisive rather than style.108 They assess Calvin as moving from the words to the message so “that accommodated language is meant to point beyond itself to God”.109 Yet they see scripture as a decisive foundation for Calvin’s theology and in this respect they call Calvin a biblical theologian.110 More recently Blacketer observes a similar theological tendency where Calvin builds from scripture so that “Calvin’s discovery of new theological topics arising from his study of the biblical text was still ongoing” in the last years of his life.111 Zachman seems to concur with such a description of Calvin’s work, but has emphasised the practical application that Calvin sought.112 Zachman suggests that Calvin’s goal was to understand the intention of the author, as it was revealed in the genuine meaning of the text, sensitive to the historical circumstances. The objective was then to show how this was useful for the church in terms of the exposition of doctrine and yielding moral examples.113 If Zachman is correct, and the purposes of Calvin for the church are included in general descriptions, then Calvin is equally biblical theologian and biblical ethicist or perhaps a biblical teacher, pastor and theologian.114 106 John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), liv–lv. 107 Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979), 93, 97. 108 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, 99. 109 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, 99. 110 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, 103. Emphasis added. 111 Blacketer, Calvin Handbook, 184. 112 Van der Kooi draws out the social context of theology, As in a Mirror, 189–90. 113 Zachman, “Calvin as commentator on Genesis,” 25. 114 Randall C. Zachman, John Calvin as Teacher, Pastor and Theologian, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 13.

Biblical Theologian

Stephen Edmondson identifies a theological foundation for this unity in Calvin’s doctrine of Christ the Mediator and his insistence that history is christological history; because of this “Calvin is committed to the principle that the theology he brings to Scripture should be the theology he reads off of Scripture”.115 Edmondson sees this as the unique combination of attention to causality within the narrative of history, which flows from humanist historiography, and acknowledgement of divine action and providence over history focused on events taking place, which was characteristic of medieval approaches.116 Further, Calvin derives from the synthetic imperatives of humanist historiography the narrative of history as ethically formative and history as something to be purposefully taught, so that biblical history is “purposively constructed to draw the faithful to God through its presentation of Christ in his [historical] activity as the Mediator of the covenant”.117 This purpose is first and foremost the intent of the Divine Author of history and text, who has woven Christ into all things. Christ is theologically the scopus (matter) of all scripture because, for Calvin, it is a single purposeful story. This fifth use of the term biblical theologian claims that Calvin thinks doctrinally from the text of scripture conforming his thought to the scopus (matter) of scripture, which includes doctrine and moral reason. However, recognising the practical goals of Calvin as a teacher of God’s people and affirming true faith as an understanding connected with piety opens another possible facet of the term biblical theologian. A sixth possible aspect of Calvin as biblical theologian is one whose person and intellectual practices are shaped by the teaching of the Bible. Steinmetz observes: “neither Calvin nor Athanasius prized distance from the text as a source of insight, much less alienation from its teaching”.118 Further, Parker suggests that years studying Bible changed Calvin as a writer.119 Calvin’s interactions with the Bible shaped him as a theologian as they shaped his faith, which is understanding joined with fear and reverence. Calvin did not prize objectivity and a ‘scientific’ approach to scripture. The character of the theologian as she comes to the Bible should itself be biblical. In this way, as a matter of personal 115 Stephen Edmondson, “Christ and History: Hermeneutical Convergence in Calvin and its Challenge to Biblical Theology,” MT 21, no. 1 (2005): 7. 116 This is a simplification, as Edmondson himself acknowledges. Edmondson, “Christ and History: Hermeneutical Convergence in Calvin and its Challenge to Biblical Theology,” MT 21, no. 1 (2005): 10. 117 Edmondson, “Christ and History: Hermeneutical Convergence in Calvin and its Challenge to Biblical Theology,” 13. 118 Steinmetz, “John Calvin as an interpreter of the Bible,” 285. 119 T.H.L. Parker, “Calvin the exegete: change and development,” Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor (Kampen: Kok, 1978), 46.

37

38

In the Beginning

piety and humility before God and his Word, the theologian should be a biblical theologian. This way of understanding Calvin as a biblical theologian perhaps does best justice to the connection of knowledge of God with faith and piety, as Calvin understood it. The inclusion of exegesis, doctrinal thought, and moral reason is here not speculative, but living in and through the biblical theologian himself. In summary, the various aspects evoked by designating Calvin as a biblical theologian may include: a corrective use drawing attention to Calvin’s more explicitly exegetical genres; an interaction of biblical and theological concerns within Calvin’s corpus; a theological reading of scripture; a pursuit of theology in and with the text; exegetical theological work towards the scopus (matter) of scripture broadly conceived for the sake of its outworking in the church; and a more personal use, which sees the theologian as one shaped by his interaction with scripture. None of these should be anachronistically understood, but should, at best, be illuminated by Calvin’s practice, as in the present work. A multifaceted conception of what biblical theologian means lays a foundation to argue that it is rich to describe Calvin as a biblical theologian. Broadly considered, the different aspects of Calvin’s theological engagement with scripture provide sufficient grounds to validate the use of a framework of analysis that connects exegesis and doctrine. That is, for Calvin both biblical reason and dogmatic reason are within the scope of theology. He expounds doctrine as one who is addressed by God in and through scripture.120 This connection underlies the present method.

1.5 Piety and the Usefulness of Scripture

Calvin also integrates knowledge of God with the practical expression of faith, that is piety, and he insists on the usefulness of scripture in a way that affirms links between exegesis, doctrine, and moral reason. These connections are considered below. From very early in the Institutes Calvin joins knowledge of God and piety. Truly knowing God is transformative and a lack of piety betrays that there is no true knowledge of God.121 The exposition of sacred doctrine is directed to trust and obedience, which is the exercise of moral reason.122 Likewise, against 120 Inst. 1.6.1; CO 2:53 121 Inst. 1.2.1, 2; CO 2:34–35 122 Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana and the connection between signs and things, use and enjoyment, and formation of love contribute to the heritage of Calvin in reading Scripture. See also: Rowan Williams, “Language, Reality and Desire in Augustine’s De doctrina.” Literature and Theology 3, no. 2 (1989): 138–50, doi:10.1093/litthe/3.2.138.

Piety and the Usefulness of Scripture

the Libertines Calvin concludes: “I do not ask for people to agree with me, or with my opinion, or my words, unless they have first of all realized that what I am teaching is useful”.123 Further, the Institutes were dedicated to giving a good and right understanding of scripture.124 In this way Calvin seeks to equip the children of God to think well doctrinally as they read scripture and pursue appropriate ends. Scripture, read with appropriate doctrinal discernment, allows true knowledge of God that induces piety. Calvin’s purposes for the Institutes create the expectation that such connections will be present elsewhere. Calvin’s emphasis on the usefulness of scripture strengthens the connection of scripture and moral reasoning. Calvin’s preference for preaching verse by verse through a book combined with his structure of explanation and exhortation assumes a comprehensibility and relevance of all of scripture. When preaching, Calvin has many repeated phrases such as: “here is what we have to retain”, “here is what we have to note”, “here is what we are to observe”, “here is why”, “here is the lesson”, “here is what we must practice from this passage”, “now to apply this doctrine to us”, “here is the instruction that we must receive from this passage”, “here is how this passage must serve us”, “here it is necessary for us to read the holy scripture and to listen to the exposition which it gives us, and not to amuse ourselves with things that profit us nothing”, “here are three points which are useful in this doctrine, which means that we may know what indeed makes for our profit”, and so on.125 There is a continual movement with the shape: observing the words of the text, understanding the intention of the passage, and then remembering it in order that it may be useful. Things in scripture are noted, observed, and retained for the sake of instruction, profit, and use. In his Genesis sermons Calvin moves, often many times over, from the history recounted by Moses to today. Calvin strives to distil what is profitable because “if we do not search for what is useful for our salvation in holy scripture, we profane it, because we forget the use for which it has been ordained”.126 Calvin believes scripture addresses God’s children purposefully and practically. The same goal of profitability is also found, more briefly, in Calvin’s commentary in phrases such as: “this admonition is very useful”, “in the first it is useful to know”, “knowing this doctrine is very useful”, “still it is enough for me to briefly touch on what is more useful to observe, and in my opinion for

123 Against the Libertines, 326. 124 CO 2:3–4; CO 3:7–8 125 These phrases and similar may be found in every sermon, but the last are from Serm. Gen 4:1–5, 4:10–12; SC 11/1:244, 277. 126 Serm. Gen 10:1–32; SC 11/1:535

39

40

In the Beginning

whose sake these catalogues have been handed down by Moses”, and so forth.127 These statements demonstrate that scripture brings knowledge of doctrine that is useful. This is not accidental to Calvin’s biblical and doctrinal task but draws him forward and expresses a theological conviction that shapes the whole endeavour. This is clear because there are two errors of speculation, which can derail theology, one decouples doctrine from its biblical foundation and the other diverts doctrine from its useful end. In this regard Calvin’s comment on scripture’s profitability from 2 Timothy 3:16 is relevant. There he declares that it is a sinful abuse not to pursue the usefulness of scripture, because it has not been given for the sake of curiosity, nor indulgence, nor idle chatter, but rather for our good “and therefore, the right use of scripture must always tend to what is profitable”.128 Likewise Calvin closes his treatise against the Libertines with an admonition for his readers “to consider why the Scripture has been given to us and how we are supposed to use it, so that we might not profane it by subjecting it to usages which God never ordained”.129 Therefore, it is appropriate to turn to Calvin on Genesis, his exegetical and exhortational work for theological insight and to exemplify his moral reasoning. Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis is a topic that may be answered from within the theological framework of Calvin’s thought, while transgressing boundaries erected in present historical or theological practice, because Calvin unifies biblical, doctrinal, and moral reason. Throughout this theological analysis examining the details of Calvin’s scriptural and doctrinal thought and its use will further illuminate this unity. Finally, Calvin demands an observation of the manner required of the scholar. In order to profit from meditation on God’s works with him, Calvin admonishes readers of his Genesis commentary to bring with them a “sober, teachable, gentle and humble spirit”.130 Likewise in his first sermon on Genesis Calvin instructs that “we must come to him humbly” and exhorts “let us learn to be humble and modest so that we may know God in his creation”.131 As the theologian finds herself addressed by God and drawn to enactment within the moral order, then theology’s biblical, doctrinal, and moral reason requires humility in order for the method to befit the task at hand. Further, as theology exercises itself within the fellowship of the children of God, humility is also required to listen to a fellow pilgrim some 500 years 127 Phrases incorporating utilis are very common. The last is taken from Comm. Gen 10:1; CO 23:157. 128 Comm. 2 Tim 3:16; CO 52:383 129 Against the Libertines, 326. 130 CO 23:5–6 131 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:4, 6

Creator, Act of Creation, Creatures, and Providence

and half a world away. The temptation is to privilege the present in a way that destructively imposes itself, in a mode of cultural imperialism temporally applied. However, it need not be this way. Since the faithfulness of the Creator sustains and guides creation to its fellowship with him, the theologian’s task is undertaken humbly but with a prayerful confidence in its pursuit.

1.6 Creator, Act of Creation, Creatures, and Providence

We finally consider the specific shape of the present analysis. Formal expression of the frame of analysis—expressed in chapters headed Creator, the Act of Creation, Creatures, and Providence—may be absent from Calvin’s work on Genesis but the concepts are organically present and already related by Calvin in a comparable logical if not pedagogical sequence. The present method allows Calvin to speak in a new key that brings his work to bear for a new context, while retaining his melody. As well as a similarity in approach to Selderhuis, while holding different doctrinal foci, the centrality of God (the Creator) to Calvin’s theology leads to resonances between these works. With reference to Creation Selderhuis remarks: “Calvin does not speak about creation without taking into consideration the Creator himself or those he created”.132 A similar insight from Calvin on Genesis has shaped the structuring of my work. Hence, chapter two will examine the identity of the Creator. I will show that this full, engaged, and concrete depiction grounds creation in Calvin’s doctrine of God. This chapter supplements, and at times corrects, Stauffer’s portrayal of the Creator. It also fills out insights from Muller, against Niesel, concerning divine attributes. The prominence of the Creator means that he cannot be ignored or removed from any account of Calvin on this locus. In this way my account supplements that of Schreiner. Chapter three considers the agent of creation alongside the act of creation. I will argue that Calvin conceives the act of creation as a purposeful beginning, which occurs from nothing and with time. The conjunction of creation with salvation history is brought out by Calvin’s detailed engagement with Genesis, not simply as the history of the creation of the world but as the history of the church. Calvin’s theology of the act of creation, which does not collapse into providence, also contrasts with that of Gerrish who draws on Calvin but more substantially on Schleiermacher. The act of creation is theological, historical, and exegetically established as the first of the Creator’s external works. In chapter four, the power and freedom of the Creator directed for the good of creatures through history undergirds consideration of the nature of creatures. 132 Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 14.

41

42

In the Beginning

I will show that Calvin considers creatures as good and ordered within creation, sustained from their beginning in a way that accords with the goodness of their being in its source, end, and declaration of the Creator’s glory. I will argue, since created order rests on the Creator and ‘creation from nothing’ and with time, that fragility and chaos do not theologically dominate Calvin’s view. In this way Calvin’s understanding of the nature of creatures relies on one who is not a momentary Creator. Sustenance and concursus therefore come into a dynamic conception of creatures directed to fellowship with the Creator and one another. Chapter four’s emphasis on trust in the good and powerful Creator who continually upholds creation’s order directly contrasts with Schreiner and Stauffer’s account. This reflects my reading of Calvin in line with Muller rather than Bouwsma. The different theological emphases of Genesis and Job are at work in these different readings and they testify to Calvin’s sensitivity to the particularities of scriptural texts. This analysis offers a balance and accounting for different evidence. Further, in the latter sections of chapter four, the example of animals and humans illustrates the complexity of these relations, especially when corruption disrupts goodness and order. Calvin’s depiction of animals in Genesis is part of his broad, rather than narrowly anthropocentric, account of Creation. This fullness and nuance in human and non-human animal relations complements the Institutes and answers charges of anthropocentrism. In chapter five, the fatherly care of the Creator extends into providential governance of history for the sake of the church. I will argue that Calvin uses providence as a refuge for faith when the promise is threatened and calls for trust even when ‘the wicked’ seek to derail God’s plan. The exploration of faith and providence complements Barbara Pitkin’s analysis of creation-faith in Calvin’s thought. Calvin emphasises the role of the Spirit and a divine bridle as the means of exercising divine direction of creatures. In this way providence, like the act of creation, has a trinitarian manifestation and focus on the fellowship of God with his people. In conclusion, the value of such analysis lies not only in details but also in the broader context thereby provided. As each chapter will demonstrate, this account both supplements and corrects earlier work. By analysing underutilised or newly available material from Calvin’s corpus, this project contributes to a richer depiction of Calvin on Creation. Moreover, this analysis begins to illumine theological issues of content and method that continue to be significant, even while fuller constructive development lies beyond an initial theological analysis of Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis.

2. Creator Theology considers God and his works and hence it is important to consider the Creator when coming to Creation.1 Focusing on created things exclusively can grant them an apparent independence and leave God seemingly idle in heaven or it may let created things so dominate God that they would determine God’s being and his relation to it. Inversely, when concentrating on the divine to the exclusion of creation, created things may become merely incidental or a functional derivative from the doctrine of God. Such a doctrine of God may undermine the goodness, materiality, and temporal nature of creation. Neither exclusive approach is desirable, but instead Creator and creation should be considered together. The economy presents itself immediately in noetic considerations but the order of being accords a material priority to the Creator. I read Calvin in light of this systematic consideration. Approaches to Calvin on creation that ignore the Creator can be questioned on this basis but also in light of the Institutes. In the 1559 edition, Book One unfolds under the title “The Knowledge of God the Creator”.2 Creation and providence feature in chapters 14 to 18, but chapters 1 to 13 expound how this is known and who this Creator is.3 As Calvin presents his sum of Christian religion creation follows on the heels of his treatment of the triune God. Knowing God as Creator is to know the Lord and Father of Jesus Christ, who is this same God.4 1 Forgetting this is a danger chanced by naming the locus Creation rather than fully and consistently Creator and creation. 2 CO 2:31 3 Partee, Theology of John Calvin, 52. 4 Calvin is interested in the doctrine of God as shown in works such as: Émile Doumergue, Jean Calvin, les hommes et les choses de son temps, 7 vol. (Lausanne: G. Bridel, 1899–1917); Wilhelm H. Niesel, The Theology of Calvin (London: Lutterworth, 1956); François Wendel, Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. Philip Mairet (NewYork: Harper and Row, 1963). Particular works on aspects of Calvin’s doctrine are also available, such as: John Murray, Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960); Garret A. Wilterdink, Tyrant or Father? A Study of Calvin’s Doctrine of God, 2 vol. (Bristol: Wyndham Hall Press, 1985). B.B. Warfield’s monograph remains the most substantial treatment of Calvin’s doctrine of God. B.B. Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God,” “Calvin’s Doctrine of God,” and “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” in Samuel Craig (ed.), Calvin and Augustine, 29–130, 133–85, 189–284 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1956). This limited observation is sufficient for the argument here and is not to enter into the debate surrounding the ordering of the Institutes and identifying its arrangement primarily as catechetical, shaped by the Apostle’s creed, determined from twofold knowledge, formed

44

Creator

The examples of Warfield, Stauffer, Schreiner, Selderhuis, and the debate over knowledge of God and natural theology, each show different approaches to the connection of Creator and creation in Calvin’s thought to which the present findings from Calvin on Genesis may be contrasted or joined. I will briefly present each of these before more detailed analysis of the Creator, and then close the chapter with a summary and concluding observations of the contribution of the Genesis material. Calvin’s portrayal of the Creator from Genesis enriches these other perspectives, since it is full, engaged, and concrete. Each of these terms will be filled with meaning by what follows. Further, as well as fuller theological detail, the scriptural and pastoral discipline applied to Calvin’s doctrinal thought highlights the history and ongoing relationship in which the church finds herself as she knows this Creator. These later aspects will be more fully developed in the following chapters, which explore the external works of the Creator in the act of creation and providence, and which provide greater examples of the use of this doctrine. Who the Creator is has ongoing implications for the rest of the locus. Calvin’s knowledge according to Genesis of who l’Eternal Creator is and its contrast to previous depictions of the Creator according to Calvin will focus this chapter.

2.1 And

The conjunction in my title could easily remain unexamined. However, it is helpful to examine the connection of Creator and creation. Systematic consideration and the arrangement of the Institutes show the theological connection of Creator and creation. The importance of the doctrine of God for Calvin’s thought on creation has not gone unheeded. B.B. Warfield offers the first example. The heart of Calvin and Calvinism presents: chapter 2 Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, chapter 3 Calvin’s Doctrine of God, chapter 4 Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity, chapter 5 Calvin’s Doctrine of the Creation.5 Warfield cannot ignore the intertwining of Calvin’s doctrine of God with creation. This reflects Calvin’s work in the Institutes, but Warfield himself contrasts “the intensely practical spirit of Calvin and the simplicity of his method” with his own preferences for “a formal point of view”.6 This introduction to Calvin’s doctrine betrays Warfield’s preferences and concerns for what he considers logical ordering and completeness. Indeed, Warfield by Calvin’s exegesis of Romans, or contemporary loci communes such as Melanchthon’s. For further discussion see, especially part 2 of Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin. 5 B.B. Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1931), v. Warfield’s work remains an outstanding monograph addressing Calvin’s doctrine of God. 6 Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism, 287.

And

looks for a system, where Calvin has more practical concerns. Warfield’s presentation of Calvin provides several lessons. A positive point is attention to Calvin’s own approach, but the warning is a call for careful listening before critiquing Calvin by criteria and genres that were not his own.7 Warfield shows that even readers who come dominated by later systematic concerns, and with limited consideration of the full scope Calvin’s works, can appreciate the importance of who God is for Creation. Warfield does not make much of the connection, but Calvin’s placement of these topics within the Institutes shapes his work. Moving to someone who looked more broadly than Calvin’s Institutes, Stauffer worked extensively on Calvin’s sermons. Stauffer is aware of the danger of imposing later systematic questions upon Calvin, but argues “we could draw out from the sermons, without even so betraying Calvin, all the elements of a doctrine of God, creation and providence” and they “can be extracted without distorting their meaning”.8 For Stauffer’s work, the Institutes structure Calvin’s thought from the sermons and bound his study.9 In this way, the Institutes guide Stauffer while he argues for the, at times fuller, theological content of the sermons that can be legitimately discussed. For example, he highlights that the sermons supplement Calvin’s work on divine attributes.10 However, Stauffer notes a large trinitarian reserve by Calvin in his sermons compared to the Institutes.11 Therefore, Stauffer’s presentation of the Creator can be more or less than what he finds in the Institutes because he is committed to respecting the specific genre and unique contribution of the sermons. Nonetheless, Stauffer does not draw on the theological context and logic of the sermons to complement the structure he takes from the Institutes. Nor is the theological content given coherence from Calvin’s arrangement in the Institutes even though Stauffer adopts that arrangement of topics. Stauffer presents the content of his chapters separately without observing connections between them or a coherent progression. Stauffer’s chapters therefore supplement the Institutes in content without justifying any theological connections between the Creator, creation or providence. His work catalogues new information without providing a theological analysis or demonstration of coherence in Calvin’s thought. In 7 This warning is pertinent to work such as my own. Every effort has been made to allow Calvin’s own thought and method to shape the presentation. 8 ‘nous avons pu dégager des sermons, sans trahir pour autant Calvin, tous les éléments d’une doctrine de Dieu, de la création et de la Providence’ and they ‘peuvent être extraites sans que soit faussée leur signification’. DCP, 13. This accords with earlier argument for the connection between exegetical, doctrinal, and moral reason and inclusion of sermon material in theological analysis alongside commentary. 9 DCP, 11. 10 DCP, 105. As noted below, Muller has more recently echoed this observation. 11 DCP, 162.

45

46

Creator

this case the connection between Creator and creation is Calvin’s rather than provided or demonstrated by his later presenter. That God precedes creation and providence appears almost incidental to Stauffer. Warfield and Stauffer both demonstrate that attention to Calvin’s Institutes preserves a connection between Creator and creation even if it is mostly ignored. Even less than Warfield and Stauffer, Schreiner does not directly highlight the intertwining. Her project is also structured by the Institutes but focuses on the historical context of Calvin’s thought. Schreiner focuses on historical developments, and providence brings coherence to her presentation of Calvin’s thought. Nonetheless, Schreiner’s careful reading cannot ignore that ‘who God is’ is foundational.12 The unity of God and his works is evident, as we shall see. Schreiner’s insights could be further strengthened if the connection between the order and stability of creation and the order and stability of God were shown to correlate in Calvin’s thought.13 The scope of Schreiner’s project however means that deeper discussion of the connection between the Creator and creation is omitted. Schreiner’s work is useful but limited in this way. Schreiner’s omission is almost the converse of Selderhuis’ focus on God at the centre of Calvin’s theology.14 Selderhuis observes the theological structure generated in the Institutes by placing knowledge of God before all else.15 However, he wishes to demonstrate God’s centrality from Calvin’s treatment of the Psalms.16 In chapter 3 Selderhuis presents “God the Creator”. This immediately follows “God the Triune” and is the second substantial chapter presenting Calvin’s thought from the Psalms. “God the Creator” considers sub-topics familiar from the Institutes such as revelation and theological anthropology. However, Selderhuis’ initial concern is with the theological function of God as Creator, which draws out the Creator’s active involvement with creation and the Creator’s ordo (order) for creation. Since the Creator engages in an ongoing manner as Creator for creatures, Selderhuis continues to draw connections between these theological considerations of “God the Creator” even as God is considered under other aspects such as caring, hidden, God of the Covenant, or Father.17 This work illustrates that “God the Creator” bears a greater theological burden than Warfield, Stauffer or Schreiner’s work make explicit; and Selderhuis demonstrates these connections more fully. This reflects that God is the organising 12 13 14 15 16 17

THG, 121. I will return to creaturely fragility and argue for greater stability found in the Creator. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 18. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 38. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 19. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 89, 180, 211, 275. This is while elements considered here under the nature of creatures such as angels, or creation as purposeful to an end, appear elsewhere in his work without Selderhuis making the connection to God as Creator explicit in these cases.

Knowledge of God the Creator

principle for Selderhuis’ presentation, which he argues reflects Calvin’s thought. The triune God is Creator and this transforms Calvin’s depiction of the nature of the world and the relationship between Creator and creation, even as this does not exhaust the character of that relation.18 In summary, we see that presentations of Calvin’s doctrine of creation, as they have followed the arrangement of the Institutes like Warfield, Stauffer, and Schreiner, have at minimum implied the connection between Creator and creation. However, dwelling on God makes the theological function of Creator within the locus more explicit. This suggests that there is more to Creation than pragmatically putting creation first amongst God’s external works.

2.2 Knowledge of God the Creator

In the Institutes the connection of Creator and creation is not an abstract structural conviction, but comes amid Calvin’s explanation of the knowledge of God the Creator.19 Knowledge of God is an important context to understand Calvin’s doctrine of God the Creator and it is to this we now turn. Knowledge of God, or more properly the doctrine of the knowledge of God and how God may be known, dominated discussion of Calvin on creation and Book One of the Institutes throughout the twentieth century. This was sparked by Emil Brunner and Karl Barth and later taken up by Edward Dowey and T.H.L. Parker.20 This debate entered the twenty-first century with a republication of Peter Fraenkel’s compilation of Brunner and Barth and these continue to be landmark publications on this topic.21 These are significant readings of Calvin 18 Selderhuis’ work also considers God under many other aspects and it would be foolish to suggest creation as a “central” locus for Calvin’s doctrine as a whole. 19 While I have emphasised the distinct elements, Warfield and Stauffer’s presentations both reflect this to some extent. 20 Emil Brunner, Natur Und Gnade: Zum Gespräch Mit Karl Barth (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1934); Karl Barth, Nein! Antwort an Emil Brunner, Theologische Existenz Heute, Heft 14 (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1934); Edward A. Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952); T.H.L. Parker, “The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: A Study in the Theology of John Calvin” (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1952). 21 Emil Brunner and Karl Barth, Natural Theology: Comprising “Nature and Grace” by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the Reply “No!” By Dr. Karl Barth, trans. Peter Fraenkel (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002). Echoes of this debate may be seen in the work of Zachman arguing for the importance of image and sight as well as hearing and word in Calvin, as well as Van der Kooi’s comparison of Calvin and Barth which hinges on a modern dualistic divide between the worldviews of the two. Calvin’s value of the material world and sight as a means of knowledge remain concerns in Calvin studies. Zachman, Image and Word; Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror.

47

48

Creator

and demonstrate that knowledge of God is still seen as important, but the intricacies of these debates are not the present concern, nor were they Calvin’s. Calvin prioritises the content and ends of the knowledge of God rather than the mechanics of its acquisition. Calvin himself does not work with natural theology as a category or with ‘scientific’ and ‘unscientific’ divisions of knowledge.22 Rather, the primary divide is belief and unbelief, true and false knowledge of God in this sense. The creaturely means utilised by belief and unbelief may be the same, such as observation of stars or reading scripture, but the outcome is vastly different in the two cases. True knowledge of God induces piety and true religion, which is fear and love that lead to worship and whole-hearted devotion.23 It is significant to appreciate this priority when the later debate hinges on details of how God is known. We move to the specific contribution of Calvin on Genesis to this matter and survey commentary and sermons in turn. Even Calvin’s preparatory remarks on Genesis show similar structures for knowledge of God and the priority of usefulness as found in the Institutes. For example, Calvin’s dedicatory letter to Henry of Navarre calls him to learn about the historia de mundi (history of the world) and the ancient church.24 Calvin presents scripture as the unique source of such history, despite the efforts of the liberal arts, philosophy, and natural science among the Greeks and Egyptians.25 Ignorance of this history is a culpable matter as those who claim to be wise show base ingratitude. This ignorance may be due to indolence and/or impiety. Whatever the case, true knowledge of scripture should hold incomparable value for the young prince as the only source of what needs to be known.26 The primacy of scripture is noteworthy here. Hearing the word of God is, then and now, with a view to worship, which 22 Peter Harrison provides an analysis of “science” and “religion” as slippery concepts which need careful definition and attention to their development. The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). And more recently: The Territories of Science and Religion (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015). 23 Inst. 1.2.1; CO 2:34 24 CO 20:118. For a treatment of this preface in a different context see Aurelio Garcia, “A Reformer’s Twilight. Character and Crisis in Calvin’s Dedicatory Preface to his Commentary on Genesis (1563), and in Beza’s Preface to Calvin’s Commentary on Ezekiel (1565),” in Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 287–96. This dedicatory letter is also helpfully compared with Erasmus’ The Education of a Christian Prince (published in 1516 with the Latin title: Institutio principis Christiani) dedicated to the future Habsburg emperor Charles. Erasmus’ classical, rhetorical, and practical concerns find echoes in Calvin. Calvin was not breaking new ground in the genre and style of this dedication. Desiderius Erasmus, The Education of a Christian Prince, trans. Neil M. Cheshire and Michael J. Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 25 CO 20:118 26 CO 20:119

Knowledge of God the Creator

is practiced “pure riteque” (purely and with due observance).27 The connection of knowledge with piety and worship continues to dominate Calvin’s goals for his readers as he lays out “briefly the usefulness of the history”.28 Calvin’s Argument to the commentary takes up similar concerns. Calvin believes that the intention of Moses and the Spirit, by beginning with the history of the creation of the world, is to render God visible in his works.29 This is not independent knowledge, but revealed knowledge that proceeds from faith, because no philosophy is effective in its knowledge of God apart from Christ. Genesis explicitly counters those who idolatrously focus on the creature and ignore the Author as well as those who idolatrously ignore the creature and seek the bare essence of the God. Genesis meets the culpable ignorance of those who never look to their Author and will be shown to have been “wilfully and wickedly blind” as well as the pride of those who, in their delirium, refuse God’s self-revelation.30 The appropriate posture to receive this knowledge of faith from Genesis is sobriety, teachability, gentleness, and humility.31 Scripture is necessary to aid humanity’s dull sight and the Word of God shows the true image of God only by faith.32 Despite the need for scripture Calvin affirms the creation, in which “we see, indeed, the world with our eyes, we tread the earth with our feet, we touch innumerable kinds of God’s works with our hands, we inhale a sweet and pleasant fragrance from herbs and flowers, we enjoy boundless benefits”.33 Creation is an embodied, knowable, investigable experience, in which God’s powers have been made known, but the history of Creation is known truly by faith through revelation in scripture.34 This leads to the sole section in Calvin’s treatment of creation that Barth assessed as giving sufficient prominence to Christ.35 Once Christ is known by faith all things instruct and raise the believer to God. the invisible kingdom of Christ fills all things, and his spiritual grace is diffused through all. Yet this does not prevent us from applying our senses to the consideration of heaven and earth, that we may thence seek confirmation in the true knowledge of God. For Christ is that image in which God presents to our view, not only his heart, but also his hands and feet. I give the name of his heart to 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

CO 20:120. CO 20:121 CO 23:6–7 CO 23:7 CO 23:5–6 CO 23:9–10 CO 23:5–6 Calvin’s presentation of divine powers/virtues is outlined below. CD III.1.31

49

50

Creator

that secret love with which he embraces us in Christ: by his hands and feet I understand those works of his which are displayed before our eyes. As soon as ever we depart from Christ, there is nothing, be it ever so gross or insignificant in itself, respecting which we are not necessarily deceived.36

True knowledge of God is only fully possible in the final heavenly vision, an eschatological perspective, which is now seen in Christ. At new creation the reign of Christ, by the Spirit, will fill all things but that is not the present state. The future fullness does not obliterate the present embodied creaturely knowledge but prompts the faithful to look to the theatre of divine glory for confirmation of their knowledge of God. Body and soul are quickened together in Christ. From creation, in redemption, and into new creation Christ is key. This approach to knowledge of God is possible because of continuity in Genesis from the history of the creation of the world into the history of restoration, and God’s perpetual protection of the church.37 Calvin affirms his unity with the patriarchs in faith in Christ and that the church has always worshipped God the Creator by faith. The goal of this knowledge revealed in Genesis was, and still is, right worship that issues from faith. Calvin does not hold knowledge of God as Creator and as Redeemer as opposing or separate elements in an epistemic system.38 The two are distinct aspects of knowledge of the one God, who is always known through faith in Christ “so that we may dedicate ourselves completely to his service in all holiness, righteousness, and integrity”.39 In this sermon Calvin again affirms creation as the theatre of God’s glory and the manifestation of his powers, fatherly care, and providence. However, Calvin opens by highlighting the rebellious and wicked rejection of knowledge of God the Creator. Calvin calls this a malicious obscuring and a condemnable shutting of human eyes. Placed in creation to contemplate their Creator humanity are inexcusable for their ingratitude and their defiling of creation by twisting it contrary to its purpose. Pride and presumption reject the Spirit’s witness in the world and the word of God. It is the wilful distortion of the knowledge of God the Creator that makes redemption essential and the provision of the spectacles of scripture a wondrous kindness.40 Human foolishness, which lacks any semblance of reason, leads God to confound all human wisdom by sending his Son to be crucified so that 36 CO 23:10–11 37 This again affirms the coherence of the locus as a whole and the consideration of Creation, the act of creation, creatures, and providence together. 38 For a general discussion of Calvin’s epistemology: Cornelius van der Kooi, “Within Proper Limits: Basic Features of John Calvin’s Theological Epistemology,” CTJ 29, no. 2 (1994): 364–87. 39 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:11 40 CO 23:9

Knowledge of God the Creator

the foolishness of the cross is the only way to know God who is the Redeemer and Creator. When human wisdom is the measure of how God may be known, knowledge of God by faith in Jesus Christ crucified will never be affirmed.41 All present knowledge of God as Creator is by faith and requires the work of the Spirit, such that it is only within the knowledge of the Creator by faith that the theatre of God’s glory and scripture work now together in a complementary manner. Creation and history appreciated by faith draw attention to the Creator’s fatherly care and ongoing provision for his church. Even so, Calvin continues to warn his congregation against any use or contemplation of creation apart from seeking to praise its Author. Calvin speaks to the church who have not yet arrived at a perfected knowledge of God where they may walk by sight and not faith. In his prefatory letter, Argument, and opening sermon Calvin is not addressing the relation of so-called natural knowledge to knowledge which is from revelation by faith. Because he is discussing the content of scripture with the church, in these contexts Calvin approaches the question of how God may be known in light of revelation and faith in Christ. His discussion aims at the knowledge of faith, which manifests itself in true worship. His exposition of these topics never moves beyond the scope and use he sees for scripture at the highest level, in Christ.42 Since the character and possibility of natural theology are not Calvin’s questions, the knowledge of God, its means and end, must be considered differently. Calvin believes that Genesis addresses the rebellious and inexcusable rejection of knowledge of God manifest in the theatre of his glory. Genesis does this by presenting that the Redeemer is the Creator and Ruler of all things. Calvin wants creation to be used to achieve its God-given goal and enjoyed by the faithful as originally intended.43 The unity of Calvin’s thought is striking. Instead of placing natural knowledge into a separate category Calvin embraces the creatureliness of creatures who 41 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:6–7 42 This is not to dismiss the debate of “natural theology” in Calvin’s thought, but to remember the historical and theological context in which Calvin’s thought arises and to affirm the need to be clear what is appropriately attributed to Calvin and which concerns have developed later. Calvin may make a valuable contribution to the interaction of “science” and “religion” but appeal to Calvin without reference to his context remains unwise. Calvin writes primarily for the church and not to twenty- or twenty-first- century persons with a “naturalistic” worldview. Appropriation of Calvin as an observer of creation who opens conversation with “science” must proceed with caution. Zachman is right to contextualise Calvin’s wonder at the stars within Calvin’s broader theology of the Creator and sixteenth-century setting. Randall C. Zachman, Reconsidering John Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 34. 43 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:4

51

52

Creator

know their Creator, showing that he is aware that the nature of the one who is known and the knower affect the relationship and how knowing occurs.44 In the context of reading Genesis this means that the Creator and the creature influence both the process and the content of knowing. The Creator’s incomprehensibility by creatures and inaccessibility to sinful human reason make divine revelation, illumination, and accommodation essential. Likewise creaturely humility, diligent application of faculties, and adoration are necessary for true knowledge. Knowing occurs within the dynamics of the Creator–creature relationship where proud speculation and unbridled flights of fancy are to be avoided. The creature has dual imperatives, first not to overstep her curiosity, because of the awesome majesty of the Creator, and then to thoroughly investigate and fully heed what has been revealed, because of the nature of creatures. Calvin does not see a competitive relationship between so-called natural knowing and knowing by revelation. God uses creaturely means without compromising either his divinity or the creaturely nature of the revelation and the knower. There is no sphere of the creaturely realm that is uncreated, and for creation to glorify its Creator is the most natural thing. There is no quark of the cosmos in which the Creator’s glory is not evident and therefore Calvin directs his congregation to look to the great glories of fingernails and blades of grass.45 In this way we see that the Creator–creature relationship shapes knowing, but there is no closed ceiling or division of knowledge. Instead, belief and unbelief are far more significant than how we know, and the unity of the history of creation and redemption means that the one Lord is Lord of all and that Christ is the mediator once and for all.46 The unity of creation and redemption, which unifies knowing God as Creator and Redeemer, also shows itself in Calvin’s reading of Genesis when he speaks of Moses writing for the childhood of the church. Calvin appreciates gulfs of time, location, language, customs, and education that stand between him and Moses. Yet Calvin emphasises the unity of the church from Adam to Geneva in 1559.47 Differences in circumstances are significant, but can be overlooked in some important respects. Unity of the history of creation with God’s present work of salvation shows itself, as scripture points the ancient church forward to 44 My observations seek a more theological account than that of Bouwsma. For example, William J. Bouwsma “Calvin and the Renaissance Crisis of Knowing,” CTJ 17, no. 2 (1982): 190–211; William J. Bouwsma, “The Two Faces of Humanism, Stoicism and Augustinianism in Renaissance Thought,” in A Usable Past: Essays in European Cultural History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990). 45 Serm. Gen 1:1–2, 1:29–31; SC 11/1:6, 80 46 The unity of creaturely knowing and the role of faith, if anything, may suggest that a Barthian no comes closer to Calvin’s emphases than the alternative. 47 CO 20:120

Knowledge of God the Creator

Christ and the present church back to Christ. Calvin distinguishes the times, but their unity plays a prominent role in his interpretation of scripture and hence the unity of his knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer. The application of Calvin’s doctrine of the knowledge of God in the context of Genesis is not an extended apologetic to those who do not share his faith. Rather, the application is in line with his hermeneutical principles, which appreciate the dynamics of the Creator–creature relationship. Puckett attributes distinct elements in Calvin’s hermeneutic to recognition of the dual human and divine nature of scripture.48 This is of some use but the broader doctrinal context is the Creator–creature relationship in which this is one element. The Creator is not a hostile invader of his own creation, he comes to that which is his own, and as far as Calvin is concerned humanity is the only wilfully rebellious creature in physical creation.49 While subject to frustration and suffering because of humanity, non-human creation does not need to be coerced or redeemed to yield itself obedient to the Creator’s purposes. The heavens fulfil rather than distort their nature when they declare the Creator’s glory. Likewise, human language fulfils its creaturely nature, showing the admirable goodness of God, as it proclaims the gospel.50 In Calvin’s understanding language is as much the creaturely means for punishment or blessing as rain and storms. In light of his doctrine of the knowledge of God, within the framework of the relation of Creator and creature, Calvin’s application of historical, linguistic, or rhetorical analysis is entirely fitting and evidence of piety as it uses creaturely goods for their proper end.51 However, because these never operate outside the relation of Creator and creature, the details hold together within the broader context and purpose of these creaturely goods. These elements in Calvin’s hermeneutic are not opposed or in competition but are complementary components of a single theological whole. Calvin does not have so-called scientific (or so-called humanistic) findings that are at odds with faith, nor 48 Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis, 140. These dual nature descriptions are Puckett’s. There may be wisdom in refraining from seeing analogies to the hypostatic union in Christ’s incarnation in scripture and its interpretation. Compare: P.R. Wells, James Barr and the Bible: Critique of a New Liberalism (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1980), 340–79. 49 This is distinguished from spiritual realms and powers of angels and demons. This will be evident in the example of humans and animals explored more fully in the chapter concerning creatures. 50 Comm. Gen 11:7; CO 23:167 51 The relation of Calvin’s practice to his theology is the main point of interest here. Because of its theological focus, in this analysis Calvin’s “humanism” is a secondary concern. Older studies continue to be useful in this area. See: Bohatec, Budé und Calvin; Bohatec, “Calvin et l’humanisme”; Quirinus Breen, John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism (Hamden: Archon books, 1968); Alexandre Ganoczy, Die Hermeneutik Calvins (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983); Ganoczy, The Young Calvin.

53

54

Creator

knowledge of the Creator opposed to knowledge of the Redeemer. Rather, the one God makes himself known as Creator and Redeemer in scripture through faith in Christ. That all of scripture concerns Christ and that there is sufficient and effective witness to him does not mean Calvin believes scripture gives exhaustive knowledge on all subjects. Calvin knows there are more intricacies to creation, both visible and invisible, than Moses sets forth in Genesis, but this does not stop him from admonishing both the educated and uneducated to heed what Moses actually says.52 Scriptural teaching is for the whole church and fit for God’s purposes, but it exhausts neither the wonders of creation, nor the Creator. Having made these observations about the knowledge of God from Calvin on Genesis we step back once more to draw a comparison with the Institutes, which has structured so much of the discussion of Calvin on this issue. It is evident that Calvin on Genesis addresses similar matters regarding the knowledge of God the Creator as treated in the Institutes, such as creation as the theatre of God’s glory, the rejection of this knowledge by proud and idolatrous humanity, and the gracious and effective provision of scripture that proclaims the Creator and Redeemer who may be known by faith in Christ. The goal of true knowledge in adoration stands as a priority in each context. In either context a competitive division between so-called natural and specially revealed knowledge is unheard of. All creaturely knowing is creaturely and stands in a moral relation to the Creator characterised primarily by belief or unbelief. Who the Creator is determines how and for what end he is to be known. The similarities do not erase the differences of genre and where knowledge of God the Creator falls in the larger structure of the works. Calvin treats creation’s declaration of the Creator and the trustworthiness of scripture differently in the Institutes and his sermon on Genesis 1. Proclaiming God’s Word to the church makes moot the question of whether God may be known. From his pulpit on the morning of Monday 4th of September 1559 Calvin believes the Creator spoke. A humble creaturely hearing of the word is the only appropriate response, so that there is no place to ask, “Did God really say…?” The Institutes may illuminate the structural place of the knowledge of God the Creator in Calvin’s thought, but Genesis illustrates that debating the means of knowledge pales before hearing the Creator speak. Overall, Creation comes in the context of the knowledge of God in Christ that is by faith, which is a lively relationship of creaturely adoration and worship of the Creator. Calvin does not have an isolated doctrine of creation but always includes the Creator because of his larger goals. To know God as Creator and Provider is the intention of the Spirit and Moses in Genesis. 52 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:9

God the Creator

So far this chapter has observed that the doctrine of God is closely related to the doctrine of creation. Calvin approaches the knowledge of God in the context of the two-fold relationship to the Creator and Redeemer, which means knowing in a creaturely mode and participating in the fellowship of the church of Christ. Calvin’s purposes are not apologetic engagement with science in opposition to faith, but rather a hermeneutic of creaturely humility before the divine Word, for the sake of true piety. The relation of Creator to creation is not incidental proximity, nor creation as an independently considered means of knowledge. With this background in place the content of Calvin’s teaching about God the Creator according to Genesis may be considered.53

2.3 God the Creator

Calvin describes God as “the artificer, the architect, the bountiful father of a family”, and gives many details about not only the Creator’s activity but also his nature.54 The general ordering of topics followed below moves from those treating God in himself to those attributes explicitly displayed to creatures in the theatre of divine glory. As we shall see, this arrangement does not reflect a move from lesser to greater certainty. The sequence is not from elements that are more or less essential to God, since Calvin does not consider God in conflict with himself but in perfect harmony; the order does not reflect relative importance or division within God himself. The sequence from God in himself to God as he is toward creatures reflects order in the knowledge of creatures of their Creator rather than an order within God in himself.55 Calvin also believes this knowledge is given in accordance with the Creator’s goodness, wisdom, and loving purposes for creatures. The purpose for which knowledge is given, the divine intention and usefulness of this knowledge, determines Calvin’s exposition of it. For example, in Genesis, the amount of exposition given to God as fountain of being and goodness is greater than the amount of exposition given to God’s triunity. The Creator has chosen to make

53 Further theological connections and the function of this part of the doctrine will also be explored as God’s external works and creatures considered. 54 Comm. Gen 2:2; CO 23:32 55 The diversity of material below sourced from beyond Genesis 1–3 supports this as does the restraint with which Calvin approaches God’s inner life. This is harmonious with general observations of Calvin’s priority for God as he is towards creatures. We shall see that Calvin articulates realities relevant to God’s inner life, but is keenly aware that knowledge of God is supremely God for creatures. Karen Kilby’s proposal of an apophatic trinitarianism comes to mind. See Karen Kilby, “Is an apophatic trinitarianism possible?,” IJST 12, no. 1 (2010): 65–77.

55

56

Creator

more of particular attributes known than other things about him because, according to Calvin, this is more useful for the creature. Therefore the proportion of time spent on different aspects of the doctrine of God will be different in exposition of a different passage of scripture, because the use for the believer will be different. Calvin’s pastoral concerns come to the fore at this point. The proportions of doctrine presented are shaped by pedagogic needs. With details to follow, the arrangement of topics within Calvin’s doctrine of God the Creator is presented in the following way. L’Eternal is the first section heading about who the Creator is. This was Calvin’s preferred translation of the divine name in his second French translation of the Genesis commentary. Here it stands over elements of Calvin’s doctrine of God which are not always explicit, but which ground his doctrine in the Christian tradition and conceptual framework of his time. In God himself these things are no more essential than what follows but for creatures to know their Creator these things—that God is, that he is Father, Son, and Spirit, that he is both unique and in unity with himself, and that he was, is, and is to come—will conceptually provide a framework for the rest. The second group of attributes emphasises the difference between the Creator and his creation. The Creator is infinitely distinct. Calvin distinguishes the Creator as the one who is not constrained, who does not change, who does not suffer, who is not visible and physical. While emphasising difference these attributes are positive and enabling the relation of Creator and creature instead of hindering it. The third grouping, which characterises the Creator as abundantly for creatures, draws out the manner in which the Creator is all for the creature in his very self. The Creator’s abundance of life and goodness overflows to creatures without exhaustion. The Creator is all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, and worthy of all praise. In these ways, in accordance with his being, the Creator executes his counsel and purposes for creatures in all things. The final heading, virtues, is Calvin’s own collection of power, goodness, mercy, justice, righteousness, wisdom, and glory. Calvin sees these vertus/virtutes manifest in the theatre of creation. While ‘powers’ may be a more direct translation naming them divine virtues better captures the moral character of these attributes. Under these headings Calvin’s teaching on the Creator is summarised in this way: l’Eternal is infinitely distinct and abundantly for creatures in his virtues. The next sections will examine these distinct emphases of Calvin’s account. The chapter will then conclude with summary and reflection on the distinctive contribution of the Genesis material at this point.

God the Creator

2.3.1 L’Eternal

Calvin’s teaching on the divine nature as existence in itself, as unique and united, as triune, and as eternal is gathered here under the divine name, l’Eternal. These elements are conceptually basic and have deep roots in Calvin’s reading of scripture and his inheritance of Christian tradition. They are not always explicit but frame his thought about God. First, Calvin never questions the Creator’s existence. Calvin assumes with scripture that the God-who-is addresses him here. To speak of God’s being Calvin uses the language of divine essence. For example, about the Spirit hovering over the waters: “there are three distinct persons in one and the same singular essence of God”.56 This could be understood in such a way that the essence of God is of what the persons are made. Calvin also relates God’s essence to Jesus Christ and inner power.57 Calvin is aware of historic debates about substance, but chooses to use the language of essence in his preaching. Two further exemplary references to essence can be found in Calvin’s commentary. First, as Calvin expounds elohim in Genesis 1:1 oneness of essence contrasts with the plural form referring to powers enfolded in essence, which are exercised in creation.58 Second, Calvin is reluctant to see Genesis 1:1 as direct evidence supporting the tri-unity of God, but he is pleased to read Genesis 11:7 as such. Here again, as in the sermons, persons and essence are considered together.59 The paucity of these references show Calvin’s hesitance to speculate abstractly, but neither does he ignore God’s essence since it is foundational for his discussion of being. Divine tri-unity is a second foundational idea.60 Calvin’s theology is always Christian theology and hence he understands God always as the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a revealed truth, which cannot be fully fathomed by creaturely minds, but must be humbly received without being completely understood.61 Reliance on revelation and a lack of speculation does not prevent Calvin from specifying trinitarian details even amid the non-theologically focused genres of preaching or commentary.

56 57 58 59 60

Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:11. See also Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:56 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:14 Comm. Gen 1:1; CO 23:15 Comm. Gen 11:7; CO 23:167 Muller observes, “Calvin’s discussion of God in the Institutes is, in large part, an exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity, albeit prefaced with a discussion of the infinite, spiritual essence of God.” Calvin’s attention on the trinity is honed by controversies. As evident, below the proportions of Calvin’s doctrine of God are entirely different in his treatment of Genesis. Muller, PRRD, vol. 3, 88. 61 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:11

57

58

Creator

Calvin holds unswervingly to a trinitarian position but does not wish to argue for the trinity in a way that he believes does violence to the text of scripture. Calvin carefully discerns when he wishes to argue for the trinity and in what manner. His comment on elohim in Genesis 1:1 shows this as, unlike some others, he is unwilling to use this verse to argue for the trinity.62 Calvin agrees with trinitarian conclusions, even the motivation to counter Arius, but he thinks the argument made from the text might open the door to Sabellius so it is inadmissible.63 More than a millennia of theological debate and history of commentary on this verse inform Calvin, while he also considers more recent theological knots and the subtlety that misconceived arguments can bring into play. In sermons Calvin generally refrains from naming debates that are not current, but his exposition remains informed by deep tradition without bringing it to the surface. Calvin happily, and in an informed manner, takes up language of persons, generation, and trinity. He seeks arguments that accord with both the conclusions and manner of the tradition. Calvin does expound the trinity from the first person plural in Genesis 1:26. Here it is the supremacy and sufficiency found in God alone that mean persons are sought in the one God rather than externally. Calvin understands the cohortative, “Let us,” as expressing consultation even though the Creator is not at this point deciding for the first time what will be done. The dignity of divine consultation can only belong to him in trinity because external counsel is unbecoming and unnecessary for the one God.64 Therefore Calvin concludes that the one supreme Creator is triune. God is certainly one, but Calvin also distinctly discusses the persons in his exposition of Genesis. At some points Calvin identifies the second and third persons with wisdom and power. He does not make this equation with every occurrence of wisdom or power, but judiciously applies the language where context pushes him to trinitarian exposition. For example, when expounding Genesis 1:26, the speaker is the Father as he consults. “Now the father has been like the sovereign cause and the source of all things, and he enters here into counsel with his wisdom and his power. We have declared by this before, that our Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal wisdom who resides in God and there has always had his essence. There’s one! The Holy Spirit is his power.”65 The fact that Calvin needs to specify this affirms that God without qualification is not only the Father, but rather the triune Creator. 62 For example: Stauffer, “L’exegese de Genese 1, 1–3 chez Luther et Calvin”; Dae-Woo, “God’s Creation in Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis and in Capito’s Hexameron Dei Opus.” 63 Comm. Gen 1:1; CO 23:15 64 Comm. Gen 1:26; CO 23:25 65 Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:57

God the Creator

Calvin on Father, Son, and Spirit may be considered in turn. Calvin encountered less theological controversies about God the Father than the other two persons. Therefore, the Father’s deity is not explicitly defended. As above, there are times when the Father is affirmed as sovereign ruler and source of all things. In contrast to Adam’s creation and family, which show derived fatherhood, God’s fatherhood is eternal and proper to himself rather than dependent on another.66 Sharing fatherhood with creatures in no way diminishes the honour and eternity of God. Even as they partake, creatures should acknowledge that God “remains the sovereign father”.67 Fatherhood intimates authority, care, tenderness, affection, dedication at cost to self, discipline, and indulgence of children’s faults.68 Adam knows God in a fatherly kind of relationship and this is true perpetually for all his offspring.69 God’s eternal fatherhood proper to himself is in the background and not the foreground of this relationship.70 Considering the second person, God the Son is fully divine, he is a distinct person, and he is the eternal Word who is unlike passing human words. In creation and redemption, “when Moses introduces God speaking, he has joined him with the person of his only Son who is his word, not fluttering into the air, but his word residing in himself, who has his essence and eternal divinity”.71 Thanks to Servetus Calvin finds more occasions to defend the deity of the Son than the other persons. The Word of God is “the eternal wisdom who has always resided in God the father”.72 Reside evokes other dwelling and indwelling language from the tradition. The eternal Word resides in the Father and full deity resides in him. The Word is true as the Son is true God and this Word is the Lord Jesus Christ.73 Therefore, Calvin unites creation and redemption by one subject. The incarnate Word retains his divine essence, dwelling in him.74 The Son’s divinity is staunchly defended by Calvin from Genesis. New Testament forms and arguments inform him, but he does not rush there. The Word acts in the beginning and in the rest of the story, that is the rest of the story that Moses unfolds, the rest of the story in the New Testament, and the rest of the story in the lives of Calvin and his congregation. 66 Serm. Gen 4:1–5; SC 11/1:241 67 Serm. Gen 4:1–5; SC 11/1:242 68 Calvin does not list such a group of fatherly attributes all at once, but this is the sum of fatherly images. 69 Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:54 70 This reading is similar to Stauffer’s presentation of divine fatherliness among the divine attributes. DCP, 110–11. 71 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:28 72 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:14 73 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:75 74 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:6–7

59

60

Creator

Finally, God the Spirit is less controversial than the Son. Calvin’s first argument in Genesis upholding the Word’s deity begins with the Spirit’s eternity, for the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.75 From a brief text Calvin rests with church tradition informed by the whole canon. The Spirit can be identified with God’s power but he is never impersonal, just as identifying the Son with God’s Word does not depersonalise him. The Spirit pervades creaturely reality as he nurtures and renews, directing and affirming faith. The triune Creator is fully divine God in three persons. Calvin staunchly defends trinitarian theology and from the text launches his hearers by this theology into adoration. Alongside God’s essence and tri-unity, Calvin holds that the Creator is one. Calvin understands divine oneness in a way that affirms both God’s uniqueness and divine unity. First then, God is unique. It is fundamental that there is one true and living God. All other gods are idols. Calvin’s initial Argument in his Genesis commentary connects faith’s knowing creation with contemplating the true and only God. Calvin comments on the singular and eternal being of God when the divine name first occurs in Genesis 2:4.76 Calvin’s translation choices reflect this. One of the few changes between French editions of Calvin’s commentary on Genesis was changing the translation of the name from Lord to Eternal.77 The emphasis shifts slightly to who God is, from God as ruler. God is the singular one who was and is and is to come.78 Second, concerning divine oneness, Calvin links uniqueness to internal unity. The Creator is one in himself without division. Calvin is careful to assert the oneness of the Creator when the plural form elohim is used in Genesis 1:1, reasoning that multiplicity of ascription does not equate to multiplicity of being. God may be known in various aspects, but there is one God in one simple 75 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:10 76 Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:91–92 77 Before the availability of Hebrew texts, such as Munster’s in 1535, Vulgate translations made no differentiation between the names of God in Genesis chapters one and two. Olivetan’s 1535 edition of the French Bible translates Genesis 2:4 as Seigneur Dieu with a marginal note *ou Eternal. Stauffer claims that Calvin follows Olivetan’s translation on this issue. DCP, 111. Since, l’Eternal appears as a marginal note it appears that Calvin is actively choosing this for himself rather than simply following Olivetan at this point. This variation allows Calvin to dwell on an aspect of the divine life which emphasises distinction from creatures. This is in contrast to the divine virtues he sees displayed for creatures’ sake in the use of elohim and also in contrast to a more “relational” description such as Lord or Ruler. The availability of such alternatives and Calvin’s association of l’Eternal with the divine name is why I have chosen this as the title for this sub-section. 78 While Stauffer does not make anything of this change in usage theologically in the following chapter I will argue that Calvin understands the act of creation as a purposeful beginning occurring in and with time. As such, a contrast between creatures and l’Eternal in Genesis may have more theological significance than Stauffer allows.

God the Creator

essence.79 Calvin pastorally applies this to human propensity for polytheism. He asserts God’s aseity and his uniqueness, God is One in the fullest possible sense, to combat idolatry. God “has one simple essence and that we must not misappropriate or imagine any division in him”.80 This strong account of God’s oneness stands behind many of Calvin’s other statements, for example God’s oneness extended through history links to divine immutability and faithfulness. Where human reason fails, Calvin upholds God’s consistency and hence his inscrutability.81 This first section could be concluded at this point. However, Calvin’s choice to translate the divine name as l’Eternal brings in divine eternity and it also forms a conceptual bridge into the next collection of attributes, which emphasise divine distinction from creation. Calvin follows Augustine with a conception of a divine timeless eternity, hence the absurdity of questions about any before creation.82 All things are present to God, but this present is neither a single temporal moment, nor a single spatial point with multidimensional access to every other. The Creator is ontologically distinct including with respect to time. The Creator is eternal, without beginning and without end; God was, is, and is to come. With Romans 1:20 standing in the background, Calvin says “his divinity and power are eternal” and references the “eternity of times and the infinity of the glory of God” in the Argument to his commentary.83 Calvin presses this as a distinction between Creator and creation that cannot be fathomed and therefore describes the infinity and eternity as a double labyrinth that cannot be solved by human reason. Eternity is an essentially divine characteristic. As occasion arises from the text Calvin asserts that eternity belongs to each of the persons. When preaching and commenting on Genesis 1:2 Calvin understands ruah as the “eternal spirit of God”.84 Therefore, he preaches so that his congregation may ascribe full divinity to Father, Son, and Spirit, reasoning that this full divinity is certain because each is eternal and eternity is proper to God in himself.85 Another occasion to reflect on God’s eternity occurs when God 79 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:7 80 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:7 81 Calvin’s Genesis material stands many years removed from his confrontation with Pierre Caroli in which Caroli charged Calvin, Farel, and Viret with Arianism. Calvin wrote against Caroli in 1537 (CO 9:703–10) and 1545 (CO 7:289–340). See: Richard C. Gamble, “Calvin’s Theological Model: The Case of Caroli,” in Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag: Festschrift für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Van’t Spijker (Kampen: Kok, 1991), 130–37. 82 See notes below on Blocher and Helm regarding Calvin on eternity. 83 CO 23:7, 9 84 Comm. Gen 1:2; CO 23:16 85 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:10

61

62

Creator

speaks in Genesis 1:3. Here Calvin draws on John 1 to defend the eternity of the Word “against the blasphemy of that cursed dog Servetus”.86 The difference between the atemporal Creator and creation, which has a beginning in time, is key at this point, as there is a hidden eternity internal uniquely belonging to God.87 These statements are exegetically based and pastorally motivated, but they are informed by the wider testimony of scripture and a theological framework that connects other doctrinal issues to a single word in the text. The eternity of the Creator is directly relevant to Calvin’s trinitarian theology upholding the divinity of the persons as they share a single essence, one God eternally triune. Calvin will not compromise on these basic ways of understanding the Creator. As mentioned above, this is not because these are any more basic in God himself, but these elements form conceptual foundations. These elements take a logical priority for Calvin without thereby privileging them ontologically in God’s being. 2.3.2 Infinitely Distinct

The second group of terms characterising the Creator emphasises a distinction between the Creator and creation. God is not constrained, does not change, does not suffer, and is not visible and physical, yet these enable the relation of Creator and creature instead of hindering it. An uncreated Creator and a created creation is the distinction at play. The uncreated nature of the Creator has particular corollaries, ones that speak of the Creator’s independence and his infinite beatitude.88 The Creator is not augmented by creation in any way, he lacks nothing, he is fully satisfied, his goodness overflows in creation, but there is no necessity to creation from the Creator’s side. Creation does not complete the Creator; the Creator is whole in himself and therefore free in his gracious rule. Calvin works this out in several ways. One manifestation of this is the Creator’s unconstrained will to do good to rebellious creatures. He may resolve by an inward decree that in no way depends on creatures, as he does when resolving in his heart not to flood the world again.89 The potter’s authority is unquestionable as he may do with the clay as he chooses, and equally the Creator is the rule of good and perfection.90 Therefore, creatures must humbly yield “in order to give him glory and to leave freedom to him, that he has sovereignty, and which the whole world 86 87 88 89 90

Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:14 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:14 Comm. Gen 6:6; CO 23:118 Comm. Gen 8:21; CO 23:139 Serm. Gen 9:22–29; SC 11/1:520

God the Creator

cannot remove from him”.91 This is in the context of seeking to plumb deeper reasons than God himself for God’s mercy in election. This freedom is not an abstract question, but the particular freedom of the Creator to sovereignly act as Redeemer without being hindered by the rebellion of the creature. The Creator’s goodness is not constrained by the creature’s pride. Creatures are to be subject to “their measurement and their boundaries, in which God has placed them” but this relationship is irreversible.92 The Creator is glorious, free, gracious sovereign in his realm and the rebellion of creatures cannot deny him that. Another manifestation of this boundless goodness is that there is no temporal need for creation sooner than it happened,93 nor is there any necessity in God’s manner of creating.94 When the Creator chooses to use creaturely means it is because he chooses to do so, not because he needs them.95 Creation cannot impose itself on the Creator as a necessary entity nor impose necessary means. Calvin guards this lack of necessity from being construed as disinterest or disengagement. Creatures pervert the Creator’s freedom when they want to be abandoned to earthly pleasure by a Creator entirely satisfied in heaven. The graciousness of creation, underwritten by freedom, prompts relationship instead of severing it, therefore Calvin preaches God’s freedom in accordance with his majesty, goodness and love.96 Transcendence and difference from creatures does not drive a wedge between them and the Creator. In fact, God’s freedom underscores the gratuity of creation and hence the enjoyment creatures can find in the Creator as well as the love and worship they express. The graciousness of creation is underscored by the Creator’s freedom. The uncreated Creator is infinitely distinct from the creature in his infinite beatitude, his will for good, and his power to act in creation; and because of this the Creator is unconstrained and free in his relationship with creatures. This is not the freedom of a theoretical or idle deity, but the freedom of the Creator in Christ, not necessarily but graciously for creatures. Divine immutability is another attribute where the Creator stands distinct from his creation. The Creator’s unchanging nature is virtually axiomatic so that change in God is inconceivable.97 Servetus’ challenge to God’s immutability is ridiculous. It is unquestionable that God does not change and change is a matter of creaturely perception rather than proper to God himself.98 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Serm. Gen 9:22–29; SC 11/1:520 Serm. Gen 10:1–32; SC 11/1:543 CO 23:8–9 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:10 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:33 Serm. Gen 4:23–26; SC 11/1:314–15 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:14 Comm. Gen 6:6; CO 23:118

63

64

Creator

From the case of Abimelech in Genesis 20, Calvin applies God’s immutability to all pronouncements of condemnation that are not enacted. Calvin explains that this is only a perceived knot. In this case God first declares to Abimelech, “You are a dead man,” but later adds an escape clause if he returns Sarah. This is problematic “because it is thought to be either a sign of a change in plan, or that God’s word pretends to be other than what he decreed to himself ”.99 This logic applies to Abimelech and to others such as the Ninevites preached to by Jonah. However, every threat of judgement not immediately executed contains an invitation to repentance, whether explicitly stated or not. “Hence we are to learn, the intention of those threats and denunciations, with which God terrifies men; namely, forcibly to impel those to repentance, who are too backward… the meaning of both expressions is the same.”100 God always wants people to repent. Thus God’s relenting is not a change from his intention, nor is God’s absolute declaration of destruction a lie, because if they do not repent that is indeed what will happen. Immutability does not oppose mercy.101 God does not repent of being God so he can grant creatures hope of repentance. Immutability is, concretely, the unchanging mercy and justice of God. Evidence concerning divine immutability can also be found more broadly in Calvin’s sermons. Calvin has a strong understanding of the Creator’s immutability and thence the distinction from creation.102 God’s distinct immutability upholds creatures rather than extinguishing them. God’s immutability underscores his reliability in his purposes, his actions, his words, and his relationship with creation because God cannot renounce himself.103 The Creator is immutable and eternal, while creation changes and has beginning and end. This distinction does not erase relationship, but makes relationship possible on the basis of unending faithfulness. Calvin is interested in the pastoral implications; he preaches divine immutability again and again. For example, the Creator’s unchanging nature comforts in the face of murder.104 Additionally, God’s immutability is a refuge for the godly closely linked with his providence.105 99 Comm. Gen 20:7; CO 23:290 100 Comm. Gen 20:7; CO 23:290 101 Stauffer finds Calvin’s argument reconciling divine repentance and immutability unconvincing. Stauffer assumes that tension remains between divine justice and mercy in Calvin’s thought. Calvin preaches the harmony of the divine nature for the comfort of those who already know God’s mercy in Christ and for whom divine immutability may prove assuring. Calvin does not thoroughly develop a christological reconciliation of these attributes in his treatment of Genesis. DCP, 107–08, also footnote 28 to chapter 3. 102 Serm. Gen 4:1–5; SC 11/1:248 103 Serm. Gen 4:10–12; SC 11:277, 282 104 Serm. Gen 4:10–12; SC 11/1:286 105 Serm. Gen 4:12–14; SC 11/1:293

God the Creator

The Creator is distinct and unlike creation as he is unconstrained and unchanging. These also work themselves out in the Creator’s impassibility. Even when Calvin describes interpretations of scripture different to his own he qualifies that they do not say God is moved by affections.106 Divine impassibility can be clarified by examining what it does not mean. Calvin upholds God’s impassibility without shying away from language resembling human emotion or speaking as though God were experiencing suffering with his people. Calvin assures his congregation of God’s love and mercy toward them, going so far that God will be with them.107 As Calvin expounds how precious his congregation are to God, he catches himself to say: “it is true that he is impassible”, but he immediately returns to comforting his hearers.108 Believers may perceive the Creator as though he suffers with them, but this does not reflect any true passibility in God that might make him dependent on creation or changeable. It is not that God is pretending passions, but the experience of believers is of such care and immediacy from God that it appears that God enters into their experience at this point. Another qualification of the impassibility that distinguishes the Creator from creation is that it does not affirm wickedness as good. Calvin speaks of God in the unavoidable grief of the righteous Lord meeting sin. This grief should not lead creatures to question God in himself, but to grieve for their sin that defaces the image of their maker.109 This is the creaturely experience of the impassible God and is possible because the Creator is not in competition with his creation, but is able to make himself known to his creatures in these moments in this way. Distance between Creator and creatures cannot be crossed except by God’s fatherly condescension and it is in his fatherly condescension that the Creator is known. Calvin’s emphasis on God as he is towards creatures shows itself at this point. Calvin exegetes the text primarily with reference to believer’s experience instead of speculative theological concerns. Calvin distinguishes what is true of God in himself, which he believes from elsewhere in his theology, from his immediate exposition of Genesis to his congregation. This is an example of Calvin’s theology influencing his preaching. Calvin will not compromise God’s impassibility for stronger rhetorical impact. He preaches to a certain point then qualifies his statement since he wants to assure his hearers that it is the impassible Creator who holds them dear and will enter into their experience of suffering. The

106 107 108 109

Comm. Gen 11:6; CO 23:166 Serm. Gen 4:12–14; SC 11/1:294 Serm. Gen 4:12–14; SC 11/1:294 Serm. Gen 6:5–8; SC 11/1:374

65

66

Creator

impassible Creator is the one grieved by evil. The Creator cares for creatures while remaining absolutely unlike creatures. The final attribute of God in this section is divine invisibility and spirituality. It is appropriate to place invisibility here as a matter of distinction. Akin to God not being constrained, not changing, and not suffering, he is not seen. As humans are embodied creatures this marks a distinction between them and God, and shapes how God is known. However, it must be acknowledged that Calvin’s concept of creation is vastly greater than a purely materialistic one. Calvin’s universe is full of angels and demons, and alive with the Spirit of God; each human has their own invisible and spiritual component. According to Calvin and contrary to Augustine, Genesis 1 deals only “with the world’s visible form”.110 Nonetheless, the Creator is distinct as he is the infinite Spirit, unconstrained and uncontained. The Creator is infinitely invisible in the sense that creatures can never fathom him. The infinity of the Creator’s invisibility and spirituality is not only a matter of degree, but the Creator’s existence being qualitatively on a separate register to creaturely being.111 Angels have more in common with humans as creatures than they do with an infinitely invisible and spiritual Creator. Since Calvin always addresses embodied humanity, God’s purely invisible and spiritual nature emphasises difference from the creature. From his first paragraph from his first sermon in Genesis Calvin affirms the Creator “is of his nature and in his essence invisible”,112 and repeats the point near the start of the second sermon.113 A similar point occurs early in the Argument to his commentary.114 At all three points Calvin discusses knowledge of God. This is the context where Calvin puts forward the Creator’s spiritual nature. As spirit the Creator cannot be directly seen, so is only known as he shows himself through his external works. This concern echoes the early chapters of the Institutes. At these opening stages in Genesis this links with knowledge of God in the creation in general. However, in the sixth sermon the context is knowledge of God in our Lord Jesus Christ.115 Calvin highlights the Creator’s invisibility when defending how and what of Him creatures may know. Invisibility means the relationship of Creator and creation will function in a particular mode, but it does not inhibit the Creator’s interaction with the visible. 110 Comm. Gen 1:6; CO 23:18 111 Sonderegger has recently emphasised hiddenness as a mode of divine presence. Sonderegger, Systematic Theology, 49–147. 112 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:1 113 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:14 114 CO 23:7 115 Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:57

God the Creator

Invisibility stands alongside impassibility, immutability, and independence as divine attributes that mark the Creator’s infinite distinction from his creation. The uncreated one is vastly different from those who are created and so are necessarily dependent, changeable, affected by their circumstances, and seen by another. These differences will shape the relationship between the Creator and creation in particular ways. Despite their negative titles, not constrained, not changing, not suffering, not seen, these are positive characteristics. The very fact that these things are infinite means that God in himself is not limited by creatures or in his relation to them. The infinite life of God in himself continues in his unity and triunity, eternally, and it is in this infinity and constancy that Calvin can then understand the abundance of the divine life to overflow to creatures. Therefore, although this group of attributes may be phrased more negatively than the next, this is not because they are ultimately negative attributes or the product of apophaticism. Since this group emphasises distinction and difference, it may also be construed as contradictory to scriptural narrative descriptions of the Creator’s interaction with creatures, or not doing justice to the anthropomorphism prevalent in Genesis’ description of God. Calvin’s exegetical gymnastics explaining instances of divine repentance, or preaching of impassibility might be evidence for such a case. This line of argument defines relationships in creaturely terms and then discovers that the infinitely distinct Creator falls outside the bounds of these. However, Calvin’s deep wrestling with the reality of human fellowship with the Creator in Genesis may be defended. Calvin insists that creaturely perception of the Creator does not comprehend the infinite depths of the divine life in distinction from its own experience. The experience of changability and suffering is constitutive and defining for the creature in relation to the Creator. This interaction is genuine, but it is the immutable and impassible Lord of all on whom creatures depend at this point. As well as other scriptural founts, attributes such as these form a mutually entailing description of the infinite uncreated One. Moreover, these distinctions are foundational to divine faithfulness and the endurance of the Creator’s fatherly care. Calvin understands the scriptural witness to truly depict the covenantal fellowship of Creator and creatures. Yet this does not compromise the distinction of Creator from creatures, nor draw the Creator into a constrained relation. The creature always remains a creature. Taken alone this group of attributes is a false depiction of the Creator and cannot do justice to the complex narrative presentation of covenant fellowship. However, Calvin’s portrait of the Creator is far fuller than this. He holds together the distinctive attributes with more positively framed descriptions of divine

67

68

Creator

fullness. These express more positively how Calvin understands the lack of limitation to be divine abundance for creatures. 2.3.3 Abundantly for Creatures

The Creator is not only without limits, but also positively for creation in accord with God’s very self. Life and goodness overflow to creatures without exhaustion from the one who is all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, worthy of all praise, and works out all things in accordance with his pleasure. This final point is important because Calvin does not hold to a divine emanationism due to overflowing abundance, but rather the divine fountain is always directed in accordance with the Creator’s good, pleasing, and perfect will. Calvin never plays off different parts of God against himself, but continues to hold to divine unity with divine infinity. The first way the Creator is abundantly for creatures is as the Creator abounds as source of existence and fountain of goodness. Life and every good thing are freely given to creatures each moment. The Creator as source is prominent through Calvin’s preaching of Genesis 1:1–2 where he makes similar statements five times in his first sermon.116 Dwelling on the action of creation in the beginning, Calvin specifies that “all has been made from nothing because there is essence only in God alone, and we take from him everything that we have”.117 God as source of being means all being must also continue in him and be upheld by him.118 The Creator gives being initially and continually because there is nothing except in him, and being returns to nothing apart from him. The Creator as source of being is concentrated in the opening Genesis sermons, but the language is not absent later. Calvin describes creatures at war with their Creator as defying the one “who created us and who is the fountain of life”.119 He counsels the godly to seek their welfare in the Creator “as far as he is the fountain from which all flows onto us”.120 This overflowing means that the Creator fills all things.121 Calvin identifies the Creator with life itself.122 Calvin establishes the matter from creation, particularly the verb to create and then later draws out theological and pastoral implications. He does not establish the

116 117 118 119 120 121 122

For example Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:1, 7 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:8 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:11 “qui nous a creez et qui est la fontaine de vie”. Serm. Gen 7:6–10; SC 11/1:417 Serm. Gen 9:1–3; SC 11/1:468 Serm. Gen 11:5–9; SC 11/2:555 ‘Dieu donc pourra bien estre la vie, la source pourra estre en luy’. This life overflows to humanity by God’s parole. Calvin will then look to John 1 and connect this source of life with Christ as Redeemer and Creator. Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:114

God the Creator

point from other places in Genesis, but makes conclusions from God’s inner life as he preaches and teaches the rest of the book. Calvin is aware that ascribing all being to the Creator may lead some to argue that he created and is the source of evil or corruption. However, Calvin holds that creation is good and such accusations are impious delusions.123 With other unreferenced scriptures, Calvin bases this on the Creator’s declaration that his work is very good. God honours himself as the source and cause of all blessing and worship expresses creaturely acknowledgement thereof.124 The Creator’s goodness covers all creation from waters above to waters below.125 The Creator’s fountain is inexhaustible and once begun will flow without ceasing, so the earth would abound even today if still under blessing.126 As a result, Calvin counsels creatures to find goodness and joy in the fountain of good, God himself.127 The fountain flows boundlessly for creatures. The unlimited supply means creatures should seek goodness from this source more and more since the supply is never lessened by its overflow.128 Calvin also links life and goodness with limitless light and power in the Creator. Calvin dwells on God’s inner light and power as he considers creation of light on Day One.129 Possessing these in himself distinguishes the Creator from creation. The Creator does not turn to anything outside himself to find light or the power to bring it forth. Calvin uses this point to explain that the life-giving Spirit is not exhausted as he proceeds from the Son to creatures.130 The trinitarian shape of creaturely enjoyment of the divine abundance continues to hold true. Abundance in himself joins with the Creator’s freedom to make the supply of life and goodness entirely gratuitous to the creature. Calvin summarises the Creator’s lesson to Adam about life in the garden by saying that it “does not come from you, but from the pure grace and liberality of God”.131 More than once Calvin reminds his congregation that the blessing of life comes from outside the creature “from the pure liberality of God”.132 All good and every moment is gift. Even in the garden Jesus Christ mediates this gift to Adam.133 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

Comm. Gen 3:1; CO 23:54 Comm. Gen 18:18; CO 23:257; Serm. Gen 12:5–9; SC 11/2:611 Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:422 Serm. Gen 3:17–18; SC 11/1:213 Comm. Gen 15:1; CO 23:208 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:105 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:17 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:98 Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:113 Serm. Gen 2:15–17, 3:22–24; SC 11/1:116, 232 Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:116

69

70

Creator

Calvin’s theology of the Mediator is thus integrated with his exposition of the Creator’s infinite goodness and abundant life. Generosity marks God’s works from creation through to those in redemption.134 Calvin upholds infinite life and goodness abounding in the Creator that are never diminished or exhausted by manifestation in creation for creatures. Light and power are also full in the Creator and creatures receive these from him. This abundance overflows in entirely free and gratuitous gift. Also, as the Creator expresses grace to creatures through Jesus by the Spirit, inner abundance finds triune manifestation in creation. While the idea of power will also feature among the divine virtues it appears here amid the abundance for creatures because of its affinity with other omni-attributes: all-knowing, all-present, all-worthy. Calvin does use the term omnipotent, such as when the Creator addresses Abram in Genesis 17:1.135 Calvin specifies that this is not speaking of hidden internal power, but power manifest for his children.136 The title is given for Abram’s assurance and to increase his confidence in the Creator. Calvin is less concerned with hidden power than that revealed for creatures, sufficient to overcome all worldly obstacles. Having discussed the title once and its import, Calvin passes over it in commentary as it later occurs in blessing, invocation, promise, and narrative (Genesis 28:3, 35:11, 43:14, 48:3, 49:25). Calvin also comments on God’s extraordinary power when miracles are questioned. He more quickly ascribes credit to the Creator’s miraculous power than his nineteenth century translator does.137 Calvin happily wonders at unexplainable things.138 Calvin thinks that the Creator’s power surpasses all human senses, but can be manifested to those senses. He characteristically does not speculate about internal divine power, but acknowledges its presence when external power is shown. Calvin is also aware that he preaches to Christians rather than those who receive direct promises like Abraham. So Calvin applies his theology in this context with reference to New Testament teaching, the indwelling of the Holy 134 Serm. Gen 18:16–21; SC 11/2:972 135 Comm. Gen 17:1; CO 23:232 136 Comm. Gen 17:1; CO 23:234. For an exposition of Calvin’s understanding of covenant in this context see: Hildebrand, “Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17”. 137 John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 257, footnote 1. “Throughout the above passage, Calvin takes for granted, that there was a miracle, when a close examination would have convinced him that there was not. It has only required the use of a little arithmetic, and common sense, to prove that the ark was more than sufficient to contain all the creatures which Noah was commanded to bring into it, as well as provision for the whole time of their residence in it.” 138 Comm. Gen 6:14; CO 23:123

God the Creator

Spirit, and faith in Christ. Divine power remains a secret to be adored even though all scripture is useful and sufficient for its hearers.139 In the end, Calvin aims for confession and adoration of the Creator who is for the creature with his all surpassing power. In commentary and preaching Calvin is aware of the debate concerning potentia absoluta.140 Genesis 18:14 brings it to the surface and Calvin aims to engender trust in the Creator’s power to keep his promise for creatures. Calvin is not interested in technicalities or being involved “with absurd delirium”.141 On the whole he dismisses the question of removing divine power from his will revealed in his word because they are inseparably joined.142 Calvin believes divine freedom is not diminished by binding himself and the Creator graciously links his power to his promise. Like many topics, in preaching Calvin spends more time on this than in commentary. In his sermon he mentions the distinction of “his absolute power” and what is “ordained”.143 He does not shy away from preaching to his congregation with theological terms, but dwells on what he sees as its application. Papal questions and conclusions about Mary and transubstantiation are mentioned, possibly for pastoral reasons, where they had been overlooked in commentary.144 Calvin preaches with more rhetorical flair and acrimony than he comments on these verses. Only in preaching does he raise, but decline to answer, whether the Creator can make a mountain without a valley or a stick without two ends. Calvin continues to place the immediate exegetical and pastoral question within a far broader theological framework. He brings to bear the Creator’s simplicity “because we know that his election and his eternal counsel is immutable, and within this they desire that God might be divided as into pieces”.145 Divine freedom also comes into play as the Creator can will what he wants without disclosing his reasons and he may achieve his goals by any means, natural 139 Serm. Gen 18:9–15; SC 11/2:965, 967 140 Heiko Oberman, “Some notes on the Theology of Nominalism: with attention to its relation to the Renaissance,” Harvard Theological Review 53, no. 1 (1960): 47–76; David C. Steinmetz, “Calvin and the Absolute Power of God,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988): 65–79; Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, 176–85. Stauffer also discusses Calvin’s treatment of absolute and ordained power. My analysis agrees with Stauffer that, ‘Inséparable des autres attributs de Dieu, la puissance est finalement… toujours ordonnée à la rédemption des hommes’. DCP, 114. On this point Calvin’s treatment of Genesis strengthens examination from elsewhere. 141 Comm. Gen 18:13; CO 23:255 142 Comm. Gen 18:13; CO 23:255 143 Serm. Gen 18:9–15; SC 11/2:966 144 Serm. Gen 18:9–15; SC 11/2:966–67 145 Serm. Gen 18:9–15; SC 11/2:966

71

72

Creator

or otherwise. Calvin turns back to ‘creation from nothing’ as proof that God can work what he wills, unhindered by any created considerations, by asking rhetorically, “hasn’t he created everything from nothing?”.146 Calvin will not divorce discussion of divine power from the whole doctrine of who the Creator is. Calvin’s theological principles for approaching the question also show themselves. He will not stray into unmarked logical minefields with “our foolish speculations and exorbitance”.147 He confines himself to scripture to know the Creator’s revealed will and the intention behind statements of omnipotence. Calvin shapes by scripture both his theological understanding and the use of this truth. In contrast, he criticises opponents for leaving scriptural particularity of the content and purpose for this doctrine. According to Calvin, divine power will do what he has promised, not what Abraham, or anyone else, wants.148 In these ways Calvin’s teaching on omnipotence shows many traits characteristic of his development of the doctrine of God: he is prompted by the particular words of scripture, he desires adoration and worship, he commends wonder and God remains unfathomed rather than subjecting God to the bounds of human logic or imagination, he is aware of technical terms and debates, and he seeks to integrate this element into his broader theological framework and the teaching of scripture. As Calvin emphasises this power at work for creatures it is fitting that his prime example of divine omnipotence is ‘creation from nothing’.149 In contrast to Calvin’s engagement with the debate concerning absolute and ordained power, he does not use the terms omniscience and omnipresence, nor pursue technical discussions of these within his treatment of Genesis. This is a point where Calvin’s decision to leave some issues aside for the Institutes bears fruit. Concerning the Fall Calvin writes: “it was not hidden from God what the future would be”, and then directs readers to the Institutes and his treatise on Predestination for further comment on God’s will as well as human free will.150 Calvin’s interest in omniscience and omnipresence within Genesis is very much the application of these for creatures, while they are secured by the abundant nature of God himself. Rather than using the omni-words Calvin teaches that the Creator knows all things and nothing is hidden from him, and also that the Creator is everywhere and there is nowhere to escape him. These are vital to the Creator’s action for his people and against ‘the wicked’. Omniscience and omnipresence go hand in hand, as God’s presence means full understanding of all things. 146 147 148 149 150

Serm. Gen 18:9–15; SC 11/2:967 Serm. Gen 18:9–15; SC 11/2:965 Serm. Gen 18:9–15; SC 11/2:967 This example will be explored in the following chapter on the act of creation. Comm. Gen 3:1; CO 23:55

God the Creator

This pastoral concern is seen as Calvin preaches Genesis 3. Since the Creator knows all things, Calvin’s congregation are not estranged or distant from him, but “your God sees you, he counts all your steps”.151 Calvin does not want his congregation to be like Adam or Cain attempting to hide their sin, because it is impossible.152 Calvin wishes to cultivate awareness that all is open to the Creator.153 This openness is not to create cowering fear, but repentance and assurance of divine mercy. Divine omniscience brings all things into the open for the good of the creature and it is a sinful distortion and forgetfulness of divine mercy that loves sin and seeks to hide it from God. Divine knowledge and presence abound even when the text places questions on God’s lips, or God responds as though he discovered new information, or God is said to move about. For example, Calvin refuses to think that God was taken by surprise by what happened in Genesis 6, so that this might be the cause of his repentance.154 Further, although Noah might have felt God was absent from the ark this was only his perception of the situation.155 Again, while Genesis 11 presents divine deliberation to go down and find out what is happening, Calvin insists this is only a human perspective because the Creator “does not move about”.156 Omniscience and omnipresence are as vital to God as his very essence and as such cannot be abandoned, nor can he act in a way that contradicts them. The abundance of God’s presence is relational, his presence implies knowledge and care, therefore they are accompanied by a call to repent and find salvation under the divine hand. The Creator is intimately related to his creation and abundantly for the creature. As well as being fount of all being and goodness, all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present, the Creator is worthy of all praise. God has essential greatness in himself and this takes a form that conveys his personal excellence, which then grounds his rule and authority in himself, Calvin calls this divine majesty.157 Majesty is not identical with the exercise of sovereignty, but is the abundance and form of the divine worth that deserves all praise. Calvin affirms that majesty is an attribute of divinity, belonging to the divine essence, equally shared among the triune persons, and is revealed in creation and redemption. Like other attributes common to God’s essence, majesty is

151 152 153 154 155 156 157

Serm. Gen 3:7–10; SC 11/1:185 Serm. Gen 4:8–10; SC 11/1:270 Serm. Gen 4:15–18; SC 11/1:308 Comm. Gen 6:6; CO 23:118 Comm. Gen 11:1; CO 23:163 Comm. Gen 11:5; CO 23:166 Compare: Rebekah Earnshaw, “The Usefulness of Divine Majesty According to Calvin on Genesis,” CTJ 51, no. 2 (2016): 181–203.

73

74

Creator

unfathomable, infinite, and transcendent.158 Calvin highlights the fullness and abundance of divine majesty by referring to it in God himself apart from creation by which it is neither increased nor diminished.159 As true of God in himself, essential to him, majesty is truly divine. As a base concept Calvin connects majesty with the divine greatness, and it is also intimately connected with the beauty and structure that conveys this greatness.160 Majesty has both form and content, which expresses the greatness inherent to God himself. Also, while not identical, Calvin closely ties majesty to sovereignty; for Calvin, it is the excellence and dignity providing personal grounds in God for his exercise of rule and authority. Creatures can also display majesty in connection with exercising rule. For example, when showing traces of divine majesty Abraham is honoured like a prince;161 Isaac is treated equal with a king;162 Joseph governs with majesty beyond his years.163 God gives majesty to creatures holding offices of rule, in these contexts it is associated with the office, but is conjoined with their person to provide a foundation for the office. Majesty is the immediately recognisable form that conveys the magnitude of the person encountered, expressing their personal excellence.164 However, in God personal dignity is not separate from the execution of authority as sovereign.165 Divine majesty is the basis in God for his authority, but is not identical to the exercise of that authority as Sovereign Lord or Judge. The great dignity of divine majesty is fearsome and distinctly marks God as God. Yet, Calvin also sees the abundant excellence of God in himself deployed for the good of creatures. Throughout Genesis Calvin finds divine majesty engraved on dreams and visions, and clothing angels. Calvin calls on it exegetically at points where he wishes to highlight the positive foundation in God himself for reverence and consequent acceptance and obedience to the divine message. Theologically divine majesty removes the possibility of doubt and selfdeception from the recipients of the divine message as it grounds confidence in God. Divine majesty authenticates the divine message as God’s watermark, fingerprint or identity card, working with the creaturely means. Returning to Calvin’s own imagery, divine majesty is God’s effective seal and insignia. For example, Calvin calls on divine majesty to authenticate the visions of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and (pagan) Abimelech. Calvin says Abram 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165

Comm. Gen 32:30; CO 23:446 Serm. Gen 4:23–26, 14:20–24; SC 11/1:314, SC 11/2:730 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:14 Comm. Gen 23:6; CO 23:324 Comm. Gen 26:11; CO 23:361 Comm. Gen 41:46; CO 23:525 Serm. Gen 18:24–33; SC 11/2:993 Serm. Gen 18:24–33; SC 11/2:994

God the Creator

was given a visible sign of God’s glory to add to the authority of the word, but because Satan wants to deceive in God’s name, enough of the divine majesty is shown to confirm Abram’s faith.166 Majesty and glory are both mentioned, divine glory is evident, but majesty’s distinctive expression of deity comes into its own affirming the message as divine. The connection of majesty with the divine name and the grounds for acceptance of the divine message are clearly seen. Calvin comments similarly on Abimelech’s dream where he says that majesty prevents delusion by a vain spectre.167 Abimelech sees something that has content and form, which grounds the authority of the dream in God himself, yet remains beyond description. The ubiquity of Calvin’s meditation on divine majesty is seen as each Genesis sermon concludes with a prayer that begins: “now let us bow before the majesty of our good God”.168 Every time Calvin stands before his congregation he knows that he and they come before the majesty of “our good God”. The Creator’s transcendent majesty is not distant from his goodness, nor distant from his word, nor from Calvin, nor his preaching, nor his congregation. Divine majesty pervades Calvin’s Genesis sermons and is by no means lacking. Calvin infuses his sermons with the Creator’s majesty far more than Stauffer credits.169 Majesty manifests itself as divine honour, authority, dominion, and judgement. It transcends both the time and space of the creaturely realm encompassing physical and spiritual creatures. The Creator’s majesty is entirely unique just like his divinity. In the infinite abundance of this divine excellence, Calvin uses majesty theologically as the point where finite creatures recognise and trust divine words. In this way the abundant divine praise-worthiness overflows for creatures. The final divine attribute in this group is the all-wise divine counsel, which directs all things in accordance with the Creator’s pleasure and will.170 This is 166 167 168 169 170

Comm. Gen 15:2; CO 23:209 Comm. Gen 20:3; CO 23:288 Comm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:12 DCP, 108. Schreiner explored the idea of the double justice of God from Calvin’s Job sermons. Stauffer had earlier noted double justice: DCP, 118. Schreiner emphasises a hidden element in God and the incomprehensibility of divine providence. In Schreiner’s reading Calvin holds an idea of divine justice revealed to creatures, but their remains an inscrutable justice before which even angels are condemned. Schreiner connects this with Calvin’s understanding of absolute and ordained power as well as the hiddenness of God, which remains even as God is known by creatures. This reading of Calvin’s doctrine of God plays itself out in Schreiner’s later treatment of providence and the fragility of creatures. I will interact more with the implications of Schreiner’s reading on divine hiddenness in the following chapters. Susan E. Schreiner, “Exegesis and Double Justice in Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” Church History 58, no. 3 (1989): 322–38; Susan E. Schreiner, Where shall wisdom be found?: Calvin’s Exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1994); Susan E. Schreiner, “‘Through a Mirror Dimly’: Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” CTJ 21, no. 2 (1986): 175–93.

75

76

Creator

an important capstone to this group, because Calvin does not construe divine abundance and overflowing as automatic or undirected. The basic assumption of divine unity and tri-unity play themselves out as life, goodness, power, knowledge, presence, and praise-worthiness come forth for the creature in agreement with the whole of God’s being. The divine will directs divine abundance for the sake of creatures. Calvin understands divine counsel from scripture and in agreement with the whole of what he knows of the Creator. Calvin does not separate the Creator’s wisdom from his goodness or the rest of his character. The fullness of the Creator’s counsel is unknowable by creatures, but they can be assured that this will is positively inclined for them because of the Creator’s goodness. For we are not permitted to delve too deeply into God’s counsel, which is hidden in himself alone. Moreover, the best opinion we can give those who wish to dispute this matter is that God’s good pleasure must be our complete reason, and we will be wiser not knowing what he wanted to hide from us than seeking out of curiosity to examine thoroughly everything that surpasses our brains, for the door has been closed to us on that subject. To enter therein by force would be a sacrilege which would not go unpunished! Let us learn therefore to confine ourselves to his goodness, as I have already said, and let it suffice for us that God wanted it this way!171

Calvin’s connection of goodness with secret counsel is important pastorally when he considers divine reprobation and election. Creatures cannot fathom or explain the reasons for election or reprobation, but the Creator neither acts without reason nor in opposition to his goodness.172 Calvin applies the biblical image of potter and clay to the extreme that any creaturely questioning of the Creator’s counsel seeks to deprive the Creator of his sovereignty because the Creator is not subject to the creature’s measures. The creature is to first consider the Creator’s goodness and perfection and then his secret counsel of election and reprobation. The French text specifies that the Creator does not do these things without cause, which is slightly more circumspect, that McGregor’s translation that the Creator acts with good reason.173 The Creator’s secret counsel thus produces humility in creatures and prompts praise. The abundance of God’s inner life is directed according to his will for the good of creatures. Pushing the boundaries of his own directive, Calvin applies the hiddenness of divine counsel in agreement with gracious goodness in a rare moment of con171 Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:45. Compare Serm. Gen 3:1–3; SC 11/1:156 172 Serm. Gen 9:22–29; SC 11/1:520 173 Calvin, Sermons on Genesis 1, 798.

God the Creator

jecture about Lot’s wife.174 Calvin reasons from the pattern of the Creator’s faithfulness to his people what he expects the eternal outcome to have been for Lot’s wife. Yet, either side of this reasoning Calvin notes that such conclusions are illicit and not useful for creatures so that it is safe to be ignorant.175 Calvin applies human reason to understand the Creator and his actions towards creatures, but wants to remain within the bounds of revealed knowledge rather than exploring hidden counsel further. Since Calvin is assured that divine counsel directs the Creator’s abundance for creatures and he can happily rest in his ignorance. For Calvin the divine counsel abounds in that it covers all of creaturely life and all creaturely concerns; it is finally unfathomable by creatures, yet it is for creatures even when it runs counter to creaturely reason or expected means. This is not a fearful thing for creatures, but for their good as the divine counsel directs the fullness of God himself in creation. The divine counsel brings creatures to rest in God himself, just as God assured Abraham of his abundance at a time of crisis.176 The Creator abounds for creatures in his life, goodness, power, presence, knowledge, worth, and will. 2.3.4 Virtues

The final grouping of elements in Calvin’s doctrine of God the Creator is brought together by Calvin himself. Calvin believes that the divine vertus/virtutes are displayed in the theatre of creation. The translation virtues has been chosen rather than powers because of the way these attributes are personal, relational, and moral. These virtues are as essential to the Creator as his tri-unity, but these are the attributes that the Creator has chosen to manifest in the work of creation itself.177 Creation straight-forwardly displays divine power, goodness, mercy, justice, righteousness, wisdom, and glory. Genesis is not the only place where such an arrangement of divine virtues occurs. Calvin’s commentary on Exodus 34:6–7 and Jeremiah 9:23 has been said to resemble a catalogue of divine virtues.178 Portions of Calvin’s Psalms commentary also very explicitly treat divine attributes and a similar grouping of virtues as presented here, such as Psalm 145:4.179 The bundle and not only the individual attributes are therefore of interest. Warfield tries to catalogue Calvin’s 174 This comment is provoked by scepticism from critiques of this miracle and alternative interpretations that suggest she remained salt forever. “Under the pretext of this narrative, captious and perverse men ridicule Moses… Others interpret the statue of salt to have been an incorruptible one.” Comm. Gen 19:26; CO 23:278–79 175 Comm. Gen 19:26; CO 23:279 176 Serm. Gen 12:10–13; SC 11/2:629 177 Inst. 1.14.21; CO 2:132 178 CO 25:112–16; CO 38:49–53 179 CO 32:413

77

78

Creator

treatment of divine attributes, but provides little more than a list and notes Calvin’s lack of development in this area.180 Stauffer observes Calvin breaking with scholastic treatments at this point, but also notes that Calvin’s interest in divine attributes is much fuller in his preaching than in the Institutes. The Institutes treat God as infinite and spiritual,181 with inestimable wisdom, power, justice, and goodness,182 to which Stauffer adds, from “his preaching, unity, impassibility, wisdom, incomprehensibility, and infinity”.183 Similarly, Muller observes a fuller treatment of divine attributes by Calvin in his commentaries than in the Institutes.184 To the expansion in expositional material Billings would add the fuller list of divine attributes in the French Confession of 1559, of which he claims Calvin is the author.185 Buckner challenges this attribution by Billings and emphasises the directedness of these powers to creatures and their knowability as they are “for us”.186 Calvin is interested in a wide range of divine attributes in different kinds of writing, but from Genesis he pursues them in the context of the exposition of scripture and thus according to his method of exegesis instead of philosophical reflection. This presentation corrects a flat reading of Niesel’s suggestion, such as Muller’s, that “Calvin does not use his knowledge of Scripture to produce any description of the being of God” and his exclusive focus on Calvin’s trinitarian thought.187 Instead, I agree with Muller that it may be “wrongly inferred that Calvin had a fundamental objection to the doctrine of the divine essence and attributes as presented in traditional, scholastic dogmatics. As many passages in Calvin’s commentaries reveal… Calvin had an abiding interest in the divine attributes and an ever increasing interest in such issues as the power of God”.188 This chapter starts to fill out this observation from Muller.189 Calvin places the divine virtues prominently in his exegesis of Genesis 1:1. Calvin’s hesitation concerning a trinitarian argument at this point has been 180 181 182 183 184 185 186

Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism, 171–72. Inst. 1.13.1 Inst. 1.14.21 DCP, 105. Muller, PRRD, vol. 3, 207. J. Todd Billings, “The Catholic Calvin,” Pro Ecclesia 20, no. 2 (2011): 129. Forrest Buckner, “Calvin’s Non-Speculative Methodology: A Corrective to Billings and Muller on Calvin’s Divine Attributes,” in Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis and Arnold Huijgen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 241. 187 Niesel, Theology of Calvin, 54. 188 Muller, PRRD, vol. 3, 88–89. This is a limited exploration of divine attributes from a source in Calvin’s commentaries and I anticipate the fuller treatment from Alden McCrae, (PhD. in preparation University of St Andrews). 189 This work is a beginning and there remains very little treatment of divine attributes in Calvin’s thought.

God the Creator

noted, but Calvin’s exegetical emphasis on divine virtues is no less a theological statement about the divine being than triunity.190 Calvin moves swiftly to the divine virtues to uphold the unity of the one despite the plural description, explaining Moses “named God by his virtues and in plural number, because all wisdom, goodness, justice, power is contained in God, he has given a name which understands all of those things there”.191 The plurality of powers in one essence affirms the divine unity for Calvin and that all the divine virtues must be considered at once.192 The divine virtues are a scripturally revealed way of referring to multiple aspects of the divine character that also affirms the divine unity of the one Creator God. When reading Genesis Calvin believes the text draws attention to these virtues shown in creation more than divine persons.193 It must be remembered that here the divine virtues are in the context of knowing God as Creator.194 Unlike his treatment of Exodus 34 or Jeremiah 9, Calvin does not focus on divine loving-kindness, but rather on the divine virtues displayed in the theatre of creation and its following history. Therefore, Calvin summarises part of the argument of Genesis by commenting that Moses “not only by the generation of the world pronounces God architect: but by the whole context of history shows what is his admirableness besides power, besides wisdom, besides goodness, and especially the very great concern for the human race”.195 Likewise Calvin opens his Argument to Genesis appealing to human senses, eyes that see, feet that walk, hands that touch, noses that smell, that provides very tangible experience “of divine power, goodness, infinite wisdom, which absorbs all our senses”.196 Similarly in his first Genesis sermon Calvin three times lists virtues by which the Creator shows himself including majesty, power, justice, goodness, and wisdom.197 When the first six days of creation 190 This is against Dae-Woo and Stauffer, as well as any distinction such as Puckett’s of “humanistic” elements in Calvin’s hermeneutic that are untheological. As argued in the biblical theologian section above, Calvin’s entire exegetical enterprise is interwoven with doctrinal matters. 191 Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:91 192 Serm. Gen 18:24–33; SC 11/2:993 193 For further discussion of this and different their interpretations of elohim see: Stauffer, “L’exegese de Genese 1, 1–3 chez Luther et Calvin,” 76–77. This affirms Muller’s suggestion that reasons other than lack of interest are behind the omission of divine attributes from the Institutes. Muller, PRRD, vol. 3, 89, 207. 194 This continues to pay attention to the exegetical context as well as following Calvin’s general method of addressing these from the basis of God as he is towards creatures. This is harmonious with the methodological observations by Buckner, “Calvin’s non-speculative methodology,” 242. 195 CO 23:9 196 CO 23:5 197 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:1, 4, 10

79

80

Creator

are complete Calvin again preaches that the Creator’s ordering of things from chaos shows “an inestimable wisdom, power, and goodness”.198 The house was fully furnished and when sin later intervenes Calvin harks back to how the Creator is known in creation “as an image of the infinite goodness, wisdom, power, and justice of God”, even if that is not present human experience.199 Calvin draws attention to the divine virtues as a group because the Creator is known by his virtues for all time in all creatures. This collection of divine virtues seems to serve a particular rhetorical purpose for Calvin, as short-hand for the whole of who God the Creator is and what is known of him. Calvin’s lists of virtues do not appear organised. Often there are three virtues listed together, but there are sometimes more. There is not necessarily a prominent reason discernible for the selection of particular virtues or for the order of their appearance. For example, Calvin comments on why Moses recounts the creation of the sun and moon and asks his hearers “to consider the goodness, the wisdom, and power of our God”.200 Again, God must be honoured as “he is just, good, and loyal”,201 but Calvin calls on his congregation to use God’s name “to attribute to him all praise for his justice, power, and wisdom”.202 These lists are more often found in preaching than in commentary on the same passage in Genesis. A non-systematic use is also supported by the fact that there are eight options that Calvin may draw on in no particular order to form a list of three or four. For this reason it is hard to sustain an argument that Calvin is consciously linking goodness to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and power to the Spirit in these lists, even though in other places he might make those connections. Gathering divine virtues allows Calvin to quickly draw attention to what the Creator is like toward creatures and what is known of him. Calvin’s priority for divine virtues and rhetorical use of these lists highlights his focus on God as he is toward and for creatures and also how God has made himself known to creatures in creation. Each divine attribute is of the one divine essence, which means it is infinite and ultimately incomprehensible to creatures. The Creator is infinite in power, goodness, justice, wisdom, mercy, majesty, faithfulness, and kindness. Each of these is truly divine when attributed to God and Calvin always remembers the divine source of these things as he traces every creaturely instance of these, however partial, to the Creator.203 These 198 199 200 201 202 203

Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:84 Serm. Gen 3:17–18; SC 11/1:214 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:33–34 Serm. Gen 3:4–6; SC 11/1:165 Serm. Gen 4:23–26; SC 11/1:314 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:7

God the Creator

virtues are infinite in God, and creatures share in these divine qualities only in accordance with the status of creatures.204 The divine virtues are summed up by Calvin as those attributes displayed in the theatre of God’s glory. Divine power, majesty, and counsel have been discussed above, but space will be given to goodness and mercy as well as justice and righteousness, then wisdom, before concluding this group with a brief discussion of glory. The possible placement of power within the list of divine virtues as well as its affinity with the omni- group affirms that, while these groups are structurally helpful to understand Calvin’s approach to the doctrine of God the Creator, they are not definitive nor do they make for neat divisions in Calvin’s thinking. In fact each divine virtue is infinite and overflows for creatures and could have found a place in the previous group if the group’s boundaries had been defined as such. Nonetheless, Calvin gathers these divine virtues in a particular manner and because of this they are primarily treated here. First, the Creator’s goodness is infinite, enduring, and evident in all his works. The Creator’s goodness is seen in the persistence of creaturely being.205 The vast scope of the Creator’s goodness is also seen as he has prepared deliverance from the devil, transforms and sustains human creatures from wickedness to righteousness, and adopts humans as his children. Calvin dwells on goodness when considering redemption. In the face of rebellion, the Creator does not tire of his goodness.206 Goodness is the only reason for God’s gracious actions “nothing else prompts [him] except his own goodness”,207 and this goodness shows itself in the perfection of all he does.208 For Calvin mercy closely follows goodness. He attaches mercy to the Creator’s response to creaturely sin, which is both the compassion of God and the lovingkindness of Christ. Mercy triumphs over judgment. When Adam hides from God in the garden he has underestimated the Creator’s mercy, because with the thundering voice of the Lord “it seems that God is watching to show his grandeur to confound all his creatures as their ruin. But on the contrary…”.209 Likewise, the Creator’s care for his creation means he sought any available milder remedy than the flood, but acts in this way because nothing less would have been effective.210 The seriousness of a situation can be inferred because the Creator is never extreme in his punishments and “he is always more inclined to 204 205 206 207 208 209 210

Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:122 Serm. Gen 9:1–3; SC 11/1:465 Comm. Gen 19:19; CO 23:276 Comm. Gen 19:29; CO 23:280 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:42 Serm. Gen 3:11–13; SC 11/1:189 Comm. Gen 7:17; CO 23:133

81

82

Creator

mercy”.211 Calvin preaches that God’s infinite goodness is the reason he wants to set the world right after the horror of the flood, but moreover it should be a daily lesson from scripture that alongside his justice “he takes pity and is inclined to mercy and goodness”.212 Calvin does not play God off against himself, but sees a consistency between mercy and justice. Neither is external to God, but both are of his very essence and nature. When Calvin expounds divine justice he is wary that creatures are quick to impose their own standards of justice upon the Creator and so Calvin emphasises God’s justice in himself.213 Once again, this truth of God in himself is a fountain of justice for creatures so that they can rest secure that the Creator will act in accordance with his nature in this life and the life to come. Creatures experience the Creator’s righteousness condemning their wickedness and defending their innocence. As always, the depth of divine justice, giving grace to some and condemning others, remains beyond creaturely measure and Calvin counsels that divine judgement should lead to praise not pride.214 The Creator’s nature is to do what is right for creatures and this is his righteousness for them. Through the gracious action of the source of all justice creatures share in his righteousness. Next, the Creator’s beautiful and good order in creation shows his wisdom. The opening sentence of the Argument to Calvin’s Genesis commentary lauds the greatness of divine wisdom.215 Further, Calvin’s depiction of wisdom’s perfection is vivid, because the Creator’s actions do not happen by chance but “his wisdom always presided”.216 The Creator is unlike a human painter or farmer whose work always contains some mistake, however small. The Creator has made all things very good and so nothing needs to be redone, there is nothing lacking. The Creator’s admirable wisdom is shown as “he makes all by measure and by compass”.217 Therefore, creation shows the Creator’s straight edge and use of right proportions. This image depicts the Creator as the perfect architect or builder. Calvin strongly links proper order and structure in creation with the Creator’s wisdom. Calvin contrasts divine wisdom seen in creation with creaturely wisdom. Divine wisdom exceeds creaturely comprehension and expression.218 Creaturely astronomy, in a manner different than Genesis “unfolds the admirable wisdom 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218

Serm. Gen 5:1–25; SC 11/1:329 Serm. Gen 6:13–22; SC 11/1:390 Comm. Gen 4:10; CO 23:93 Comm. Gen 9:25; CO 23:153 CO 23:5–6 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:76 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:77 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:42

God the Creator

of God”, but like the other virtues Calvin maintains that divine wisdom is ineffable in its fullness.219 Glory is the last divine attribute to be described under divine virtues, not because it features ultimately in Calvin’s collection, but because glory can have both a specific and general place. A particular virtue, such as divine goodness, can display its own glory or glory can gloss excellence “because as each thing is eminently what is most proper to it, so the glory of God shines in it”.220 Calvin can use glory to summarise a full range of virtues manifest in creation or on a particular occasion.221 Glory particularly shines in the faculties of human creatures.222 Moses’ teaching in Genesis alerts Calvin “that we might know that the conspicuous glorious of God is arranged in this theatre”.223 In this way, glory may be general or particular in Calvin’s understanding of divine virtues depending on the context. Uniquely among the divine virtues Calvin distinguishes glory as that which can be given back to God. Like his other attributes God’s glory is infinite, beyond creaturely understanding, only partially revealed, and truly heavenly. Yet, glory can render all that the Creator is due. Positively, Calvin teaches that the Sabbath is given to humans so that they will more diligently meditate on the Creator’s works and then “that we might give him the glory that belongs to him”.224 Isaac gives God his due glory when he does not withdraw his blessing from Jacob.225 Negatively, Sarah’s laughter at the promise does not give God glory.226 Particularly enlightening is Calvin’s explanation that Eve is offered an illicit share in divine glory, which amounts to equality with God.227 For Calvin, grasping God’s glory is the same as taking hold of the fullness of divinity. This is true because of the identity between the divine essence and attributes. To give God glory is not to add something to God, but the creaturely affirmation that God is God. Glory is a summary for all God is. Calvin lists many divine virtues in his Genesis sermons and commentary. These are seen in lists of virtues manifest in creation by which the Creator is known: his power, goodness and mercy, justice and righteousness, wisdom, and glory. These virtues are not derived in a speculative manner. They are materially filled with content from creaturely experience of the Creator through creation 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227

Comm. Gen 1:16; CO 23:22 Comm. Gen 30:8; CO 23:410 Comm. Gen 2:4, 32:29; CO 23:34, 446 Comm. Gen 3:21; CO 23:77–78 CO 23:9–10 Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:84 Comm. Gen 27:33; CO 23:380 Comm. Gen 18:12; CO 23:254 Comm. Gen 3:5; CO 23:59

83

84

Creator

and through his dealings with them. Calvin’s treatment of the Creator’s virtues in Genesis accords with the Institutes in calling for contemplation of these and praise as the Creator is for us, while providing greater depth and concrete description of them in the experience of God’s people in their covenant history with the glorious Creator.228 Against Stauffer’s conclusions, I will argue that most of the attributes found in Calvin’s preaching have considerable theological implications, at least within the locus of Creation.229

2.4 Calvin’s Creator: Full, Engaged, and Concrete

This chapter began with the observation that the Creator and creation are doctrinally intertwined within Christian theology. This is true not only in the Institutes, but also in Calvin’s commentary and sermons on Genesis.230 Calvin cannot expound the history of the creation of the world without reflecting on the Creator. His convictions about the Creator are not always at the forefront of his presentation, but he dwells upon them as prompted by the exegetical context. The tenacity with which Calvin defends his doctrine of the Creator and the strength of his exhortations speak of the priority accorded to the Creator in his thought. Calvin is not uninterested in the doctrine of God even as he decries speculative flights of fancy. I agree with Billings that in many ways Calvin appears conventional in his doctrine of God.231 In fact Calvin’s Creator, who is the one triune l’Eternal infinitely distinct from his creation unconstrained, unchanging, impassible, and invisible, abounding for creatures in his life and goodness, all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, all-worthy, working all things according to his will by his goodness and mercy, justice and righteousness, wisdom and glory, is affirmed by many.232 Conventionality is not a point of criticism because Calvin was not striving for new methods or a creative reworking of theology. He sought to teach scripture for the sake of true knowledge of God which might result in adoration. Calvin 228 Inst. 1.5.9–10 229 DCP, 111. Subsequent chapters will bear this out. 230 Selderhuis has suggested that the search for a central theme in Calvin’s theology has failed because Calvin is theo-logical first and foremost, and any theme less than God himself fails in its scope. Herman Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology. 231 Billings, “The Catholic Calvin,” 120–34. 232 Unlike doctrines forged polemically during the sixteenth century, “other doctrines, like the doctrines of God, creation, and providence were never the objects of direct debate”. Much of Calvin’s thought remains implicit and has therefore received little direct analysis. Muller, PRRD, vol. 3, 75.

Calvin’s Creator: Full, Engaged, and Concrete

did not seek to demonstrate his own cleverness, but to submit himself to the Word of God and prayerfully seek the illumination of the Spirit as he applied himself to knowing and worshiping his heavenly Father. The contribution of Calvin on Genesis is not primarily his innovation, but rather Calvin’s detailed engagement with scripture as a theologian and the usefulness of the doctrine for the church.233 Calvin’s teaching is full and complex, emphasising divine virtues, creature-focused and engaged, particular and immediate, and integrated with the whole history of redemption. By way of conclusion to this chapter we consider these aspects in more detail. The first observation is that Calvin’s doctrine of the Creator is full and complex. This is at least partially because Calvin engages with scripture at a very detailed level. He attends to the particular words in front of him one at a time and phrase by phrase. This means his teaching does not have the proportion and order of the Institutes, but it does have a, possibly surprising, fullness.234 A majority of the content of more systematic presentations of the doctrine of God is touched on, at least in passing, amid Calvin’s exegesis. Calvin’s attention to previous readings of scripture is another factor that contributes to this fullness. Calvin is not always pressured to engage with earlier discussions, but his awareness of the presence of scriptural founts for earlier theological debates means that he happily joins doctrinal discussions of which the uneducated reader would have been otherwise unaware. Further, divine essence, eternal beatitude, and simplicity amid his sermons may be surprising given Calvin’s anti-speculative reputation, but Calvin’s discussion is shaped by scriptural concerns rather than abstract philosophical notions. The detail and fullness of Calvin’s doctrinal exposition is served by his attention both to the words on the page and to the church’s history of engagement with them. This fullness and complexity is also evident in Calvin’s emphases as well as the scope of Calvin’s material and the depth with which he presents it. Calvin’s trinitarianism is illustrative. Stauffer notes Calvin’s trinitarian reserve compared to Luther. Stauffer contrasts Luther’s more theological exegesis compared to Calvin’s more humanistic and philological reading.235 Hwang Dae-Woo draws attention to Capito’s trinitarian exegesis of Genesis 1:1 in contrast to Calvin concluding that “this trinitarianism may not be found in Calvin’s theology”.236 233 Calvin’s work on Genesis does not address aspects such as the interplay of divine triunity and essence. Brannon Ellis develops some Calvinian thoughts on this matter in his conclusion to Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). 234 The interaction between Niesel and Muller in this regard has been noted above. 235 Stauffer, “L’exegese de Genese 1, 1–3 Chez Luther et Calvin,” 85. 236 Dae-Woo, “God’s Creation in Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis and in Capito’s Hexameron Dei Opus,” 288.

85

86

Creator

Despite this, Dae-Woo later writes: “both reformers understood creation as the co-operation of the triune God”.237 What is lacking in Calvin is “this” trinitarianism, that is a trinitarianism that Calvin felt was overly motivated by countering hostile claims so that it lapsed into other errors by an undiscerning reading of scripture. Calvin’s trinitarianism is one that emphasises the full deity of Father, Son, and Spirit. In this respect Dae-Woo’s conclusions, that Calvin especially associated creation with the Father in contrast to the Son and that Calvin does not see creation as for the well-being of the church, are puzzling.238 Calvin gives a trinitarianly shaped exposition that flows into the history of the church. It is true that Calvin does not dwell individually on the appropriation of creation to the persons, but emphasises the unity of God’s action outside himself. Calvin will focus on Christ’s role in creation when prompted by the New Testament, but not immediately in Genesis. In Calvin’s reading divine persons do not individually leap from the pages of Genesis, but the one triune God is there. With T.F. Torrance, it may be said that in his trinitarian thought, “Calvin does not take his feet off the biblical ground”.239 The Creator met by Calvin in Genesis is overwhelmingly the one true and living God. This does not undermine Calvin as a thoroughly trinitarian theologian. Calvin does not shy away from all proofs of Father, Son, and Spirit’s eternity from Genesis. Further, Calvin holds that all God’s works in creation are by the Word and for the sake of his glory in the church and that the Spirit upholds all creation each moment. Calvin’s view of this one God as both Creator and Redeemer also means the Creator is certainly the same Lord met in Christ by the Spirit bringing believers to know God as Father. The Creator may not be shouting his trinitarian being explicitly at all times in Genesis, but trinitarian teaching is still there on Calvin’s account. This may displease those who wish to construct a doctrine of creation from their conception of trinitarian relations and infer metaphysical reality from the inner divine life more directly than Calvin does.240 Calvin’s relative lack of trinitarian explication is, however, replaced by a focus on unity and divine virtues, because he focuses on God known in and by creation. As mentioned above Calvin believes this to be a scriptural emphasis since the history of creation depicts goodness, mercy, justice, and power before the creature’s eyes in a manner not true of the divine persons. Calvin thus 237 Dae-Woo, “God’s Creation in Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis and in Capito’s Hexameron Dei Opus,” 299. 238 Dae-Woo, “God’s Creation in Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis and in Capito’s Hexameron Dei Opus,” 299–300. 239 T.F. Torrance, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” CTJ 25, no. 2 (1990): 176. 240 Calvin’s approach to the Creator and Creator-creation relation contrasts to Pannenberg’s focus on the self-determination of the Son, as well as to Gunton’s trinitarian emphasis and subsequent focus on “contingent relations”.

Calvin’s Creator: Full, Engaged, and Concrete

believes that his emphasis on divine righteousness, faithfulness, and glory rightly draws believers to know the character of the Creator toward them, which is more useful than detailed explanation of his internal modes of being. Conclusions about divine virtues are not more philological and less theological, so it is not necessarily correct to attribute such a trinitarian reserve to an increased humanistic influence in Calvin’s exegesis. These moral attributes and their unity in the divine essence give Calvin’s doctrine of the Creator the visage of the one triune God who is for his creatures in every possible way for their good. Calvin’s doctrine of the Creator has the fullness of Christian teaching that contains a developed trinitarian doctrine and it is also complex in that it does not take for granted earlier exegetical or theological findings, but provides his own emphases for the use of the church as the genre of commentary and preaching scripture dictates. Calvin’s theology therefore reflects an appreciation for God in complexity and depth, without concentrating on a single definitive characteristic of divinity. Calvin proclaims the known character of this Creator by faith as well as bowing before mystery. In this way the reader of Calvin’s Genesis material has an enriched view of the doctrine of God compared to a reader of the Institutes alone. Further, Calvin may make a larger contribution to the interplay between the divine essence and triunity. In this way, Calvin’s development of divine attributes during the covenant fellowship of the triune God with his people can inform constructive moves such as those of Ellis.241 Calvin’s statement that God is always the triune one has increased significance when the richness of divine attributes during salvation history is added to the picture.242 The triune God is never without his virtues. Calvin’s teaching on the Creator, and the doctrine of God more generally, is therefore enriched by Calvin’s engagement with Genesis and an account which claims to depict Calvin’s teaching on the Creator and who God is must consider both Calvin’s commentary and sermons alongside the Institutes, polemical works, and letters. As well as being full and complex Calvin’s doctrine of the Creator is creaturefocused and engaged. Calvin’s focus on God as he is toward creatures rather than God in himself shapes, and at points curtails, his development of doctrinal considerations. Genesis immediately concerns itself with God’s work outside himself, from creation into the history of restoration, and Calvin is aware that 241 In his first chapter Ellis examines Calvin’s exegetical and scriptural basis for his doctrine of God in the Institutes. Ellis notes, “Calvin did not provide in the Institutes anything like a systematic discussion of the divine essence and attributes; but neither did he dismiss such discussion as impossible or unfruitful”. Ellis, Calvin, 21. 242 Inst. 1.13.1–6

87

88

Creator

revelation leaves much unsaid. Calvin’s doctrine of the Creator is very much directed to creaturely engagement and admonishing wonder and humility rather than speculation regarding the divine depths. Calvin’s references to divine attributes that distinguish the Creator from the creation bring this out. Calvin does not seek to plumb divine impassibility or freedom. Calvin does not use them to deny the Creator’s engagement with creatures or to undermine the intimacy and care between the Creator and his creatures. Calvin gives the impression that the Creator is awe-inspiringly divine, but not uninterested in creation despite his infinite distinction from creatures. Divine transcendence undergirds rather than undermines the intimacy of Creator and creature.243 The account of God distinct and for us is also confirmed as Calvin majors on God’s counsel known for creatures rather than the inscrutability of divine justice.244 Calvin firmly maintains that the Creator is not creation. This distinction undergirds the giving of being and goodness of creation in proper order with and for the Creator. The infinitely distinct God is never cut off or known apart from the relation, which is established in the beginning, which means that God is abundantly for creatures. The transcendent God is the one and the same God for us.245 Even the nature of the Creator is understood within the bounds of the Creator-creature relation revealed in scripture. In this way scripture directs Calvin to focus on engagement rather than relational distance between the Creator and his creation. This affirms Stauffer’s observation that “les attributs de Dieu ne sont pas, pour le Réformateur, des propriétés situées hors de l’espace et du temps; ils sont presque toujours mis en relations avec les croyant. En d’autres termes, Dieu communique ses attributs aux siens”.246 This is true despite Stauffer making this observation with respect to divine holiness, and holiness not featuring in Calvin’s lists of divine virtues in Genesis. The scriptural context of the history of creation and the history of the church mean that the distinction cannot be unmoored from God known in his external works.247 In agreement with Buckner, Calvin’s 243 In this way Calvin’s theological mood might find resonance with the work of Kathryn Tanner and her emphasis of non-competitive empowerment of creatures in Christ as well as Sonderegger’s determination that transcendence is the basis for divine intimacy and immanence in creation. Tanner, God and Creation; Tanner, Christ the Key; Sonderegger, Systematic Theology. 244 This contrasts with Stauffer’s comments (Sonderegger, Systematic Theology, 109–10) and Schreiner’s work on Calvin on Job. 245 In this way Calvin on Genesis complements or challenges Schreiner’s reading of Calvin on Job. See note above and further interaction with Schreiner below. 246 DCP, 106. 247 The transparency of God’s work seen in creatures will be discussed in chapter 4.

Calvin’s Creator: Full, Engaged, and Concrete

theological method remains focused on the God who is known, and this gives a particular perspective to his depiction of the Creator according to Genesis as focused and engaged with creatures. Calvin’s depiction of the Creator is also driven by scripture to be particular and concrete. Calvin does not write timeless theology, but speaks to his students and congregation about the usefulness of the knowledge of the Creator that is set before them at this time in this place. Calvin believes that all scripture is Godbreathed and is useful. Calvin does not have to make this God relevant because the Creator is the Creator of every person in Geneva. It is not a theoretical blade of grass that the congregation are to examine, but it is their very own fingers that display divine wisdom, power, and goodness.248 Calvin’s zeal for divine immutability is prompted by contemporary threats and his preaching of impassibility is amid present suffering.249 The Creator Calvin meets in Genesis is not absent, but immediate and near to his people then and now. For example, divine righteousness means that Calvin prays for sins to be made known by the Spirit and repentance granted. Divine justice is as true now as it was in the beginning. The present particularity of Calvin’s doctrine of the Creator is also made possible because he exposits Genesis as Christian scripture and he views the history of the creation of the world in continuity with the history of restoration and promise.250 The Mediator is not absent from the garden and New Testament affirmations of Christ’s role in creation are not forgotten. Calvin depicts the Creator in a manner consistent with all God’s external works because the essence of God and God in himself remain the same. Calvin believes he worships the same God as Moses, Abraham, and Adam. The details of who the Creator was are still relevant because he remains l’Eternal. Knowledge of the Creator is thus 248 For initial references to a fingernail and a blade of grass see: Serm. Gen 1:1–2, 1:29–31; SC 11/1:6, 80 249 See references in sections above. 250 See the discussion of Calvin as biblical theologian above. Further, it appears to me that Calvin’s hermeneutic of promise and fulfilment centred on Christ, as outlined by Muller in “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom,” might be fruitfully compared to Graeme Goldsworthy’s kingdom hermeneutic which depicts the kingdom of God in salvation history as the fellowship of God’s people, in God’s place, under God’s rule fulfilled in Christ. Calvin’s understanding of Genesis as the childhood of the church and the foreshadowing of Christ the Sun of Righteousness provides a framework for continuity and discontinuity which impacts his doctrine engaging the text. Compare Calvin’s approach with the following: Graeme Goldsworthy, Christ-centred Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles (Nottingham: Apollos, 2012); Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-centred Hermeneutics: Biblical-theological Foundations and Principles (Nottingham: Apollos, 2006); Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel and Kingdom: A Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1981).

89

90

Creator

still considered useful for those who know God by faith in Christ. Calvin more than once affirms that it is absolutely necessary to know the Redeemer and this promotes knowledge of the Creator instead of making it redundant. Knowledge of God may have two parts, but there remains one God. Calvin’s doctrine of God cannot be fully presented without reference to the Genesis material. Reliance on the Institutes alone or focusing primarily on Calvin’s preaching of Job will lead to a lop-sided account. As such, this analysis supplements and corrects the work of Stauffer, Muller, and Schreiner in this area. It also opens possibilities of drawing on Calvin in more areas of contemporary theology, such as supplementing moves already made by Ellis. Further, the ongoing scriptural and pastoral contexts of Calvin’s doctrine continue to illustrate his theology as an integrated project of exegetical, doctrinal, and moral reason. In contrast to contemporary genres of systematic theology, Calvin on Genesis depicts a doctrine of the Creator that is both taught and preached. The contribution of this analysis therefore continues to be in detailed content, as well as broader theological and methodological potential. As both a doctrinal conviction and as the result of the Genesis context, the Creator is vital for the creation. There is no creation without the Uncreated One. Full, engaged, and concrete, Calvin’s doctrine of the Creator will have a significant bearing on his presentation of the act of creation, the nature of creatures, and their providential relation outlined in the coming chapters.

3. The Agent and Act of Creation Some contemporary accounts of the agent and the act of creation are explicit in making use of trinitarian dogma or engaging natural scientific concerns.1 Calvin’s account is, by contrast, more directly exegetical and lacks strong interest in natural cosmology.2 He offers a modest trinitarian account of the agent of creation prompted by scripture rather than by a dogmatic conception of the inner life of the trinity. In the Institutes creation follows closely, but not deductively from Calvin’s doctrine of God. Calvin’s account bears more resemblance to other early moderns than to figures such as Moltmann, Pannenberg or Torrance. With Luther, Calvin turns to Moses directly with less interest in the philosophers than Lyra.3 Building directly from the previous chapter, the agent of creation will first be explored here. Then, two key aspects of the act of creation will be described: ‘creation from nothing’ and the temporal character of the act of creation. ‘Creation from nothing’ confirms the inseparability of divine power and divine goodness in the act of creation, consideration of which generates confidence and hope in further divine actions. Creation as the beginning of time, and as an act which unfolds over the course of the six days of creation, highlights that the Creator works for the sake of creatures. The act of creation is a dramatic, and in

1 For example, Moltmann’s reading of Genesis is heavily influenced by his panentheism and eschatological priorities. The act of creation as opening space within God demonstrates how intertwining the doctrine of God and construal of the God-world relation may bear fruit exegetically and theologically. See especially how ‘creation from nothing’ forms part of chapter 4, “God the Creator” in Moltmann, God in Creation. Only from this point does Moltmann consider creation as a trinitarian work. And then it is the zimzum doctrine of God making space by withdrawing himself and allowing creation in. Pannenberg begins his account of creation by considering it as divine action and specifically links the internal and external acts of God. ‘The action of the one God in relation to the world is not wholly different from the action in his trinitarian life. In his action in relation to the world the trinitarian life turns outward, moves out of itself, and becomes the determinative basis of relations between the Creator and the creatures’. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 5. Pannenberg’s understanding of the free self-distinction of the Son, seen primarily in the incarnation, but also relevant from the beginning, becomes the key trinitarian movement which grounds creation. Further, Pannenberg is an example of seeking to account for cosmological and scientific theories within a systematic theology. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 151–61. T.F. Torrance is another seeking harmony with scientific accounts. T.F. Torrance, Divine and Contingent Order; T.F. Torrance, Space, Time and Incarnation. 2 Despite this Young gives an account of Calvin’s depiction of the natural world and his interaction with natural philosophy of his time. Young, John Calvin and the Natural World. 3 LW, vol. 1, 6.

92

The Agent and Act of Creation

many ways paradigmatic, instance of the divine agent acting outside his inner life in an act of beginning that is intimately connected with what is to come.

3.1 A Trinitarian Account

In contrast to some accounts Calvin could be assessed as lacking explicit trinitarian description of the act of creation or to be under-developed with respect to the divine persons.4 Trinitarian arguments from Genesis against Rabbinic views were well rehearsed by the sixteenth century, but Calvin lent his support to some and not others based on his particular reading of the text.5 Calvin exhibits not a renunciation or contradiction of a trinitarian conception of the act of creation, but rather a hesitation to develop any trinitarian basis apart from what he sees to be the teaching of scripture. Due to this method Calvin portrays a trinitarian account of the act of creation from Genesis, with the active participation of all three divine persons in unity and only limited appropriation of particular aspects of the act of creation to each.6 Calvin’s description of Father, Son, and Spirit in the act and week of creation can be examined in turn. Creedal forms traditionally attribute creation to God the Father Almighty and Calvin draws on this in his 1538 catechism when he says: “let us contemplate the Father with his Son and Spirit”.7 Calvin’s subsequent exposition of the first article of the creed is brief and does not dwell on the specification that the Father Almighty is Creator of heaven and earth. In fact, the exposition ignores the presence of the word Father referring only to God. Given the context it is the Father, and the Father in trinity with Son and Spirit, who is referred to

4 Given the previous focus on virtues rather than persons this may be a suspected inference. When contrasted with an approach such as Pannenberg’s Calvin may be open to this charge on a relative scale. Gunton finds fault with Calvin for an under-developed trinitarianism in the act of creation, as he also does with Luther. Gunton, Triune Creator, 154. 5 Thompson, Reformation Commentary, lvi. 6 In contrast to more enthusiastic contemporary trinitarian portrayals, such as Pannenberg or Gunton, see for example: ‘The world was created by the three Persons acting as a single divine principle, but each one of them performed this common work in accordance with his own personal property’, Pope Francis I, Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015): 173–74; Matthew Levering, Engaging the Doctrine of Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, forthcoming). This suggests that an emphasis on divine unity in external works is a catholic concern and in this Calvin echoes earlier thinkers. 7 I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary: Featuring Ford Lewis Battles’ Translation of the 1538 Catechism, 1st ed, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 22.

A Trinitarian Account

but the connection remains implicit.8 Likewise, while expositing the agent of creation in Genesis Calvin emphasises the demonstration of God’s fatherly care for creatures, but God remains explicitly fatherly and his eternal Fatherhood remains in the background. For example, in commentary on the creation of humans Calvin says: “in the very order of the creation the paternal solicitude of God for man is conspicuous, because he furnished the world with all things needful, and even with an immense profusion of wealth, before he formed man”.9 He follows this with a description that parallels the relationship between God and humanity to the relationship between humanity and animals, describing both in fatherly terms and urging people “in the very use of his gifts, we are to exercise ourselves in meditating on his goodness and paternal care”.10 Further, Calvin paraphrases the divine words to the first humans as: “Behold, I have prepared food for you before you were formed; acknowledge me, therefore, as your father, who have so diligently provided for you when you were not yet created”.11 In a similar vein in his preaching Calvin uses the analogy between God and a father preparing for the birth of a child. Calvin uses extended forms of this image in successive sermons at the end of Genesis 1. The application is that humans must express similar fatherhood in their own families. As if a father of a family, was preparing, as is appropriate for his office, to have all ready, when his wife must deliver: that he has the crib to receive the child, that he has wood for the fire, that he has blankets and similar things, and finally that he has even a nurse ready, that there is no flaw in anything. Behold what God is like when acting toward men. That when Adam was created, he did not see the earth empty, but it was not found, no corner high nor low which was not well provided with gifts of God.12

Calvin turns to the New Testament and Psalms to affirm God’s fatherly provision and care for his church. From Genesis Calvin lingers on the fatherly provision for humanity, but does not neglect the care also shown to animals in the gift of food for them. With inestimable liberality God surpasses earthly fathers who labour to support their children.13 8 Hesselink draws attention to the work of Wilterdink and Finlayson, which argue for the significance of Calvin’s conception of God as Father within his doctrine of God. Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 117. 9 Comm. Gen 1:26; CO 23:27 10 Comm. Gen 1:28; CO 23:29 11 Comm. Gen 1:28; CO 23:29. Compare Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:78–79 12 Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:66. Compare Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:68 13 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:74

93

94

The Agent and Act of Creation

Calvin’s teaching on the fatherhood of God during the week of creation is directed towards humanity and not his trinitarian fatherhood of the Son. This reflects Calvin’s focus on God toward creatures rather than the inner trinitarian life. It is the result of Calvin’s belief that Genesis’ teaching aims at what is useful for the church to know of the history of creation rather than dwelling on spiritual realms. For this reason it is difficult from the Genesis material alone to find evidence that Calvin primarily appropriates creation to the Father. Moving then to the second person, Calvin teaches the role of the divine Word and Wisdom in the week of creation.14 However, beyond the first occurrence of speech Calvin does not labour the involvement of the Word throughout the week of creation. Calvin deals with the objection that the Word was not mentioned prior to the chaotic mass evident in Genesis 1:2 but concludes that the appropriate order of teaching does not counter the Word’s involvement in the creation of all things as taught elsewhere in scripture and that this is an easy objection to overcome.15 Calvin affirms the full divinity and eternity of the Word, against Servetus, because “through him all was created”,16 and against Jewish readings.17 The actions of God are fully attributable to the divine Word who fully shares the divine essence. The Word’s action in the act of creation affirms rather than negates his divinity. Calvin teaches that the divine speech demonstrates God’s accomplishment immediately and without effort by the powerful declaration of his will, and that this is a power that concerns the Lord Jesus Christ.18 The conjunction of power and will confirms a trinitarian conception of the Word and of the act of creation taught elsewhere in scripture. Calvin also looks to the New Testament to argue that it is the same Word in both creation and redemption. The eternal Word spoken in Genesis 1:3 is the one manifest in the flesh and “by the power of which the world was created with all its parts”.19 Calvin discerns a pattern of divine relation to creation established from the beginning where the divine Word is effective and powerful; that is, the divine will is spoken and immediately accomplished without exertion. There is another element of continuity in the manner of divine relation to creation; there is appropriate continuity between the descriptions of the divine Word and Wisdom elsewhere, such as the Word being the light and life of humanity and the divine action taught in Genesis.20 However, he does not reason from trinitarian persons or processions to a particular manner of relation being 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Comm. Gen 1:3; CO 23:16; Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:14 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:14–15 Comm. Gen 1:3; CO 23:16 Comm. Gen 1:26; CO 23:25 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:14 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:13 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:75

A Trinitarian Account

required in creation, that is speaking was a not necessary manner of creation.21 Calvin affirms the Word’s role in both the act and week of creation, but does not labour this, nor reason from the pattern of inner trinitarian life to this involvement. Calvin’s position here may be critiqued as overly functional, as the Second Person is characterised as Word rather than Son. However, the function is not reductive of Person for Calvin. Just as Calvin’s identification of the Holy Spirit with Power is not a reductive move. Rather, the focus on Word continues to reflect Calvin’s focus on the Creator “for us” and known in creation. For Calvin this is also consonant with John 1’s presentation of the Second Person as Word with respect to creation. This presentation is consistent with Calvin’s emphasis on the fatherly care of the Creator for creatures during Genesis 1 rather than drawing on the inner-trinitarian relation of Father and Son as shaping directly the Creator’s external work. Just as divine inner-trinitarian Fatherliness remains muted in Calvin’s exposition of Genesis, so also innertrinitarian Sonliness takes a secondary place compared to characterisation of the second person as the Word. The account is trinitarian as the trinity is known by creatures and enriched by the relation creatures find themselves in, rather than a deduction from the processions. Moving to the Spirit, Hesselink notes that Calvin offers limited references to the Spirit in his treatment of creation in comparison to redemption and claims support from Bolt’s analysis of Calvin on the cosmic Spirit.22 This is true as far as sustenance and governance of creation are distinguished from the initial act of creation. There is no explicit role for the Spirit in either the initial creative act or the ongoing week of creation. However, the Spirit takes a prominent place in the nurture of and provision for order, life, and existence in creation. Calvin’s exegesis and exposition of Genesis 1:2, with a large reliance on Psalm 104:29–30, is the clearest evidence for this.23 The Spirit’s explicit role in nurture and preservation is immediately continuous from the initial act of creation just as Calvin sees providence as inseparable from creation. The most explicitly trinitarian moment for Calvin in the initial week of creation is the consultation prior to the making of humanity in the divine image. Here divine powers are displayed and this manner of creating is for the sake of creatures.24 There is not any particular arrangement of trinitarian 21 See Fred Sanders for a recent account which emphasises the connection between divine processions and missions. Sanders also notes heat in Lutheran debates seeking demonstration of the Trinity from the Old Testament alone, which was provoked in the seventeenth century. Fred Sanders, The Triune God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 214. 22 Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, 231 n.8; Bolt, “Spiritus Creator”. 23 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:10–11; Comm. Gen 1:2; CO 23:16 24 Comm. Gen 1:26; CO 23:25; Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:55–56

95

96

The Agent and Act of Creation

operation that must be followed at this point in the creation process. In forming humanity, God manifests the divine powers expressed trinitarianly to reflect the honour God gives to human dignity, and to show his kindness to creatures in the manner of his operation. Calvin does not avoid explicit trinitarian discussion of the act of creation, but limits his exposition to points that arise from the text of Genesis and he works from this basis rather than from his broader understanding of the innertrinitarian life.25 As a result the emphasis of Calvin’s account falls on the unity and indivisibility of the divine work in creation rather than on an explanation of creation according to the role of the divine persons in creation or how the external works follow the inner-trinitarian processions. The agent of creation is singularly, yet trinitarianly, conceived. Calvin leaves no wedge available to drive between the divine persons; Calvin’s modest trinitarian account is a product of his exegetical method. Calvin sees instability arising as doctrinal statements move further from the matter laid out in scripture and the particular use for which scripture was given. As a result Calvin follows, what he sees as, the scriptural emphases on divine virtues evident in the act of creation and may therefore be described as offering a modest trinitarian account.

3.2 Theological Cosmology

Sixteenth century natural philosophy did not confront Calvin in the same manner as twenty-first century cosmological science confronts contemporary theologians.26 Calvin’s cosmological understanding refers to levels of earth and heavens, circular motion, and four elements, but his interest is not scientific. As Peter Harrison outlines, the history of ‘religion’ and ‘science’ is complicated with both terms requiring proper definition before any relationship or development in that relationship may be discussed.27 Calvin treats the opening of Genesis as 25 I believe Gunton under-estimates Calvin’s account even if it is more modest than his own trinitarian proposal. Calvin does continue to focus on the trinity known by creatures and does not look back to inner-trinitarian life as Gunton prefers. Gunton, Triune Creator, 152. 26 A contrast with the work of T.F. Torrance has already been mentioned. I remain unconvinced that Calvin was aware of the work of Copernicus. See footnote in the introduction for work which debates Calvin’s knowledge of Copernicus. Nor did Calvin confront biblical cosmology against its Ancient Near Eastern or Egyptian background. See for example: Gerhard F. Hasel and Michael G. Hasel, “The Unique Cosmology of Genesis 1 against Ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian Parallels,” in The Genesis Creation Account, ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil, 9–29 (Berrin Springs: Andrews University Press, 2015). 27 Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science; Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion.

Theological Cosmology

primarily concerned with useful doctrinal teaching for humanity rather than presenting a comprehensive or scientific account. The discernment of genre and intention govern Calvin’s discussion of the act of creation just as they do in other areas. Calvin’s teaching on the act of creation is first of all the sacred doctrine of the church, which is an article of faith. Hence, Calvin responds theologically to alternative cosmological claims. Calvin sees this doctrine of faith as chastening but not dismissing scientific knowledge. Calvin utilises contemporary science and received cosmology where he sees these in line with Genesis, but when Calvin sees variation between humanly derived wisdom and the divine word he affirms the latter rather than the former. Kaiser observes that “Calvin stressed the natural order when he felt that would strengthen faith in God; he qualified it when he felt it would become self-contained and detract from faith”.28 From occasions of tension between scriptural and non-scriptural explanations Calvin lauds God’s power and unfathomable operation rather than challenging the scriptural account. In this way Calvin varies his approach to science, or better natural order, governed by his goal of true knowledge of God by faith. Calvin limits the application of scientific explanations to the realm of the cosmos explorable by the senses without saying they are of no value. Scientific knowledge is true and valuable, but cannot verify nor falsify the knowledge of God that comes by faith. These limitations do not operate in the opposite direction. Calvin sees the Creator as intimately involved with creation’s order, and therefore with the normally observed phenomena which comprise the realm of science. At times Calvin affirms the Creator’s use of expected means, but the Creator need not work in a manner that is expected or explicable by the natural sciences. Due to this one way limitation, Calvin’s stance is a mixed position where divine action and observable operations concur at times and not at others, but only ever in a way where the Creator may negate creaturely order, never in a way where creaturely order can counter things known of the Creator by faith.29 Calvin assumes that knowledge gained by observation is reconcilable to his reading of the text, such as the age of the earth, or else his hermeneutic explains why his reading remains correct even in contradiction of observation, such as the place of the waters. Observation may demand an appeal to hermeneutics and mystery, 28 Christopher B. Kaiser, “Calvin’s Understanding of Aristotelian Natural Philosophy: Its Extent and Possible Origin,” in Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin, vol. 10, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1988), 80. 29 Calvin’s stance is obliquely relevant to discussion of divine action and to programs which seek to promote engagement between theology and science. Calvin holds a view of double agency, as outlined below, and he assumes the preeminence of theology in a manner which now cannot be taken for granted. Calvin is not drawn to accept the worldview and assumptions of his opponents. The details of this approach will be seen in what follows.

97

98

The Agent and Act of Creation

but observation does not, and in fact cannot, falsify Calvin’s reading. Calvin gives priority to scriptural revelation, even in contradiction to observation. This applies to so-called natural observations, but also to observation of social circumstances and history. In this way Calvin’s acceptance, or lack thereof, of ‘scientific’ findings remains within the realm of the knowledge of faith. Calvin’s view is neither combative, nor independence of science and theology. He provides some interaction between the two. In Henri Blocher’s terms Calvin is neither a pure fideist nor a pure concordist, but certainly not an anti-scientist.30 The primary limitation of Calvin’s view at this point is the restricted place for observation to refine his hermeneutic. Given Calvin’s explicitly theological drive and secondary interest in scientific concerns the primary challenge to Calvin’s theologically driven cosmology can be considered. The eternity of matter was the primary cosmological model that challenged Calvin. This alternative had been encountered by the church fathers and Calvin echoes their arguments.31 This does not sound like a scientific debate to modern ears, but it is where Calvin displays his attitude to alternative cosmological explanations. Thompson summarises the Reformation context of the treatment of eternity and goodness of matter. Both controversies seem less urgent in the sixteenth century [than the early church]. Indeed, while Reformation exegetes were regularly willing to discount Augustine’s speculations on many points, his views on the spiritual “pre-creation” were simply ignored. And if greater attention was paid to claims about the eternity of the world, in the sixteenth century the controversy seems more staged than real—more an occasion to observe the failings to which secular pagan philosophy is liable on account of its ignorance or neglect of the revelation possessed by Christians in the Bible.32

Calvin is largely not doctrinally innovative in these debates, but his application displays new emphases. It is still important to present what Calvin says about the non-eternity of matter and direct divine involvement in the process. Calvin’s letter to Prince Henry negatively evaluates Aristotle and Plato as well as reiterating the unprofitable nature of such wisdom and inaccessibility of the history of the creation of the world apart from revelation and the knowledge that is 30 Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: Opening Chapters of Genesis (Downers Grove: IVP, 1984), 20–27. 31 Gerhard May analyses the development of creatio ex nihilo in its early church context. Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). 32 Thompson, Reformation Commentary, lvi.

Theological Cosmology

by faith.33 The non-eternity of matter is strongly asserted by Calvin without extensive argument. In both commentary and sermons he assumes this was taught and passed on orally from father to son, from Adam until it was written down by Moses. The primary criticism of philosophers is not a lack of logic or a lack of thorough investigation, but the lack of belief in the truth. For example, Calvin praises Aristotle as the wisest and most erudite man to ever live, but still charges him with proud rejection of his Creator and suppression of the truth.34 The cosmological conclusion that matter is eternal is one manifestation of humanity’s wider foolishness and culpable rejection of true knowledge of the Creator found in scripture.35 Belief in the eternity of matter is thus a moral issue and not resolvable by natural philosophy. As described previously, for Calvin eternity is particular to God himself and essential to him. Calvin proves the divinity of the Son and Spirit by their sharing in eternity and hence to claim eternity for matter is tantamount to claiming that the world itself is divine, although Calvin does not make this conclusion here in his descriptions of Aristotle’s position. The contrast of God’s eternity and creatures’ having beginning and end is vital in Calvin’s distinction of the two and his description of their relation. The positive corollaries of this non-eternity of matter, the doctrinal account of ‘creation from nothing’ and temporal creation, will be explored further below. Calvin’s first challenge was belief in the eternity of matter. The second was that there was no direct involvement between the Creator and matter. Calvin reads direct divine operation in the work of creation straight-forwardly from scripture where God is the primary subject of the verb created. Calvin also dwells on direct divine operation rather than secondary causes during the week of creation. This is an advanced post for Calvin’s battle against a distant or idle deity that will roll over into discussion of providential governance rather than into a skirmish with Greek demiurges. The direct involvement of God in creation means he is not bound to secondary causes and Calvin sees God working contrary to such means.36 In this context ‘creation from nothing’ will become the primary example of direct divine operation where no secondary or humanly expected means were available. This overflows from Calvin’s doctrine of God. The abundant inner life of God, having all being, life, goodness, light, and power in himself, means nothing secondary is necessary.

33 34 35 36

CO 20:118 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:7–8 Comm. Gen 1:1; CO 23:15 Even though, Calvin believes God normally uses secondary means providentially.

99

100

The Agent and Act of Creation

In the week of creation the production of light, plants, and animals demonstrate divine operation. Calvin’s commentary highlights how these works counter human opinions of causes,37 how this counter-intuitive operation is for human education,38 and how this miracle is comparable to ‘creation from nothing’.39 Yet, at the same time, Calvin acknowledges that God has established ongoing orders in nature and ordinarily utilises secondary and intermediate causes. Calvin points beyond the contemporary explanations of these causes to the Author who deserves praise. Calvin appears more emphatic on this point in his sermons emphasising that God’s work by methods contrary to human reason should result in greater praise and worship of God. For example, “it is therefore a thing contrary to all reason that light proceeds from such a source, it is so to speak from darkness which is its opposite. But in that we see the admirable power of God, which works in a strange fashion, in order that we might be so much more incited to adore him and magnify him”.40 Calvin does not pass over secondary causes because he deems them unimportant nor does he highlight God working without them because that is the only mode of divine operation. Rather, God’s work by his Word and Spirit contrary to human expectation and by secondary explanations is for the sake of true worship. The Creator’s direct involvement in and with creation leads Calvin to dismiss any description of creation that attributes the world to fortune or chance. Calvin derides those who pose the question of the chicken and the egg and ignore what their eyes can see in order to dismiss Genesis’ account. He places creation by fortune alongside such mocked positions.41 One wonders what Calvin would make of descriptions of humanity as stardust and the product of quantum forces. It is noteworthy that the mechanism Calvin critiques is problematic for him because it dismisses the intimate and careful involvement of the Creator manifesting his power and goodness rather proposing a scientific counter. Calvin does not consider a position where God directs the small swirling pieces or governs quantum fluctuations. Calvin continues to counter two perversions of true knowledge; one fails to look beyond creation to its Author, and another refuses to look to the creation that the Author has made. In this way Calvin’s interaction with cosmological models does return to his approach to true knowledge of the Creator.42 Study of nature is not a failure or misuse of human faculties, but refusal to acknowledge 37 38 39 40 41 42

Comm. Gen 1:3; CO 23:17 Comm. Gen 1:11; CO 23:19–20 Comm. Gen 1:24; CO 23:24 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:13 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:8 CO 23:7–8

From Nothing

the Author makes such study perverse. Calvin’s response to the cosmology of natural philosophy returns to the charge of idolatry and lack of faith rather than engagement with the particulars of the model itself. Hence, Calvin dismisses alternative cosmological accounts because of their theological implications or assumptions rather than on observational or scientific grounds. Calvin accepts the theological framework of ‘creation from nothing’ developed earlier in response to the challenge of eternal and non-good matter. The implication for ongoing wrestles between science and Creation is that theological implications need to be taken as seriously as scientific results.43 Dismissing one or the other is not a synthesis. Calvin gave a theological cosmology without conceding the a-theological assumptions of natural philosophers. As a result, Calvin’s exposition from scripture of ‘creation from nothing’ and creation in and with time are first doctrinal statements and only secondarily applicable to the particular observations and claims of natural philosophy. We now examine these two components of Calvin’s teaching on the act and week of creation.

3.3 From Nothing

Early establishment means there is a long acceptance of ‘creation from nothing’ before, as Thompson observes, the uncontroversial status of this teaching in the sixteenth century.44 May suggests that the doctrine functions in such a way that “church theology wants the proposition of creatio ex nihilo to express and safeguard the omnipotence and freedom of God acting in history”.45 Calvin affirms divine power and freedom in the act of creation and from this basis he affirms both in an ongoing way in God’s relation to creation. However, this is never apart from divine goodness and care for his church so that ‘creation from nothing’ functions as a doctrine of comfort in the face of difficulty rather than a doctrine where divine power threatens creaturely existence. Calvin rests his scriptural case for ‘creation from nothing’ on the verb bara’: “therefore, the meaning is, the world is founded from nothing”.46 This leads to some difficulty when the verb is used in Genesis 1:21 for the creation of fish and birds when materials are already present. Calvin, however, thinks this is 43 In this I agree with Fergusson’s conclusion that “a commitment to the doctrines of creation and providence is not undermined by the hyperinflated claims of natural scientists to have banished the need for God in all human forms of understanding”. David Fergusson, “Interpreting the Story of Creation,” in Genesis and Christian theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 173. 44 Thompson, Reformation Commentary, lvi. 45 May, “Creatio Ex Nihilo,” 180. 46 Comm. Gen 1:1; CO 23:15. Compare Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:8

101

102

The Agent and Act of Creation

explicable and not a contradiction to his proof of ‘creation from nothing’.47 Calvin recognises the difficulty—or not—of defining bara’ as including ‘from nothing’ in its essential meaning. Bara’ seems to be the only textual evidence drawn on directly to support ‘creation from nothing’. Such a basis has been questioned in more recent scholarship. Bob Becking and Marjo C.A. Korpel reflect on recent discussions.48 While various options for the meaning of bara’ are considered, Becking and Korpel only mention the concept of ‘from nothing’ in their introduction as an erroneous understanding.49 Calvin, with a Hebrew text available to him, did not move away from his traditional understanding of the meaning of the verb.50 Calvin is more interested in the act of ‘creation from nothing’ as rooted in the text than arguing for it metaphysically. Calvin’s understanding is more literalistic than Janet Soskice’s suggestion that “the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is a biblically-inspired piece of metaphysics”.51 ‘Creation from nothing’, with its corollaries and implications, is deeply embedded in Calvin’s position. For example, it implies that creation is not divine.52 47 Calvin appears to be stretching to find an acceptable explanation for this later use of the verb since he has so fiercely said it includes the component of ‘creation from nothing’ in the very definition. “Now it is true that this word “creation” is repeated here, and in that may be aroused a question, because we have said about that the word means that there had been nothing to begin with, I say that there had been no substance, as when we have seen that God created the heaven and the earth, it is as before, there was nothing which was… we should not be much troubled, to remove the absurdity that may be alleged here, because there is nothing in it.” Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:44–45 48 A list of lexicons and current definitions is provided in: Bob Becking and Marjo C.A. Korpel, “To Create, to Separate or to Construct: An Alternative for a Recent Proposal as to the Interpretation of bara [Hebrew Characters] in Gen 1:1–2:4a,” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10 (2010): 21, doi:10.5508/jhs.2010.v10.a3. 49 Becking and Korpel, “To Create, to Separate or to Construct,” 2. 50 I agree with Blowers, Fergusson, and McFarland that direct scriptural support for ‘creation from nothing’ is ambiguous and observe the importance of broader theological challenges amid which ‘creation from nothing’ arose as a doctrine. This is not to say that ‘creation from nothing’ is inconsistent with nor without support in scripture, particularly Genesis 1. Paul W. Blowers, Drama of the Divine Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 167–69; Fergusson, Creation, 15; McFarland, From Nothing, 5. 51 Calvin’s assertions about bara’ cannot be sustained in light of the challenge to Calvin’s reading by contemporary historical-critical approaches at this point. Soskice, “Creation and the Glory of Creatures,” 181; Soskice, “Athens and Jerusalem, Alexandria and Edessa: Is there a metaphysics of Scripture?,” 149–62. 52 Calvin confesses there is a reverent way to say ‘nature is God’ but the danger of confusing God and his prescribed order and works is so great that such a statement ‘is harmful’ (Inst. 1.1.5; CO 2:45). Calvin strives to maintain a clear distinction between God and his work in creation. Even when the Spirit, diffused everywhere, transfuses his energy into all things this affirms the non-deity of the creatures requiring essence, life, and movement to be supplied by God. (Inst. 1.13.14) Using these statements to support any kind of emanationist position is a distortion

From Nothing

To be created is to be from nothing, not to have being in one’s self but to be dependent on the uncreated One. Calvin ties the dependence of all existence on God closely to the verb ‘create’, just as he links from nothing to this same verb.53 ‘Creation from nothing’ also underscores that all things, which are not God, were created by God. If in the beginning there was God and nothing, then God alone is the Creator of the heavens and earth, visible and invisible, of all that is seen and unseen.54 All creatures are not God, and all creatures are created by God in the beginning. Therefore, all creatures depend on God for their existence at every moment. This follows from ‘creation from nothing’. Creaturely dependence is initiated in the beginning and continues to define the relation of Creator and creature. ‘Creation from nothing’ operates as a stronghold for Calvin from which to support God’s powerfully good operation for creatures at every moment. However, the theological function undergirding dependence is not comparable to Schleiermacher’s emphasis on God as the thence of our absolute dependence. Despite Calvin’s outworking of ‘creation from nothing’ for the faith of the church Schleiermacher clearly has a contrasting approach. In the context of Calvin’s treatment of Genesis, this is primarily because Schleiermacher rejects Calvin’s exegetical basis and historical realism. As Gerrish observes: “now the most important consequence of this approach [of Schleiermacher’s] is not that the Genesis account of creation need not be taken literally, but that the doctrine of creation is not, strictly speaking, about how the world got started at all; rather, it is about the way the devout mind perceives the natural order”.55 Beyond the start of Genesis Calvin does not frequently cite ‘creation from nothing’ but it provides historical theological background for the dependence of all things on God, which grounds the experience of the faithful. Calvin can therefore agree when Soskice concludes: “the world is graced in its createdness which is happening all the time” because of its historical beginning.56 ‘Creation from nothing’ therefore plays its role in the ongoing connection between the act of creation and providence.

53 54

55 56

of Calvin’s thought, particularly as laid out in his adherence to “creation from nothing.” For Calvin creation is not divine and ‘creation from nothing’ is a key doctrinal manifestation of this. Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:7 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:8–9. Calvin rejects Augustine’s understanding of the creation of light as the creation of the spiritual realms and prefers to say that Genesis is concerned only with the perceptible universe, which is useful for humanity and accessible to all people regardless of education. Moses’ focus on the visible realm is pedagogical and useful. A lack of discussion of the invisible and spiritual realm does not negate the implication of ‘creation from nothing’ that it too is created. Brian A. Gerrish, “Nature and the Theater of Redemption: Schleiermacher on Christian Dogmatics and the Creation Story,” Ex Auditu 3, no. 1 (1987): 126. Soskice, “Creation and the Glory of Creatures,” 185.

103

104

The Agent and Act of Creation

In the opposite direction, contrary to creation’s dependence, ‘creation from nothing’ demands the Creator’s independence. This means a lack of restriction and no hindrance by creation on the Creator. ‘Creation from nothing’ is taken as irrefutable evidence that God can do anything, even when it appears contrary to expected means and explanations. For example, that birds emerge from water is unexpected, but not problematic, since God previously created all things from nothing.57 ‘Creation from nothing’ undergirds divine freedom in a way that counters those fanatics who judge God according to their understanding, imposing the limits of human reason to him.58 Calvin deduces from ‘creation from nothing’ that God can work with the material world as he pleases and may continue to create more things from nothing according to his good pleasure. For example, God is free to create human bodies from nothing and clothe angels with them until they deliver the promise to Abraham, and then afterwards destroy those bodies.59 Calvin believes God is both able and free to create from nothing even after the beginning. Further, ‘creation from nothing’ has resonance beyond God’s freedom and power to carry out a particular action. It provides a foundation for divine actions, which miraculously bring forth the church or foreshadow new creation. For example, the repopulation of the earth following the flood parallels the first ‘creation from nothing’.60 Calvin reasons that if God can create from nothing then this amazing burst of new human life should not be implausible; he acknowledges that Moses does not list all the nations who arose after the flood so that the reality was even greater than Genesis tells. The purpose is to bring the church to marvel at God’s power, have confidence in his provision, and humbly worship the Creator. This is in contrast to those who would demand explanation for both ‘creation from nothing’ and what follows.61 Here Calvin shows that acceptance of ‘creation from nothing’ is foundational for acceptance of God’s power displayed in the ongoing history of the world; each is as incomprehensible as the other. Following closely from this example Calvin draws attention to God establishing the church in Abraham. Calvin lauds God’s incomprehensible action three times in his sermon on Genesis 11:10–31 in language reminiscent of his descriptions of ‘creation from nothing’ but without

57 Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:44 58 For a fuller analysis of the identity of les fantasticques see: Luce Albert, “Calvin contre les ‘phantastiques’: une anthropologie de la ‘fantasie,’” in Calvin et l’humanisme, 139–61. 59 Serm. Gen 18:1–8; SC 11/2:957 60 Serm. Gen 10:1–32; SC 11/1:535 61 Serm. Gen 10:1–32; SC 11/1:536

From Nothing

making a direct reference to it.62 The reaction to the birth of the church at this point is the same reaction as to ‘creation from nothing’.63 The parallel to ‘creation from nothing’ is explicit when God brings life from the as good as dead, Abram and Sarai, and this is the general pattern for God’s work giving life to the church. Calvin explains the ceremony in Genesis 15 as a mirror that reflects that “the proper office of God is to create [the church] from nothing and to awake from death”.64 The emergence of the church from nothing contrasts to any grounds for earthly boasting about the origins of the Jewish people.65 Again, the effect of unexpected divine power for the church is to bring praise to God. A final example of Calvin referring to ‘creation from nothing’ is his discussion when Lot’s wife is transformed into a pillar of salt.66 Other interpreters had discussed this transformation, and Calvin carefully states that the transformation applied only to her body and not her soul.67 In preaching, Calvin references God’s ability to bring living birds from lifeless eggs and asks his congregation to contemplate all that God does in nature.68 He then reasons that God’s ability to change a human body into stone is not more miraculous than the divine ability to change ashes into a resurrection body. The one who made all things from nothing is free to dispose of creation according to his will, even if human creatures do not understand the operation of his power: “therefore thus this sole principle suffices for us, that is to say that God who created all from nothing can dispose of his creatures in such a way that he will make changes which rise above our understanding. But be that as it may, so it is necessary for us to leave him this liberty there, that is to say that he disposes of his creatures at his will”.69 The doctrine of ‘creation from nothing’ means that God can do with creation as he pleases. It affirms that God is both architect and owner of the house and under no obligation. However, the points where Calvin refers to extraordinary divine power and ‘creation from nothing’ shows that what pleases the master of 62 Serm. Gen 11:10–31; SC 11/2:567, 569, 573–74 63 Calvin’s commitment to reading Genesis in its Old Testament context is here seen as he returns to ‘creation from nothing’ rather than leaping forward to the resurrection of Christ and birth from the dead as the parallel for the church. 64 Comm. Gen 15:10; CO 23:217 65 Comm. Gen 20:14; CO 23:411 66 Comm. Gen 19:26; CO 23:278 67 See Engammare’s footnotes in SC 11/2:1066–68 for further details. It is worth noting, at least briefly, the context of Calvin’s comments against those subjecting God to their own judgement. Calvin’s struggle against the libertines and les fantasticques is well outlined by Albert, “Calvin contre les ‘phantastiques’: une anthropologie de la ‘fantasie.’” 68 Serm. Gen 19:24–30; SC 11/2:1068 69 Serm. Gen 19:24–30; SC 11/2:1068–69

105

106

The Agent and Act of Creation

all creation is the flourishing of the church in Christ. ‘Creation from nothing’ does not demonstrate caprice or coercion because the generous will of God is known in Christ and foreshadowed to the mothers and fathers of the church in Genesis. The church does not entrust itself to an abstract absolute power, but the divine care which hems in creation with his goodness and power.70 The church knows “that God watches over us, that will be more for us that all the walls, all the ramparts, and all the moats in the world”.71 ‘Creation from nothing’ guards the church in the present and offers hope of a physical new creation. For Calvin, ‘creation from nothing’ is closely linked to divine power and freedom, but the doctrinal, rhetorical, and pastoral force of these connections is not operative without also linking ‘creation from nothing’ to divine care towards the church. That is, ‘creation from nothing’ does not emphasise power and freedom apart from divine goodness and faithfulness. The divine power is always virtuous power, which is a divine power never conceived apart from the virtues which God is. Calvin’s conception is not built from his trinitarian theology yet these are never impersonal concepts. Those who call on God as father are those who lay hold of these truths. Unlike Luther, at least according to Schwanke’s reading, for Calvin ‘creation from nothing’ is not an existential and theological frame of grace for creation, conservation, and new creation.72 In contrast to Schwanke’s view of Luther’s theology, ‘creation from nothing’ was not central to Calvin’s theology.73 ‘Creation from nothing’ does underscore the gracious and unnecessary character of God’s external works, but this is not its only function for Calvin, nor does this graciousness appear to be the primary theological function of ‘creation from nothing’ as Calvin reads Genesis. This is because Calvin emphasises that time, the history of God’s fellowship with his people, begins with the act of creation. ‘Creation from nothing’ therefore has a foundational theological character, but also a distinctly historical character for Calvin.74 ‘Creation from nothing’ as the gracious birth of fellowship between God and creatures is therefore key to Calvin’s understanding of this as a Christian doctrine. As Sokolowski says, creation does not “constitute a common ground, a common genus for Christianity and many other religions and philosophies,” 70 Serm. Gen 6:1–3; SC 11/1:350 71 Serm. Gen 4:12–14; SC 11/1:300–01 72 Johannes Schwanke, Creatio ex nihilo Luthers Lehre von Der Schöpfung Aus Dem Nichts in Der Großen Genesisvorlesung (1535–1545), Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 126 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004). 73 Schwanke, “Martin Luther’s theology of creation,” IJST 18, no. 4 (2016): 413. 74 The properly creaturely nature of time is a significant aspect to consider in answer to Selderhuis’ call for more attention to Calvin’s view of history. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 289.

From Nothing

but ‘creation from nothing’ is a decisive moment for Christian doctrine.75 Calvin’s emphasis on divine freedom and power for creatures is in harmony with Webster’s conclusion that “only a creator free from time and matter is free for them, capable of creative love because inexhaustible and without agitation”.76 However, in contrast to Webster’s readiness to trace creation to trinitarian love, Calvin does not speak of love in connection to ‘creation from nothing’.77 Power, freedom, and providential governance are not separate from goodness and fatherly care, but language of divine love is not prominent in Calvin’s exposition. The omission of this leaves Calvin open to caricature as serving a loveless God. Given Calvin’s Augustinian heritage the lack of emphasis on divine love in the being of God and subsequently in God’s external work of creation is surprising.78 Calvin may hesitate here because of the priority he gives the church and the special love known in Christ by God’s children.79 Calvin’s decision to sit with Genesis in its context before leaping to Christ makes him slow to speak of Christ’s love in connection with ‘creation from nothing’. Nonetheless, the Creator who works ‘creation from nothing’ is the same Redeemer and Perfecter of all things. Creation is an act in and with time, sparking the history of restoration as well as being ‘creation from nothing’.

75 Robert Sokolowski, “Creation and Christian Understanding,” in God and Creation, 180. Compare: Reinhard Hütter, “’Creatio ex nihilo’: Promise of the Gift: Remembering the Doctrine of Creation in Troubled Times,” Currents in Theology and Mission 19 (1992): 90; John B. Webster, “Creation out of Nothing,” in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, ed. Michael Allen and Scott Swain (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 128–29. 76 Webster, “Creation out of Nothing,” 129. 77 Webster, “‘Love is also a Lover of Life’,” 156–71. This might also be compared with Ian McFarland’s critique of Barth’s characterisation of God as the one who loves in freedom. Ian McFarland, “Present in Love: Rethinking Barth on the Divine Perfections,” MT 33, no. 1 (2017), doi: 10.1111/moth.12313. 78 For a thorough investigation of Calvin’s use of Augustine see Luchesius A.H. Smits, Saint Augustin dans l’Oeuvre de Jean Calvin, Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis. Dissertationes Ad Gradum Magistri in Facultate Theologica Vel in Facultate Iuris Canonici Consequendum Conscriptae, Series 3, t. 4, pars 1–2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1956). 79 For example, in the Argument to his Genesis commentary Calvin mentions God’s love connected with Christ first and foremost. CO 23:11–12. Calvin references divine paternal love more freely with respect to God’s covenantal relationship and blessing of the church. See for example commentary of God’s dealing with Noah (Genesis 9:5, 6, 10), Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 15:6; 17:2, 12, 14, 20; 18:18; 22:2), Isaac (26:14, 23, 28), Jacob (Genesis 48:15), Joseph (Genesis 39:3, 9). Even in the garden, the fatherly love of the Creator is tied to the sacramental mediation of life through the tree which is an image of Christ (Genesis 4:2).

107

108

The Agent and Act of Creation

3.4 In and with Time

As well as ‘creation from nothing’, a second doctrinal point regarding the act of creation is that it occurs in and with time. This section will first examine that time has a beginning and is hence properly creaturely, which follows from God having no need for time. The next section will explore the point that it is theologically significant that this temporal beginning occurs in continuity with the history of the church. These two points then allow exploration of the usefulness of the doctrine, because time has a pedagogical function. Calvin outlines the usefulness of this theological position in his exposition of both the act and week of creation. Time is never wasted, but rather fulfilled, when it is spent growing in knowledge of the Creator. This theologically established creaturely teaching function of time provides a foundation for Calvin to later speak of God’s faithful promise-keeping work in time and to counsel the church to patience for the fulfilment of time. Confronted in large letters with the opening word of Genesis bereshith or in principio or au commencement or in the beginning, there are a number of possibilities and Calvin was aware of this. For example, Ambrose discusses that the scope of principio is threefold for time, number, or foundation before also enumerating other possible renderings of beginning.80 Calvin’s first statement concerning the text of Genesis in commentary negates a realm of possible interpretation by denying that beginning refers directly to Christ.81 Calvin addresses an unnamed alternative perspective and without drawing breath ploughs into his own exposition. Pausing here to discover the opponent without explicit confirmation from Calvin is difficult. Stauffer sees a reference, via Calvin’s reading of Luther, to Augustine, but ultimately Plato.82 Luther himself wonders why reference to the Word is omitted from the opening phrase, but says simply that Moses means “everything that is, was created by God”.83 Dae-Woo describes Calvin’s assertion here “in contrast to Capito” but Lane does not list Capito among the works consulted by Calvin in preparation of his Genesis commentary.84 Ambrose expounds what he calls a mystical sense, drawing on the New Testament, to say “in this beginning, that is, in Christ, God created the heaven and the earth”.85

80 81 82 83 84

Ambrose, Hexameron, 11. Comm. Gen 1:1; CO 23:14 Stauffer, “L’exegese de Genese 1, 1–3 Chez Luther et Calvin,” 73. LW, vol. 1, 7. Dae-Woo, “God’s Creation in Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis and in Capito’s Hexameron Dei Opus,” 287; Lane, John Calvin, 236. 85 Ambrose, Hexameron, 15.

In and with Time

Calvin will soon conclude that the Word and Spirit are present from the beginning, that the triune Creator is at work, fiercely denying any ground to Servetus. So, where is the frivolity that Calvin so starkly counters? Origen opens his first homily on Genesis, “What is the beginning of all things except our Lord and ‘Saviour of all’, Jesus Christ ‘the firstborn of every creature’?... Scripture is not speaking here of any temporal beginning”.86 Perhaps Origen is a likely candidate given his influence on subsequent readers of Genesis and Calvin’s dislike for Origen’s exegetical method, but at present any answer will be based on inferences and circumstantial evidence, a comparative exegetical study can draw out similarities or differences, but this does not necessarily enlighten us further. Yet, even without a definite opponent, the point stands that Calvin had exegetical choices that impacted theological considerations as weighty as trinitarian and christological disputes, but at times the text directed him to pass over them, not because the controversy was insignificant, but because that particular interpretation was frivolous. Calvin’s exegesis rests on a conviction that scripture is useful and the Spirit’s intention in delivering the Word is practical. He prefers a temporal meaning drawn from the phrase in the beginning and thus the first comment refutes the idea that the world is eternal, instead teaching that time, like all creatures, has a beginning; in Calvin’s eyes this is where the fruitfulness of the phrase lies. In the beginning means that creation occurs with time. Calvin does not pause in his exegesis to discuss infinite regressions; with Aquinas, while a temporal beginning is reasonable to Calvin, it is a revealed insight. With Augustine, Calvin quips against the curious that before the beginning the Creator “had been making hell for the curious”.87 This is not really a description of God’s activity prior to creation, because there is no prior time, just as there is no external space, to that which is woven into the fabric of the heavens and earth. The finitude of space correlates with the finitude of time and therefore Calvin believes time is created and properly creaturely and limited in a comparable way.88 Calvin’s logic hangs on his consideration of God’s aseity and his perpetual dynamic life.89 The mockers are at fault because they have not properly ap86 Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, trans. Ronald E. Heine, vol. 71, The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 47. 87 CO 23:7 88 CO 23:9–10 89 While Calvin could agree with a description of divine eternity as enduring and active (Blocher, “Yesterday, Today, Forever: Time, Times, Eternity in Biblical Perspective,” Tyndale Bulletin 52, no. 2 (2001): 200) I concur with Helm (“Calvin on ‘Beyond all ages’,” Tyndale Bulletin 53, no. 1 (2002): 148) that Calvin did not disagree with Augustine’s description of God as

109

110

The Agent and Act of Creation

preciated the unnecessary and thus gracious and contingent character of the heavens and earth. The fully satisfied and complete God is appropriately at rest for six, ten, or a hundred thousand years, and “before all ages” but this rest is not the same as idleness.90 If Calvin had affirmed a thirteen billion year history of the heavens and earth it would not change his position with respect to God’s inner life. The God who is eternally from himself is the Creator. In this Creator there is no change from inactivity to activity and he never abandons the heavens and earth to themselves or humanity to itself. Temporal beginning is not a door to vain enquiry, but an opportunity to conform creaturely wisdom to the revealed counsel of God, “which is so admirable”.91 The curious have failed to show appropriate humility to the divine Word and the Spirit by proudly asserting their questions over against this matter known by faith.92 The mockers’ problem, when they deny a temporal beginning, is not faulty logic, but a lack of adoration.93 Creation is made in and with time because time and space are both creaturely necessities and reality. Time is not integral to divine being any more than space is, but time commences in the beginning. The second point to be made is that the historical and theological continuity between Adam and Calvin, God’s church, cements this beginning as a temporal event 6000 years previous. Calvin reads the beginning in continuity with the salvation history that follows and concludes from this that it is useful for the church to know her whole history, which includes the fatherly preparation for her arrival.94 Whilst in agreement with his understanding of the natural world, the 6000-year old age of the earth is not a scientific conclusion for

90 91 92 93

94

timeless. Recruiting Calvin in support of an argument for succession in God, if not time, seems inappropriate. Serm. Gen 1:1; SC 11/1:5 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:6 Here Calvin references Hebrews 11:3. Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:5 Like Calvin, Luther reads Genesis 1 as being about the visible and sensible world, rather than Augustine’s allegorical or mystical approach. However, unlike Calvin’s exegesis of six 24–hour days, Luther remains agnostic about the nature of the days. “If, then, we do not understand the nature of the days or have no insight into why God wanted to make use of these intervals of time, let us confess our lack of understanding rather than distort the words, contrary to their context, into a foreign meaning.” LW, vol. 1, 5. Concerning the nature of the days Calvin appears very confident in his reading of the text as the literal sense. At other points in his exegesis Calvin can allow for multiple readings or not knowing a detail. However, the historical nature of the beginning with time bears enough theological weight for Calvin that its temporal character is not left open. This is against Dae-Woo’s reading of Calvin’s exegesis of Genesis which fails to see Calvin reading in continuity with and concerned for the history of the church. While Calvin’s concern for the literary details of the opening verses may omit direct references Calvin’s exegesis of those details depends on the larger argument of the book and his connection of Genesis 1 with what follows.

In and with Time

Calvin, but a theological one dependent on his understanding of the intention of Genesis to reveal a full history of God’s action with and for his people. The text contributes to this not only by the details of words, but the construction of the book. Beginning is a theological proposition for Calvin before it is a natural one. It does however remain a natural and historical temporal beginning. My contention that Calvin understands Creation theologically and historically is slightly different from and compatible with Partee’s observation from the Institutes that “this account of creation is based, not on scientific observation, but on theological conviction”.95 Calvin thinks Genesis is history, that is, events at times in traceable continuity with his own; he sees a temporal unity of history as well as a theological unity from the beginning to his own day.96 The usefulness of the genealogies in Genesis demonstrates this.97 Calvin does not count himself among those excited to delve into the details of Genesis’ genealogies and his commentary on Genesis 10 is significantly shorter than surrounding chapters. However, regarding the generations of Shem in Genesis 11:10 Calvin says that Moses has included these “that we might not be ignorant of the age of the world”.98 This is vital because the history of the world is tied to the history of the church and therefore things have been recorded that show that God continuously works to have a people for himself and this is so from the beginning. Temporal beginning is important because of the importance of a concrete and particular existence of the church from the beginning, which provides a measurable datable existence that is connected with the following salvation history. Calvin teaches that this is very useful for the church: “that is useful because we need to know how long the church has existed on earth… God did not want us to be ignorant of his grace in these matters”.99 The age of the world is useful for the church and impossible to gather from pagan sources so God has included Genesis 11 so that this may be known. While other things from the times after the flood may have been profitable, God has chosen not to burden his people with the details, 95 Partee, Theology of John Calvin, 80. 96 In this respect Barth’s treatment of Genesis 1 and 2 as creation saga rather than a historical cover for non-historical speculation, that is, saga rather than myth, appears as a development, but not a direct contradiction of Calvin’s theological historical treatment of the text. However, Calvin is committed to the literal six days of creation and a young earth far more closely than Barth. CD III/I, 84. 97 Comm. Gen 10:1; CO 23:157 98 Comm. Gen 11:10; CO 23:168 99 Serm. Gen 11:10–31; SC 11/2:566. The emphasis on usefulness is lost in McGregor’s translation as he uses “need” to translate the phrase ‘c’est une chose qui nous est bien utile’. John Calvin, Sermons on Genesis, Chapters 11:5–20:7: Forty-Eight Sermons Delivered in Geneva between 24 January 1560 and 15 May 1560, trans. Rob Roy McGregor, 1st ed. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2012), 23.

111

112

The Agent and Act of Creation

but to include what is useful.100 Thus Calvin believes the beginning is a definite temporal reference because of its connection with what follows. This contrasts to a nineteenth century commentator who noted “first it is stated that in the beginning—originally—whenever that may have been—at the outset—without giving, here, any key to the absolute antiquity of our earth—the material universe was created by God”.101 Calvin is not satisfied for the beginning to remain spoken of only as “whenever that may have been”. The beginning has a definite temporal reference 6000 years earlier to aid the church in her present worship as she sees her calculable continuity with the whole history of the heavens and earth. In summary, from the phrase ‘in the beginning’ Calvin makes two theological points. First, that time is created and properly creaturely. Second, that the time of the beginning is continuous in a calculable manner with the history of the church. These are the theological convictions that are played out in his exposition of both the beginning itself and the week of creation where time has a pedagogical function. As is evident, the beginning is temporal, but not instantaneous creation. There is a long debate over whether the creation of the heavens and the earth refers to an instantaneous creation of all things in their fullness or the creation of the material from which things were formed, that is, whether Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement or part of creation which occurred on Day One. In their commentaries the reformers referenced the differences between those who favoured instantaneous creation and those who did not.102 Calvin parallels Oecolampadius’ phrase “imperfection begins, so that perfection follows” and the illustration of a foetus who develops to completion, which he then follows with “the world was not perfected at its very commencement, in the manner in which it is now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of heaven and earth”.103 Calvin affirms the formation of all things in embryonic form initially, but after six days “Moses declares that this world was in every sense completed, as if the whole house were well supplied and filled with its furniture”.104 God 100 Serm. Gen 11:10–31; SC 11/2:567 101 W. Jacobus Melanchthon, Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Book of Genesis, vol. 1 (R. Carter & Brothers, 1866), 59. 102 For example Luther’s first lectures, one of Calvin’s sources, direct hearers to Nicholas of Lyra for fuller discussion of the matter, but do make mention of Hilary and Augustine in favour of all things being created at the same time. Luther himself thought that the initial creation was unformed. LW, vol. 1, 4. 103 Comm. Gen 1:1; CO 23:14. Johann Oecolampadius, An Exposition of Genesis, trans. Mickey Mattox (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2013). 104 Comm. Gen 2:1; CO 23:31. The image of creation as a house with its furnishings is also a favourite of Luther. LW, vol. 1, 39. See Schwanke, Creatio Ex Nihilo, 110–11.

In and with Time

creates time and takes time to create in the first week, affirming the goodness of time and development as built into the fabric of creaturely reality. Calvin specifies that God has no need to take time or exert effort to bring creation into existence, therefore both an initial formless mass and gradual development must be for the sake of creatures, particularly human creatures, for whom this record has been kept.105 Calvin also counters any suggestion that a progressive week of creation means that creation is imperfect since the logical requirement for a good work to be instantly complete is not necessary.106 Things were not arranged and adorned on the first day, but God did not leave creation half-done.107 As evidence that good things do not need to be mature Calvin also cites the examples of children growing into adults, seed becoming bread, and trees taking time to flower and fruit.108 It is however notable that these examples assume that things take time to come to maturity in normal experience and they do not prove the goodness of process in itself without the initial assumption. Nor do the examples show the need for God’s initial work to have taken time rather than happening instantly. They are experiential arguments against the logical necessity for perfection to mean full instantaneous completion rather than logical arguments in favour of the goodness of process and time. Nonetheless, these are part of Calvin’s argument that time is good. Calvin does find himself in the somewhat peculiar position of affirming that God’s creative acts by his word are instant and without exertion, by the mere expression of his will, but that these instantaneous actions are arranged across the week of creation in a way that affirms the goodness of God taking time to create. This instant yet not instant creation arranged in an orderly way in creaturely time leads Calvin to preach concerning the creation of the stars that they are created in a moment immediately at God’s word, but this is a moment of time.109 The focus in the sermon is the swiftness with which God can accomplish what he declares, but it is still somewhat jarring given Calvin’s emphasis of the non-instantaneous nature of creation in the first week and that this occurs on Day Four.110 Throughout the week of creation Calvin returns to the point that God took time to accomplish the adornment of creation so that creatures might take time

105 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:10 106 This may perhaps be compared with Irenaeus’ refutation of defect in the initial work of the Father and only later progress to perfections. Irenaeus, Against Heresies II.4. 107 Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:83–84 108 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:20 109 Serm. Gen 15:4–6; SC 11/2:743–44 110 See also Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:40

113

114

The Agent and Act of Creation

to dwell upon these works and contemplate the Creator. Time spent contemplating the virtues of God displayed in blades of grass and fingernails, or the vast array of the heavens is never wasted and this is why “things were [progressively] directed into perfection”.111 Calvin does not attempt to reconcile the instantaneous and effortless divine action with the goodness of a progressive process set out for pedagogical purposes. He points to one or the other depending on the purpose of his exhortation. For Calvin the final object for contemplation will be the creation resulting from the dispersed instantaneous actions in the process of the week. Calvin does not utilise the patterns of separation and filling which are evident in the narrative in order to talk about the divine order evident in the work of creation. He does not make much of structural features of the chapter or genre the way that latter exegetes might if pursuing a more literary reading. The beauty of the adornment and the wisdom evident in the work of creation is reflected more in consideration of details and larger ordering of physical features rather than literary structure.112 After the fact humans contemplate the house more than the building process. With the Sabbath Calvin calls for consideration of the result of creation in detail and he notes that humans do not have the capacity to appreciate instantaneous actions. God’s extension of his work across the week of creation, God’s consideration of that work, and God’s command to rest at the end of that week, emphasise these actions are for creatures that they might recognise the divine virtues in the heavens and earth, and so know their Creator.113 The Sabbath directly addresses easily distractible humanity.114 Observance of the Sabbath in the creation narrative is different from the later Mosaic law, which foreshadows Christ. The creation Sabbath is a gift to creatures and a sign of divine love so that they contemplate their Creator, even though humans have such short attention spans. The problem of flightiness and distraction is exacerbated after the Fall and so the need for proper use of the Sabbath to appreciate that God took time to create is even greater.115 The non-instantaneous time taken to create and adorn is very much for humanity, it again demonstrates divine power and freedom used graciously 111 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:10. For initial references to a fingernail and a blade of grass see: Serm. Gen 1:1–2, 1:29–31; SC 11/1:6, 80 112 Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:84 113 Calvin’s reading of the creation sabbath is vastly different from Moltmann’s eschatological reading of sabbath. Calvin emphasises the pedagogical and temporal nature of the creation sabbath, even while this is a day sanctified by the Creator. Moltmann, God in Creation, 276–96. 114 Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:85 115 Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:86

A Purposeful Beginning

and abundantly for creation. The properly creaturely nature of time and the gift of time to the church in creation will be foundational as Calvin later counsels patience and trust when God does not instantly fulfil his promises, but rather takes time to achieve his purposes. These uses of the doctrine would not be possible unless the beginning was both temporal and non-instantaneous. These points are necessary for the pedagogical function which Calvin gives time.

3.5 A Purposeful Beginning

In light of this it is obvious that the act of creation is a beginning and not identical with the end. Moreover, this beginning is directed to an end and is therefore purposeful. The character of this purposeful beginning depends on the four points discussed so far in this section. First, the act of creation cannot be a purposeful beginning without creation in and with time, which is essential for change and progression to an end. This time has a beginning and is for creatures so there is continuity between the creation of time and the unfolding of the history of creation into the history of the church. Second, the act of creation ‘from nothing’ means that creation has no material suppositions and because of this creation remains gratuitous and gift from its beginning. The goal of creation is not due to its own necessity nor dependent on its own power and goodness for its accomplishment. Third, closely allied to ‘creation from nothing’, the act of creation means creation is not eternal and therefore not God. Contrary to any alternative cosmological claims, creation is not its own object of worship and adoration. The purpose of the beginning lies beyond itself. Fourth, the act of creation is the action of the good, wise, powerful, triune God and therefore creation’s purposeful beginning depends on the faithfulness of this Creator. Christ stands at the heart of the Creator’s purpose from the beginning and this is known by revelation. The history of creation, with the act of creation at its head, opens the history of the church and the Creator’s purpose to have a people for himself in Christ. In these ways the act of creation as a purposeful beginning is consistent with Calvin’s overall position concerning the agent and act of creation. This exposition of the act of creation as purposeful beginning affirms Stephen Edmondson’s assessment that the convergence of historical and christological sense in Calvin’s exegesis is founded theologically on his christological understanding of gracious and unified history.116 Edmondson looks to Abraham as a key covenantal point, but this analysis points back to the earlier divine work in the beginning, which has grace and purpose from nothing and in and with 116 Stephen Edmondson, “Christ and History,” 4.

115

116

The Agent and Act of Creation

time.117 The single covenant and priority of Christ the Mediator agrees with Calvin’s exposition of Genesis.118 Calvin does not use the language of covenant in his exposition of Genesis 2 but the Mediator is present from the beginning and by their very being creatures are called to a history fellowship with the Creator.119 The connection of christological and historical sense makes it difficult to disengage Calvin’s theological presentation of the beginning from his ‘scientific’ and ‘natural’ understanding thereof. As discussed above Calvin’s historical reading of the beginning is based on theological rather than scientific convictions. Calvin bases his calculation of the age of the earth on the assumption that God has disclosed a full history of the church that is calculable in years. This last qualification is based on the presence of genealogies in Genesis without any specific direction in the text that the purpose of the genealogies is for the sake of calculation. This last step appears to lack strong textual basis. Therefore, even if God’s full disclosure of the history of the church is affirmed theologically, this may not require that history be revealed in a manner that includes calculable dates. I suggest that the beginning may perhaps be considered historical for theological reasons without following Calvin on this last step. That is, Creation may be sufficiently revealed to the church for the full scope of history to be theologically conceived, but the church may not know how old she is. However, Calvin may still argue against this that the 6000-year age of the earth is required theologically because of the intertwining of christological and historical sense. Calvin’s understanding of the act of creation as a purposeful beginning may be compared and contrasted with others both before and after his thought. To conclude this section I will briefly consider Blowers’ reading of early church teaching on creation and Gerrish’s appropriation of Calvin and Schleiermacher. Blowers’ dramatic reading of Creation in the early church shows many themes that resonate with this reading of Calvin’s purposeful beginning. Patristic interpretation of the biblical witness to Creator and creation moved from the mythos—the ‘thick’ or theo-dramatic narrative of the Bible—to the logos of discursive theological commentary and back again, for the doctrine of the relation between Creator and creation could only be adequately represented to 117 In this light the promise to Abraham resonates with earlier divine action as part of God’s unfolding covenant fellowship with his church. It would challenge that the biblical history is ‘begun’ with Abraham even though Abraham is a key point in the development. Edmondson, “Christ and History,” 19. 118 Edmondson identifies this in his references to Abraham and Noah. Edmondson, “Christ and History,” 8. 119 Along this line, distinction yet relation may be seen between Calvin, Ursinus, and the later “covenant of works” in Federal Theology.

A Purposeful Beginning

the church as an intensifying drama heading toward its finale and capturing the church in the flow of its action.120

Blowers identifies ‘creation from nothing’ as a key instance of this drama that discloses “the Creator’s unlimited freedom, resourcefulness, and salvific prowess”.121 There is interplay between the narrative and doctrine of Creation that pushes forward into history for the church. From this perspective, a theological consideration of the act of creation corresponds to an ongoing theological history of restoration and the anticipated theological work of consummation. Calvin has a similar unity and teleologically driven reading of the external divine works. However, Calvin does not emphasise recapitulation in the same way as Irenaeus, nor does he share patristic enthusiasm for allegorical readings of the beginning “in Christ”.122 Calvin’s analysis of the text preserves a historical reading of beginning that also characterises his ongoing exegesis of the rest of Genesis. Calvin holds together both the literal sense and Christ as the scopus (matter) of scripture. Calvin’s concern for historical detail guards against christological flattening which Irenaean recapitulation may be accused of. Blowers discusses Young’s criticism of Irenaeus, in which all things are christological without particularity, and proposes that drama is the appropriate category for it to be overcome. In the case of Calvin the danger akin to Young’s criticism would arise from a reductive focus on Christ as Mediator in which redemptive history swallows creation without remainder. The category by which Calvin overcomes this in his exegesis would be history; or in more Mullerian terms, promise and fulfilment.123 Barth moves beyond Calvin at this point in his description of creation as the external basis of the covenant. Therefore, while at face value Calvin may agree with Barth’s statement that “The aim of creation is history”, the two understand the details of this statement differently.124 Calvin can consider creation as always having a Mediator without Barth’s insistence of the eternal determination of God in Jesus.125 This results in different views of beginning and the relation of the beginning to covenant history. In his treatment of Genesis Calvin maintains the distinctiveness of the beginning, and integrity of creation in relation to reconciliation, even while it is oriented to the fellowship of the Creator with creatures. 120 121 122 123 124 125

Blowers, Drama, 374. Blowers, Drama, 374. See above for brief discussion of Calvin’s refutation of the beginning directly meaning ‘Christ’. Blowers, Drama, 375–77. Barth, CD III/1.59 This distinction is seen more fully in the discussion of the next chapter where the ends of the good and ordered creation are considered.

117

118

The Agent and Act of Creation

Gerrish provides a different comparison. He begins his discussion: “I take the dogmatic locus of ‘creation’ to refer not to the beginning of the world but (1) to the kind of world presupposed by Christian faith… and (2) to the distinctively theistic understanding of the relationship between the continuing course of the world and the creative activity of God”.126 Contrary to Barth, Gerrish labels the opening of Genesis as “myth” that communicates “the way the world is”, meaning dependent on the God of the covenant, through a story of how the world began.127 Gerrish emphasises dependence and the present usefulness of Creation as the most important elements of the doctrine. In this way he seeks to reconcile Christian faith and science. He commends that theology treat Creation theologically as “created order” without reference to cosmological beginning. In the following chapter Gerrish presents God as Creator. As Gerrish self-identifies, he shares Calvin’s concern for piety and the usefulness of dogmatics for Christian faith. Also, Gerrish’s attention to the Creator reflects themes, such as divine attributes, which are prominent in Calvin’s thought. However, Gerrish’s dismissal of any historical beginning within the locus of Creation is a clear adherence to Schleiermacher rather than Calvin. As Partee says, “Calvin’s doctrine of creation, although a confession of faith, has its own integrity not being subsumed under the doctrine of providence. That is, unlike Schleiermacher, Calvin’s view of creation is not asserted entirely on the basis of the human experience of providence”.128 The act of creation is the beginning of providence, but faith in providence is not the ground of creation in the beginning. As the following chapters will affirm, in his treatment of Genesis Calvin is very concerned with created order and dependence, as well as with the ongoing relation of creatures to the Creator and the Creator’s providential governance of all things to their proper end. But for Calvin, ongoing creaturely experience of dependence is theologically and historically grounded in ‘creation from nothing’ and in and with time. Calvin is unsatisfied with relegating all questions of cosmological beginning to the realm of science. Creation has physical, historical, and theological reality. Gerrish’s account has some Calvinian flavour, but has departed so far from Calvin’s account of Creation from Genesis that in the end little resemblance remains. Calvin holds Creation and Providence together, indeed affirming that the Creator is only truly named as such when he is not only a momentary Creator, but Calvin believes that the doctrine of the act of creation is useful and should not be overlooked. Creation is coherent with 126 Gerrish, Christian Faith, 35–36. Italics original. 127 Gerrish, Christian Faith, 36. ‘The biblical history of creation is pure saga… But the concept of saga has to be marked off from that of myth as well as “history”’. Barth, CD III/1.82–84. 128 Partee, Theology of John Calvin, 119.

A Purposeful Beginning

present Christian faith when rooted in the act of creation, which is a purposeful beginning. Calvin’s exposition of the act of creation in the context of Genesis suggests that disconnecting the present from its beginning disorients the present from both past and future. From Genesis 1 Calvin does not discuss the final goal of creation in the beginning, but his exposition of the act of creation and his use of the doctrine at this point indicate that the beginning is not isolated in Calvin’s thought. The consistency of the beginning with the end is the consistency of the Creator who is the one true God, and from him, and through him, and to him are all things. It is not necessary that creation should endure nor that creation should have a goal purposed for it by its Creator, but Calvin holds both these to be true in light of God’s revelation of the agent and act of creation. In John Webster’s words, “in his work of creation, God inaugurates an order of being other than himself, and this work is presupposed in all subsequent assertions about that order of being”.129 Calvin’s conviction that the act of creation is a purposeful beginning, and therefore that creatures endure and have an end, makes it sensible to next consider the nature of creatures and then providence, which expresses the Creator’s ongoing relation to creatures.

129 Webster, “Love is also a Lover of Life,” 156.

119

4. Creatures Calvin presents creatures in the initial creation as good in a comprehensive way and rightly ordered to both their Creator and to one another, though later corrupted. This analysis of goodness and order nuances portrayals of Calvin as fearful of chaos in the natural order and as anthropocentric. The historical context for Calvin’s doctrinal treatment of creatures is on the one hand a collapsing of God into creation, and on the other an evacuation of God from creation.1 To combat both extremes Calvin upholds what creatures are, that is the nature of their being, and also the existence of creatures in time, that is the progression of creatures towards their end in God. Calvin did not state what creatures are in a static manner, but he addressed how creatures relate to the Creator from beginning to end. There are therefore many elements in this presentation of Calvin’s doctrine of creatures that allude to providential concerns and cannot be separated from them. These contextual concerns illumine the significance of distinguishing, but not separating, creaturely goodness from divine goodness. This distinction without separation is seen in both the beginning and the end of creaturely goodness, and the usefulness of this is seen as Calvin teaches the importance of creatures knowing this. Calvin’s doctrine of creaturely goodness will be addressed under these three aspects: the beginning, end, and knowledge of creaturely goodness. A second significant thread is created order, which is a matter of relations among creatures and with their Creator. This includes: invisible creation such as angels, visible non-animate creation, non-human creatures having the breath of life, and human bearers of the divine image. The spiritual, material, and temporal applications of divine wisdom are worked out in these spheres. In an orderly way, all creatures obey the eternal, powerful, creative word, which then operates with providential sustaining effect. This shows divine faithfulness to the created order. In the intra-creation order Calvin emphasises the fatherly care towards creatures set apart as children of God. All created order is for the sake of humanity, but all things find their final ends in God and his glory so that the fullness and complexity of creatures in Calvin’s theology denies any charge of anthropocentrism.2 1 Schreiner gives a summary of the context of controversy for Calvin under these two aspects. THG, 16–21. Also, Partee on “Epicurean Chance and Stoic Fate,” in Theology of John Calvin, 109–13. 2 The criticism in mind is examplified by: David Fergusson, Creation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014); David L. Clough, On Animals, vol. 1, Systematic Theology (London: T & T Clark International, 2012). Even a treatment as old as Wendel’s has identified a two-fold purpose for creation. Wendel, Calvin, 171.

122

Creatures

A final section is necessary because the goodness and order of creation has become corrupted and disordered. The Fall results in a total corruption of every aspect of created nature, but the Creator’s grace means that goodness and order are still present. The Creator continues to relate in a fatherly manner even as he also executes his office of judge. Notably, Calvin’s rhetoric concerning the present state of creation can be overwhelmingly negative. Humans are ‘pauvres vers de terre’ without a shred of worth.3 However, sin is not determinative but parasitic and a distortion of creaturely reality, even if it dominates present experience. This section will argue for a greater confidence in creatures than in some alternative accounts of fragility and chaos, and also for a holistic appreciation of creation rather than a narrowly anthropocentric depiction of Calvin on Creation. We now examine Calvin on creaturely goodness, order, and corruption and disorder.

4.1 Creaturely Goodness

In terms of its beginning creaturely goodness necessarily finds its source in the Creator’s goodness. The connection to the Creator’s goodness is evident when Calvin says that creation declares divine goodness. Calvin describes the initial goodness of creation in terms of both its beauty and its completion. That is, Calvin teaches that creation is good in a way that means it is abundant and delightful, and second that creation is good in a way that means every element of creation is precisely placed in accordance with the good plan of the Creator. The beginning of created goodness thus encompasses the source of created goodness in the Creator and the delightfulness and fullness of creation in the beginning. In terms of the end of creaturely goodness Calvin sees the highest good of all created being in and for the Creator. While Calvin affirms the perfection of initial creation this does not mean that the beginning of creaturely goodness is identical with its end. Rather, as finite and dependent, creaturely goodness is transitory by nature. The goodness of creaturely being includes its fitness for progression towards the realisation of its good ends in the Creator. Finally, in terms of creaturely goodness being known, creaturely goodness is declared and taught in an authoritative manner by the Creator himself. Therefore, creaturely goodness should be known and affirmed by creatures. This is seen most clearly in Calvin’s treatment of the statements ‘it was good’ and ‘very good’ in the opening of Genesis. 3 ‘Poor worms of the earth’. Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:33

Creaturely Goodness

Calvin’s teaching on the beginning, end, and knowledge of creaturely goodness produces a position that comprehends the goodness of creatures in a complex manner, which can address both a collapse and a separation of creatures in relation to their Creator. Despite Calvin’s estimate of corruption and total depravity, a high esteem for creaturely goodness precedes any negative characterisations of fallen being. Genesis provides grounds to affirm creaturely goodness in a thorough manner. A thorough affirmation of creaturely goodness will correspond with the subsequent description of creation order and contribute to addressing fragility and chaos in light of the sustenance of creatures. 4.1.1 Beginning of Creaturely Goodness

The first aspect of creaturely goodness to be considered is its source. The goodness of creation and the Creator are very closely connected. Yet at one level it is difficult to defend creaturely goodness from Calvin’s work on Genesis because creation so displays divine power, goodness, and wisdom that creaturely goodness refers almost immediately to its source in God in order to avoid idolatry. In the Argument to his Genesis commentary Calvin affirms the bodily enjoyment of enormous yet everyday goods that flow from divine goodness.4 This absorption of the senses means creation becomes transparent as one sees the divine glory, yet it is the physicality and creaturely being which absorbs.5 The most prominent connection between creaturely goodness and divine goodness is that the first brings knowledge of the second.6 God’s goodness is known in the goodness of his works and these are made to bring him glory and praise.7 Attributing this praise should be straightforward because the Creator is the inexhaustible fountain of all goodness.8 Knowing in this way depends on the connection to the Creator as source and author of all creaturely goodness. The magnitude and certainty of creaturely goodness contributes to its disappearance even as the senses are absorbed by it; the more outstanding creaturely goods are the less one dwells on them. When describing creaturely goodness Calvin shies away from the moral overtones conveyed by using good adjectivally, creaturely goodness is entirely derivative and not independent of the Creator. Concerning a first aspect of the physical goodness of creation Calvin describes creation’s beauty, abundance, variety, and sweetness; creation is delightful above 4 CO 23:5–6 5 It is noteworthy that hearing is omitted from this list given the place of the Word and hearing in knowledge of God which is by faith. 6 See earlier section for fuller discussion of the knowledge of God and the place of Christ and faith in this. 7 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:15 8 Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:422

123

124

Creatures

and beyond the bare minimal requirements for survival.9 Plants are an example of the delightfulness of creation: their variety, their nourishment, their beauty, and their timeliness.10 Calvin also lauds grass.11 After fruit and grains, Calvin praises the rich variety of vines including their colours and tastes.12 Wine makes glad the hearts of men, even Calvin. The garden of Eden is a place of elegance, beauty, charm, and highly attractive.13 God’s purpose is that it might be truly beautiful and full of abundance.14 The entire world was made to be, like the garden, the most beautiful of riches, a spectacular theatre.15 Again, this directs his congregation to the author of goodness.16 Commentary and sermon align on this: Now he adds the graces God conferred upon man outwardly, for he says that beyond the fact God furnished the earth with all good things to nourish man so he might be provided for and lack nothing, ‘God planted a garden eastward in Eden’, and placed in it fruit in all abundance, wondrously sweet fruit of every delight so that man’s life might be happier than one could desire in respect of the good which was consigned to him… God gives him the most fertile and delightful place in the entire world to inhabit and make his home… the best and richest land in the world.17

A second aspect of creaturely goodness is its perfection, in the qualified sense that nothing needs to be redone and nothing is lacking in its measured proportion that matches the artificer’s plan.18 Creation is complete and abundant since God has acted, “as the Artificer, the Architect, the bountiful Father of a family, who has omitted nothing essential to the perfection of his edifice”.19 This opposes views which suggest creation was incomplete or deformed after

9 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:74 10 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:29 11 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:30–31 12 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:29 13 Comm. Gen 2:8; CO 23:36 14 Comm. Gen 2:9; CO 23:38 15 Comm. Gen 2:8; CO 23:36 16 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:29 17 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:100 18 In this sense Calvin speaks of the perfection of things in their first state rather than their eternal perfection. Due to the possible confusion caused by the term perfection the term fullness is used in the following section to describe the initial sense of perfection or completion of God’s creative work 19 Comm. Gen 2:2; CO 23:32

Creaturely Goodness

six days or that creation requires cultivation by humanity to attain its completion.20 Genesis 2:1 concerns not only the orderly array of stars, Calvin’s normal understanding of the hosts of heaven, but the fullness and abundance of every sphere of creation.21 Calvin likens the perfection to an artist looking over a work where every stroke is as planned. God’s wisdom always directed his work so that there is nothing missing and nothing out of place. “So we understand by ‘God’s sight’ that he knows what he is to do in such perfection that nothing can be redone, not so much as a pinprick, so to speak, and that nothing can be said to be lacking”.22 The fullness and delightfulness of creation are fittingly declared good as creaturely natures manifest divine goodness and the Creator completely affirms his work. However, the super-abundance in Eden shows that there are degrees of creaturely goodness in creation. If Adam had been placed elsewhere the fruit would not have been so sweet.23 Therefore, the completion of creation does not mean the best possible creation; there is no need for every creaturely instance to possess the epitome of creaturely goodness and there is room for finite creaturely goodness to be increased. The goodness of creation is demonstrated in every particular creature in the goodness of its own nature. 4.1.2 End of Creaturely Goodness

Creaturely goodness is directed to God himself. The directedness of creatures to their ends, particularly human creatures, is clear from the Argument to Calvin’s Genesis commentary where the creation of the world is connected with the life of the assembly, “which being adopted into the hope of the celestial life, might in this confidence worship God” and humans are created with their particular nature to “meditate on a better life, and might even tend directly towards God”.24 Since creatures have an end outside themselves, creaturely goodness is not a static ideal and the beginning is not identical with the end.25 Therefore, Calvin upholds the goodness of time and emphasises the transitory nature of creation, which is directed beyond its own sphere. Transience is not a product of the Fall but conforms to creaturely ends. Creaturely goodness includes ends and temporality. 20 Comm. Gen 2:3; CO 23:34. Calvin appears to interact with a Rabbinic tradition here. 21 Comm. Gen 2:1; CO 23:31 22 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:76–77. In a footnote to Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:76 Engammare notes other places Calvin uses the metaphor of an artist and its rhetorical origins. 23 Comm. Gen 2:9; CO 23:38 24 CO 23:11–12 25 This is not to deny the goodness of creaturely being in the beginning, as affirmed above, where creatures are delightful and nothing needs to be redone.

125

126

Creatures

First then, the ends of creation lie beyond creatures, but are not foreign to their being. For example, the connection between the physical and spiritual conditions of humanity’s beginning and celestial beatitude form part of Calvin’s argument for Eden to be a geographical location rather than a spiritual allegory. The nature of creation fits its end.26 Manifestation of divine virtues in creation also shows this. The goodness of creation, its beauty, its abundance, its proportion, its fullness, and its diversity finds its end in God himself. There is no divine super-addition to creaturely being to manifest divine glory, but creation is in and of itself is fitting for this purpose. This is most clearly seen in human nature. Human life is not an intrinsic good, but remains sourced outside itself in the present, just as the highest good to which humanity’s nature conforms in the future is eternal life that consists in knowing God. Therefore, Adam was to eat from the tree of life “in order that he might acknowledge that he lives not by his own power, but by the kindness of God alone; and that life is not… an intrinsic good, but proceeds from God”.27 This life and good, which the tree of life sustained, was not only physical but also spiritual, including intelligence and other endowments of the soul bestowed on humanity.28 Calvin preaches the same and includes that the tree of life is a figure of Christ, not in his role as Redeemer, but the Word as Creator and Sustainer.29 The Word is life for all creation, which affirms that all creaturely ends, not only human eternal life, are found in the Creator. Edwin van Driel gives a compelling reading of Calvin’s larger narrative of divine fellowship with creation.30 In his treatment of Genesis Calvin holds that creation is mediated in its relationship with the Creator from the beginning, as seen in the tree of life, and must grow from the beginning to its eternal bliss. During his teaching from Genesis, Calvin holds to a ‘mediation anyway’ but not an ‘incarnation anyway’ position. Indeed, Christ “was always the bond of connection between God and man” even before his incarnation.31 Van Driel is right to conclude that Calvin’s view of the end of good creation plays a determinative theological function in his construal of the history of creation and reconciliation. This is confirmed by Calvin’s depiction of the act of creation as a purposeful beginning and of the nature of creatures incorporating a teleological component. 26 27 28 29 30

Comm. Gen 2:8; CO 23:37 Comm. Gen 2:9; CO 23:38 Comm. Gen 2:9; CO 23:39 Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:114 Edwin Chr. van Driel, “‘Too Lowly to Reach God Without a Mediator’: John Calvin’s Supralapsarian Eschatological Narrative,” MT 33, no.1 (2017), doi: 10.1111/moth.12314. 31 Comm. Gen 48:16; CO 23:584

Creaturely Goodness

Further, the connection of goodness of being and creation’s end in God is clarified by again considering the fruit of the tree of life. Calvin’s insistence that the source of life lies beyond physical creation leads him to describe the fruit of the tree of life as “unpalatable and subject to dying and rotting”,32 whereas he earlier praised the garden fruit for abundance, delightfulness, and marvellous taste.33 When considered as a manifestation of the Creator’s benevolence towards Adam, Calvin cannot find enough superlatives, but when abstracted from the Creator as source and looked to in itself the fruit is corruptible, mortal, and tasteless. The fruit is good, but not divine and therefore must not be idolatrously treated as a source of immortality apart from the fount of every good. Initial goodness of creaturely being is not compromised by the good ends that lie beyond creation, but moral creaturely goodness depends on the conformity of creatures to those ends. Further then, the appropriateness of created nature for creaturely ends means the goodness of creation is not static, but dynamic with a view to eternity. Time and progression are good parts of creation and not simply a post-fall reality; transience is to be fulfilled, but is not evil. Time allows the fulfilment of good creaturely being. Calvin affirms this in two ways for human nature in particular. First, without a Fall Adam was to contemplate the divine virtues in creation and then to transition into eternal life, without the violent rupture of death.34 This creation with its bodies of dirt and mud is evidently a beginning and not the end, since Adam and Eve were only ever passing through.35 The life with which Adam was created was good, but not intrinsically permanent. Second, Jesus has accomplished for believers a state better than Adam’s integrity. Enoch and Elijah transitioned to an intermediate state not yet in glory because they had to wait for Christ, who is the first-fruits of the resurrection, but now all believers from before and after Christ have glory and heavenly immortality.36 The creaturely good of time and progress means that even when Adam was conjoined with his Creator and not subject to corruption or death, he would have necessarily enjoyed God’s goodness below before he progressed to his heavenly inheritance.37 Morally good creaturely action spends time moving toward the end in God in accordance with divine benevolence. Duty aligns with nature and ends. The implications of good creaturely ends can now be examined. First, the world is transitory, fragile, and vaporous. Second, therefore, this creation should 32 33 34 35 36 37

Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:115 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:100 Comm. Gen 5:22; CO 23:108; Serm. Gen 5:21–32; SC 11/1:337 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:102 Serm. Gen 5:21–32; SC 11/1:337 Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:117

127

128

Creatures

not be grasped after, clung to, or idolatrously looked to fulfil creaturely ends. Third, instead the children of God should aspire to their heavenly inheritance won for them in Christ. The contrast between the creaturely transience of this life and divine permanence and eternal life comes through very strongly. First then, Calvin refers to present creation and creaturely life as smoke and less that nothing dependent on God’s provision and kindness.38 Likewise God sustains creatures because he knows “they were fragility itself, a wind which passes and immediately moves on, not to return again”.39 This is in contrast to eternal life.40 In this context Calvin also describes himself and his congregation as earthly. This language is not only found in preaching, but also in commentary.41 Calvin’s reference to angelic natures also trembling in God’s presence means that this observation is true of created nature and not simply fallen nature. In Genesis 11, according to Calvin, for God to call them children of men indicates their fragility and if they examine themselves: “what will they find in their bodies but that they are dust and ashes, for they came from the earth?”.42 The fleeting and earthy nature of creaturely life does not mean it is beneath divine care.43 In fact the fragility of human nature was overcome when Christ took it on.44 The pervasive presence of these descriptions shows that the transitory nature of creaturely being is significant for Calvin in many contexts. Mutability and impermanence are part of initial creation and aspects of the goodness of creation’s being. Fragility gives opportunity to manifest and praise the Creator’s fatherly care. Second, transience means that permanence is not sought in the created realm; this creation cannot be grasped, clung to, or seen as ultimate. To seek immortality on earth, like the inhabitants of Babel, shows contempt for God and nature.45 Fragility and flightiness is neither trivial nor good in this instance because it is oriented away from the prepared hope of salvation. Here mutable human nature has been corrupted. Christians are to renounce everything of the world just as Abraham was called to renounce his affections and worldly desires.46 Like Adam, Abraham is a pilgrim in the world and in fact a citizen of heaven, preferring God to all the 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Serm. Gen 5:21–32; SC 11/1:441 Serm. Gen 8:20–22; SC 11/1:462 Serm. Gen 3:14–16; SC 11/1:203 Comm. Gen 32:30; CO 23:446 Serm. Gen 11:1–4; SC 11/1:553 Serm. Gen 4:10–12; SC 11/1:278 Serm. Gen 5:21–32; SC 11/1:340 Serm. Gen 11:5–9; SC 11/2:555; Comm. Gen 11:4; CO 23:165. Compare with Lot’s wife: Serm. Gen 19:24–30; SC 11/2:1065 46 Serm. Gen 12:1–3; SC 11/2:586

Creaturely Goodness

world, and God did not intend to disappoint Abraham’s expectations despite the difficulties he faced.47 Jacob fell partially prey to worldly temptation due to his human passion for wealth and Calvin believes this is understandable to us, because “we also have more than sufficient experience of the power of earthly attractions, and of the ease with which, when they abound, the oblivion of celestial blessings steals over us”, so “whenever the indolence of the flesh retards us, let us learn to fan the ardour of our spirits into a flame”.48 The believer’s fixedness in faith and variable earthly circumstances may seem contradictory, but Calvin believes they accord with each other.49 Passing present reality and eternal hope lead Calvin to pray for God’s assistance to fix his eyes on God himself, as God conducts believers to what awaits above.50 The fragility of creaturely nature, even though it is good, makes it unsuitable to be loved in the same manner as the eternal Creator alone should be. Third then, the end for which humans are made, to which their nature conforms, should prompt their aspirations for eternal life and to pass through the world as foreigners, knowing that they are to pass through without stopping.51 Adam’s life had a permanent end in view that was always to be found through the Mediator and this end is still the created good of all creatures.52 The loftiness of heavenly citizenship, eternal life, and the hope of the children of God comes to the fore when confronting presently difficult circumstances such as exile, poverty, and persecution, as well as when counselling those enjoying comfort and luxury. In both cases the necessity of hope in a fallen world does not negate the goodness of the initially created school of Adam.53 The goodness of creation initially made its declaration of the Creator’s benevolence crystal clear, but presently this clarity is restricted to points where God has explicitly joined his word to created signs.54 As in the initial arrangement the Creator still uses earthly means to raise creatures towards their appointed 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Serm. Gen 12:5–9; SC 11/2:621 Comm. Gen 31:1; CO 23:421 Serm. Gen 12:5–9; SC 11/2:619 Serm. Gen 12:5–9; SC 11/2:621 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:99 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:98. Compare: Serm. Gen 3:19–22; SC 11/1:224 Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:112–13 Zachman makes much of Calvin’s “sacramental” construal of earthly signs. Zachman corrects an under-emphasis on Calvin’s use of sight, but Calvin remains restrained by the biblical narrative in his naming of signs to which God has joined his word; or else, Calvin bends over backwards to explain that a word was spoken but not recorded in the text. Zachman, Image and Word, 168–83. Also: Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, 194. However, there is a leap of logic to go from this usage in Calvin to construing all creation as a sacramental reality. Joseph Sherrard, “The Way Down is Up: Charles Taylor, John Calvin, and Sacramental Worship in ‘A Secular Age’,” Bulletin of Ecclesial Theology 3, no. 1 (2016): 115–28.

129

130

Creatures

ends in him and their nature remains apt to be aligned and remade in Christ. For example, the rainbow is a created phenomenon explainable by natural causes, but this does not stop God from setting it apart as a sign joined to his promise.55 In a similar way Adam’s loss of access to the tree of life leads Calvin to preach about rightly receiving promise and supper together, since participation in the eternal divine life is offered through earthly signs joined to a promise.56 The transience of creatures does not preclude this, but finds its good end by the permanence of the divine Word. Humans are as fleeting as grass and yet the eternal word of God does not remain in heaven; it grants eternity so that humans participate in the life of God, are delivered from corruption, and enjoy the inheritance prepared for them on high.57 The larger biblical context for creaturely transience and eternal ends is evident as Calvin applies prophetic teaching, such as Ezekiel and Isaiah, as well as New Testament interpretation thereof. Christ is the incorruptible word through whom creation is regenerated and drawn to participate in the divine life.58 The permanent inheritance of creation is not foreign to its created being it had in him in the beginning. Fallen and redeemed creation still tends to its good ends in the Word by way of its transient being.59 The previous points have examined the source of creaturely goodness in the good Creator, which is expressed in the delightfulness and fullness of creation, and that the ends of creation in the Creator are good, so that transience from the beginning into eternity is good when directed to creation’s proper end. Calvin affirms that not only the eternal inheritance, but the present creation demonstrates the Creator’s goodness so that creatures might glorify him.60 Creation is thoroughly good from beginning to end. 4.1.3 Knowing Creaturely Goodness

Further, so that they know it, humans are told creation is good. Calvin’s treatment of the six affirmations of goodness (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) and finally a seventh declaration that it was very good (Genesis 1:31) are important 55 56 57 58

Comm. Gen 9:13; CO 23:149 Serm. Gen 3:22–24; SC 11/1:234 Serm. Gen 3:19–22; SC 11/1:225–26 Billings provides a useful examination of participation, engrafting, and adoption in Calvin’s thought in Calvin, Participation, and the Gift. 59 Schreiner discusses the continuity of creation into new creation seen in Calvin’s exegesis in other places and also in conversation with Quistorp. Schreiner emphasises the context of controversy against the Anabaptists of Calvin’s defence of the goodness of creation. THG, 97–99, 111–112; Heinrich Quistorp, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Last Things (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1955). 60 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:102

Creaturely Goodness

here as he teaches that the Creator observes the goodness of his creation for the sake of human creatures. These scriptural declarations from Moses, or rather the Spirit, as Calvin writes, are both useful for humanity and authoritative on the goodness of creation. Since God already knows and executes his works in goodness, the only possible reason for writing that God saw that it was good is for the sake of creatures in order that “nothing remains for us, but to acquiesce in this judgement of God. And this admonition is very useful”.61 It is a useful admonition because of human propensity to claim otherwise about God’s works and humans demand explanation as to how this is good and why things are the way they are. Given a declaration in scripture Calvin sees the only possible option as creaturely agreement to the divine approval.62 Calvin specifies the goodness seen by God as creation’s usefulness to humanity, which is how Calvin explains the omission of such a declaration on Day Two. The waters spread over the whole earth were not yet useful for humanity and so they were not seen to be good until they were gathered in one place.63 The lights in the heavens on Day Four are likewise commended because of the many uses they have for humanity and in this way they demonstrate the divine benevolence towards humanity. Divine goodness features more highly than creaturely goodness at this point. The created goodness is so great that it has disappeared. This happens in both commentary and sermon.64 With the final affirmation in Genesis 1:31 Calvin repeats that this is the Creator’s approval of his work that is not open to question by creatures. The six statements are repeated so that humanity has less cause to stray from the divine judgement. The final addition of ‘very’ leads Calvin to affirm the completion and harmony found in the fullness of the divine work of creation to which nothing may be added.65 When preaching Calvin specifies the totality of all that God beholds and declares very good, employing here the image of the painter as mentioned above.66 When God sees everything is very good it means that things are made for human use and in this way display his fatherly care.67 Calvin makes this conclusion because of both the goodness of creation and that ‘God saw’ that everything was very good. Divine goodness towards creatures in creation demonstrates fatherly care so that the Creator might be known, loved, and praised as he deserves. 61 Comm. Gen 1:4; CO 23:17 62 See for example Serm. Gen 1:3–5, 1:14–19, 1:29–31; SC 11/1:15, 16, 17, 20, 42, 76 etc. 63 CO 23:19. This is Calvin’s comment on Day Two, but there is actually no comment on either of the declarations in verses 10 and 12 on Day Three. 64 Comm. Gen 1:14; CO 23:21; Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:42–43 65 Comm. Gen 1:31; CO 23:30 66 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:76 67 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:78

131

132

Creatures

In summary, the Creator is the fount of every good thing and so creatures manifest divine virtues, while also having their final ends in their Creator. Creaturely goodness, as recorded prior to the Fall, manifests divine goodness, wisdom, and power and in this way it shows its source in the Creator’s goodness. Creaturely goodness operates to praise the divine virtues and so its fulfilment in God mirrors a form of benevolence and being for another; that is creaturely goodness has a created, providential, and eschatological mode that is akin to benevolence even in creatures without wills. Calvin uses categories of manifestation to describe creaturely goodness’ relation to the Creator. Participation in the divine life is related to creature’s good ends, even while the Creator is source and fountain of goodness. Further, the scriptural declaration that creation is good affirms that the goodness of creation is not an external or arbitrary imposition, but inherent to the nature of the creature and her end properly pursued. In this way the work of creation is a primary demonstration of divine goodness, which is paternal kindness and generosity to humanity.

4.2 Created Order

One aspect of order present in Calvin’s thought is harmony, regularity, and proportion.68 This order may be seen in the internal relations of creation as they express their harmonious relations to the Creator. The sun, moon, and stars provide a striking example in this regard. The regular variation of seasons and lengths of days as well as the lack of collisions in the astronomical sphere elicit wonder from Calvin. Calvin’s Aristotelian and Augustinian framework cannot explain these phenomena and therefore he calls them miraculous.69 Another example is seen in the garden, where humanity’s body and soul were rightly ordered with harmony of humanity’s understanding, will, and body in proper proportion. The Creator works with compass and measure because his wisdom is always presiding, thereby bringing order and beauty to his work, and thereby silently proclaiming the Creator’s wisdom.70 This aspect of order therefore corresponds with Creation’s delightful goodness. Despite the correspondence to creation’s goodness outlined above, order is an important category to consider because of the theological melee that arises 68 Order considered as order from and to the Creator is closely connected with the treatment of creaturely goodness above and will not be laboured again. 69 Kaiser, “Calvin, Copernicus, and Castellio,” 5–31; Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy, 97; Young, John Calvin and the Natural World, 30. 70 CO 23:7

Created Order

when considering an order of nature. Deliberately the title of this section is the created order rather than the natural order. While Calvin refers to both an order of nature and order of creation, studying his thought with reference to created order affirms the createdness and dependence of the order thereby designated.71 The issue of possible evacuation of the Creator from creation appears to have pressed Calvin in his preaching at this point. In Calvin’s treatment of Genesis he never argues for an order of nature independent of the Creator and his sustaining of creation. This is because God is not a distant Creator or primary cause who instigates but does not pursue his creation at every turn. The Creator is the overseer of his order and loving father to his creatures; the Creator constitutes their being and continues to order creatures in the order of creation.72 This order of creation must be distinguished from an independent order of nature, which is non-existent and proves itself unstable and insufficient to explain creation when imagined. In this respect Calvin’s order of creation has a context of controversy and definite, but unspecified, opponents. Below, the intimate connection between created order and the Creator will be a point of discussion against readings of the threatening fragility of creation sustained by the imposition of divine power contrary to its nature. To structure the coming analysis we note that Calvin’s order of creation connects to more widely held ideas of an order of nature as he maintains a traditional cosmological model and refers to an enduring common order which is established in creation and discernible by (natural) philosophers. In such a model the order of creatures relates to their positions and relations to each other. The importance of physical position for order is evident for stars and water, but should be seen as one aspect of ordered relations among creatures that are initiated and sustained by the Creator. As such order of creation will be considered under the spheres: invisible spiritual creation, visible non-animate creation, and non-human creatures having the breath of life together with human bearers of the divine image. 4.2.1 Invisible and Spiritual Creation

In contrast to Augustine’s exegesis Calvin insists that the spiritual realms are not the subject of Genesis 1 and 2 because God wanted to instruct the most simple in plain language about the creation of the world. The primary purpose of the history of creation is the visible testimony to the Creator which will elevate human creatures to him and therefore the invisible creation is set aside.73 71 Order of nature is Schreiner’s preferred term in THG and the concept of nature rises in importance during debates surrounding natural law. 72 Serm. Gen 8:1–4; SC 11/1:438–41 73 Julie Canlis draws out the elevation of humanity in her reading of Calvin. In other places in this analysis I have preferred the complementary image of education and pilgrimage because

133

134

Creatures

Nonetheless complex and spiritual matters are useful and to be treated in the appropriate place.74 Due to this, Calvin’s treatment of angels in Genesis occurs during the ongoing narrative of salvation where angels primarily serve as divine agents ministering to humanity. This contrasts sharply with his extended discussion of angels and devils in the final edition of the Institutes where they occupy 1.14.3–19.75 The Institutes places the discussion of spiritual realms in a more defensive context, combatting a denial of spiritual realities, worship of angels, and any perceived threat to believer’s salvation from spiritual powers. Yet across all genres, Calvin values “teaching what is true, certain, and useful” and therefore usefulness drives him as he retreats “from empty speculation”.76 The nature, order, and number of angels are of less concern than their ministry to believers. Angelic nature is secondary to angelic ministry to humans on God’s behalf. The ministry of angels is not necessary for God to work effectively; angels can be sent to help unbelievers, but God shows particular care for the body of Christ.77 Angelic service of the church is therefore gratuitous and a sign of divine generosity. This is abundantly so where many angels are sent for the sake of human assurance where one would suffice; those who claim a single angelic guardian rather than the whole host of heaven defame God’s kindness.78 Elect and reprobate angels act as divine agents, the former willingly and the later unwillingly; they execute missions of mercy and judgement.79 These created servants are closely associated with the one they herald and whose will they affect.80 A final point concerning the ministry of angels is their connection to Christ. The angelic visit of Genesis 18–19 affirms that they often appear with Christ; in this case in fact one of the three is the pre-incarnate Christ.81 Similarly, Christ is the ladder on which the angels descend in Jacob’s dream.82 Angels

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

of their incorporation of a temporal component. While Calvin uses spatial metaphors, he does not engage with creation as a great chain of being and strongly upholds the Creator/creation distinction. (Julie Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.]) Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:8–9 Inst. 1.14.3–19; CO 2:119–31 Inst. 1.14.4; CO 2:120 Serm. Gen 4:5–7, 19:1–5; SC 11/1:257; SC 11/2:1006 Comm. Gen 32:1; CO 23:435–36 Comm. Gen 19:13; CO 23:272–73 Comm. Gen 19:19, 20:13, 22:15, 31:13; CO 23:276, 293, 318, 423; Serm. Gen 19:17–24; SC 11/2:1053 C Comm. Gen 18:2, 9; 19:1; CO 23:251, 253, 267 Comm. Gen 28:12; CO 23:391. See comment on Canlis earlier.

Created Order

minister for the salvation of those engrafted into the body of Christ.83 Calvin goes as far as calling angels members of Christ and believers his body. However, non-believers are mistaken to call on angels for their protection because the angels of paradise are enemies to those outside Christ. Christ alone is Patron, Mediator, and Advocate; this role does not belong to angels. Those who partake in the grace of the Son of God can be assured of the ministry of angels on their behalf in every spiritual battle.84 Nonetheless, some time is spent on angelic nature. Angels belong to creation and therefore stand far below the divine majesty and in submission thereto.85 The reaction of unfallen angels hiding their faces before the divine majesty parallels that of unfallen humanity.86 Angels have a greater capacity than humanity to spiritually contemplate the Creator, and yet still insufficient to understand him.87 This angelic spiritual perception, which is unmediated by physical means, is possible because angels lack earthly bodies. While angels may be clothed in bodies by their Creator, this is not part of the angels’ celestial nature, and even though the bodies allow them to eat for the sake of those they come to serve, this does not nourish their angelic nature in any way because angelic natures have no need of such food.88 Despite being clothed in temporary bodies the excellence of the angelic natures is discerned by both Abraham and Lot in such a way that they honour the dignity of their guests.89 The differences between humans and angels do not erase the fact that the Creator made them with the purpose of being joined together in celestial life.90 Spiritual and invisible creation, particularly unfallen angels, demonstrates creaturely goodness and proper order of creation from, through, and to the Creator.91 4.2.2 Visible Non-Animate Creation Wisdom is a prime category to appreciate the order of the visible world in its harmony and appropriateness for its appointed ends.92 The architecture 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Serm. Gen 3:22–24; SC 11/1:238 Serm. Gen 3:22–24; SC 11/1:238 Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:122 Serm. Gen 3:11–13, 3:17–18; SC 11/1:190, 210; Comm. Gen 32:30; CO 23:446 Serm. Gen 2:15–17, 19:24–30; SC 11/1:112, SC 11/2:1069 Comm. Gen 19:3; CO 23:267; Serm. Gen 18:1–8, 19:1–5; SC 11/2:957, 1010 Comm. Gen 18:2; CO 23:251; Serm. Gen 19:1–5; SC 11/2:1007 Serm. Gen 6:1–4; SC 11/1:363 Much of this agrees with Schreiner’s discussion of Calvin on angels. As evident below this is apart from the conclusion that Calvin undercuts the integrity of creatures through his presentation. THG, 52–53. 92 Young presents a thorough account of Calvin’s understanding of natural science and this is not an attempt to reproduce that work. Rather, this section presents Calvin’s doctrine as it relates to these matters in Genesis. Young, John Calvin and the Natural World.

135

136

Creatures

of visible creation from the first four days presents clear testimony of divine wisdom in its order.93 Calvin’s adjectives match those applied to divine wisdom, as created order is admirable and excellent.94 Indeed, the excellence of God’s works declares his goodness, wisdom, and power.95 The order of nature’s declaration of God as its Creator would be heard if humanity remained unfallen. However, at present, humanity prefers idolatrous naturalistic explanations that erase the Creator from his works. Therefore Calvin appeals to the Creator’s miraculous power and divine word when explanations comprehensible to human reason fail. Calvin even characterises this divine action as opposed to nature, when in fact it is opposed only to naturalistic explanations that evacuate creation of its Creator. This is not a ‘God of the gaps’ because in truth the Creator works in created circumstances that can and cannot be understood naturally. Any order of nature conceived apart from divine operation of the Creator is liable to dissolution and un-creation. At this point it is no longer creation. This is true in the spheres of the heavens, the waters, and plants. 4.2.2.1 Sun, Moon, and Stars Calvin’s wonder at astronomical phenomena is widely noted.96 The regularity of day and night, weeks, months, seasons, and years each testify to Calvin concerning the order of creation. This is true even of the procession of light and dark without any naturally explicable origin on Day One.97 Variation allows humans to perceive the Creator’s hand in the order he has made.98 On Day Four the heavenly luminaries are natural means established for human benefit, but which are abused by causing obstruction to rather than increase in the Creator’s glory.99 The very excellence of the gifts of the sun and moon makes them more liable to perversion. Investigation of these astronomical wonders should lead the wise to more greatly magnify God for his order, even though the Creator’s direction is taught by Moses to the most simple.100 The regularity of days is the overwhelming experience of humanity so that familiarity can breed contempt and Calvin calls for attention to the ordained order so that its use conforms to God’s intention.101 93 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:6 94 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:6 95 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:30 96 For example: Zachman, Reconsidering John Calvin, 11; Fergusson, Creation, 111. 97 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:15 98 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:15 99 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:33 100 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:34 101 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:35

Created Order

This astronomical regularity lends itself, for Calvin, to military metaphors.102 These luminary bodies are not sentient, but nonetheless obey the secret inspiration of their maker.103 Calvin therefore refers to stars as guards attending their posts or an army marching in their course, but God’s knowledge and command is like a personal calling by name, such as John or Peter, or like calling on his household help. Further, God gives each their properties and their movement proceeds by his word. The stars know their Creator as though his hand is always there.104 The order shown in the stars points Calvin to the Creator’s majesty and direction, but not in such a way that the movement proper to these bodies as creatures is removed.105 Nor does God’s positioning of the stars oppose the complex natural explanations of their movement.106 Yet the order is such that the stars’ existence, function, and character should immediately bring the Creator to mind.107 The sun, moon, stars, and planets testify to the abundance and rich blessing with which the Creator has adorned the heavens.108 4.2.2.2 Sky, Sea, and Land Waters play a prominent role in Calvin’s cosmology and he has ample occasion to reflect on the ordering of waters by the Creator. In Calvin’s opinion, circular elements of varying weights cannot explain the placement of waters affirmed biblically and by experience. The failure of ‘natural’ reason, which lacks reference to the Creator, to explain created reality means the ordering of the waters is miraculous and a demonstration of the Creator’s incomprehensible power. This is not to say that sustaining waters in their explicable place is not attributable to the Creator’s ongoing power, but rather the ordering of waters beyond ‘natural’ explanations makes divine power conspicuous because of its incomprehensible character. The connection of initial creation with ongoing providence means the ordered position of the waters threatens impending confusion only if the Creator is discounted. Calvin’s position can be demonstrated in his treatment of waters in both commentary and sermons especially looking at the initial week of creation and the flood account. First, when treating Days Two and Three, again and again, Calvin links the exceptional character of the ordering of the waters to the character of the Creator. The miraculous separation of the waters on Day Two manifests

102 103 104 105 106 107 108

Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:38 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:34 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:39–40 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:42 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:41 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:40 Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:42

137

138

Creatures

God’s power and goodness.109 It is miraculous because the explanations of the natural philosophers fail.110 Even when natural explanations apply, such as in the case of rain, Calvin asks for recognition of God’s hand.111 The space of air between waters above and below constantly attests “the goodness of God”.112 Calvin emphasises the usefulness of the ordering of waters so that the Creator is known, despite the threatening character they might assume were ‘natural’ explanations alone to hold true. Disputation by ‘natural reason’ fails at this point.113 ‘Natural reason’ and ‘common sense’ appear in sermon and commentary.114 Since ‘natural’ explanations make floods and earthquakes the expected norm, the rarity of such occurrences proves ongoing miraculous action by the hand of God and that the Creator’s power holds them back rather than the created order being “like a nature and a blind thing”.115 The ordering of waters by the Creator is “above the ordinary course of nature” so that all human life is miraculously sustained.116 The order of the waters is not reducible to a ‘naturally’ explicable order, but always remains the order of creation upheld by the Creator in which the elements obey the voice of their Maker. Second, when the flood bursts forth in Genesis 7, it affirms the Creator’s miraculous work contrary to the philosophers’ expectations in the first week of creation and contrary to expected flooding day by day.117 Calvin’s commentary refers to “philosophi” and his sermon to “les philosophes”.118 However, more often than these Calvin references the kindness (beneficium and gratia) of the Creator which establishes a theatre for human life; and because his hand holds waters above and below “all comes by his goodness”.119 As well as divine goodness God’s counsel and plan are evident as, for example, the created order of waters follows “God’s miraculous counsel”.120 Interestingly, when referring to order, the place of earth in creation is part of the order of nature.121 Here Calvin identifies the created order with the order of nature yet in the following

109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:24 Comm. Gen 1:9; CO 23:19 Comm. Gen 1:6; CO 23:19; Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:24 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:25 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:25 Comm. Gen 1:6; CO 23:18 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:26 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:26 Comm. Gen 7:11; CO 23:131–32; Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:422 Comm. Gen 7:11; CO 23:131; Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:423 Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:422 Comm. Gen 7:11; CO 23:131 Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:422

Created Order

paragraph he preaches that “we live against nature”.122 Therefore, nature and the natural order refer to different things in these two places.123 In this way, the hostility between the created order and the natural explanations of the philosophers continues. The ordering of waters initially and continually by the Creator has implications for human life. The Creator established the initial created order and it depends on him at every moment and therefore in a similar manner humans should attribute their lives entirely to the Creator’s goodness and acknowledge their dependence every moment.124 In this, divine power bound by a promise agrees with divine goodness. This should hold humanity in humility within the created order, but it is not heeded and thus Calvin concludes his comment on the flood bursting forth by discussing the hardness of humanity that refuses to acknowledge the works of the Creator without miraculous action.125 Calvin’s teaching concerning the order of creation seen in the waters is the clearest instance of competing references to nature: first, a nature which is the created order testifying to the Creator’s goodness and power not only in the initial moment of creation, but also in his providential care; and second, a nature conceived by the philosophers which threatens and obscures the Creator’s glory. Calvin preaches in favour of one nature and against another, because in his doctrinal account affirming the created order is essential to acknowledging God as Creator. Calvin preaches this clearly and extensively in his sermon on Genesis 8:1–4, saying that ‘nature’ is abused by perverse fantasies that deny God’s ongoing providential order of creation. God’s ongoing conduct of the order of creation declares him to be a liberal father worthy of all thanks and praise.126 Sky, sea, and land in Calvin’s account are good parts of creation, but their relation to created order is complicated by the operation of unfaithful human wisdom which naturalistically seeks to erase the Creator from the order discerned. A corrective use of ‘created order’ rather than ‘natural order’ may be appropriate at this point or at least acknowledgement of the variation in Calvin’s description of what is natural.127 4.2.2.3 Sustenance of Creation and the Threat of Chaos Just as ‘creation from nothing’ was a purposeful (not yet fulfilled) beginning, so also the initial created order, established by the divine word, connects with 122 123 124 125 126 127

Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:422 Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:423 Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:425 Comm. Gen 7:12; CO 23:132 Serm. Gen 8:1–4; SC 11/1:438–39 In addressing fragility and chaos below I will argue further for this.

139

140

Creatures

ongoing order. Calvin sees continuity, despite the Fall, between the divine work of initial creation and ongoing sustenance. The Creator spoke once and his eternal powerful word cannot fail. The security enjoyed by those who trust the Creator of created order is not momentary but ongoing, evoking confidence and thankfulness. It is only when this initial word, that is the Creator’s initial work, is questioned that an existential anxiety about the fragility of the ‘natural’ order ensues. But, as argued above, there is an alternative proper use of fragility. Any perceived fragility is to prompt thanks and praise to the Creator for the effectiveness of his creative word. The divine word prompts faith in the human creature. Creation continues to be the well-spring for providence. Ample examples of the ongoing effectiveness of an initial creative word can be found in Calvin’s treatment of sun, moon, stars, sky, sea, land, and also plants in Genesis; additionally, Calvin teaches the infusion of a creative word into the order or nature of living beings when it comes to fish, birds, and animals.128 One of many possible examples is the continual succession of day and night, which goes on because of “this word which has been once pronounced”.129 Therefore, the providential order of creation is the ongoing created order and flows from creation simply being a creation of the Creator who creates by an everlasting word.130 That is, the created order remains upheld by the word, breath, or hand of the Creator because creation is a created order enacted by a powerful divine word that can never pass away. The necessity for ongoing providential order within the created order cannot be negated, but is present from the beginning. The usefulness of this doctrine for Calvin is both polemical and pastoral. The ongoing providential aspect of the initial creative word counters those who remove the Creator from the ‘natural’ order and rely solely on naturalistic explanations. More importantly however, the reliability of created order teaches humanity their dependence on the Creator and prompts thanks for his fatherly generosity. As per Calvin’s context, where he must contend for the doctrine, the Creator is neither reducible to creation nor removable from creation. For example, when plants are given for food Calvin imagines the Creator saying to Adam and Eve that they should trustingly learn to place their whole life in his hand and that all has been given as testimony of his love for them.131 This once spoken word proves the Creator’s inestimable fatherly largesse.132 The very fragility of life between waters threatening death above and death below should prompt the Creator’s children to call on him as their merciful father.133 128 129 130 131 132 133

Comm. Gen 1:6, 24; CO 23:19, 24; Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:26, 27, 28, 30, 31. Serm. Gen 1:14–19; SC 11/1:42 For Calvin this is the same Word who redeems and restores creation. Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:72 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:73–74 Serm. Gen 1:6–13; SC 11/1:27

Created Order

Ongoing sustenance by the same creative word of the beginning ensures that confidence in the Creator is well founded. Inanimate creatures must obey their Creator when the word has been spoken, as evident at the flood, and therefore acknowledgement and thanks are due.134 The created order and the fatherly care demonstrated therein are the irrefutable basis for confidence rather than anxiety before any perceived fragility of nature. This is the application of God being not simply a momentary but ongoing Creator.135 The Creator wishes to be known not only as the source of all life, but its guardian at every moment, because the created order is instituted by a perpetual command.136 Notably for Calvin confusion in the visible realm opposes order, but itself requires nurturing sustenance by the Creator and initially is a demonstration of fatherly benevolence taking time to bring things to their proper end. The hovering Spirit over the face of the deep in Genesis 1:2 shows this. Even chaos has no being apart from the Creator’s fatherly care and is not opposed to his wisdom, goodness, and power.137 In Genesis, Calvin has space for a confusion that testifies to divine benevolence instead of threatening creation and order. Nonetheless, a confused mass would result if the Creator was not the Creator of the visible order and removed his sustaining power.138 Schreiner, following Bohatec, argued that order is key for Calvin’s concept of nature and the order of nature.139 Schreiner “argues that the motivating principle of this quest for order is to be discerned in Calvin’s view of providence”.140 Schreiner emphasises the turbulent period of history in which Calvin found himself and the medieval background to his thought that prompted his passion for order. Armed with his belief in providence, Calvin interpreted the cosmic and societal realms. He assumed that these spheres of reality did not contain within themselves an inherent element of stability or order. Their continued ordered existence, especially after the Fall, depends on the constant sustaining and restraining providence of God which prevents them from falling into chaos. Related to this central subject of order in Calvin’s doctrine of creation are several recurring themes: the faithfulness of God to creation, the belief that creation is the stage for

134 135 136 137 138 139

Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:423 Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:424 Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:425 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:9–10 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:22 Josef Bohatec, Calvin und das Recht, Neudr.d. Ausgabe Feudingen 1934 (Aalen: Scientia Verl, 1971). 140 THG, 3.

141

142

Creatures

God’s activity, the revelatory function of nature, the survival of human nature after the Fall, the preservation of societal life, and the redemption of the cosmos.141

Schreiner’s account is dominated by the threat of chaos to reality, which requires divine providence to stabilise it.142 The order Schreiner presents is one of stability, regularity, and continuity rather than an order of hierarchy.143 Nature, the physical and spiritual realm, and humanity, individually and as a society, display and are to pursue orderly arrangement in the present because these realms are finally ordered to the glory of God. Schreiner’s emphasis on chaos makes the order of nature entirely dependent on meticulous providence without reference to the initial creation, and she thereby ignores a significant feature of Calvin on Creation according to Genesis. My analysis of Creation according to Calvin according to Genesis makes Schreiner’s second sentence above equivalent to saying that Calvin assumes the world is created, the emphasis of this analysis falling on their nurtured created nature rather than fragility. His work on Genesis suggests that more may be made of creaturely goodness and ongoing fatherly liberality, than is sometimes suggested of Calvin on Creation. Schreiner appears to accept Bouwsma’s portrait of Calvin’s fearfulness, which is not without basis.144 Schreiner’s emphasis on imposition of order and Van der Kooi’s work on the fragility of creation put this biographical insight to theological work.145 For example, “it appears from this passage that anxiety, fear and insecurity were not unfamiliar feelings to Calvin; they were not invented but a matter of his own life experience. His theology reflects on such experiences”.146 Yet the dominance of Calvin’s fear has been questioned and instances of anxiety and fragility do not tell the whole story.147 If they have been overlooked, anxiety and fear should be mentioned, but not to the detriment of a balanced larger picture. Selderhuis makes similar observations in light of Calvin’s Psalms commentary.148 Likewise, as Zachman has contested, Calvin does not share Pascal’s angst at his smallness in the face of the universe.149 141 THG, 3. 142 ‘Even in its pristine state, the cosmos was inherently fragile’. Schreiner, “Creation and Providence,” in The Calvin Handbook, 270, 272. 143 THG, 22. 144 William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 93. 145 THG; Van der Kooi, “Calvin’s Theology of Creation,” 47–65. 146 Van der Kooi, “Calvin’s Theology of Creation,” 60. 147 Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 79–98; De Kroon, Eer van God, 211. Quoted by Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 287 footnote 11. 148 Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 287–89. 149 Zachman, Reconsidering John Calvin, 33.

Created Order

Calvin’s work on Genesis affirms that the order of creation depends every moment on the Creator’s sustaining work, yet ‘creation from nothing’ is prior to bringing order from chaos. The Creator does not bring order to chaos in a way that chaos is a threat or challenge to his effortless action. There is no threat; the final threat is not chaos but nothing. Chaos was the presupposition of the Creator bringing order, but the presupposition of the establishment of creation is nothing, nothing but God himself. The one who sustains creation is also the one who brings ‘creation from nothing’ and both these are effected by the powerful and eternal word. As Schreiner herself summarises, stability, regularity, and continuity attest divine power, immutability, and faithfulness.150 The order of relations, which are providentially sustained, displays divine goodness. The initial creative act and the Creator known therein must never be forgotten if created order is to be appreciated, instead of inventing an order of nature that obscures the Creator’s fatherly care. Therefore, the threat posed by chaos must not be overplayed theologically, even if it dominates the existential anxieties to be pastorally addressed by this doctrine. The threat of chaos does not dominate Calvin’s doctrine of creaturely order in his treatment of Genesis. Calvin prefers the positive supposition of the goodness of creation grounded and fulfilled in divine goodness. Divine wisdom orders creation in its present relations and to its future ends. The description of creaturely order given here varies in this way from Schreiner’s account; whereas Schreiner dramatizes Calvin’s fear of the inherent instability of creation, Calvin on Genesis emphasises the orderly fatherly care of Creator. Contrary to Schreiner’s assertion that “for Calvin the creation ex nihilo produced a cosmos threatened always by disorder”,151 I suggest that, since ‘creation from nothing’ attests that God alone is the presupposition of creation, nothing finally threatens created goodness and order grounded in the Creator. Creation is created and therefore ‘inherently’ stable and ordered rather than Calvin holding any view of ‘nature’ apart from the Creator. This qualification of Calvin’s view of Creation, at least in his treatment of Genesis, is a key contribution of this analysis. Having addressed characterisation of Calvin as overly fearful of fragility, the nature and place of humanity in Calvin’s presentation of Creation is a second key point of discussion relating to the nature of creatures. It also conforms with the kinds of creatures Calvin finds within creation.

150 Zachman, Reconsidering John Calvin, 120. 151 Schreiner, “Creation and Providence,” in The Calvin Handbook, 272.

143

144

Creatures

4.2.3 Visible Animate Creation Animals have a unique place in Calvin’s understanding of created order because they share the breath of life with humans, but do not share in sin or sonship, because they do not bear the divine image. This commonality and difference make Calvin’s teaching on animals an opportunity to consider in further detail the relation of non-human creatures to humans and the relation of all creatures to their Creator. Calvin’s teaching on animals and humans demonstrates that all creatures have a direct relation to their Creator and participate in that relation through obedience to the divine word and declaration of praise of the divine glory.152 Additionally, animals illustrate what it means for creation to be for human use.

4.2.3.1 Animals and Humans The relations of creatures to each other and to their Creator are complex in Calvin’s thought.153 The place of other creatures in relation to humans poses a potential challenge to the thought that all creatures have their good ends in the Creator.154 This is because, if humans are placed as the pinnacle of creation, it is possible to construe non-human creatures as finding their good solely in their usefulness to humanity. In both sermon and commentary, Calvin argues that all creation is for man’s use and full of every good thing and richness for man’s sake.155 Since visible creatures are for humans, they are appropriately “lord of the world; but [God] expressly subjects the animals to [humanity], because they, having an inclination or instinct of their own, seem to be less under authority from without”.156 Removed from context these statements could be distorted to mean that animals are made for humans in conformity to human desires without qualification. However, exaltation of humanity does not counter God as 152 Calvin is aware that attributing hearing and obedience of the divine word to animals or inanimate creation cannot be understood in exactly the same way as it applies to humans and angelic being possessing understanding. Likewise the declaration of the divine virtues and praise thereof is understood in some sense metaphorically by Calvin. The discussion below will fill in these concepts in some more detail as they relate to animals. 153 Francis Higman, “Calvin et des animaux,” in La Monde Animaux au temps de la Renaissance, ed. M.T. Jones-Davies, 245–56 (Paris: Klincksieck, 1992); Peter A. Huff, “Calvin and the Beasts: Animals in John Calvin’s Theological Discourse,” JETS 42, no. 1 (1999): 67–75; Young, John Calvin and the Natural World. 154 Criticism of Calvin’s thought by Clough runs along this line with concerns that Calvin presents an anthropocentric doctrine of creation which endorses abuse of animals. David L. Clough, “All God’s Creatures: Reading Genesis on Human and Non-human Animals,” in Reading Genesis after Darwin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 145–61; Clough, On Animals, 14. Compare: Fergusson, Creation, 96–100. 155 Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:54; Comm. Gen 1:26; CO 23:27 156 Comm. Gen 1:26; CO 23:27

Created Order

the final good beyond any worldly human ends.157 Any dignity within humans points outside them to the one in whom they live and move and have their being. There is therefore a double teleology where animals are for man’s use within the created order and ultimately for the Creator’s glory. In this way the Creator dominates Calvin’s doctrine about animals and humans. The ultimate good is served by the relation of creatures where animals express God’s fatherly love to humans so that human creatures might thank and praise him.158 The phrase ‘for man’s use’ means as a generous fatherly gift from the loving Creator, so that humans might better know, love, and glorify him. Any use that exalts humans over animals as the sole goal of creation is a distortion of Calvin’s thought. This is not an exclusively anthropocentric theology, but creation is for human flourishing, in fact the flourishing of all creation itself, as well as divine glory. 4.2.3.2 One Creator The intertwined ends and goods of humans and animals are based on their common identity as creatures of the one Creator. Creature is a broad term denoting anything that is not the Creator. Calvin includes humans in and with a vast creation of fish, birds, tame and wild animals, trees, earth, sea, sky, sun, moon, stars, and angelic beings. The difference between Creator and creatures is the primary theological distinction rather than between animals and humans. In this context a theology of creatures in relationship with their Creator and each other develops. The commonality of animals and humans is further underlined because they share the breath of life and muddy beginnings. Humans and land animals are created on the same day in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:7 leads Calvin to reflect more on the similarities. Because of humanity’s common origins with animals, Calvin fears attack for speaking of the “animal life of humanity” and “animating of the clayey figure”.159 Indeed, humans “are only earth and mire when all is counted”,160 and “God could just as well have created animals from pots of earth; he could have made us donkeys or dogs”.161 With animals, humans are bodies made of dust. With animals, humans share the lower capacities of the soul of living breath and self-motion.162 In this sense, animals share a kind of soul with humans and humans are animals. The similarities of animals and 157 158 159 160 161 162

Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:8 Comm. Gen 1:26; CO 23:27; Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:54 Comm. Gen 2:7; CO 23:35–36 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:96 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:97 Comm. Gen 23:1; CO 23:321

145

146

Creatures

humans, that is, the same Creator and same breath, are theologically significant for Calvin and should be remembered when considering the distinction of animals and humans. 4.2.3.3 Image of God Alignment of created goodness and order finds unique expression in humanity as bearers of the divine image. The divine image most supremely displays divine generosity, mirrors divine goodness of being, and expresses the harmony of divine wisdom in the proper ratio of every part. The divine image encompasses elements of humanity’s being, righteousness, and ends, as well as having implications for humanity’s relation to other creatures and the Creator. Therefore the divine image forms a nexus in humanity where created goodness and order find their fullest expression. Stauffer expresses the difficulty that scholars face: “Le problème de l’imago Dei est l’un des plus difficiles de la théologie calvinienne. Les textes qui s’y rapportent sont en effet aussi nombreux que contradictoires”.163 Like Creation more broadly discussion of the image of God centres on the Institutes 1.15, with select references from Calvin’s Genesis commentary, especially Genesis 1:26–28. It is divided between those who see the image as a dynamic relation to the Creator and those who see the image more statically as a matter of faculties within human nature. The various static and dynamic conceptions are also linked with contrasting understandings of the total or partial eclipse of the image at the Fall and what it means for the image to be restored in Christ. Thankfully the task at hand is neither to chart a course through the vast literature in Calvin studies nor to resolve all Calvin’s references to the divine image.164 Calvin’s teaching concerning the image of God from Genesis specifically is rich but not irreducibly complex.

163 DCP, 201. 164 For example compare: Karl Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); Henri Blocher, “Calvin’s Theological Anthropology,” in John Calvin and Evangelical Theology: Legacy and Prospect: In Celebration of the Quincentenary of John Calvin (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 66–84; Emil Brunner and Karl Barth, Natural Theology; Brian A. Gerrish, “The Mirror of God’s Goodness: Man in the Theology of Calvin,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 45, no. 3 (1981): 211–22; Anthony N.S. Lane, “6. Anthropology,” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 275–88; Niesel, The Theology of Calvin; Richard Prins, “The Image of God in Adam and the Restoration of Man in Jesus Christ: A Study in Calvin,” SJT 25, no. 1 (1972): 32–44; T.F. Torrance, Calvin’s Doctrine of Man; THG, 55–72.

Created Order

Despite many similarities, animals and humans are different because humans bear the divine image and non-human animals do not.165 Humans are created in the image of God and approach his nature; as such the Creator has imprinted humans with certain marks that distinguish them from animals and his every work high and low.166 This image was initially engraved on Adam and is later renewed in those who participate in Christ so that they display and share in divine glory. It is especially seen as the higher faculties of the soul, reason and understanding, are shaped by the Spirit.167 Righteousness then works itself out in the human body as all human senses and powers are aligned with the divine image.168 Therefore, humans are distinct from animals in their capacity to discern good and evil, hear God’s Word, know God as father, and hope for heavenly life.169 As a result, human flourishing looks different from animal flourishing, that is, humans display and respond to the glory of God in a uniquely human fashion as the divine image shines through. Additionally, God loves humans even more than animals because of his image. This greater love is because humans carry something more than their own animal life, but this excellence and subsequent love is entirely a gift and no ground for human boasting. Still, Calvin repeatedly uses a how-much-more argument, of the shape: since God loves and provides for animals, how much more will he provide for humans who are adored image bearers.170 Calvin’s logic depends on God loving his own glory and goodness, which he generously bestows. The Creator has freely chosen to imprint his image on humans and, as a result, humans are loved as children in a way animals are not, even though in creation humans are grouped among animals.

165 For an example of the explicit contrast see Serm. Gen 6:1–3; SC 11/1:351. The surtitles for this sermon in the English translation by McGregor label it as based on Genesis 5:21–32 instead of Genesis 6:1–3. 166 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:58 167 Calvin is sympathetic to Augustine’s description of humanity as a microcosmos, but does not promote the analogy in his own commentary or preaching. Comm. Gen 1:26; CO 23:25; Serm. Gen 9:3–7; SC 11/1:480. For particulars of these references and a full list of Calvin’s citations of Augustine see: Smits, Saint Augustin, 131–32. 168 For a description of the body before and after corruption see Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:60. The positive and full description of the image contrasts with the metaphor of the body as prison for the soul. Contrary to Stauffer’s finding this metaphor is present in a Genesis sermon: ‘l’oeuvre homilétique ne considère jamais le corps comme la “prison de l’âme”’, DCP, 206. ‘ce corps mortel, qui est comme une prison qui nous tient captifz souz le diable et souz le peché’. Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:91 169 Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:57–62; Serm. Gen 5:1–25; SC 11/1:325–26 170 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:72

147

148

Creatures

In this way, humans enjoy the Creator’s fatherly care and because of this, after engraving his image, he adds dominion over all creation.171 The Creator graciously appoints humans as his vice-regents and tells his human creatures they are masters over the animals, birds, and fish.172 Humans are made superiors over animals as far as that means masters. This is not because they are superior over animals so as to mean more valuable in their created being apart from the excellence of the divine image.173 Calvin says humans are superior to animals, when this is understood as qualified in a particular way. Calvin’s imagery further explains his understanding of mastery over creation. Calvin uses the metaphor of a house to describe creation and humans as head of the house. Animals are part of the human household, therefore animals share in blessing when God’s love overflows to them because of his concern for human salvation, and animals will share in cursing when God’s judgement overflows to animals because of his concern for human wickedness. In this way, humans exercise a representative headship over creation and animal flourishing partially depends on humans. However, the superiority of humans over creation comes with qualifications. When humans are set over the household of creation this is on the condition that they submit to the Creator as their king.174 This is because the Creator retains final possession of creation.175 Humans exercise dominion over animals only within divinely given permission and not as tyrants shedding “the blood of innocent victims”.176 In Calvin’s metaphor humans are lords eating from another’s pantry and only at his pleasure. Under the Creator the conditional human dominion may be understood in two aspects: contemplative knowledge and diligent oversight. Considering the first, Calvin links humans’ contemplative knowledge of creation to the Creator’s knowledge of creation. On the seventh day, the Creator stops to contemplate the goodness, wisdom, power, and righteousness evident in all his works.177 When birds and fish are created Calvin suggests: “our Lord shows therefore to the eye the things which deserve to be seen” and these things lead humans to the Creator.178 Humans are to discern the Creator’s glory in creation and contemplating animals is part of this. This is one way animals allow humans to flourish and humans express their dominion. 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178

Serm. Gen 5:1–25; SC 11/1:325–26 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:66 Serm. Gen 2:18–21; SC 11/1:133 Serm. Gen 3:22–24; SC 11/1:230 Serm. Gen 12:5–9; SC 11/2:615 Comm. Gen 9:3; CO 23:144 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:81–82. See also Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:85 Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:48

Created Order

Further, contemplative knowledge is pictured in Adam naming the animals. Adam knew the animals by his sharply attuned reason and intelligence, to which all his bodily senses were conformed so that he “imposed names on them, not rashly, but from a certain knowledge”.179 These were “appropriate names, agreeing with the nature of each”.180 This knowledge and discrimination was not purely intellectual, but relational like a master’s personal and intimate acquaintance with each member of his household.181 In creation contemplative human knowledge appreciated in detail how each animal displayed the glory of its Maker. This was the righteous human response to animals showing divine glory. Humans had a personal understanding of animals and oversaw them thankfully. This was for the good of animals and humans together. In a second aspect of dominion, diligent human oversight of animals, Calvin uses the imagery of fathers and stewards. The Creator himself is the model for good and wise fatherhood within creation.182 Since humans have benefited from loving generosity they must now express this toward animals. The Creator’s provision unfailingly provides above and beyond the needs of his human creatures for their delight so that they might joyfully entrust their lives into his hands.183 Therefore humans must likewise act for animals as fathers. Comparison of humans’ mastery to a steward’s oversight also means humans cannot be idle, nor self-indulgent, nor can they abuse the good things given into their hands. Instead, humans must be diligent, frugal, moderate, and improve the condition of what they have for future generations.184 Humans should act responsibly for those under their care and for their Lord. Adam keeping the garden also relates to diligent human oversight. Humans must use their God-given gifts in a suitable manner, whether that is as a farmer or a tradesman or another vocation.185 Humans must “dispense from the riches of God, such that all might be accomplished for good and legitimate use”.186 Humans are to be busy in God’s service so that they faithfully dispense good things that they have been given.187 If humans are careless or wasteful with creation then they offend God because they treat his good gifts as worthless. Creation must be diligently used according to its created goals.

179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187

Comm. Gen 2:19; CO 23:48 Comm. Gen 2:19; CO 23:48 Serm. Gen 2:18–21; SC 11/1:133 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:68 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:71–72 Comm. Gen 2:15; CO 23:44 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:107–08 Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:108 Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:110

149

150

Creatures

Calvin is also aware that Adam lives in a garden that contains the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. This entails three points about Adam: one, humans are to act for the good of other creatures; two, they act knowing they are distinct from animals; three, humans are still under the rule of their Creator.188 Humanity’s dominion of creation is therefore conducted before their Creator. The Creator retains his relation to created order over and above the internal relations of creatures. Having focused on humans we also consider animals. 4.2.3.4 The Nature of Animals Animals have their own relationship with their Creator and their own created good. The beauty and fullness of animal goodness comes from the Creator and not from humans. For example Calvin marvels how Moses sums up all the living creatures of the ocean under the one species of whales.189 Whales show God’s goodness, power, and wisdom, in their monstrous size, breathing under water, swallowing rivers, and consuming fish into a belly like an insatiable gulf. Calvin is astonished at the variety of fish and amphibians. He mentions both their characteristics and behaviours, which are strange and wonderful things that surpass animals found on land.190 The details and variety of animals of all kinds display goodness and beauty irrespective of their relationship to humans. Further, despite the superiority of humans, they would do well to be schooled by animals.191 For example Calvin admires the skills of animals where God gives great natural talents to them, such as tiny birds making nests.192 Animals have a particular animal-knowledge and beauty that shows their own fullness, reflecting divine goodness in an appropriate animal manner. In another example, the response of chickens to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply is instructive.193 They suffer on their nests in harsh circumstances for the sake of obedience to God’s command. This demonstrates that creatures without reason obey in their own way and makes humanity even more culpable. Humanity should be schooled in this by birds and all beasts.194 Animals relate to their Maker apart from humanity. Animals lack reason, but this does not hinder their obedience to the divine word, instead it changes its character. Animals, like humans, experience the power of the Creator communicated through his word, but animals obey this word instinctively, by a secret

188 189 190 191 192 193 194

Serm. Gen 2:7–15; SC 11/1:106 Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:45–46 Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:46 Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:47 Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:47 Luther likewise sympathises with birds and learns from hens. LW, vol. 52, 97–98. Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:49

Created Order

leading, instead of in a reasoned human way that includes the divine image.195 Animals are not guilty when they obey without understanding. Instead, animal obedience expresses their nature as it directs them to further express the Creator’s virtues. Animals actively hear and obey their Creator in their own way. Animals are good and have their own goals, independent of humans. 4.2.3.5 A Positive Symbolic Relation Having earlier considered the relation from humans to animals, the opposite relation from animals to humans is also significant. Calvin thinks very highly of animals as he prays, “let us so submit ourselves to him that if the insentient creatures and the animals obey him, we will surpass them”.196 A positive aspect of the relation from animals to humans is that animals symbolically present the Creator to humans. Animals take a symbolic role by presenting the Creator as father. For example, in the garden, animals wanted to be known and ruled because their submission to humanity was ordered by their Creator.197 God did not drag animals to Adam against their own inclinations or by external compulsion.198 Without the Fall animals would be prompt to obey humanity and the relationship would be like play, willingly and joyfully reflecting created order.199 Apart from the Fall there is no venom, no malice, no fierce lashing out against humans, but a friendly serpent eating only dust.200 In creation animals enjoyed helping humans to realise more and more that God is their loving father and everything is from and for him. Animals symbolise the Creator as father to humanity so humans might love and trust him. Animal excellence and virtue instruct humanity that the Creator is good, wise, and powerful. Therefore, humans should entrust their whole selves to him for human good. Yet this goodness and instruction is not merely instrumental and dependent on humans. Animal nature is not without its own animal goodness and active relationship to the Creator and their human masters. Animals show the Creator’s glory in an animal way so that humans might then show his glory in a human way. While animals are for human use there is mutuality as each shows the Creator’s glory for the good of the other.201 In summary: from Genesis, Calvin teaches that creation is not only good but also ordered. This is a created order in which the Creator himself is key. Created 195 196 197 198 199 200 201

Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:49 Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:53 Comm. Gen 2:19; CO 23:48 Serm. Gen 2:18–21; SC 11/1:133 Serm. Gen 2:18–21; SC 11/1:133 Serm. Gen 2:18–21; SC 11/1:134 The wholeness of creation and case against any suggestion of anthropocentrism is further strengthened below.

151

152

Creatures

order is evident for Calvin among angelic beings, sun, moon, stars, sky, sea, land, fish, birds, animals, and human creatures. In these spheres Calvin teaches created order from and for the Creator as well as created order in harmony with itself and its Marker. This wise order of creation, which operates both internally and with respect to the Creator, contrasts with alternatives which may collapse or separate created order from its source and end. However, Genesis does not end at chapter two and understanding the wholeness of Calvin on Creation is served by exploring further.

4.3 Corruption and Disorder

The present concern is specifically Creation, but sin and condemnation cannot be ignored. Nonetheless, this is a limited exposition of the corruption and disorder of creation answering directly to the threads of goodness and order outlined earlier. Knowledge of the Creator as judge as well as father is especially relevant. From Genesis Calvin treats both the source and scope of corruption. Calvin does not provide a thorough theodicy, but says the Creator is neither the author of evil, nor one of two competing powers over creation. Calvin locates the culpability for evil in humanity’s sin and credits all corruption to the condemnation that follows the Fall. Corruption, evil, deformity, and disorder, infect all physical creation from top to bottom and are therefore total in scope. Created goodness and order are overthrown and marred almost beyond recognition except that grace remains. Any traces of goodness and order seen in creation should therefore evoke even greater gratitude. The Creator shows himself now as both father and judge, but still prefers to be known for his mercy. This subsection will discuss the source and scope of corruption and disorder before offering again the example of animal and human creatures as they demonstrate Calvin’s teaching on the corruption of natures and the disorder of relations within creation. 4.3.1 Its Source

The source of corruption and evil is found in human sin and not in God. The snake is an innocent weapon in the hands of the father of lies; Calvin thinks this was an actual snake and he explains that while Satan was behind the temptation this is omitted by Moses for pedagogical reasons.202 God is not culpable for evil, while maintaining his lordship over it. It may be offensive to say that God willed the Fall, but Calvin finds this less offensive than saying the Creator permitted 202 Comm. Gen 3:1; CO 23:53–54

Corruption and Disorder

the Fall without willing it, or that humanity sinned by free will conceived in a libertarian fashion, or that a competing evil power was responsible for the Fall. At the same time, Adam’s sin was not pleasing to God. The Fall contradicted God’s order in creation and was against his will if conceived in this way; and yet it is not impossible that God willed the Fall for unknown reasons.203 Calvin directs readers from the Genesis commentary to the Institutes for discussion of Adam sinning necessarily or contingently as well as the nature of original sin and the just condemnation of all humanity.204 Calvin combats those who exalt human freedom above the Creator’s care and those who try to side step responsibility by attributing culpability to him. Calvin’s battle therefore has two fronts relating to the source of corruption.205 When preaching, the reality of sin and its consequences take centre stage. Calvin preaches directly that all evil results from sin and rebellion.206 The first sin occurs within the relational context of creature and Creator and this relation with a liberal and kind father prompts comment on how inexcusable the defection of Adam and Eve is. Also, the first sin is disbelief in the divine word, and therefore blasphemy, coupled with pride.207 The source of sin lies in humanity who are prompted by Satan and the nature of sin is far more dire than gluttony or lust, because it is the dethronement of the Creator of the world. Calvin reads Genesis 3 as a historical reality in continuity with the salvation history of the church. This reading commitment shapes his doctrinal position concerning the origins of corruption and disorder. Calvin renounces allegorical interpretations and confronts the everyday experience of sin and corruption in the lives of his congregation instead of undertaking extended philosophical argument. The text of Genesis restricts the scope of Calvin’s treatment on this topic. Calvin’s position is not without nuance, but may be put simply as upholding the goodness and purity of the Creator and the fault for wickedness in humanity, even while acknowledging the presence of the tempter and the continuing oversight of the Creator in every detail. Things are placed side by side, but the interface between them is not explained. This is a limitation of the 203 Comm. Gen 3:1; CO 23:55 204 Comm. Gen 3:1, 6; CO 23:56, 62. These are the only two instances in the Genesis commentary where such references occur, which may attest to the importance or complexity of the issue or Calvin’s editorial work of the initial sections of the Genesis commentary, but not the later portions. 205 Likewise when it comes to the scope of corruption Calvin will enter the fray twice over against those who say corruption is not total, whom he names Pelagians, and against those who throw up their hands and say there is nothing they can do in the face of unavoidable depravity. 206 Serm. Gen 3:1–3, 3:4–6; SC 11/1:151, 164 207 Comm. Gen 3:6; CO 23:60–61; Serm. Gen 3:4–6; SC 11/1:166

153

154

Creatures

expression of Calvin’s theology in these formats. It also reflects his commitment to usefulness of sacred doctrine as he expounds scripture above an exhaustive propositional account. Where the text does not provide a connection, Calvin does not always seek one. 4.3.2 Its Total Scope

The corruption and disorder resulting from human sin are total in their scope. For humanity, this is a corruption of their nature so that the goodness of their being, their righteousness, and their ends have been turned away from their created state. This is a complete loss of every spiritual gift or marring of the image. Calvin can refer to this perversion as against the Creator and against nature, where this is understood as initial created nature.208 Additionally, since humanity held a role like steward in a household, every relation involving humanity has been transformed such that the created order is subject to frustration and visible creation shares in the condemnation of their human masters.209 To put this in more modern terms of the Creator’s masterwork, the human creature partially erases, partially inverts, and sprays graffiti across what had been purely delightful and entirely complete. However, this corruption and disorder cannot remove the underlying relation of Creator to all creatures apart from humanity. Created natures who lack intelligence and understanding, that is, those who are not humans nor angelic beings, cannot sin and therefore their natures are not corrupted in the same way as humans, but their relations are disordered from what they were. Creatures retain their capacity for delightfulness, but it is often unexpressed and as though order is inverted.210 However, the continuance of creaturely existence testifies to ongoing grace and fatherly care from the Creator at every moment. The Creator will redeem and renew creation for his own glory.211 There is a single promise of salvation in Christ from Adam through the Church in all ages. The corruption and disorder of creation means that humans are pilgrims in the present creation awaiting a greater celestial inheritance, but this acquires the nuance of those banished from blessing but awaiting something greater.212

208 Serm. Gen 4:15–18; SC 11/1:309 209 Mastery here is understood in Calvin’s qualified sense as outlined above. Many times Calvin instructs his congregation that the disorder of creation flows from humanity’s fault and his reasoning depends on the privileged position given to humanity in the initial creation. See for example: Serm. Gen 3:14–16, 8:1–4; SC 11/1:198, 435 210 Serm. Gen 3:17–18; SC 11/1:212 211 CO 23:11–12 212 Serm. Gen 3:14–16, 3:22–24; SC 11/1:199, 235

Corruption and Disorder

The totality of corruption in human nature and in created order means that those who are taught to recognise the Creator’s office as judge must also immediately recognise him as father.213 Goodness remains evident in a blade of grass and at every turn.214 Even in mixed human experience of the Creator as father and judge Calvin can preach that all is well from God’s side.215 However, this is only possible because of the blessing found in Christ.216 The total corruption and disorder of creation could be amply illustrated in Calvin’s treatment of non-animate visible creation. For example, Calvin observes “a hideous deformity” which shows “the fruits of our sin” because the blessing of the Creator was abolished and the state of creation was “changed in Adam’s fall”.217 The bulk of Calvin’s sermon on Genesis 3:17–18 treats this subject as the earth and weather display the execution of the curse on Adam’s sin, and this topic continues to arise in subsequent preaching.218 In a pungent image, the deepest smelliest toilet in the world is not worse than where humanity finds itself: “we are submerged in total stench, for if we were not just on a dung heap, but in the deepest and foulest-smelling privy in the world, we would not be in a more horrendous pit than we are”.219 4.3.3 Disordered Animals and Humans

The case of humans and animals reflects the impact of sin on creation’s goodness and order and especially the Creator known as father and judge. Despite the overthrow of creation’s blessing, grace remains amid the curse and disorder that follow for both animals and humans, separately and together. 4.3.3.1 Divine Image Corrupted and Disordered First, consider the disorder experienced by humans in relation to animals. After the Fall, depending on context, Calvin variously describes the divine image as obliterated, defaced from humanity or deformed with a remnant remaining.220 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220

Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:78–79 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:80 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:79 Serm. Gen 3:19–22; SC 11/1:223 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:69 Serm. Gen 3:17–18, 3:19–22; SC 11/1: 210–16, 218, 222, etc. Serm. Gen 3:4–6; SC 11/1:168 David Fergusson ignores the complexity of Calvin’s presentation when he says, “In their Genesis commentaries, moreover, both Luther and Calvin claim that the original image of God was lost at the Fall, so that it becomes more difficult thereafter to turn attention back to the wise ordering of our creaturely condition.” Fergusson, Creation, 33. As described below, when treating Genesis Calvin adjusts his description of what happened to the image depending on his purpose. This complexity contributes to the difficulty of the discussion of the image in Calvin’s thought.

155

156

Creatures

The opening commentary on Genesis 3 speaks of total change and degeneration, “so that the image of God was destroyed (deleta)”.221 Similarly, the image may be said to be destroyed through the Fall, since only obscure lines may be discerned in what is vitiated, maimed, deformed, and infected.222 The implications of the verb deleo are vital at this point. The same describes the total destruction of humanity from the face of the earth during the flood, but that also saw a remnant preserved by the Creator’s grace.223 Calvin’s preferred terminology when preaching is forms of the verb effacer.224 However, he also uses deffiguerer and refers to a residue remaining.225 Similarly, in commentary, a remnant of the image remains and this accords with the continuation of the Creator’s good ends for humanity from the beginning.226 He later refers to those who deform the heavenly father’s image.227 Humanity are now flesh, who are stripped of tous (all) spiritual gifts; these gifts were to bring humanity through this life into heaven, but now sin is greater “because God has left some small residue of his image in us”.228 Calvin’s description of loss of the image as total or partial therefore depends on the exegetical, polemical, and pastoral context in which the reference occurs.229 Since the gift of the divine image was imprinted on human nature the loss of the divine image is also a matter of human nature and not only “corrupt morals; but their iniquity is said to be an innate iniquity from which nothing but evils can spring forth”.230 Human corruption vitiates every part of humanity’s thoughts and affections from infancy; “our sickness is incurable and we are infected from top to bottom,” and every child shows “he is a little serpent”.231 The effects of human sin are corruption, perversion, rebellion, infection, bondage; “men are captives to sin, that they can only do evil, and that all of their thoughts are corrupt”.232 Genesis 3:4–6 is typical of Calvin’s exposition: he describes Adam and Eve as infected by Satan’s poison so that all humanity are dead in 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229

230 231 232

Comm. Gen 3:1; CO 23:52 Comm. Gen 1:26; CO 23:26–27. See also: Comm. Gen 5:5; CO 23:106 Comm. Gen 6:7; CO 23:118 For example: Serm. Gen 3:17–18, 6:1–4, 6:5–8, 7:1–5, 7:6–10, 9:3–7; SC 11/1:211, 363, 369, 374, 407, 415–16, 484, etc. Serm. Gen 9:3–7; SC 11/1:485 Comm. Gen 9:6; CO 23:147 Comm. Gen 9:22; CO 23:151 Serm. Gen 6:5–8; SC 11/1:369 Part of this context is the teaching of the Council of Trent on the Fall, which remains referenced in the Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 7 on the Fall. http:// www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM Comm. Gen 8:21; CO 23:140–41 Serm. Gen 6:5–8; SC 11/1:372–73 Serm. Gen 6:5–8; SC 11/1:373

Corruption and Disorder

sin and constituted as sinners because of Adam’s rebellion; from the womb the image is distorted, appetites are perverse, and pride and hypocrisy are added; every part of the human body, soul, and senses are twisted.233 The corruption of human ontology also transforms the moral and teleological aspects of the goodness of the divine image as human capacity to discern good and evil, hear God’s Word, know God as father, hope for heavenly life, human flourishing, and response to the glory of God in a uniquely human fashion are all compromised. Noah’s drunkenness causes Calvin to reflect that a drunk would as soon slit the throat of his wife or father as of a chicken, and this is because of the defacement of the divine image, particularly the distinction between good and evil, which is a perversion of the order of nature.234 The corruption of the goodness of humans is connected with the disruption of the created order. Loss of the divine image distorts the created relationship between humans and animals. For example, sinful humans see how vile they have become as their Maker wraps them in the skins of dead animals.235 Humans are “held as unworthy of being called by the rank cattle or even vermin”.236 Humans are “worse than brute beasts”,237 “here below like crawling things on the earth”,238 “poor worms of the earth who crawl here below”.239 The outstanding gift of human excellence is lost and therefore humans are to consider this judgement of the Creator, which should make them ashamed to remain among creatures.240 A further distortion is seen as humans experience disorder of the divine image when they act in an animal way.241 Humans act as animals when they lack understanding; they look at creation without marvelling at the Creator’s power, wisdom, and goodness and do not go on and proclaim his glory.242 In sinful humans “appetites so boil that nothing is more difficult than restraining them”.243 Many times Calvin condemns humans acting like unrestrained cruel

233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243

Serm. Gen 3:4–6; SC 11/1:171 Serm. Gen 9:18–21; SC 11/1:507–08 Comm. Gen 3:22; CO 23:78; Serm. Gen 3:19–22; SC 11/1:226 Serm. Gen 7:6–10; SC 11/1:415 Serm. Gen 6:5–8; SC 11/1:369 Serm. Gen 4:10–12; SC 11/1:278 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:6. Compare Serm. Gen 1:3–5, 12:5–9, 15:17–21; SC 11/1:17; SC 11/2:613, 835, etc. Serm. Gen 3:17–18; SC 11/1:215 Serm. Gen 2:1–6, 15–17, 18–21; SC 11/1:85, 111, 137 Serm. Gen 1:20–21; SC 11/1:47 Serm. Gen 9:18–21; SC 11/1:504

157

158

Creatures

animals: before the flood,244 when drunk,245 at Babel,246 and in Sodom.247 Calvin thinks Sodom would be better off if they were dogs since at least a pack of wolves do not tear each other to pieces.248 These illustrations show how much Calvin thinks humans have lost. Calvin does not think cattle are morally defective for not using intelligence, nor that brute beasts are guilty when then follow their instincts, nor that wild animals are culpable for not submitting to humans;249 but humans fail in these because of what they are made to be as intelligent, discerning creatures, under their Creator’s rule.250 Corruption and loss of the image distorts the human relation to animals. 4.3.3.2 Dominion Corrupted and Disordered A prime disordering which occurs is the distortion of human dominion in relation to visible creation. For example, after the Fall humans neither know nor care for animals rightly. Selfish human excess abuses the liberal gift of creation and humanity thanklessly gorges itself.251 Humans show unacceptable, undiscerning greed, gluttony, and selfish indulgence without any restraint.252 Neglecting holiness and self-control distorts human freedom to enjoy God’s good gifts. Sinful humans want to indulge themselves in creation instead of heeding the goodness of the Creator displayed in it and then longing for him.253 Humans fail contemplatively to know animals to the praise of their Creator and humans fail to exercise diligent oversight of animals for their mutual good and for their Creator. Loss of the divine image leads to abuse of human dominion. Another element of disorder in the relation is that animals partake in the curse with humans rather than blessing and mutual flourishing. Calvin explains the reasons for this shared disorder in a twofold manner. Animals share in punishment because they are under human headship and also because animals 244 245 246 247 248 249

250 251

252 253

Serm. Gen 6:1–4; SC 11/1:358 Serm. Gen 9:18–21; SC 11/1:507 Serm. Gen 11:1–4; SC 11/1:547 Serm. Gen 19:6–9; SC 11/2:1022 Serm. Gen 10:1–32; SC 11/1:543 Serm. Gen 1:29–31, 4:15–18, 9:18–21; SC 11/1:79, 308, 309, 503. Dogs and cats are not guilty of forgetfulness when they do not learn from correction; a peacock is not at fault for pride and scorn when displaying its feathers; mastiffs are not condemned for growling nor toads for being set in their ways. Comm. Gen 6:3, 19:4; CO 23:114, 268; Serm. Gen 11:10–31; SC 11/2:568 Serm. Gen 9:1–3; SC 11/1:473–74. Calvin explicit contrasts this behaviour to those truly reformed by the gospel and enjoying spiritual freedom. This appears to be polemic against libertine strains of thought and practice. Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:74 Serm. Gen 4:23–26; SC 11/1:314

Corruption and Disorder

are the occasion for human sin and thereby the means of killing man and woman.254 In both sermon and commentary Calvin gives the image of a father’s reaction to the sword that killed his son; the father rightly breaks the sword.255 Similarly, God curses the means used to kill his children. The snake is not guilty, but Calvin justifies punishing a poor innocent snake because of God’s special fatherly care for humanity and animals’ creation for humans.256 4.3.3.3 Remaining Animal Order after the Fall Calvin believes that, even though they share with humans, animals do not experience separate disorder because of their own guilt. In this way animals continue to participate in a rightly ordered relation between themselves and their Creator. The relation is disordered from the human side, but not from the animal side. Therefore, animal obedience and the symbolic role representing the Creator to humanity continue.257 In creation, animals primarily depicted the Creator as father, after the Fall animals also show God as judge. Animals present the Creator as judge both by taking the part of condemned creature in need of grace, as well as avenger because of sin. Animals are obedient creatures subject to a rebellious human household and therefore experience the tension of passively suffering judgement and actively executing judgement. These are considered in turn. First, animals passively show the Creator as judge to humanity. Animals are innocent creatures bearing the burden of human suffering.258 In the flood innocent animal suffering shows how bad sin is.259 Calvin also draws this out with respect to sacrifices, animal suffering in general, and bloodshed. In sacrifices, the innocence of the animal victim underscores the hideousness of human sin and should doubly move humans to repentance.260 The Old Testament animal sacrifices pointed forward to Jesus.261 He is the spiritual fulfilment of all the blood shed of animals. The animals acted for Adam and Noah and the Mediator would also act for the patriarchs in a sacrificial way, as innocent bearer of punishment. Within Genesis, even when not cultic, animal

254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261

Serm. Gen 3:14–16; SC 11/1:199 Comm. Gen 3:14; CO 23:68; Serm. Gen 3:14–16; SC 11/1:198 Serm. Gen 3:14–16; SC 11/1:198 This is a particular aspect of the Creator being manifest and seen in creation. All creation now shows that the Creator relates to humanity both as Father and Judge. Serm. Gen 6:5–8; SC 11/1:376–77 Comm. Gen 6:7; CO 23:118–19; Serm. Gen 6:5–8; SC 11/1:376–77 Serm. Gen 7:11–24; SC 11/1:429 Serm. Gen 8:20–22; SC 11/1:454–58

159

160

Creatures

suffering is for humans, because of humans, and to instruct humans.262 Humans are very hard-hearted if they ignore animal suffering and think only about themselves and their own stomachs during famine, drought, or the like. As well as learning from animal suffering due to natural causes, humans should reflect on their role causing or relieving animal suffering. If humans learn to be kind and fair to animals they will learn to be kind and fair to each other, but if humans are cruel to those who cannot cry out for justice themselves, animal or human, God will avenge them.263 Another passive but more direct lesson for humans occurs when animals are killed for killing a human. The animal is not guilty like a human, because it acted from instinct. However, the lesson is that if animals are punished for killing a human only by instinct, how much more will a human be punished who kills knowingly and with intent?264 In these ways animals passively represent the Creator as judge to human creatures as they play the part of suffering creature underlining the terrible nature of sin, its punishment, and the need for mercy. Second, animals actively portray the Creator as judge to humanity. Animals are actively against humans as they bear witness against humans before God, cry out for vengeance from God, and are active agents of vengeance on God’s behalf as judge. If humans do not profit from the goodness, justice, and power of God engraved in large letters in creation, then “there is nothing that does not cry out for vengeance against us, because we have wickedly abused them”.265 Animals do not cry out without success as God arms all creatures in order that they might avenge themselves on humanity.266 Calvin thinks God acts fairly as a result of sin, so “it is necessary that the animals are armed to execute God’s vengeance on such malice and perversity”.267 Animals actively participate in the divine judgement because their Creator inspires and leads them.268 This inspiration against humanity inversely mimics the inspiration in obedience to humanity in the beginning.269 It is only possible for animals to act as agents of divine vengeance, to actively show God as judge, because they still honour him.270 Calvin sees tigers, elephants, lions, bears, wolves, and innumerable other wild animals as furious judges of human rebel-

262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270

Serm. Gen 7:11–24 ; SC 11/1:430 Serm. Gen 9:3–7; SC 11/1:478 Serm. Gen 9:3–7; SC 11/1:478–79 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:4 Serm. Gen 3:17–18; SC 11/1:211 Serm. Gen 7:6–10; SC 11/1:415 Serm. Gen 7:6–10; SC 11/1:416 Serm. Gen 2:18–21; SC 11/1:134 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:79

Corruption and Disorder

lion as though born for human destruction.271 Animals war against humans not only in the wild, but also in human houses, even when humans are tucked up safely in bed flies, lice, and vermin do not leave them in peace.272 In this way, after the Fall, animals continue to have their own relationship with the Creator with its own animal expression and creaturely integrity for their own flourishing and the Creator’s glory, even while animals are members of the rebellious human household. 4.3.3.4 Continuing to know the Creator as Father It would distort Calvin’s view of creation’s corruption and disorder to omit the ongoing fatherly care of the Creator and the knowledge of the Creator as father in Christ by his human children. The Creator’s goodness overcomes evil to redeem and renew creation. Redemption is not an after thought, but rather, grace permeates all creation from beginning to end. Genesis 1–3 is not separate from the rest of salvation history and Calvin’s view of the Mediator as central to the divine relationship with creation cements this.273 For example, despite the Fall grace works in animals, in humans, in their relation with each other, and in their relation with the Creator. The Creator’s fatherly care continues and the creation continues to display remnants of the initial goodness and order with a view to new creation. Looking at the human-animal relationship now and in new creation illustrates this. First, the experience of ongoing grace is seen in present remnants of goodness and order. At present, one element of creation order is human mastery over the household, operating now in blessing and curse; for example, when animals join Noah on the ark.274 Noah also shows a partial recapitulation of Adam with animals.275 Likewise after the flood, animals continue to share with humans in blessing. The relationship of humans and animals with God in the Noahic covenant parallels the relationship of fathers and children in a generational covenant with God. The fathers are intermediate parties for their children; similarly, humans are intermediate parties for the animals.276 Blessing continues for animals, for humans, and their relationship as seen in Noah’s story.

271 Comm. Gen 9:2; CO 23:143–44 272 Serm. Gen 1:29–31; SC 11/1:78. These phrases are in the subjunctive because Calvin is asking a rhetorical question as to whether these things may be considered good. “Est il bon que…?” 273 Again, compare Van Driel’s assessment of Calvin’s eschatology. Van Driel, “‘Too Lowly to Reach God Without a Mediator’.” 274 Comm. Gen 8:1; CO 23:135 275 Comm. Gen 7:8; CO 23:130–31; Serm. Gen 6:13–22, 7:1–5, 7:6–10; SC 11/1:394, 405, 414 276 Comm. Gen 9:9; CO 23:148

161

162

Creatures

Similarly, the fact that any animals remain domesticated for man’s use shows that the Creator’s fatherly care and goals continue.277 Oxen, horses, cows, and sheep all still serve humans in different ways; therefore dominion has not been entirely abolished.278 Grace also appears in that animals do not execute final judgement on behalf of the Creator, because of his mercy. Only by God’s grace is the animal war on humanity unsuccessful; only the Lord’s hand restrains them.279 The current experience of blessing thus includes remnants of the fatherly care established in creation and the limitation of judgement. Looking secondly to the future situation of animals, the Creator’s purposes for creation will be brought to their perfection. It is clear that humans alone hope for heaven and have an immortal soul, yet Calvin hopes in a physical creaturely resurrection.280 Additionally physical creaturely reality is included in renewed life; hence, that animal creatures lack an immortal soul is not a theological reason that they should not be part of renewed creation. Calvin dwells on the final place of animals when he appreciates Isaiah’s heavenly pictures of animals as friends.281 Physical descriptions of the final new creation recapitulate the kind of relationship seen in creation such as Adam’s friendship with animals and mutual blessing between animals and humans. Calvin treats these quite literally while acknowledging that this is not a comprehensive description of the final state. The depiction of the new creation is bare, but both the physical imagery and continued experience of blessing now suggests that renewed creation will resemble God’s initial generosity. Calvin imagines renewed humans will experience new creation similarly to present creation, but in fatherly love without any hint of vengeance. The Creator will make humanity participate in the same largesse and liberality that he showed at the beginning of the creation of the world.282 In the beginning the Creator’s generosity to his human children pervaded the earth, sea, and sky, filling them with animals, fish, and birds, for human use, enjoyment, and delight in their Creator. Generosity above and beyond the goodness and order previously seen will be evident in the end. That is, the Creator’s goals will be realised in and for the whole variety of physical creatures, including animals and humans. The final experience of eternal creaturely life is not contrary to the divine work in creation, and is foreshadowed there. Based on Calvin’s doctrine of the nature of creaturely goodness and order in Genesis, 277 278 279 280 281 282

Comm. Gen 9:2; CO 23:144 Comm. Gen 9:2; CO 23:144 Serm. Gen 9:3–7; SC 11/1:476 Serm. Gen 2:7–15, 5:21–32; SC 11/1:98, 340 Serm. Gen 2:18–21, 4:15–18; SC 11/1:134, 309 Serm. Gen 1:20–25; SC 11/1:50

Use of Created Goodness, Order, Corruption, and Disorder

the theatre’s final show will never close. In fact, the goodness and order animals and humans had in the beginning will be even better in Christ. As well as illustrating goodness and order, corruption and disorder, the relation of animals and humans according to Calvin on Genesis can serve a secondary conclusion. Calvin has been criticised for anthropocentrism because of his teaching that all things are for our use.283 David Clough believes Calvin holds an “inadequate and unsustainable theological position” which is ethically perilous, even though he sees Luther’s position as more dangerous.284 It is true that Calvin maintains that creation is for man’s use and that he has extensive negative rhetoric referring to animals. However, in Genesis, Calvin neither collapses animals into a purely functional role for human good, nor erases their integrity and own relation to the Creator. Like Bauckham’s description of Francis of Assisi we might say of Calvin that “the sense in which humanity has been given a special place in creation is only to be understood in relationship to his overwhelming sense of the common creatureliness”.285 Beastly description never erases the larger view of the Creator and creation.

4.4 Use of Created Goodness, Order, Corruption, and Disorder

A summary of the chapter so far is in order before moving to the conclusion. Calvin developed his thought concerning the nature of creatures in a context where he perceived a threat to this doctrine from both a collapse of the Creator into creation and a wholesale removal of the Creator from the creation. The latter of these appears to have gained more of his attention. This is seen in three variant uses of the term ‘nature’ by Calvin. First, nature as the good and ordered creation initially instituted by the Creator or, second, nature as creation conceived by sinful humanity without the Creator or, third, what is commonly experienced by humanity in fallen creation. Depending on context, what is 283 Animal theology is a growing area of investigation. For example: Andrew Linzey, Animal Theology (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1995); Andrew Linzey, Animal Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000); Andrew Linzey, Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology, and Practical Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013); Stephen Webb, On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). 284 David L. Clough, On Animals, 174. Compare with Clough’s reading of Luther, whom he seeks to somewhat rehabilitate in this sphere. David L. Clough, “The Anxiety of the Human Animal: Martin Luther on Non-human Animals and Human Animality,” in Creaturely Theology: On God, Humans and Other Animals, ed. Celia Deane-Drummond and David Clough, 41–60 (London: SCM Press, 2009). 285 Richard Bauckham, Living with Other Creatures: Green Exegesis and Theology (Waco: Baylor University Press), 203.

163

164

Creatures

natural is hence either created goodness and order, or the sinful response to creation, or the consequences thereof. Calvin’s doctrine of the nature of creatures is similarly complex with the additional consideration of the enduring fatherly care of the Creator and hope of new creation alongside judgement. Created goodness and order provide suitable categories to understand this. Calvin develops a thorough doctrine of created goodness flowing from the Creator’s goodness and expressed in creaturely goodness. Calvin resists collapsing creaturely and divine goodness while holding them tightly together and rebukes claims of initial creation being evil or possessing good apart from its Creator. Likewise created order expresses the harmony and right relations among creatures and with their Creator effected by divine wisdom. The created order stands against fragility and chaos, but is finally threatened by nothing as it stands under the Creator’s fatherly care. Created order among animals and humans provides an extended example of right relations within the created order and with the Creator. The divine image and dominion express that all visible creation is for man’s use, and yet non-human creation maintains its own relation to its Maker and displays the Creator to human creatures. Corruption and disorder dominate the nature of creatures from the Fall onwards without entirely erasing the remnants of created goodness and order because the Creator continues to be known as father as well as judge in Christ. For example, while the divine image is marred beyond recognition and dominion abused in Adam, animals obediently continue to show the Creator as father and judge even though they now share in human curse instead of blessing. Corruption and disorder are not the end of the story, but rather, all continues to go well when considered from the Creator’s point of view because of the redemption and renewal that are in Christ. The one eternal powerful creative and re-creative word continues from beginning to end. In light of all this, therefore, as developed from Genesis, Calvin’s doctrine regarding the nature of creatures has significant polemical, pedagogical, and pastoral use. Some readers emphasise Calvin’s positive appreciation of creation. Hesselink draws conclusions from his reading of the Institutes that may be echoed from Calvin’s teaching on Genesis: “Calvin marvels at the intricacies and beauties of creation… We are to find ‘delight and enjoyment’ in the grasses, trees and fruit, and the beauty and pleasant odors of the flowers, quite apart from their usefulness”.286 Zachman likewise dwells on Calvin’s appreciation of creation so that his readers or hearers might be “ravished with wonder and astonishment”.287 Zachman notes the place of astronomical harmony and order in Calvin’s thought so that Calvin can see astronomy as the alphabet 286 Hesselink, “Calvin’s Theology,” 85. 287 Zachman, Reconsidering John Calvin, 11.

Use of Created Goodness, Order, Corruption, and Disorder

of theology.288 Calvin’s doctrinal appreciation of the goodness and order of creation provide a foundation for knowing the fatherly care of the Creator and praising his goodness, wisdom, power, righteousness, and all his virtues. However, at other points, Calvin’s language to those possessing corrupt human natures is very strongly negative. While Calvin can expound at length the beauty and harmony of creation, it is the negative language concerning corruption and disorder that has sometimes created the strongest impression. Engammare notes “ces accents négatifs sont continuels”, which are “la misère et l’inaptitude de l’homme au bien”.289 Similarly, in order to uphold her thesis concerning providence, Schreiner focuses on the “precarious nature of creation as well as its dangerous and threatening character” as fundamental to the being of creation in Calvin’s thought.290 In his annotated bibliography Fergusson concludes, Calvin “focuses discussion on the original perfection of our nature. The claim that this was entirely lost at the Fall sets up the subsequent trajectory of his theology”.291 The adverbial use of “entirely” without reference to Calvin’s broader presentation of the image after the Fall reflects Fergusson’s negative or limited reading of Calvin’s anthropology. Partee summarises: “John Calvin’s doctrine of sin is often regarded as so severe that ‘Calvinism’ can be used as a synonym for the gloomiest possible evaluation of the human condition and its most dreary prospects”.292 Calvin’s descriptions of the source and totality of corruption and disorder may appear overwhelming if heard in isolation from his broader doctrinal position concerning the nature of creatures and the whole sphere of Creator and creation. This analysis has placed these positive and negative positions within their broader theological context and attended to the occasion and genre of Calvin’s presentation. Some reflections may now be offered. The fact that the positive or negative aspects of Calvin’s doctrine of the nature of creatures can be claimed as extreme suggests, unsurprisingly, that Calvin was not an impassive logician, but a passionate preacher and teacher who believed the word of God presents the highs and lows of creation and Fall all for the glory of the Creator. The particularity of Calvin’s context must be considered when evaluating whether the positive and negative presentations receive appropriate proportions in his thought. The hardness of human hearts prompted Calvin to promote the goodness and order of creation as the very best and to condemn the corruption and disorder of creation as the very worst. Calvin’s extremity in 288 289 290 291 292

Zachman, Reconsidering John Calvin, 13–28. SC 11/1:lv THG, 36. Fergusson, Creation, 122. Partee, Theology of John Calvin, 126.

165

166

Creatures

these presentations was not a whim, but a conviction that humans are foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Calvin pressed both points because he thought his students and congregation would only believe either one by the gracious conjunction of Word and Spirit. In isolation Calvin can be accused of misrepresenting creation either positively or negatively depending on the day, but this is not symptomatic of a two-faced polarity in Calvin’s doctrine. While the rhetoric may swing dramatically, the doctrinal constancy depends on the fatherly care of the Creator anchored in the eternal word. The Creator’s goodness and wisdom remain permanently and are known most clearly in the person and work of Christ the Mediator. Genesis provides Calvin ample occasion to laud created goodness and order as well as mourn creation’s corruption and disorder. Nonetheless, Calvin’s doctrine concerning the nature of creatures is not a static beginning, nor a fall that tumbles never to rise. Creation and the sons of God together groan in hope of the glory that is theirs in Christ.293 Moreover, Ephesians 1:10 affirms to Calvin that this recapitulation which properly constitutes creation in relation to its Creator has happened in Christ; “the proper condition of creatures is to keep close to God. Such a gathering together as might bring us back to regular order, the apostle tells us, has been made in Christ”.294 Calvin’s direct exegetical basis is in the New Testament, but these positions are consistent with his Genesis commentary and sermons concerning the nature of creatures. Calvin’s teaching on creatures from Genesis appropriately includes goodness and order as well as corruption and disorder. Theology is incomplete apart from its use.

293 Comm. Rom 8:19–21; CO 49:152–53 294 Comm. Eph 1:10; CO 51:151

5. Providence In light of Calvin’s thought concerning the Creator, the act of creation, and the nature of creatures, which in turn portray the roots of providence in the life of God, the fount of God’s fellowship with creatures in the beginning, and the partakers in the ongoing history of God’s life with creatures, providence itself may now be considered. Calvin is known for a close connection between God as Creator and Provider.1 This has already been seen in his understanding of the dependent nature of creatures such that preservation by the ongoing effectiveness of the initial creative word and creaturely obedience thereto for their flourishing are intimately linked to the nature of creatures.2 The Creator gives being which is not in itself, but which is from outside itself in its very nature and so dependent on ongoing fellowship with God. The nature of creation necessitates providential preservation. Since the nature of creatures has already allowed reflection on their preservation the concern of this chapter is more the dynamic life of God with creatures as he administers the history that leads to their proper end of blessed eternal fellowship with him. The divine life, which issued in creativity, now demonstrates its faithfulness through the history that brings creatures to their perfection in fellowship with God.3 Calvin’s teaching on divine governance of creation for the church will become a basis for later formal expression from reformed thinkers, but the contribution of Calvin on Genesis has not been broadly considered.4 By way of background it is noteworthy that Calvin also dealt with providence extensively elsewhere. The Institutes 1.16–18 is probably the best known. The history of the content and placement of providence within the Institutes is well rehearsed.5 Calvin’s work, and analysis thereof, illustrates the complexity of locating providence within doctrinal thought, because of its potentially pivotal 1 See for example Institutes 1.16.1. Calvin comes after only Aquinas and Augustine in terms of number of references made to persons in The Providence of God: Deus Habet Consilium, ed. Francesa Aran Murphy and Philip G. Ziegler (London: T&T Clark, 2009): 335. See Josef Bohatec, “Calvins Vorsehungslehre,” in Calvinstudien, 340–441. 2 These are often discussed as sustenance and concurrence within the doctrine of providence. 3 Compare: Webster, “Providence,” 158. 4 See for example Bavinck’s inclusion of ‘Providence as Government’ in his treatment of the topic. Bavinck emphasises the kingly aspects of God’s rule and the teleological orientation of divine government for the church. These considerations are not lacking in Calvin’s treatment of Genesis, but they are not the focus here. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, 615–19. 5 The relation of predestination and providence in Calvin’s thought is the driving issue behind these discussions. Helm describes the theories regarding this as ‘legion’ and gives a brief overview of the issue. Muller offers a convincing presentation of historical influences surrounding

168

Providence

role connecting God to his ongoing fellowship with creatures.6 Providence must be properly related to both the divine works of creation and redemption, as well as the triune God himself. The Institutes also demonstrate Calvin’s application of this doctrine for the comfort of his readers and their repose in the faithfulness of the one they know as father in Christ. Further, providence engaged Calvin polemically. As with the nature of creatures Calvin faced the dual extremes of either removing God from creation, which leaves history subject to chance, or so identifying God with creation that all becomes determined by fate or a pantheistic omni-causality.7 Calvin fiercely rebutted both these extremes. Two works of note are Calvin’s treatises Against the Libertines (1544) and The Secret Providence of God (1558). Calvin’s interactions with Bolsec, Castellio, and French-speaking libertines made providence an intense issue of practical interest. Calvin’s polemical rigour thoroughly develops his doctrine of providence. In contrast to the Institutes and Calvin’s polemical engagements, Calvin’s treatment of Genesis does not comprehensively present the doctrine nor offer extended polemical argument. Rather scriptural exposition treats providence integrated with other doctrines and the ongoing life of the people of God. Consistent with Calvin’s ongoing exegetical method, this life is seen twice over, once in the biblical narrative and again in Calvin’s congregation. There are glimpses of the general oversight of the universe, but the primary interest, as shown in the Argument to the Genesis commentary, is the history of God with his people.8 Calvin’s special concern for divine governance of the church, seen from Genesis, is consistent with his presentation elsewhere. For example, Calvin begins his presentation in the Institutes by affirming that knowing God as Provider is essential to calling God Creator and this is only done by the children of God. Calvin distinguishes providence from a general teaching of divine movement in the world; “they [who only generally perceive and teach God’s secret inspiration of all things] do not at all taste God’s special care, by which

the changing structure of the Institutes from 1536 to 1559. Helm, “Calvin, the ‘Two Issues,’ and the Structure of the Institutes,” 341–48; Richard A. Muller, “Establishing the Ordo docendi: The Organization of Calvin’s Institutes, 1536–1559,” in The Unaccommodated Calvin, 118–39. 6 Compare: Webster, “Providence,” 149–51. 7 This context has been discussed above in relation to the nature of creatures and their preservation. Kirby, “Stoic and Epicurean?”. While Calvin’s doctrine of providence has far reaching consequences I disagree with Bohatec and Schreiner’s conclusion that providence rather than the Creator is Calvin’s driving or underlying concern. Bohatec, “Calvins Vorsehungslehre,” 414; THG, 33. 8 CO 23:11–12

Providence

alone his fatherly favour is known”.9 Like Creation as a whole, providence is an article of faith and a doctrine of and for the church.10 In light of the exegetical and pastoral context of Genesis, therefore, the structure of this chapter is not a three- or four-fold circle of the operation of divine governance.11 Rather, the knowledge of providence gleaned from the testimony of the Spirit in Genesis is seen in the lives of the faithful in the examples of Abraham and Joseph and only then secondarily in a more general manner. The chapter will unfold as follows. From Abraham’s example Calvin demonstrates that saving faith finds refuge in divine providence when the divine promise of salvation is challenged. The interest is primarily the connection of providence and the promise of salvation in the life of faith of the individual. This is the connection of creation and redemption in the life of faith. From Joseph’s life Calvin examines God’s special care for the church and divine governance of ‘the wicked’ without authoring evil. Divine governance of the church and restraint of ‘the wicked’ then leads to consideration of the agency of the Governor of all things and especially the role of the Spirit and the use of a divine bridle. Finally, Calvin has a special interest in the virtuous response of Joseph to divine providence. Divine providence executes the relation of the Creator with his creation to the ends revealed by his Spirit and Word. This is never apart from the mediation and particularity of the relation to the church in Christ. However, in Calvin’s exposition of Genesis, Christ remains foreshadowed rather than in the spotlight. Further, execution of divine providence is never overthrown by evil or creaturely threat to divine goodness, wisdom, and power. This chapter concludes by attending to the usefulness of the doctrine. This presentation of divine governance complements the aspects of providence previously considered and theologically contextualises providence. In this way, this analysis supplements portrayals of Calvin on providence that focus on Calvin’s Job sermons, that is, primarily the work of Schreiner.12 9 Inst. 1.16.1; CO 2:145 10 Webster observes that Schleiermacher collapses providence entirely into the experience of the church because he lacks Calvin’s grounding of providence in God himself. Despite protesting such a collapse, Webster himself suggests that, “A Christian doctrine of providence is only derivatively a theory of history, a cosmology or an account of divine action in the world; most properly, it is a representation of how the Father’s plan for the fullness of time is set forth in Christ and made actual by the Holy Spirit among the children of Adam.” Calvin reflects this concern in his exposition of providence from Genesis when he focuses on the fatherly protection and guidance of the church. John B. Webster, “On the Theology of Providence,” in The Providence of God: Deus Habet Consilium (London: T&T Clark, 2009): 161–62. 11 Contrast to: Kim, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination,” in Deus Providebit, 27; Ford Lewis Battles, Interpreting John Calvin, ed. Robert Benedetto (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 168. 12 Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom be Found?.

169

170

Providence

5.1 Providence and the Promise: Abraham

Genesis 22 presents a traditional scriptural ‘seat’ for divine providence. The text pushes Calvin to expound together divine provision, divine seeing, and seeing God.13 Further, Calvin understands the divine intention to be the proof of Abraham’s faith in a context where command and promise are seemingly contradictory, demanding the loss of an only son who is the mediator of salvation, and there is no humanly foreseeable resolution to this conflict when reason and senses alone are consulted. Calvin suggests that faith in providence and exaltation of divine power conjoined with goodness are essential for Abraham’s successful negotiation of the trial. Therefore Genesis 22 offers a uniquely explicit exposition of providence and the place of providence in the life of faith in Calvin’s thought. This reading may be compared with Balke, Balserak, and Millet’s different descriptions of the heart of Calvin’s trial. Balke gives providence the most prominent position of these three analyses and argues from Hebrews 11:19 that providence is foundational to belief in the resurrection.14 Balserak gives an overview of historical interpretations of Genesis 22 and suggests for Calvin: “two difficulties: 1. The extinguishing of faith by the contradiction of God’s command with his promise; 2. The forfeiting of salvation by the sacrifice of the one to whom the hope of salvation was attached”.15 Millet’s interest is primarily the influence of classical drama on Calvin’s presentation.16 Millet also observes Calvin’s adherence to an Erasmian style exegesis, which focuses on narrative coherence and immediate context rather than a christological or allegorical reading.17 While Calvin sees different aspects of the trial, such as the loss of a son, the conflict of command and promise, and the forfeiting of salvation, I suggest that there is a unity to these so that the singular refuge of providential faith emerges, which offers knowledge of God’s goodness and power for the believer. The primary challenge to Abraham’s faith here is neither nature nor history, but a seeming contradiction in the word of God that would extinguish faith

13 See the translations alongside both commentary and sermon. Comm. Gen 22:8, 14; CO 23:310; Serm. Gen 22:3–8, 9–14; CO 23:757, 771 14 Willem Balke, “Calvins Auslegung von Genesis 22,” in Théorie et Pratique de L’exégèse (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1990): 221. 15 Jon Balserak, “Luther, Calvin and Musculus on Abraham’s Trial: Exegetical History and the Transformation of Genesis 22,” RRR 6, no. 3 (2004): 362. 16 Olivier Millet, “Exégèse évangélique et Culture Littéraire Humaniste: Entre Luther et Bèze, l’Abraham Sacrifiant Selon Calvin,” Études Théologiques et Religieuses 69, no. 3 (1994): 379. 17 Millet, “Exégèse évangélique et Culture Littéraire Humaniste,” 369.

Providence and the Promise: Abraham

itself.18 In this interaction with Abraham God seems to assume a stance against himself and poses his command against faith and his promise for faith.19 All the senses are to be applied to God’s word in order to secure faith. Faith itself is most sorely pressed when the word takes an apparently contradictory stance. Abraham’s trial is not merely the exercise of faith in the loss of a loved son by a violent death at his own hand, or faithfulness in the face of mocking by his servants or those hostile to him. Instead Abraham’s obedience to the command requires him to slay the creaturely object to which God has affixed his promise of the salvation of the world and in whom the person of the Mediator is set before Abraham’s eyes.20 Calvin believes the most testing aspect of the trial does not attack Abraham’s fatherly love, but God’s fatherly love.21 Calvin’s preaching shows that Abraham’s extreme test exemplifies the refining of faith for those facing lesser trials. These lesser trials more easily fall into the categories of providence in nature and history.22 For example, Calvin exhorts his congregation that they have not faced a hundredth of the trials experienced by Abraham in his wanderings through the promised land, where God seems to play with Abraham.23 Calvin applies Abraham’s lesson to those facing lengthy illness or the loss of a husband and children, as well as to those confronting worldly reproach and men spitting in the believer’s face.24 Additionally, when preaching on Genesis 22:14, Calvin appeals to faith in providence as the key to facing both anguish and prosperity.25 In both cases, belief in divine fatherly care and power, which is sufficient for every human need and will certainly bring his promise to pass, remains the believer’s stronghold. For Abraham, and for those in less severe situations, the threat which providential faith most directly addresses is whether fatherly benevolence has the power to prevail where physical means appear lacking.26 That is, it addresses 18 Comm. Gen 22:1; CO 23:311 19 There are similarities to Luther on this point. Comm. Gen 22:1; CO 23:312 20 This reading therefore links the two levels perceived by Balserak in Calvin’s thought as the contradiction of command and promise challenges faith with the removal of the physical embodiment of the promise. Balserak, ”Luther, Calvin and Musculus on Abraham’s Trial,” 368–71. Comm. Gen 22:2; CO 23:313 21 Comm. Gen 22:2; CO 23:314 22 Schreiner depicts Calvin’s thought on providential action in Job as an integrating principle against challenges from the ambiguity of history. Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom be Found?, 138. 23 Serm. Gen 21:33–22:2; CO 23:745, 748. This may be an allusion to Luther’s divine game, for which Balke questions Calvin’s liking. Balke, ”Calvins Auslegung von Genesis 22,” 223. 24 Serm. Gen 21:33–22:2, 22:3–8; CO 23:753, 761 25 Serm. Gen 22:9–14; CO 23:780 26 Barbara Pitkin demonstrates that, in Calvin’s thought, faith encompasses more than trust in Christ as redeemer. Pitkin argues this from the exegetical context of faith, especially in Psalms

171

172

Providence

the question, “Can God keep his promise?” Individual situations arise in the course of created circumstances and the passage of history, but it is not fragility or ambiguity that Calvin addresses.27 Trials question present and future divine benevolence, but providential faith recalls the good and powerful word which effects God’s fatherly care. Providential faith answers, “Yes.” Abraham’s conundrum was resolved by leaving to providence things of which he was ignorant, even a seeming contradiction within the word itself; he “left the unknown issue to divine providence”.28 In light of the broader doctrinal challenges facing Calvin, it is noteworthy that providence counters fortune, natural philosophy, fantasy, human reason, and sense that exclude the Creator. In each case divine providence addresses the challenge to faith by proclaiming God’s governance in the face of alternatives.29 For Calvin, weather illustrates providential power and order that is not subject to human judgement or reducible to the explanations of natural philosophers. The inexplicable power of God prompts the faithful to recognise providence and love it; whereas, weak faith is knocked over by small things because it is not rightly persuaded of God’s providence.30 The stance of faith against human reason and sense is against fantasies which may be conjured contrary to divine providence and the heavenly father’s ability to keep his promise despite an apparent lack of creaturely means.31 Providential power is not subject to restriction by unbelieving human reason and cursed human wisdom, which are the greatest enemies of faith.32 When human reason and sense seek to understand how the promise might arrive, without faith in the Creator’s providential power, then things go awry. However, providential faith proceeds obediently as though blindfolded to what does not make sense

27 28 29 30 31 32

where she finds nature threatening and history ambiguous. In this way Pitkin builds on the work of Schreiner. I believe the term providential faith is helpful to expand the scope of trust in God in Calvin’s thought. However, as will be evident, I suggest that providential faith serves saving faith by directing the believer to the One God who is Creator, Redeemer, and Perfecter of all things. This connects faith with its object holistically understood and offers a theological reading of the issue. Barbara Pitkin, What Pure Eyes Could See (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). Fragility of the so-called natural order is not present in the immediate context and ambiguity is ruled out because Calvin directs those facing both lack and abundance to the same refuge. Comm. Gen 22:2; CO 23:313 Serm. Gen 22:3–8; CO 23:764 Serm. Gen 22:3–8; CO 23:764–65 Serm. Gen 22:3–8; CO 23:758, 762 Serm. Gen 22:3–8; CO 23:765. Compare Calvin’s description of the devil holding sway over what is best in human nature, even reason, CO 23:779

Providence and the Promise: Abraham

to human reason, which has been evacuated of knowledge of God as Redeemer and Creator.33 Providential power is incomprehensible in any way reducible to human reason and it extends beyond the perceptible order of creation and justice in the realm of history. The power which secures the promise is able to raise the dead, and therefore Calvin imagines and answers the objection: “what if Isaac had died?”, by directing Abraham’s faith to resurrection power.34 The infinite power that gives life to the dead is providential power, which brings the promise when no reasonable explanation of natural sense is forthcoming.35 Abraham, “trusting in the providence of God, figured to himself his son as surviving even in death itself ”.36 Faith in the Creator’s fatherly power prompts the believer to look beyond the present life to the world to come and therefore retains the future focus of fulfilment, which manifests itself now as perseverance and hope.37 Moreover, Calvin exhorts his congregation to pray for strength to face trials and to pray for the work of the Spirit to secure the willing obedience of sonship, which is love for the heavenly father in the face of every temptation.38 In a circular movement back to its source, the fruit of providential faith is in this way love for the one known as father in Christ. There is an implicit trinitarian shape to Calvin’s doctrine and application of faith. The hiddenness of divine providence is another aspect that can be examined in light of Calvin’s treatment here. Genesis 22 demonstrates what Calvin understands by walking by faith and not by sight.39 Two factors shape his exposition at this point. First, the textual debate whether the Hebrew root refers to seeing, fear, or teaching.40 With reference to verse four Calvin dismisses Jerome and leans on a connection between sacrifice and proper fear of God. Concerning verse fourteen Calvin turns to the meaning of seeing and being seen. Calvin says that Abraham names the mountain in this way because he found refuge in divine providence. However, the development for those following Abraham is that God exercises his hidden providence and is then seen in his works.41 Faith 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Serm. Gen 22:9–14; CO 23:780 Serm. Gen 22:3–8; CO 23:759 Serm. Gen 22:9–14; CO 23:778 Comm. Gen 22:4; CO 23:316 Serm. Gen 22:3–8; CO 23:758. Schreiner also points to this eternal perspective for faith seen by Aquinas and Calvin in Job. Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom be Found?, 155. Serm. Gen 21:33–22:2, 22:3–8, 22:9–14; CO 23:748–49, 762, 774–75 Zachman does not refer to Genesis 22 in his treatment of image and word in Calvin’s thought. Zachman, Image and Word. Comm. Gen 22:2; CO 23:315 Comm. Gen 22:14; CO 23:318

173

174

Providence

sees God in his work of secret providence because it finds refuge there against the limited testimony of present sight and corrupt human reason. Second, Calvin’s teaching on faith is shaped by the inadequacy of perception that exhausts itself with senses applied to the present physical reality.42 This sight is in contrast to faith, which looks to what is unseen in the eternal fulfilment of the promise. Calvin commends that Abraham sought God’s truth “even also in looking for it he did not look to means which could be known and visible: but knowing that it was effective, even though all contradicted it”.43 Calvin strengthens his understanding by drawing from Romans 4, 8, and Hebrews 11. The promise is not comprehended by fallen human senses, but by faith in the one who holds power over death and gives hope in the world to come. Since therefore, the promises of God do not bring us to see by the eye what they contain, it is necessary… that we rise above the world when it is a question of faith. And what is that? Know, that we do not measure the power of God which is infinite, by these means which present themselves and which we understand. But when these thoughts come to us in fantasy, that the thing cannot be done, that there are seeming contradictions, let us conclude: Yes, God will accomplish what he said.44

Providential faith affirms the unity of divine goodness, mercy, wisdom, and infinite power to take God at his word.45 Providential faith believes that God will do what he says and, moreover, that God can do it. Providential faith does not diminish its estimate of infinite divine power based on the inadequate testimony of physical sight and fallen human reason. ‘Fantasy’ has recurred once more at the end of the above quote as that which might fill human thoughts contrary to faith. Fantasy says that the thing cannot be done. Faith says otherwise. From this point in the history of God’s fellowship with his people onwards, there is a son in whom God’s power is already tasted and this is the power from which the salvation of the world shall come.46 Faith in salvation is reinforced by the providential demonstration in which God is seen in his fatherly power. The vision of faith and not of fantasy is the sight of God beheld in his providential care, which affirms that the Creator and Redeemer can and will keep 42 Again, Schreiner deals with the themes of obscurity and divine hiddenness in Calvin’s sermons on Job. Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom be Found?, 121. 43 Serm. Gen 22:9–14; CO 23:777 44 Serm. Gen 22:3–8; CO 23:758 45 Serm. Gen 22:9–14; CO 23:782 46 Serm. Gen 22:9–14; CO 23:781. The sensory affirmation of the experience of providence for the church is affirmed by the conclusion of Inst. 1.17.1

Providence and the Promise: Abraham

his promise of salvation. These visions here below, rather than the visions of deluded reason, rightly point faith forward in hope to the final beatific vision and transformation in glory.47 In the context of Genesis 22 walking by faith and not by sight rests explicitly on the believer’s perception of divine fatherly care and power in providence. Faith’s knowledge of providence strengthens trust and prompts love and obedience.48 This is a joyful exercise for faith under the guidance of the powerful ruler of all things.49 The doctrine of providence is useful for faith. Genesis 22 uniquely illustrates providential faith in Calvin’s thought and the overwhelming concern is the certainty of the divine promise of salvation. It is threatened not by the fragility of nature, nor by the ambiguity of history, but rather the seemingly contradictory command to destroy the embodiment of the promise. Nonetheless, since faith finds refuge in providence in these extreme circumstances, providential faith can also overcome lesser trials. Faith in the promise of salvation and knowledge of God as father in Christ is both beginning and end of this trial. Yet, Calvin directly teaches that providence is the way through present circumstances to the final face-to-face vision, because faith is held by one who is seen by God and who sees God in the present providential movement. Providence is hidden from sight that is restricted to physical circumstances and limited to reasonable human explanations. Likewise, fantasy and natural philosophy that ignore the Creator will fail to perceive providence by faith. Calvin addresses his congregation, his students, and himself, as those who already participate in Christ according to the promise and therefore the pastoral and doctrinal combat is not against sanctified human reason or the theatre of God’s glory in nature or the perceptible movement of God in history. Rather providential faith combats unbelief, which may attack the promise by corruption of the eyes or the mind. Rightly used providential faith will love and hope while resting in divine power, goodness, wisdom, and mercy, knowing that the Redeemer is the Creator, Provider, and Perfecter of all things. This focus and use of providential faith enriches Pitkin’s earlier analysis by bringing in the Genesis material. Pitkin made only limited references to Calvin’s treatment of Genesis. For example, when explaining her focus on Psalms she writes: “the notion of providential faith is evident in his other commentaries on Old Testament writings, in particular his commentary on Genesis (1554) and in his commentary on Isaiah (1551; 1559)”.50 Also, later when affirming 47 48 49 50

Serm. Gen 22:9–14; CO 23:784 Serm. Gen 21:33–22:2; CO 23:750 Serm. Gen 22:9–14; CO 23:783 Pitkin, What Pure Eyes Could See, 99.

175

176

Providence

the coherence of saving faith and providential faith, “as the oft-cited passage from Calvin’s ‘Argumentum’ to the Genesis commentary (1554) confirms, the apprehension of God through the creative word and in the opera dei is not in opposition to christological knowledge but is itself a knowledge of God through Christ”.51 Pitkin is aware of Calvin’s treatment of Genesis, but there was not enough scope within her work to address it. This expansion looking at the role of providential faith in Abraham’s trial has addressed this issue. Stepping back to conclude this section, one can see that Calvin’s exegesis and reflection on providence in the trial of Abraham connect creation and redemption within the history of the church. The perspective is settled from the knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer that is by faith. Calvin does not use providence as a theological generality, of which the fatherly care for the church is a particular case. Rather, since faith knows God as Creator and Provider, when circumstances challenge faith’s trust in God as Redeemer then this knowledge can provide refuge. The powerful faithfulness of the Provider affirms the powerful faithfulness of the Redeemer since there is only one God. The fatherly care of the Creator is the same fatherly care of the Redeemer. The theological connection is not here of general and particular grace, but of consistency of God’s external works with God’s life in himself. From Genesis 22 Calvin displays a Christian doctrine of providence shaped by his doctrine of God.52

5.2 Providence, the Church, and the Wicked: Joseph

Special providential care for the church is likewise the major note sounded by Calvin in his treatment of Joseph. Unlike the brief trial of Abraham this primary emphasis occurs within a broad ranging discussion of providence that focuses less on providential faith and more on God’s oversight. For example, Calvin mentions God’s general provision in and governance of nature; divine oversight of seemingly fortuitous occasions; the source of blessing for both God’s children and the reprobate; troubles occurring according to the will of God; the distinction of divine permission and will; divine governance of human hearts, wills, emotions, and actions; the attribution of an action to both wicked men and divine providence; divine providence not authoring evil; the extent to which troubles may be reckoned as blessings; the justice of God operating 51 Pitkin, What Pure Eyes Could See, 130. 52 The connections between providence, faith, and Calvin’s portrayal of God make this analysis supplementary to prior comparative exegesis or analyses such as those from Balke, Balserak, and Millet.

Providence, the Church, and the Wicked: Joseph

over long time scales; God’s timing being subject to his own decision; the connection of foreknowledge and God’s eternal counsel; the obscure operation of providence; the distinction between the operation of the Spirit and Satan’s prompting of human actions; and the responsibility of the faithful both to do all they can to exercise their duty and to pray and trust God’s provision. Unlike Abraham’s trial, Joseph’s story unfolds over a long period and in the face of ‘the wicked’ challenging God’s care for his church. Therefore, Calvin dwells on the faithfulness and extended action of God in history as well as the difficulties of suffering and wickedness faced by the people of God. Calvin acknowledges the difficulties that can arise from mentioning providence and the place for mystery and humility before divine governance. Nonetheless Calvin expounds a complex doctrine of divine providence and governance when considering Joseph. Considering providence in the life of Joseph demonstrates Calvin’s moves from exegesis, through doctrinal concerns, to application for the virtuous response of God’s people to divine providence. Calvin grounds his treatment in Genesis 45:8 and 50:20 where he gives longer analyses of providence and of objections raised by his contemporaries. On the grounds of these verses Calvin sees the whole narrative of Joseph driven providentially. The opening to Calvin’s comment on Genesis 45:8 defends the usefulness of providence, because it is clearly taught in scripture, even though the doctrine may be abused. as soon as it is publicly declared that God holds the government of the whole world, and that nothing is done but by his will and authority, they who think with little reverence of the mysteries of God, break forth into various questions, not only frivolous but injurious. But, as this profane intemperance of mind is to be restrained, so a just measure is to be observed on the other hand, lest we should encourage a gross ignorance of those things which are not only made plain in the word of God, but are exceedingly useful to be known.53

Calvin’s purpose in treating providence from Genesis is not primarily to refute objections, although he spends some time doing so, nor to demonstrate the overall coherence of the providence within sacred doctrine, although the integrity of providence within Calvin’s thought is evident. Rather, Calvin expounds the scriptural presentation of providence in order to highlight its usefulness. He works exegetically and doctrinally with a view to the expansion of this doctrine into the lives of the children of God and the fulfilment of all things. We proceed by first examining the priority of God’s care for the church in both blessing and suffering, then divine providence over the actions of 53 Comm. Gen 45:8; CO 23:553

177

178

Providence

wicked humanity, the larger framework of divine governance of all things by examining the agent and means of providence, and thence the response required of God’s children to live in light of providence. This last section will function as a conclusion for the chapter highlighting once again the utility of the doctrine drawn from scripture. 5.2.1 Fatherly Care for the Church

God providentially governs creation, through blessing and suffering, for the sake of the church. As noted earlier, in its Argument, Calvin’s Genesis commentary teaches an overarching divine preference for his church over the entire world.54 Calvin is explicit about this as the providential placement of Joseph is for the sake of Jacob’s family rather than for Egypt.55 Commenting on Genesis 47:27 Calvin says that Moses’ narrative has the purpose “to show how God protected his Church from many deaths; and not that only, but wonderfully exalted it by his own secret power”.56 By way of explanation, the particularity of providence is in the foreground at least partially because of the particularity of scripture in its word to the people of God, both in the times of Israel and the contemporaries of Calvin. God also shows special care for the church in the revelation of coming events. God makes explicit what he will bring to pass in order that he may be given credit, rather than fortune or human effort. Since this gives the church occasion to praise God, the revelation of future events demonstrates God’s fatherly care. In Joseph’s initial dream Calvin identifies the circuitous execution of God’s plans with what has been decreed.57 Calvin compares this instance to Isaiah’s revelation of future events for the sake of the church. Likewise, Calvin dismisses non-literal readings of the prophecies of Jacob partly on the basis of the usefulness of the Spirit revealing the future to the church; even though it is true God governs the whole world.58 The distinction between God’s general care for the world and his special care for the church is partially that God reveals in advance to his children how he will care for them. For this reason Calvin explains that while Asher receives an unexciting word from Israel, its worth is in knowledge of divine paternal care.59 The positive provision and blessing of God’s children in the course of history is overshadowed by the final glory to which this history leads. The revelation in 54 55 56 57 58 59

CO 23:11–12 Comm. Gen 50:20; CO 23:619–20 Comm. Gen 47:27; CO 23:576 Comm. Gen 37:6; CO 23:481–82 Comm. Gen 49:1; CO 23:590 Comm. Gen 49:20; CO 23:606

Providence, the Church, and the Wicked: Joseph

advance of God’s paternal care in history accords with the ultimate end, which has been promised to the church and planned by the Creator. God can foretell the future not simply because he knows outcomes in advance, but because he has planned in advance what he will do, and as the Governor of all things this is in fact what will happen.60 Calvin teaches that it is both perverse and ignorant when “they tear the providence of God from his eternal counsel, and his continual operation”.61 The work of the Creator for his creatures is of a single piece and it is vain to divide God against himself. The one who sits enthroned in heaven is unlike the Greek deities, fates, or philosophers’ conceptions. Nothing can impede the accomplishment of God’s plan.62 The accomplishment of this decree is for the future blessing of creatures. The course of divine providence and the revelation in advance of that working move towards an eternal inheritance for the people of God in fellowship with their Creator, Redeemer, and Perfecter. The final purpose is not earthly survival or prosperity, but rather heavenly riches and eternal life. This is evident as Calvin remarks on the eternal possession promised to Israel and the heavenly country awaiting the church.63 This future is also participation with angels in eternal glory.64 For the governor of Egypt to be well and happy he must leave his worldly allegiance and success to be joined once more to the church and this is certainly a hopeful and future focused assessment.65 This inheritance is shared with the church living and dead as the body sleeps, but the faithful soul awaits the consummation of all things.66 For Calvin, the best is yet to come.67 The present divine preference for the church is evident when the church is blessed and happy in earthly terms, but this earthly blessedness is not always present. Divine preference must be accounted for in all circumstances. Primarily for Calvin this disparity is because the goal of providence remains an object of hope. The church is without honour only “for a time”68 and every individual life is a sojourning, a short wandering on earth, which will soon have completed

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

Comm. Gen 41:17; CO 23:522 Comm. Gen 41:17; CO 23:522 Comm. Gen 37:20; CO 23:486 Comm. Gen 47:8; CO 23:569 Comm. Gen 47:3; CO 23:567 Comm. Gen 48:5; CO 23:582 Comm. Gen 47:30; CO 23:577 Van Driel’s recent work well demonstrates the significance of considering Calvin’s eschatological perspective in order to understand the present working of the history of redemption. As argued earlier, I suggest that the future orientation of creation is important to understand its course from beginning to end. Van Driel, “‘Too Lowly to Reach God Without a Mediator’.” 68 Comm. Gen 47:3; CO 23:567

179

180

Providence

its course.69 This future inheritance is to be preferred to every pleasure that the flesh can presently offer; this preference emphasises the transitory nature of present creation and its future orientation. The allurements of the world become loathsome to those called by God and a lofty spirit spurns “those things which the flesh now sees and touches”.70 This is to be remembered by those who feel the time protracted rather than brief in passing.71 This is also pressing for those tempted by all the treasures of Egypt and every conceivable measure of worldly comfort, who should remember the adoption given by their heavenly father.72 The word of God is the firm support of faith, but its blessings are presently hidden.73 As with Abraham, the sure promise of God holds forth the end of creation that is presently governed providentially. The promised future to which providence leads is discontinuous with the present, as the blessing of God remains hidden. However, the continuity of creation to new creation is affirmed as this eternal destination is presented to Israel in the lively figure of the land of Canaan.74 The relation of figure and reality, like Calvin’s descriptions of the relation of old and new dispensations of the covenant, also suggests that the present course of God’s history with his people aims forward with both continuity and discontinuity between present and future. This is seen most clearly in Christ’s fulfilment and disruption of creation. Providence always aims beyond the present, just as creation is a beginning and not an ending, and this continuity and discontinuity hinges on the Mediator. The long view from divine decree to eternal ends also shapes Calvin’s persuasion that difficulty, death, and obscurity all characterise the operation of divine governance of history for the sake of the church.75 The result, the intention, and the end are vital to divine governance. Only the difference between present circumstances and the final end of eternal blessedness with God enables this interpretation. Like Pharaoh, sometimes the elect need to be subdued by necessity before they obey.76 Calvin is not running an argument where God’s ends justify the means. However, it is as if the nature of horrific things is transformed by their medicinal application to the church. The present diseased state

69 Comm. Gen 47:8; CO 23:568–69. Wandering and progress through life is also an Erasmian, patristic, and biblical theme. 70 Comm. Gen 48:3; CO 23:580 71 Comm. Gen 47:28; CO 23:576 72 Comm. Gen 48:3; CO 23:580 73 Comm. Gen 48:3; CO 23:579 74 Comm. Gen 47:28; CO 23:576 75 Comm. Gen 41:17; CO 23:522 76 Comm. Gen 41:14; CO 23:520

Providence, the Church, and the Wicked: Joseph

of the church means that a lack of treatment is worse than a harsh regime that promotes salvation.77 However, this medicinal application of difficult circumstances, and even death, is different to the Provider’s peculiar mode of operation for the church bringing life from death, which is seen in Joseph’s life.78 The unusual mode of operation of providence for the church foreshadows the extraordinary salvation achieved through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.79 Calvin distinguishes three points: an example of providence, divine action in unusual modes, and salvation through the grave. That is, Calvin sees distinctly: divine governance, its obscurity and unexpected course, and the final salvation of the church beyond death. Each of these contributes to Calvin’s reconciliation of the divine preference for the church to its hiddenness.80 As mentioned in the above list of three factors, medicinal difficulties and bringing death from life are both different from generally mysterious divine operation in creation. However, hidden and unexpected divine action is undertaken so that the Provider might receive due credit rather than being obscured by seemingly sufficient secondary explanations. For example, concerning Joseph’s release from prison and his exaltation Calvin writes: “the providence of God led the holy man through wonderful and most intricate paths”,81 and “the winding course of divine providence, by which Joseph was turned”.82 Calvin points out the intricacy and winding of providence not only in an individual case, but also for the whole nation of Israel as they enter Egypt. Such a providential perspective is normally obscure and removed from human senses so that unbelief turns to fortune as an explanation, but this history should educate faith to look to providence governing all things.83 Calvin’s view of governance of history for the sake of the church includes a medicinal understanding of hardships, a mode of divine operation which brings life to the church through death, and a more general indirect course undertaken to bring praise to the one who oversees this path to its proper end. Nonetheless, amid these difficulties of awaiting a remote end, the church knows hidden 77 Comm. Gen 49:28; CO 23:609 78 Comm. Gen 37:25; CO 23:487–88 79 Comm. Gen 37:6(5); CO 23:482. In commentary Calvin does not dwell on the parallels between Joseph and Christ as rescuers of the church. 80 Schreiner deals extensively with the hiddenness of divine providence and divine inscrutability in Calvin’s Job sermons. The obscurity of providence will be further mentioned below. Susan E. Schreiner, “IV Behold Behemoth! Nature and History in Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” in Where Shall Wisdom be Found?, 121–55. 81 Comm. Gen 40:1; CO 23:510 82 Comm. Gen 41:1; CO 23:518 83 Comm. Gen 42:1; CO 23:529

181

182

Providence

providence by faith. In contrast to the revelation in the case of Joseph’s dream, the paternal care of the Provider for the church is known by those adopted as children in Christ even when the particulars of the unfolding providential course have not been previously revealed. As Matthew 5 teaches, the Creator sends his sun on the righteous and the unrighteous, but there is a peculiar sense of paternal care known by the Spirit only by the children of God.84 Hence, while the sunshine given may be identical, the church can take every benefit as a pledge of fatherly love. For this reason, piety lead Jacob to praise God for good bestowed and, similarly, practical blessings and experience affirm the promise and covenant to the faithful.85 Further, Calvin highly praises Jacob for discerning blessing amid difficult circumstances rather than Jacob simply expressing gratitude for God’s gifts, because divine goodness remains the same despite various circumstances.86 Providence works obscurely, unexpectedly and through hardship, but its hidden operation is known by faith bringing praise from the Provider’s children. Discernment of providence only occurs by the testimony of the Spirit within the realm of God’s fatherly care in Christ. These factors allow Calvin to maintain that there is a divine priority for the church in the governance of creaturely history, even if blessing remains presently hidden and the eternal inheritance awaits consummation. In his treatment of Genesis Calvin does not unravel the connection of divine decree, creation, providence, promise, redemption, and consummation. Yet, Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 37–50 takes divine governance of all circumstances for the sake of the church as a major theme, indeed it is a major heading for the book as a whole. At some level this is expected in Calvin’s view because scripture addresses the church after creation and prior to new creation, while she is in the midst of things. Therefore, divine operation from beginning towards the end follows from who the Creator is and what creation is. The identity of the Creator, the character of the act of creation, and the established nature of creatures each contribute to the way in which divine governance towards the final blessedness of the church is carried out. Given Calvin’s teaching on these things the manner of governance is good and takes time. In divine governance for the church divine goodness, wisdom, and power are again conjoined. In divine governance for the church, the gratuitousness of the divine will for the existence and blessedness of that which is not the Creator 84 Calvin does not elaborate on what this sense of paternal care means in practice beyond a larger appeal to the goodness, faithfulness, and power of God despite present appearances. It is the children of God’s appeal to the promise rather than relying on what their eyes can see devoid of appeal to the Provider. 85 Calvin quickly adds that experience follows knowledge of God in his word, but experience of blessing is given its place when known by faith. Comm. Gen 48:15; CO 23:584 86 Comm. Gen 48:15; CO 23:584

Providence, the Church, and the Wicked: Joseph

is again manifest. In divine governance for the church the faithfulness in time of the one who created from nothing and will bring all things to their perfection is seen by faith. While faith is not as prominent in Calvin’s account of Joseph as it is in that of Abraham, providence plays itself out as an article of faith for the church who call on the Creator as Father and Redeemer.87 This does not mean that Calvin collapses providence into the experience of the church, but the genuine relation of joy and praise once established between Creator and creation will reach fulfilment through the course of divine providence. 5.2.2 Restraining the Wicked Within Calvin’s thought the operation of divine governance over, in, and through ‘the wicked’ is in some ways less extraordinary that the same operation over, in, and through the church, because the church are ‘the wicked’ who have been redeemed and adopted in Christ and are being transformed by the Spirit. The divine operation of governance and justice in accord with goodness of the Creator in ‘the wicked’ does not require mortification and vivification and therefore such governance depends on created relations rather than new creation. From the beginning, creatures stand in relation to the one who is faithful in his governance. There is no possibility of rebellious humanity defecting from their existence and dependence on the goodness of the Creator. That is not the prerogative of a creature, even a rebellious creature. A creature’s choice of death and destruction does not take her beyond the governance of the Creator who works towards the eternal blessedness of his beloved creatures.88 Calvin acknowledges a level of mystery and secrecy in the operation of providence at this point, but he acknowledges both the responsibility of rebellious humans (both ‘the wicked’ and the redeemed) and the goodness of the Ruler of all things. For this reason, while this section moves towards Calvin’s teaching about the secret working of providence, the operation of divine governance over humans in its various aspects is treated first. In the course of the narrative Calvin acknowledges divine governance over human hearts, minds, desires, and actions. In the case of God’s people an inner religious or spiritual feeling compels obedience as part of their fear of God even when they might be inclined otherwise. This is Calvin’s explanation for why Joseph and his brothers did not flee Egypt after Jacob’s death even though tyranny awaited them.89 Calvin canvasses the options of voluntary obedience, secretly prompted obedience, and constrained obedience. When 87 Contrast this with the lack of reference to larger ecclesiological and theological context in: THG, 35–37. 88 Comm. Gen 45:8; CO 23:553 89 Comm. Gen 50:14; CO 23:615

183

184

Providence

Joseph’s brothers, who had previously mocked the idea, bow before Joseph, Calvin comments: “so the Lord forcibly restrains the obstinate, just as wild and refractory horses are wont to be more severely treated, the more they kick and are restive”.90 Several times in the course of the narrative Calvin comments that God can restrain the cruelty of ‘the wicked’ or give it free rein. This is true of the prison guard,91 the brothers seeking clemency from Joseph,92 and is the basis for Jacob praying for mercy from the Egyptian governor.93 There is a totality to the divine oversight governing the creaturely realm, including human creatures. This is not contrary to nor an elimination of the exercise of mind, emotion, and action, but part of the creaturely relation, even when humanity obstinately kicks against the goads. Calvin speaks of both a contest and no contest between the Governor and human creatures. The struggle is real for the creature and yet in some sense unreal for the one who rules all things. Therefore, Calvin speaks of the brothers fighting against God when they chafe against Joseph’s dream, but their struggle is in vain.94 There is also concurrence of divine and human agency in the accomplishment of God’s purposes. For example, Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dream through the work of the Spirit and, even though this is an action attributable to Joseph, Calvin commends Joseph’s desire to give all glory from the action to God as its author.95 This concurrence does not negate humanity’s responsibility for its actions, attitudes, and thoughts, each of which is always measured by duty before God. The intentions of ‘the wicked’ are so far from those of God that while he can overrule their actions to happy ends this does not excuse them.96 In this area Calvin is unsatisfied with the distinction of divinely permitted and ordained action, but instead attributes agency to both humanity with evil intent and divine providence while maintaining God’s innocence.97 Calvin expounds this extensively from Genesis 45:8, but also points to Judas’ betrayal of Jesus and offers a contemporary example of a man who is guilty of neglecting his family, even though God may mercifully preserve his wife and children.98 The con90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Comm. Gen 42:9; CO 23:531 Comm. Gen 39:21; CO 23:509 Comm. Gen 42:21; CO 23:534 Comm. Gen 43:11(12); CO 23:541 Comm. Gen 37:20; CO 23:486 Comm. Gen 41:15; CO 23:521 Comm. Gen 45:8; CO 23:554 Comm. Gen 45:8; CO 23:554. Calvin comments similarly on the first sin where he is dissatisfied with a distinction between God willing the Fall and permitting the Fall. Comm. Gen 3:1; CO 23:55. He also takes this up in Inst. 1.18.1 98 Comm. Gen 45:8; CO 23:555

Providence, the Church, and the Wicked: Joseph

junction of God’s goodness and human wickedness is secret, but no less real for that.99 Calvin reiterates many of these points from Genesis 50:20. He distinguishes wicked plans of men from the admirable justice of God and his government, describing the conjunction of these as secret providence. Calvin maintains a dual agency which is imbalanced in intentions and hence propriety. The brothers are guilty for their malice and yet God’s good purposes are fulfilled so that it may be said that God’s providence sold Joseph.100 This highlights that God has various methods to govern the world because wills, plans, efforts, and all events come under divine governance, but there is disparity between the Spirit’s operation in the righteous and Satan’s perversion of ‘the wicked’.101 The spiritual reality is truly a reality, but in a compatible manner such that good is received from the Spirit; but Satan induces ‘the wicked’ such that their blame is justly credited to them. Again, there is an imbalance between good and evil as God transforms satanic poison into medicine.102 There are some strategies to resolve these difficulties that Calvin does not approve, such as the language of permission, and there are fixed points, such as God’s unimpeachable goodness and the guilt of ‘the wicked’. Because of these things, Calvin cannot finally explain the secret operation of providence in these circumstances. Rather, divine goodness and righteousness are maintained alongside divine government. The divine nature is fully reconcilable and determinative of divine external operations, but “if human minds cannot reach these depths, let them rather suppliantly adore the mysteries they do not comprehend, than, as vessels of clay, proudly exalt themselves against their Maker”.103 ‘The wicked’ plan evil and fail to adore the divine transformation of their plans for the downfall of God’s children into salvation. Nonetheless, blessing overflows from the Creator and Provider. Wicked creatures cannot unmake themselves and so continue to share in the goodness of creaturely being bestowed upon them and benefit from sunshine, rain, and the fruitfulness of the earth.104 Moreover, God sometimes bestows abundance on ‘the wicked’ in order to draw them toward repentance, and rendering them more inexcusable if they remain obstinate.105 Additionally, ‘the wicked’ can share in blessing poured out on the

99 Comm. Gen 45:8; CO 23:554. Calvin’s discussion of these matters parallels the treatment in the Institutes and is discussed below. 100 Comm. Gen 50:20; CO 23:619 101 Comm. Gen 50:20; CO 23:619 102 Comm. Gen 50:20; CO 23:619 103 Comm. Gen 50:20; CO 23:620 104 Comm. Gen 38:7; CO 23:494 105 Comm. Gen 39:1; CO 23:502

185

186

Providence

church by their association with God’s children, hence Potiphar benefits from Joseph’s presence in his household.106 In summary, through Joseph’s narrative Calvin treats providence over ‘the wicked’ in various aspects. First, there is a totality to divine governance over humanity. Second, there is variety in God’s method of government over his human creatures varying with willingness of submission. Third, there is compatibility between divine and human agency, but a disparity in righteousness that is secret in its operation. Fourth, divine governance of ‘the wicked’ continues within the established frame of creaturely relations to the Creator, but operates secondarily to the priority of divine governance for the sake of the church. The exegetical and pastoral context allows Calvin to work through the principles laid out in the Institutes 1.18. As with Calvin’s exposition of the history of the world, on this topic Calvin admits his brevity and directs his readers to the fullness of scripture. As in his entire presentation, Stauffer takes the Institutes as his point of departure to present Calvin’s teaching on providence and evil.107 Stauffer’s footnotes to his chapter on providence are once again dominated by Job with only three references to Calvin’s Genesis sermons: note 38 to Genesis 2 and notes 66 and 122 to the sermons on Jacob and Esau.108 My analysis provides a fuller narrative and pastoral treatment of the theme than Stauffer. As Stauffer notes, Calvin always addresses his sermons to the church and his most common response concerning ‘the wicked’ connects their actions with the divine work of redemption.109 Faith sees that divine care is not eclipsed by evil.110 Therefore, the treatment of this theme with divine governance and expression of fatherly care is an appropriate theological placement and this analysis supplements Stauffer’s work. In terms of previous treatments we may also note that Schreiner correctly observes that Calvin finds the operation of providence obscure to discernment by human reason, but she fails to thoroughly develop the perception of faith and the exposition of providence for the church, even as providence mysteriously directs ‘the wicked’.111 From Genesis, Calvin’s emphasis on this doctrine of providence for the good of the church and appreciated as a mode of the Creator’s fatherly care, supplements Schreiner’s investigation. Helm agrees with this reading of Calvin on providence and ‘the wicked’, since Calvin “cannot forbear to refer to the church, for God has a special care 106 107 108 109 110 111

Comm. Gen 39:3; CO 23:503 DCP, 276. DCP, 286, 290, 297. DCP, 279. DCP, 280. THG, 113–14.

Providence, the Church, and the Wicked: Joseph

for his church which he deigns to watch more closely, and in any case it is only the believer who can make the proper use of this doctrine”.112 Calvin is therefore distinct from more recent discussions of the problem of evil and treats this theme squarely within sacred doctrine known by faith. The analysis of this according to Calvin on Genesis helpfully complements Helm’s work that primarily focuses on Calvin’s polemical endeavours.113 5.2.3 The Providential Agent and Means As with the act of creation the agent and means of providential action are significant points to consider. According to Calvin on Genesis these are most prominently the Spirit and the bridle. The following section will consider these. Divine governance over ‘the wicked’ affirms that humans are all created and live, move, and have their being in fellowship with their Creator. The priority of divine providence for the sake of the church that operates in God’s fellowship with his children and subverts the misappropriations of ‘the wicked’ proceeds from the fount of creation as the first of God’s external works. It is therefore appropriate to notice within Calvin’s explication of the Joseph narrative, and the broader text of Genesis, his references to providence at work in small and large occurrences. Of Esau’s departure from the promised land Calvin writes: “let us then learn from the passage before us, to see, by the eyes of faith, both in accidental circumstances (as they are called) and in the evil designs of men, that secret providence of God, which directs all events to a result predetermined by himself ”.114 Calvin credits providence for visitors appearing at the door,115 meeting strangers at a particular time and place which leads to an unexpected result,116 the birth of children,117 and moving to a new place.118 Providential governance is actively involved in the day to day affairs and movements of humanity.119 These instances in Genesis are explicitly tied to the progress of God’s fellowship with his people, but Calvin’s attribution of these things to providence is not dependent on that connection. One of Calvin’s favoured expressions for describing the operation of divine governance is that of a bridle or rein. The French bride primarily refers to the restraint guiding a horse. Figuratively brider can mean to contain, to hold back, to limit, or to master. La bride sur le cou means freely or unbridled and 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 97. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 102–16. Comm. Gen 36:6; CO 23:477 Comm. Gen 18:5; CO 23:252 Comm. Gen 29:1; CO 23:400 Comm. Gen 30:2; CO 23:408 Comm. Gen 32:3; CO 23:477 Helm characterises this as a meticulous view of providence. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 93.

187

188

Providence

lâcher la bride is to give free rein, while tenir la bride is to deprive someone of freedom. Calvin uses the phrase “retenir en bride par quelque chose” or “tenir en bride”, occasionally adding “et sujection”, or may say “une bride pour restraindre”. The scope of the language appears richer and more versatile in French than in English because of the similarity of the verb and noun as well as a more readily available semantic field. In Latin this language appears as fraenus and fraenare with Calvin also using the antonym effraenare in his Genesis commentary.120 Using this language Calvin upholds an appropriate ordering of creatures to their Creator and one another.121 This ordering includes the appropriate ordering of desires, thoughts, emotions, and actions of human creatures.122 Calvin also refers to non-human animals being bridled by their Creator and to Satan being unwillingly subject to a divine bridle. Interestingly, as Calvin comments on Eve’s reaction to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he describes her pre-fall condition as “bridled”.123 Additionally, Calvin sees some necessity for a bridling law that creates reverence for the Creator and submission to him from pre-fallen humanity.124 Therefore, humanity can be appropriately bridled even prior to the Fall and bridling may refer to an appropriate ordering of godly desires and restraint of sinful desire that is not challenged by the presence of distortion of created order. The created order prescribes appropriate relations according to the nature of things and, thence, the proper ends of creatures are pursued when these relations are fulfilled providentially over time. Sin overthrows these prescribed bounds and over reaches the creaturely limits of nature, grasping beyond what is fitting. However, the Creator governs creation with a bridle that guides creatures towards their final blessed fellowship with himself. This bridle may be followed willingly, as in the case of unfallen angels and non-human creatures, 120 These are distinct from iugum and iugulare. 121 In the context of legal theory, Pryor discusses natural law as a bridle in Calvin’s thought. C. Scott Pryor, “God’s Bridle: John Calvin’s Application of Natural Law,” Journal of Law and Religion 22, no. 1 (2006): 225–54. See also I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law Princeton Theological Monograph Series, 30 (Allison Park: Pickwick Publications, 1992). The bridle as an image connected with virtue traces its roots as far back as Ambrose and Augustine’s discussion likening desire to a horse and was developed through the middle ages. See for example: Augustine, Answer to Julian, “Marriage and Concupiscence of the Flesh,” 14.28; Pierre J. Payer, The Bridling of Desire: Views of Sex in the Later Middle Ages (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993). Aquinas also gives an example of bridling the lusts of the flesh in connection with fasting. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, part 2, second part, question 147, articles 1, 6, 8. 122 Schreiner presents Calvin’s teaching on conscience in relation to natural law and society in her fourth chapter. THG, 73–95. “Bridle” appears: 81, 83; and in quotes: 82, 86. 123 Comm. Gen 3:6; CO 23:59–60 124 Comm. Gen 2:16; CO 23:44

Providence, the Church, and the Wicked: Joseph

or unwillingly, as in the case of Satan and rebellious humanity. The curious case is that of adopted and renewed humanity who are called to submit willingly and may do so by the grace of the Spirit, but who must vigorously apply themselves to the task. Calvin uses the bridling language with some nuance and in a variety of circumstances. Most commonly, great blessing (material or spiritual, individual giftedness or the privilege of a nation, social position or opportunity) may be abused without restraint and therefore bridling is connected with the virtues of temperance, moderation, and humility.125 Similarly, great difficulty can blind humanity to the ongoing goodness of divine providence and the reality of hope and eternal life.126 Therefore, a bridle guides when there are deviations from appropriate created order prompted by either positive or negative circumstances. For example, Joseph must be bridled in both directions as his confronts both worldly wealth and grief.127 Joseph also prompts Calvin to commend restraint in bodily actions as well as affections.128 Also, in its connection to the limitations of creaturely nature, bridling is connected to thankfulness. For example, humanity is flighty without the restraint of the Sabbath to focus on the Creator,129 but acknowledgement of limitation leads humanity to give thanks for all things flowing from their source in the Creator’s generosity and not to presume upon the Provider’s goodness. Calvin speaks of creation being bridled by various means. God may apply a bridle by direct action where the creatures in mind are otherwise hostile to the appropriate created order. Calvin also exhorts God’s children to bridle themselves to appropriate obedience. The bridle may take the form of creaturely circumstances or knowledge of the providential course of events. In various situations Joseph is bridled by a position entrusted to him entailing particular duties, by knowledge of future judgement, and by the need to conform to the revealed course of divine providence.130 Calvin also calls on his congregation to bridle themselves with the word of Genesis and by this means restrain their fantasies and curiosity about the creation of the world. Restraint of disorder, or restraint of any kind, may be viewed as controlling in a negative sense where freedom and autonomy are lauded, or where unrestricted pursuit of what is natural is seen as the highest good. However, for Calvin, the highest good of creatures is found in their right ordering to one another and 125 126 127 128 129 130

Comm. Gen 9:22; CO 23:151 Comm. Gen 37:35; CO 23:490 Comm. Gen 47:14, 50:1; CO 23:571, 612 Comm. Gen 39:6, 50:19; CO 23:504–05, 618 Serm. Gen 2:1–6; SC 11/1:86 Comm. Gen 39:7, 42:17, 50:19; CO 23:505, 533, 618

189

190

Providence

their Creator, such that they might find blessedness in fellowship with the one who is goodness, abundance, and life. Bridling restrains wickedness and promotes good. The Governor’s application of a bridle draws creatures away from self-destruction and misery and keeps them in fellowship with himself. Therefore, even signs of wrath are a loving application for the good of creatures called in the only Son. Calvin’s bridle has a positive purpose as his reference amid a discussion of curse in Adam and blessing in Christ shows.131 The “bridles to keep us in his obedience” are in place because the Creator, Redeemer, and Perfecter of all things wishes to draw his wayward creatures “to himself ”.132 The goodness of the bridling of creation through providence follows from the goodness of the Creator, the nature of creatures, and their rightly ordered ends and blessedness in eternity. By a providentially applied bridle the Governor holds creation to himself. Given Calvin’s favoured description of the means, it is important to know who is holding the reins, so to speak, and therefore the trinitarian shape of Calvin’s doctrine is noteworthy.133 Just as Calvin’s account of the agent of the act of creation was trinitarian in a reserved sense, so also the divine Preserver and Governor of all things is Father, Son, and Spirit, but rarely named as such explicitly. God, who is implicitly the one triune God, is most often the providential agent in Calvin’s account. Adoption of, and therefore the divine preference for, the church in the course of providence is mediated by the Son and, as with the act of creation, Calvin speaks of providential preservation and governance demonstrating divine paternal care. Additionally, the Spirit takes an active role in providence.134 As previously discussed Calvin references Psalm 104:29–30 to underline the necessity of divine, and particularly the Spirit’s, operation upholding the existence of all creation. In Calvin’s treatment of Genesis the Spirit is the primary divine person associated with preservation and orderly arrangement of non-human creation. The Spirit also actively prompts and directs the righteous actions of the redeemed.135 This 131 Serm. Gen 3:19–22; SC 11/1:223 132 Serm. Gen 3:19–22; SC 11/1:223 133 Kim’s thesis is driven by responding to Barth’s criticism of Calvin’s doctrine of providence as insufficiently christological. Kim, Deus Providebit. Barth’s criticism has aroused significant examination of the christological, or not, nature of providence in Calvin’s thought. See: Kirby, “Stoic and Epicurean?”; Derek W.H. Thomas, Proclaiming the Incomprehensible God: Calvin’s Teaching on Job (Fearn: Mentor, 2004); Peter Wyatt, Jesus Christ and Creation. 134 A more general overview of the role of the Spirit in Calvin’s doctrine of creation and providence is presented by I. John Hesselink, “The Spirit of God the Creator in Calvin’s Theology,” in Sola Gratia: Bron Voor de Reformatie En Uitdaging Voor Nu, ed. A. van de Beek and W.M. van Laar (Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 2004), 53–69. 135 Comm. Gen 50:20; CO 23:619

Providence, the Church, and the Wicked: Joseph

accords with the renewing of the image of Christ in the righteous as the gifts of the “light of reason, righteousness, [and] uprightness” come from the Spirit.136 The Spirit’s prompting is not a violent compulsion, but the remaking of creation and renewal of rightly ordered creaturely impulse. Calvin refrains from specifically linking the Spirit with the action of God in the non-redeemed. For example, the election and blessing of Isaac is carefully distinguished from that of Ishmael. And therefore Calvin affirms God’s general presence with Ishmael in his distress without naming the Spirit, who is so closely linked with adoption in this stretch of commentary on Genesis, as primary agent of blessing.137 This hesitance mirrors Calvin’s distinction of earthly blessing which God often bestows on the non-elect and the heavenly blessing withheld. Nonetheless, the temporal advance and advantage of any individual is attributed to God. While deprived of the Spirit of regeneration, even the sons of Cain liberally enjoy divine gifts in the form of talents, practical skills, and aptitude for art and science.138 Likewise, all people benefit from divine ordering of society and appointment of rulers.139 Again, within the divine oversight of government, Calvin attributes the restraint of tyranny to a secret bridle, but the cure of pride and ambition in the righteous to the work of the Spirit.140 While the actions of the righteous and ‘the wicked’ may appear alike, Calvin attributes one to virtue and the other to God’s quiet working and restraining. Therefore, there appears, in individuals and society, parallel divine working. Within the church the Spirit of sonship may be named as operative, but Calvin does not attribute the secret governance that is not met with voluntary obedience directly to the Spirit. Calvin can however generally declare that wickedness grows in humanity unless the Spirit prevails.141 Despite this hesitation, the Spirit is still given a more prominent role than Father or Son within the execution of divine governance. Overall then, in Calvin’s thought the recognition of providence and creaturely conformity thereto is a spiritual exercise. Calvin’ retention of a distinct work of the Spirit in the lives of believers counters a mood in some modern theology. This observation nuances and furthers the argument of David Höhne, who notes Barth’s critique of Calvin’s lack of christological expression of providence, but is more concerned to respond to Gunton’s characterisation of Calvin as collapsing chance and contingency due to

136 137 138 139 140 141

Comm. Gen 3:6; CO 23:62 Comm. Gen 21:20; CO 23:305–06 Comm. Gen 4:22; CO 23:100 Comm. Gen 4:22; CO 23:100 Serm. Gen 14:1–13; SC 11/1:691–92 Comm. Gen 9:22; CO 23:151

191

192

Providence

an insufficiently trinitarian conception of secondary causality.142 While I agree with Höhne that Calvin’s thought is consonant with a trinitarian expression of providence, I resist his charge of “churlish”-ness and have observed above Calvin’s ongoing reservation of the Spirit for a special work in the life of believers. 143 Calvin distinguishes the Spirit’s role upholding creation generally, seen for example in a neo-Calvinist discussion of common grace, and the bridling of human wills under divine governance for the faithful.144 Calvin, therefore, takes care to distinguish the trinitarian shape of providence and redemption, and to uphold the distinctive character of these external works of God, even as Calvin shows utmost concern for divine governance of history for the sake of the church. Calvin promotes a ubiquitous place for the Spirit upholding creation while also maintaining a unique indwelling and work of adoption and engrafting for believers. As well as the Spirit’s shaping of the church, there is a close connection between the Spirit and divine power. Given Calvin’s Augustinian heritage it is perhaps surprising that the Spirit is not primarily associated with divine love, but in his treatment of Genesis Calvin most readily affirms identification between the Son and wisdom, and between the Spirit and power.145 Providentially the Spirit plays a primary role in the efficacious divine action in and with creation, which then illuminates a connection of the Spirit and divine power that gets things done. Just as Calvin sees ‘creation from nothing’ as an archetypal example of divine power, so also the efficacy of providence in the face of every conceivable obstacle points to the operation of divine power providentially for the sake of creatures. Providence puts divine power to work and in this the Spirit moves.146 In rightly ordered creation and the renewed children of God, the Spirit provides the secret impulse which moves creation towards the right order which fulfils its nature and leads to blessed eternal fellowship with the Creator himself. There is a fittingness of the divine action with the creaturely course. 142 David Höhne, “The Secret Agent of natural causes: Providence, Contingency, and the Spirit,” in Engaging with Calvin (Nottingham: Apollos, 2009): 159. Responding to Gunton, The Triune Creator, 151. 143 Höhne, “The Secret Agent of natural causes,” 173. 144 For an example of a response to appropriation of Calvin on this issue see: John Bolt, “Spiritus Creator: The Use and Abuse of Calvin’s Cosmic Pneumatology,” in Calvin and the Holy Spirit, 17–33 (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1989). 145 Serm. Gen 1:26–28; SC 11/1:57. For a thorough exposition of the relationship between Calvin and Augustine see: Smits, Saint Augustin. 146 This contrasts with the omission of reference to the Spirit in, for example, the Heidelberg catechism, Lord’s Day 10, question 26. Calvin prioritises the fatherly care of the Provider assured in Christ, but also gives a significant place to the work of the Spirit in the lives of believers. This trinitarian shape complements the traditional place of providence in connection with Creation in the first article.

Creatures under the Creator’s Providential Governance

As far as the bridling of creation also works to hold creation to the course that moves towards the blessed fulfilment of its being, this is the same work of the Spirit despite hostility or the need for constraint. While restrained, rebellious humanity are still very much active and pursuing their own desires within the transformative divine work. In these terms, the bridling action continues to work with created natures rather than in a destructive mode that might efface the nature of creaturely being. There is a compatibilism in the working of the Spirit even when a bridle is applied. The Spirit brings divine power to bear in the providential government of creation, but as always this power is no destructive. In the face of rebellion and misery, divine power graciously moves for the good of creatures through the work of the Spirit. The creation of all things out of nothing, sparked by divine goodness, continues effectively into governance driven by divine goodness, so that divine power is prominently displayed in both creation and providence. In summary, Genesis’ presentation of Joseph prompts Calvin to develop and apply his doctrine of providence. Calvin draws particular textual warrant for this from Genesis 45:8 and 50:20. Calvin’s thought demonstrates a clear priority for the church in divine providence, but also an effective governance of the unregenerate. Calvin refers to the work of the Spirit and the application of a divine bridle when describing the divine agency providentially at work. The future focus of providence comes through as Calvin sees it initiated in creation and working unstoppably towards the good ends in God initially established.

5.3 Creatures under the Creator’s Providential Governance

That the Spirit and the application of the divine bridle are not destructive to creaturely nature and agency allows Calvin scope to discuss and exhort creaturely action within providentially governed history.147 As mentioned earlier, Calvin’s comment on Genesis 45:8 affirms the usefulness of providence as presented by scripture.148 Calvin is therefore consistent when, from Genesis 50:20, he focuses on Joseph’s application of providence in order to pursue virtuous

147 Calvin’s non-destructive conception of providential oversight in Genesis may be compared with Webster’s metaphysical description of movement from God evoking movement in the creature herself. John B. Webster, God Without Measure I, 188. 148 Helm also observes Calvin’s emphasis on the usefulness of providence, ‘Calvin then emphasizes the use to which the doctrine of providence ought to be put… the proper response to such providence is not to bridle at it, but to submit to it with awe and wonder, with a combination of fear and of confidence’. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 104.

193

194

Providence

conformity to the right ordering of himself to the plans of the Provider.149 While the betrayal of Joseph by his brothers was truly wicked, Joseph’s providential consideration prompts him to restrain his anger and forgive. Divine kindness and purposes for the good of God’s children invite Joseph to pursue the same; in fact, knowledge of providential governance demands conformity to its ends. Trust in providential governance also promotes patience from Joseph amid the winding course of events without a positive outcome in view.150 Patient endurance flows from confidence in the effective execution of divine governance for the good of creatures over time. Providence addresses both the extension of difficulty over time and the absence of humanly plausible grounds for hope.151 Governance of creation towards its proper ends curbs anxiety by cultivating confident repose in the oversight of the Governor of all things, but does not endorse idleness or abdication of responsibility.152 For example, prayer is a primary action of faith in light of divine governance because, while there are divinely affirmed and appointed means of grace, God is the Author of every good thing.153 Indeed, prayer acknowledges the effectiveness of divine governance over all creation where the faithful are impotent, such as before the cruelty of a tyrant.154 Providence produces hope, kindness, patience, joy, peace, humility, forgiveness, prayer, and obedience as these reflect the progress of the children of God in their fellowship with the Provider. The application of the doctrine of providence from Genesis by Calvin is notably personal, such as Jacob and Joseph, and then exhorted of individuals within the present congregation of God’s children. The large scale and long term scope of providential governance affirms, rather than dismisses, the significance of the individual within the divine purposes. Obedience to the right order of creation and Creator is therefore the highest measure of righteousness from the beginning; it is the restraining bridle for submission to God’s governance.155 Ongoing obedience is conformity to the created, and providential, ordering of every created thing from the smallest craving of an individual in the beginning through to the eternity of the whole people of God. Both the individual and the church as a whole have significance and are blessed providentially. 149 ‘Joseph well considers (as we have said) the providence of God; so that he imposes it on himself as a compulsory law, not only to grant pardon, but also to exercise beneficence’. Comm. Gen 50:20(21); CO 23:618–19 150 Comm. Gen 40:1; CO 23:510–11 151 Comm. Gen 41:1; CO 23:518 152 Calvin likewise suggests that providence does not prompt idleness or excuse human responsibility in Inst. 1.17.3–5 153 Comm. Gen 48:15; CO 23:583 154 Comm. Gen 41:13(12); CO 23:541 155 Serm. Gen 2:15–17; SC 11/1:110–11

Creatures under the Creator’s Providential Governance

Calvin’s application of divine providence prompts at least one objection, which concerns the ambiguity of history and providential governance.156 The objection to the use of the doctrine is that Calvin unhelpfully draws clear imperatives from an obscure situation.157 To address this the place of obscurity and clarity in Calvin’s thought on providence from Genesis needs to be laid out once more. There are many things that are clear in the matters of providence. Calvin’s denial of both creation evacuated of divine action and divine action collapsed into natural causes presents divine governance over every occurrence both small and large. Calvin objects to anything that even begins to suggest autonomous creation apart from the Creator because this is impossible. Therefore, God is at work in all things. For his children, the trustworthy promise guarantees salvation in Christ and from this the church knows that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, even when evils arise like those suffered by the reprobate.158 In Genesis, the promise (of Christ) remains the anchor for future hope and the assurance that promotes repose in providence and subsequent patience and the rest. The big picture is clear, but Calvin finds the details obscure. The paths of providence are intricate and like a labyrinth.159 In the midst of things Joseph is deprived of every humanly plausible rescue. The darkness of detail is not resolved by the larger clarity, but the overarching governance supports obedience in the darkness. The threefold death of being thrown into a pit, sold into Egypt, and cast into prison is neither comprehensible nor good, and yet the Governor of all things has clearly spoken and remains righteous. The actions of rebellious creatures, which obscure the clarity of providence, are condemned even while the overwhelming goodness of God works for the salvation of his church. Despite obscurity Calvin does not question the larger issues on which he claims clarity. The tension for Calvin is not whether the plans of ‘the wicked’ will succeed in the face of God’s goodness, but rather whether the extraordinary ways of the Ruler of all things will bring him the praise and glory he deserves. The Provider is worthy of all glory, honour, and thanks for the rising of the sun and waking each morning. In his generous provision, this same one governs events 156 Schreiner’s notion of the double justice of God developed from her analysis of Calvin on Job magnifies the ambiguity of history, the inscrutable nature of divine action, and the role of Calvin’s “anxiety” in his theology. Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom be Found?, 121–55. 157 This objection is further discussed below with reference to the view of Van der Kooi and that diagnosed by Selderhuis in contemporary Calvinism. 158 Comm. Rom 8:28; CO 49:158–59 159 This imagery can be observed while agreeing with Muller against Bouwsma’s maximal reading of the labyrinth and abyss as structural categories for Calvin and the whole of the sixteenth century. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 79; Bouwsma, John Calvin, 68.

195

196

Providence

contrary to rebellious human expectations in a way that demands even greater acknowledgement. Genesis 22 and the Joseph ‘novella’ demonstrate that the Lord of all the earth is father to the sons of Abraham, the heirs of the promise. The clarity of the promise and the unimpeachable goodness of the Provider do not eliminate the obscurity in the moment, but call faith to obedience. The application of providence is to result in virtue rather than comprehension of the mystery of how the Governor reconciles his transformative work to the wickedness of human intentions. Affliction is hence redeemed and renewed rather than explained.160 While humans may desire detailed resolution Calvin himself does not give it without drawing on the larger providential goals of the fulfilment of creation in fellowship with the Creator and the priority of the church within this. In light of this, Van der Kooi’s comments concerning Calvin’s view of providence and the use of the doctrine may be considered. Calvin has great difficulty with the mystery of God’s actions. Anyone who cleaves too closely to Calvin at this point runs extreme risks from the perspective of pastoral theology. The conviction that every occurrence has a certain utility, or is ordained by God with a specific goal, is dangerous because it is accompanied by the idea that we can generally discover the purpose of these things or for what use they were intended. In this way, Calvin’s theology is inclined to a rigidity that leaves no room for the acknowledgement of the absurd – for the conviction that things happen that we, for the sake of Christ, cannot identify with God.161

Similarly, in response to Calvin’s Psalms commentary Selderhuis writes: “Calvin is markedly hesitant to leave incomprehensible matters alone, and he seems compelled to anticipate and answer his reader’s possible question as to why something is so. The conviction that God has purpose in everything and that this purpose can become clear to us brings its own distinctive character to preaching and pastoral care in Calvinism”.162 Both Van der Kooi and Selderhuis identify a removal of providential mystery and subsequent negative pastoral implications, even though Selderhuis comments on Calvin’s pastoral rather than speculative impulse at this point. The danger is that since God’s actions are explicable, yet because, also, God is not the author of evil, all misfortune must be traced to human guilt and therefore providence becomes a negative pastoral force. These assessments align with Engammare’s observation from Calvin’s preaching of 160 Compare: Schreiner’s summary of Aquinas and Calvin from Job. Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom be Found?, 155. 161 Van der Kooi, “Calvin’s Theology of Creation,” 58–59. 162 Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 288–89.

Creatures under the Creator’s Providential Governance

Genesis that “ces accents négatifs [la misère et l’inaptitude de l’homme au bien] sont continuel”163 and Calvin’s repeated prayer for a Spirit-given awareness of faults. However, in his treatment of providence from Genesis, Calvin has mystery and obscurity in God’s providential governance.164 There is mystery in the way God maintains his goodness while condemning ‘the wicked’. There is obscurity in the experience of the church as providence follows complex paths that include affliction. Van der Kooi himself recognises elements of obscurity, mystery, and asymmetry in the Creator-creation relation shortly after the above quote. Calvin has significant space for mystery and incomprehensibility and does not suggest that “we can generally discover the purpose of these things or for what use they were intended”.165 Rather, a proper response to providence depends on Spirit empowered repentance and faith. Moreover, for Calvin, the church does not discover the purpose of things, but is told the purpose of things in the promise which is centred on Christ. Generally, the specific goals of God in contemporary circumstances are not revealed, but the broader goals of salvation history and the end of creatures flourishing in fellowship with God are revealed: “in God’s benefits this is the principal thing, that they are pledges or tokens of his paternal love towards us… the Lord had engaged by covenant to be a father to the children of Abraham… The best method of seeking God is to begin at his word; after this… experimental knowledge is added”.166 Particular experience is not judged in itself, but is proof of the promise and support for faith. Experience cannot be understood without faith that knows God as father in Christ by the Spirit. Joseph’s dreams are decidedly atypical, but all God’s children possess the sense of the paternal care of God brought by the Spirit. God’s actions may be generally understood in light of his larger purposes, but without a particular word, such as that given to Asher, they remain obscure.167 Knowledge of providence encourages trust and the pursuit of righteousness rather than plumbing unfathomable depths. As in the case of Abraham, faith in providence affirms trust in the promise when explicable means are lacking; and as in the case of Joseph, faith in providence affirms trust in the promise when ‘the wicked’ prevail. Calvin’s teaching does not justify ‘the wicked’, nor resolve the obscurity. Van der Kooi is correct that Calvin has no room for the absurd, because what cannot 163 SC 11/1:lv 164 These observations appear to agree with Calvin’s teaching in Inst. 1.16.9. These observations also agree with Webster’s characterisation of Calvin’s view of providence drawn from the Psalms commentary. Webster, “On the Theology of Providence,” 164–65. 165 Van der Kooi, “Calvin’s Theology of Creation,” 58–59. 166 Comm. Gen 48:15; CO 23:584 167 Comm. Gen 49:20; CO 23:606

197

198

Providence

be identified with God for the sake of Christ is not absurd but wicked. The pastoral application of providence by Calvin is not the justification of evil, nor labelling it as absurd, nor explaining it away. Instead, in the face of evil, from his doctrine of providence Calvin exhorts hope, patience, and prayer. The ways of the Spirit are praiseworthy, and according to Calvin, this is even more so when fatherly care governs surprisingly. Trust in divine providence assures the church that the Governor can and will bring to fruition the good ends of Creation in Christ. Selderhuis identifies a later Calvinian nexus between sin, guilt, and punishment in history.168 However Selderhuis suggests that this nexus distorts the unity of Old and New Testament history by making the two identical in the transparent expression of God’s providential governance of the church. Selderhuis expresses reservations about the faithfulness of this expression of Calvinism to Calvin’s thoughts in Psalms.169 Based on Calvin’s treatment of providence in Genesis we might further add to this reservation. In this nexus, as identified by Selderhuis, the Genesis priority of fatherly care has disappeared. The nexus encourages an over emphasis on judgement. However, since creation is the first of God’s external works, all creation always stands as creation with respect to the Creator so that its being remains gift. When God remains father and judge known by faith in Christ, and not simply judge alone, this distortion becomes far less plausible as a construal of Calvin’s thought. This analysis continues to loosen the roots of such a nexus in Calvin’s thought. In light of Calvin on Genesis, Webster’s explanation of providence as a work of love and expression of the use of providence is more faithful to Calvin’s teaching in Genesis than an exhaustive explanation that terminates on creaturely rebellion. Webster’s conclusion on the theology of providence draws significantly on Calvin. Providence is gospel consolation… Trust in providence signals the end of the evil self-responsibility… To embrace and trust ourselves to divine government is not resignation, but hopeful action towards the end secured for us by a loving creator… We are instructed by the doctrine of providence to look to God for comfort.170

In summary, for Calvin the usefulness of providence, which springs from Genesis, can be seen to develop doctrinally from his teaching on the Creator and the 168 Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 290. 169 Also, contrary to Calvin’s Psalms commentary, Selderhuis notes the absence of assurance and joy in such a form of Calvinism. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology, 290. 170 Webster, “On the Theology of Providence,” 172.

Creatures under the Creator’s Providential Governance

initial act of creation. The Creator’s goodness, wisdom, and power, which are evident in ‘creation from nothing’ and creation in and with time, are consistent in the history of God with creatures. A close link of creation and providence is seen in the nature of creatures, which is instituted with goodness and order in the beginning, directed to their final ends in fellowship with God, but which continually relies on its Creator for its preservation and remains constantly under divine governance. As creatures persist in time, providence inevitably follows in Calvin’s account of creation. For Calvin from Genesis knowing God as Provider is the fulfilment of knowing God as Creator. Further, this knowledge remains the knowledge of God by faith so that teaching on providence’s special concern for the church is also a result of the way providence is known and not just a particular operation within a larger created sphere. Providence is most useful to be known and is essential to naming as Creator the One called Father in Christ by the Spirit.

199

6. In the End The burden of this work has been to let Calvin speak and present a theological perspective on his work, because such analysis of Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis has not yet been presented. Chapter one showed that the lack of such analysis is surprising in light of Calvin’s admissions of brevity and directions from the Institutes’ treatment of Creation to Genesis. The availability of Calvin’s treatment of Job and Psalms means these have been the major sources for work such as Stauffer’s and Schreiner’s. While the Genesis commentary has been consulted for particular issues, such as the image of God, the publication of Calvin’s Genesis sermons in the Supplementa Calviniana series makes the time ripe for a more thorough investigation of Calvin’s thought on Creation flowing from Genesis. Along with content, the methodological approach of this analysis is prompted by Calvin himself. Calvin’s labour as a biblical theologian richly intertwines scripture and doctrine. Further, the addition of moral and practical concerns is justified by Calvin’s conjunction of knowledge of God with piety and drive for the proper use of scripture. Seeking the doctrine of Creation from Genesis and interweaving scriptural detail with broader doctrinal questions for the sake of the church mirrors Calvin’s own method and concerns. Therefore, it has been a fitting way to proceed. The theological analysis includes the selection and arrangement of content. The chapter headings are not present in verse by verse commentary or preaching from Genesis. The emphases and proportions within the locus are only implicit in Calvin’s engagement with Genesis due to the genres and their occasional nature. The topics selected are related to the content and arrangement of the Institutes while not mirroring the exact progression and proportion found there, because Calvin’s doctrinal interests from Genesis remain constrained by both his exegetical and pastoral concerns. As such, the chapters—Creator, the Agent and Act of Creation, Creatures, and Providence—present a material theological arrangement that seeks to expose in a more formal idiom the organic contours of Calvin’s thought. The titles are not taken directly from Calvin on Genesis, but they reflect his thought rather than a doctrinal framework found elsewhere. Chapter two presented the Creator. The external works of God are the external works of God and this must always be accounted for. From Genesis Calvin characterises the Creator in a way that is full, engaged, and concrete. The Creator is l’Eternal, infinitely distinct and abundantly for creatures in his virtues. This teaching is complex, creature-focused, particular and immediate, and integrated with the whole history of redemption.

202

In the End

In more detail, Calvin presents l’Eternal as the ‘One Who Is’ eternally, who is the very divine essence in three persons, one and unique. The Creator is the one, true, living God and there is no other. The Creator is infinitely distinct from creatures. God is not constrained, does not change, does not suffer, and is neither visible nor physical, yet these enable the relation of Creator and creature instead of hindering it. Therefore, from the fullness of God’s inner life the Creator is abundantly for creatures. Life and goodness overflow to creatures without exhaustion from the one who is all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, worthy of all praise, and works out all things in accordance with his pleasure. This God has made himself known and addresses himself to creatures in his Word, as well as all creation testifying to the divine virtues. For Calvin, creation straightforwardly displays divine power, goodness, mercy, justice, righteousness, wisdom, and glory. This is the Creator who is called Father in Christ by the Spirit and is known by faith. Calvin resists a theological depiction of the Creator that reduces God to any attribute, to any triune relation, to any speculative ideal, or to any christological lens. Placing the Creator in a position of theological priority does not discard the detailed labour of exegesis nor the pastoral context of doctrine. The Creator cannot be theologically flattened to something from which creation, its relations, and ongoing history are deducible without scriptural theological endeavour. The complexity is irreducible and knowledge of God the Creator is by faith closely engaging scripture. Chapter three examined the agent and act of creation. Calvin reminds us that the beginning brings God alone to mind. Creation is the first of God’s external works; no creature was there when God laid the foundations of the earth. Therefore, creation exemplifies the theologian’s posture as one first addressed by the Maker of heaven and earth, who always finds herself in the middle of things. Creation is graciously named and called into eternal fellowship; and perhaps more dramatically the theologian finds herself loved and remade from rebellious unravelling and destructive refusal of the fullness of life. The Creator is inseparably Redeemer and Perfecter. So this address vivifies. It awakens the fullness of creaturely life to flourish in all its facets in this God. Perhaps because a beginning ‘from nothing’ suggests she may not have been, her beginning draws the creaturely theologian to the Uncreated One, to contemplate the One who speaks life itself. Another key aspect here characterises the act of creation as a purposeful beginning. This follows from the identity of the agent of creation who is this God: infinite, abundant, good, and for creation in this act. A purposeful beginning is essential because creation is not eternal, such that both its source and end lie outside itself. This beginning comes from nothing so that divine power and freedom are exalted and it occurs in and with time for the sake of creatures,

In the End

which inextricably links the Creator with the ongoing history of creation. The act of beginning is both theological and historical in character. Calvin does not read Genesis 1–2 as myth, nor in a purely spiritualised manner, nor as an account that could satisfy natural philosophers. Many of Calvin’s concerns here are not unique, but his focus on salvation history as a theological frame for creation as a purposeful beginning is a distinctive emphasis for him. Chapter four analysed the nature of creatures. From creation’s purposeful beginning, it follows that creatures are not static entities but those in ongoing fellowship with the Creator; this shapes their natures and ties creation closely with providence. The dynamic involvement of the Creator with creation shapes creaturely goodness and order; and the Creator is not absent when corruption and disorder intrude. Created beings remain characterised as creatures, who have beginnings and a Creator. Goodness is a vital description of creation springing from Genesis. This goodness is tightly bound with its source in the Creator’s goodness; Calvin uses language of a flowing fountain without using other categories of emanation or participation in his descriptions of creaturely goodness. Creation is delightful, diverse, and abundant. Creation is beautiful and to be enjoyed, not as an end in itself, but transparently joining the praise of the Creator’s wisdom, goodness, and power. Creation’s goodness is also one of fullness and completion; every stroke of the masterpiece is where it should be. Nothing needs to be redone. In the beginning creaturely being is good. Calvin uses language of perfection without this meaning that initial creation was a static ideal without any concept of history and progress built in. Creaturely goodness is therefore tightly bound with the good ends of creatures that lie outside themselves in the Creator, yet not foreign to their being. Time and history are positive in their created character and the progress of creatures to eternal fellowship with the Creator is part of created goodness. In the beginning creation is also rightly ordered within itself and with respect to its Creator. There is right order in the harmony, regularity, and proportion of created being, as well as right order to creation’s end. This order encompasses all of creation: invisible and spiritual creation; visible and inanimate creation, sun, moon, stars, sea, sky; as well as creatures sharing the breath of life, both animals and humans. Creaturely being is upheld not only for an instant but each moment, by the effective and powerful word spoken once and for all. Creaturely natures adhere to this word and dynamically endure in the arrangement they have been given. The Creator demonstrates fatherly care, and later judgement, in a manner consonant with the order spoken in the beginning. Fragile creation flourishes with a good, powerful, and wise Creator who freely acts for creation from infinite abundance. Creaturely order is not independence where fragility and chaos pose a threat that cannot be overcome. Since the

203

204

In the End

nature of creatures is established from a purposeful beginning by a Creator with this particular character, then sustenance and concursus within the ongoing relationship are established from the beginning. The created order is not an ‘order of nature’ separated from the Creator. Calvin’s account of created order is extensive, but must always remember its Creator, its beginning, and the intimate connection between created natures and providence. The final threat to created goodness and order is not fragility and chaos but nothing. The relationship of animals and humans to the Creator and one another illustrates the complex ordering in the beginning and when corrupted. The mastery of humanity over the household of creation, and all things being for human use, does not erase the ongoing relation of all creatures to their Creator. All creatures, human and non-human animals, receive and mutually show the Creator’s fatherly care and serve him in their own way. The image of God distinguishes humanity, but the primary theological distinction is between the Creator and creation rather than among creatures. There is wholeness to Calvin’s view of all creatures taken together, in their relations to one another and the Creator. The relation within creation is disrupted as the Creator shows himself both father and judge in light of human rebellion. Calvin maintains that the Creator is not the author of evil, nor one of two competing powers over creation, but he does not explain the interface of God’s governance of all things and human culpability. Instead he teaches both and insists on mystery in understanding how they might be held together. Calvin lauds created goodness and order as well as mourning creation’s corruption and disorder. These aspects need to be connected to the identity of the Creator and the character of the act of creation in order to be properly appreciated. Providence was treated in connection to both the nature of creatures and, in chapter five, with respect to divine care for the church. Since God is not simply a momentary Creator, elements commonly considered within the realm of providence encroach on the theological nature of creatures. Sustenance and concursus are interwoven with a consideration of the goodness and order of created being. Calvin’s exposition of Genesis deals with creatures as good and dynamic entities in a history of fellowship with the Creator. Calvin’s integration of creation with providence means that he considers Genesis as directed to the history of God’s people with their Creator, Redeemer, and Perfecter. The governance of salvation history is tightly focused on the promise of salvation and the well being of the church. Abraham shows that providence comforts the faithful amidst every threat to the promise of salvation, when all creaturely comprehensible means are removed. Providence affirms the Creator’s power, freedom, and goodness to raise the dead. Providence declares that God can keep his promises.

In the End

The Provider’s governance of Joseph’s story shows that ‘the wicked’ will not thwart his good intention. The medicinal nature of affliction is closely tied with the Provider’s fatherly care for his people. The Provider works by the Spirit in the church and by a bridle over those who resist his direction. That the Spirit and the application of the divine bridle are not destructive to creaturely nature and agency allows Calvin scope to discuss and exhort creaturely action within providentially governed history. Primarily, Calvin counsels the church to trust the Provider. Providence is most useful to be known. There are several significant aspects of the content of this analysis. These further our understanding of Calvin’s thought in this area, for example, the fuller account of the Creator provided by attention to Calvin on Genesis. The fullness surrounding the divine attributes develops the insights of Muller against his flat reading of Niesel; and it expands the incidental attention paid to the Creator when Creation is primarily spoken of using the framework provided by the Institutes, such as in the work of Stauffer. The outworking of the full, engaged, and concrete depiction of the Creator grounds the rest of Calvin’s presentation of the doctrine. The Creator places Creation firmly within the sphere of the knowledge of God that is by faith. Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis is firmly in the realm of sacred doctrine for the church. A further example is the trinitarian shape of both the act of creation and providence as Calvin depicts these from Genesis. In some respects Calvin’s account of these is reserved, but there is a significant christological and pneumatological element in the church’s experience of the Creator’s fatherly care. A third and final example is the stability of creation in Calvin’s thought, against the reading of Schreiner inspired by Bouwsma on Calvin’s anxiety. This analysis denies an ‘inherent fragility’ of creation because creation is never without the Creator. This gives theological and pastoral depth to Calvin’s teaching on the order and goodness of creatures in close connection with the Creator. Many secondary discussions have been raised along the way, but these few examples illustrate the contribution of thi work to some wider conversations. A last comment may be made on the contribution of this analysis to understanding the content of Calvin on Creation. If the significance of this analysis appears ad hoc that is at least partly the result of coming without a prior agenda. This analysis has not been driven by any single theological or historical question. Rather, Calvin himself has prompted engagement with historical, dogmatic, and practical theological questions. This has freed the presentation to give Calvin first place, but also to pause when issues have arisen. Nonetheless, bringing this material together and arranging it in this way gives doctrinal unity to the analysis as a whole. Contextual concerns and close reading of Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis have determined this unity.

205

206

In the End

Also implicit throughout the analysis has been the example of Calvin’s practice as a biblical theologian concerned with piety and the use of scripture. Since Calvin testifies as one seeking to faithfully know and praise the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth, the details of Calvin’s thought are not only of historical interest nor is his practice simply an example to be admired or critiqued from a distance. Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis contributes more broadly to Creation and its theological use. Throughout his work on Genesis Calvin promotes faith in the Creator that issues in piety; that is, his exegesis develops doctrine with pastoral outworking. This is not accidental, as Calvin happens to be a theologian who enters a pulpit. Rather, Calvin continually concerns himself with the use of Creation in accordance with scripture in the life of God’s church. His conclusion to his first Genesis sermon is typical in this regard. That, then, is what we need to remember about these words of Moses, and we must, in short, apply ourselves to this endeavour and become acquainted with God our Creator in such a way that we pay him homage with our lives, acknowledging him also as our Redeemer and confessing that we are doubly obligated to him, so that we may dedicate ourselves completely to his service in all holiness, righteousness, and integrity.1

Calvin’s practical application is not in conflict with a doxological and heavenly goal. However, contemplation, as well as eschatological and theological orientation, should not be divorced from present embodied experience; Calvin’s use of Creation is not only eternal praise but also ongoing obedience. The usefulness of Creation is multifaceted. Calvin promotes a creaturely posture, humility and dependence, which acknowledges the limitations of finite creatures who do not have life in themselves, but exist from, through, and to another. Calvin integrates theology with exegesis and moral reason. Calvin’s own exhortation remains apt, “Therefore, adhering to this Word and governed by his Holy Spirit, let us pursue the goal which he purposes for us without deviating from it, either to the right or to the left”.2 For this reason, as well as its content, Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis can find traction in present theological questions and practice. It is fitting to conclude with questions for further research that arise from this work. While there are certainly more, four immediate possibilities may be outlined. First, Calvin’s sixteenth-century setting means he was not absorbed by questions of theology and science, or Genesis and science. Nonetheless, Creator 1 Serm. Gen 1:1–2; SC 11/1:11 2 Serm. Gen 1:3–5; SC 11/1:22

In the End

and creation according to Calvin on Genesis presents an example where the demands of science are considered without being given a determinative voice. The interaction of observation and revision of hermeneutics is an area where the contemporary conversation may heed Calvin’s example and build further. This analysis provides the particular example of Calvin’s commentary and preaching on Genesis. Calvin’s treatment of the six days has been combed many times but not in the particular theological context here, complemented by the sermon material. More generally, Calvin’s example provides a context of the knowledge of faith and worship as the end of true knowledge. This provides a larger context for the questions of theology and science, and especially Genesis and science, in order that, not simply the beginning, but also the redemption and end, of creation may be considered. If the findings of theological research are not illuminating the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator, then Calvin on Genesis raises questions that must be addressed. Besides the ‘compatibility’ of mechanisms with the biblical account, the doctrinal significance and usefulness of this knowledge for the church must be considered.3 Second, the importance of the Creator in this context and the richness of Calvin’s portrait of the Creator have been key findings of this analysis. Calvin’s doctrine of God is exegetically tried, theologically nuanced, and historically grounded. This contrasts with more recent discussion of divine immutability, impassibility, aseity, or simplicity that often argues in an almost purely analytic and philosophical mode. As part of a case against ‘classical theism’, some suggest that these attributes cannot be upheld exegetically. Calvin would beg to disagree. He provides a synthetic approach that seeks to praise God in his fullness and to uphold this depiction of God consistent with the witness of scripture. In Calvin’s estimate divine accommodation does not render the Genesis account a false history. While creatures cannot bridge the divide, the Creator’s fatherly condescension means creaturely history always lives, moves, and has its being in him. Creaturely being is not identical to the inner divine life. Creation is the gift of being to that which is not God. This analysis contributes to further discussion of Calvin’s hermeneutic as it has made prominent places where the Creator’s infinite distinction from creatures is abundantly for creatures. Additionally, theological commentary is a re-emerging genre; but most sophisticated recent defenders of a view of God more akin to Calvin’s than revisionist are not producing extensive exegetical and pastoral works. Appropriately, 3 Endeavours such as the ‘Creation Project’ of the Henry Center under the direction of Tom McCall come to mind. Further, both Fergusson and McFarland are working to engage science theologically, but from different bases than the Calvinian focus here.

207

208

In the End

they are engaging in the systematic and dogmatic task as presently defined. Calvin’s theological engagement with scripture stands with many earlier examples of theological pursuit in a more exegetical and pastoral mode. This analysis suggests that the consistency of the doctrine of God may be measured more than logically, but also scripturally and in the life of faith. In these latter areas, Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis will prompt further research on the doctrine of God. Third, the twenty-first century exhibits elements that push on one side towards independent naturalistic sufficiency of all reality, and on the other towards mysticism that spiritualises all things. This may be compared with the Epicurean and Stoic elements that Calvin faced. In both cases the cultural milieu presents both dualistic human autonomy without god and pantheistic world deity as god. The two-fold pitfalls, which Calvin sought to avoid, resonate with contemporary debates even though the detailed positions are different. Therefore, Calvin’s concerns may prove useful in approaching these questions. The theological analysis of Calvin presented expresses the Creator-creation relation in terms which contrast with, or at least nuance, the mood or priorities of present expressions of ‘the distinction’.4 Calvin maintains that Creator and creation are not held in a dialectic or mutually formative relation. For Calvin, spiritual participation in Christ in new creation does not constitute an ontological chain of participation of being identical with creation. Also for Calvin, covenant history of fellowship between the Creator and creatures is not exhaustive of creaturely goodness and order. Further for Calvin, grace in the Mediator takes a decisive place even as created natures and ends find fulfilment in new creation. Each of these insights speaks to aspects of present discussions, whether engaged by process theology and panentheism, or participatory and sacramental ontological schemas, or Reformed covenantal thinkers, or more ‘Thomistic’ compatibilist expressions.5 A contemporary articulation of the relation between Creator and creation will not be identical to Calvin’s position, but may be constructively prompted thereby. That is, by the identity of the one Creator, the ongoing impact of a purposeful beginning, continuity of creaturely goodness and order despite the complexity of corruption, and the unfolding of salvation history of the church in Christ. These contours from Calvin are, however, not enough for positive construction. This theological analysis needs to be complemented for a 4 This is a reference to the Christian distinction between Creator and creation. 5 For example, in turn: those following Moltmann, Griffin, and Cobb; Milbank, Ward, Oliver, and Boersma (see also Todd Billing’s conclusions in this regard); Barth and his heirs; de Lubac, Rahner, Sonderegger, and Webster. While challenging to any easy categorisation, Tanner’s christological proposal also comes to mind here. The fundamental nature of the Christian distinction is illustrated by the range of thinkers here.

In the End

fuller constructive account. For one, Calvin’s own corpus has more to say. Also, contemporary cultural voices need to be heard in their particularity as well as their broad theological outline. Nonetheless, Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis has a contribution to make to this issue; it calls contemporary articulations to account based on this fundamental Christian text. Finally, the meta-level questions of the usefulness of theology and methodological interaction of exegetical, doctrinal, and moral reason have been raised by this analysis. These are live questions of theological reflection for anyone considering the place of theology within the academy and church, as well as the interaction of areas that have been syphoned into separate specialisations, such as systematic theology, analytic theology, biblical studies, pastoral studies, ethics, and church history.6 ‘Inter-disciplinary’ projects hold great potential, but the details of how such integration can be achieved remains unclear. Creator and creation according to Calvin on Genesis presents an example of integration. Given that theology is pursued before the Creator, who is known as Redeemer and trusted as Perfecter of all things, then the present practice of theology will do well to heed Calvin’s example.

6 The shape of Webster’s later theological project resonates strongly here.

209

Bibliography Sources and Translations

Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia: Ad Fidem Editionum Principum et Authenticarum Ex Parte Etiam Codicum Manu Scriptorum, Additis Prolegomenis Literariis, Annotationibus Criticis, Annalibus Calvinianis, Indicibusque Novis et Copiosissmis. 59 vol. Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia 1–59. Brunsvigae: apud C.A. Schwetschke et filium (M. Bruhn), 1863. –. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis. Translated by John King. 2 vol. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947. –. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battleso. Edited by John T. McNeill. The Library of Christian Classics. Vols. 20–21. London: SCM, 1961. –. Commentaires de Jean Calvin sur l’Ancien Testament: tome premier le livre de la Genèse. Vol. 1. Aix-en-Provence: Éditions Kerygma, 1978. –. Treatise Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines. Edited and translated by Benjamin W. Farley. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982. –. Sermons on Election and Reprobation. Translated by John Field. Edited by Richard A. Muller. Grand Rapids: Old Paths Publications, 1996. –. Sermons on Melchizedek and Abraham. Translated by Thomas Stocker. Edited by Richard A. Muller. Grand Rapids: Old Paths Publications, 2000. –. Sermons Sur La Genese Chapitres 1,1–11,4. Edited by Max Engammare. Vol. 1. 2 vol. Supplementa Calviniana, Sermons Inédits, XI. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. –. Sermons Sur La Genese Chapitres 11,5–20,7. Edited by Max Engammare. Vol. 2. 2 vol. Supplementa Calviniana, Sermons Inédits, XI. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. –. Sermons on Genesis, Chapters 1:1–11:4: Forty-Nine Sermons Delivered in Geneva between 4 September 1559 and 23 January 1560. Translated by Rob Roy McGregor. 1st ed. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2009. –. The Secret Providence of God. Edited by Paul Helm. Translated by Keith Goad. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010. –. Sermons on Genesis, Chapters 11:5–20:7: Forty-Eight Sermons Delivered in Geneva between 24 January 1560 and 15 May 1560. Translated by Rob Roy McGregor. 1st ed. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2012.

212

Bibliography

Other Sources

Ahn, Myung Jun. “The Ideal of Brevitas et Facilitas: The Theological Hermeneutics of John Calvin.” Skrif en kerk 20, no. 2 (1999): 270–81. –. “The influences on Calvin’ s hermeneutics and the development of his method.” Hervormde teologiese studies 55, no. 1 (1999): 228–39. Albert, Luce. “Calvin contre les ’phantastiques’: une anthropologie de la ’fantasie’.” In Calvin et l’humanisme: Actes du symposium d’Amiens et Lille III (25–26 Novembre 2009), 139–61. Geneva: Droz, 2012. Allen, Michael and Scott Swain, ed. Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Ambrose. Hexaemeron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel. Translated by John J. Savage. Volume 42. The Fathers of the Church. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1961. Aquinas, Thomas. The ‘Summa theologica’ of Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1921. Augustine. Answer to Julian. Translated by Matthew Schumacher. Volume 35. The Fathers of the Church. Washignton: The Catholic University Press of America, 2004. –. The City of God: VII–XVI. Translated by Gerald G. Walsh and Grace Monahan. Volume 14. The Fathers of the Church. Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 2008. –. Confessions. Edited by Gary Wills. New York: Penguin Books, 2008. –. On Christian Teaching. Translated by R.P.H. Green. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. –. On Genesis. Edited by J.E. Rotelle. Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002. Balke, Willem. “Calvins Auslegung von Genesis 22.” In Théorie et pratique de l’exégèse, 211–29. Geneva: Droz, 1990. Balserak, Jon. “Luther, Calvin and Musculus on Abraham’s Trial: Exegetical History and the Transformation of Genesis 22.” RRR 6, no. 3 (2004): 361–73. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics III. 4 vol. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960. –. Nein! Antwort an Emil Brunner. Theologische Existenz Heute, Heft 14. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1934. –. The Theology of John Calvin. Translated by Gregory W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Barth, Karl and Emil Brunner. Natural Theology: Comprising ’Nature and grace’ by Emil Brunner and the Reply ’No!’ by Karl Barth. Translated by Peter Fraenkel. London: Centenary Press, 1946. Barton, Stephen C. and David Wilkinson. Reading Genesis after Darwin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Other Sources

Basil. Exegetic Homilies. Volume 46. The Fathers of the Church. Translated by Sister Agnes Clark Way. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Battles, Ford Lewis. Interpreting John Calvin. Edited by Robert Benedetto. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Bauckham, Richard. Living with Other Creatures: Green Exegesis and Theology. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011. Baumgartner, Antoine Jean. Calvin hébraïsant et interprète de l’Ancient Testament. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1889. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. 4 vol. Edited by John Bolt. Volume 2 translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Becking, Bob and Marjo C.A. Korpel. “To create, to separate or to construct: an alternative for a recent proposal as to the interpretation of br‘ [Hebrew characters] in Gen 1:1–2:4a.” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10 (2010): 2–21. Billings, J. Todd. Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Belivers in Union with Christ. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. –. “The Catholic Calvin.” Pro Ecclesia 20, no. 2 (2011): 120–34. Billings, J. Todd and I. John Hesselink. Calvin’s Theology and its Reception: Disputes, Developments, and New Possibilities. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012. Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Downers Grove: IVP, 1984. –. “Yesterday, Today, Forever: Time, Times, Eternity in Biblical Perspective.” Tyndale Bulletin 52, no. 2 (2001): 183–202. Blowers, Paul W. “Beauty, Tragedy and New Creation: Theology and Contemplation in Cappadocian Cosmology.” IJST 18, no. 1 (2016): 7–29. –. Drama of the Divine Economy: Creator and Creation in Early Christian Theology and Piety. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Boersma, Hans. Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Boersma, Hans, Matthew Levering, and R.W.L. Moberly ed. The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Bohatec, Josef. Budé und Calvin: Studien zur Gedankenwelt des französischen Frühhumanismus. Graz: Verlag Hermann Bohlaus Nachf, 1950. –. “Calvin et l’humanisme.” Revue Historique 183, no. 2 (1938): 207–41. –. ed. Calvinstudien: Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvins. Leipzig: R. Haupt, 1909. –. Calvin und das Recht. Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1971.

213

214

Bibliography

Bolt, John. “Spiritus Creator: The Use and Abuse of Calvin’s Cosmic Pneumatology.” In Calvin and the Holy Spirit, 17–33. Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1989. –. “Getting the ‘two books’ straight: with a little help from Herman Bavinck and John Calvin.” CTJ 46, no. 2 (2011): 315–32. Bonhoeffer, Deitrich. Creation and Fall. A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Bouwsma, William J. “Calvin and the Renaissance Crisis of Knowing,” CTJ 17, no. 2 (1982): 190–211. –. “Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica.” In Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica, ed. Wilhelm Wuellner, 1–21. Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1986. –. John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. –. A Usable Past: Essays in European Cultural History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Breen, Quirinus. John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism. Hamden: Archon books, 1968. Brunner, Emil. Natur Und Gnade: Zum Gespräch Mit Karl Barth. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1934. Buckner, Forrest. “Calvin’s Non-Speculative Methodology: A Corrective to Billings and Muller on Calvin’s Divine Attributes.” In Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis and Arnold Huijgen, 233–44. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Burnett, Richard E. “John Calvin and the Sensus Literalis.” SJT 57, no. 1 (2004): 1–13. –. Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis: The Hermeneutical Principals of the Römerbrief Period. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Burrell, David, and B. McGinn, ed. God and Creation: An Ecumenical Symposium. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. Burrell, David, Janet M. Soskice, and William Stoeger, ed. Creation and the God of Abraham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Canlis, Julie. Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Carvalho, Corrine. “Creation, Fall and Salvation: Lyra’s Commentary on Genesis 1–3.” In Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture, edited by Philip D. Krey and Lesley Smith, 19–43. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Centre d’études des religions du livre (France). In principio, interprétations des premiers versets de la Genèse. Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1973. Chung, Sung Wook, ed. John Calvin and Evangelical Theology: Legacy and Prospect. Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2009.

Other Sources

Chrysostom. On the Incomprehensibility of God. Translated by Paul W. Harkins. The Fathers of the Church. Volume 72. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984. Clough, David L. “The Anxiety of the Human Animal: Martin Luther on Nonhuman Animals and Human Animality.” In Creaturely Theology: On God, Humans and Other Animals, edited by Celia Deane-Drummond and David Clough, 41–60. London: SCM Press, 2009. –. On Animals: Volume One Systematic Theology. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Cobb, John B. and David Griffin. Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976. Cottret, Bernard. Calvin: A Biography. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Currid, John D. Calvin and the Biblical Languages. Fearn: Mentor, 2006. Dae-Woo, Hwang. “God’s Creation in Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis and in Capit’s Hexameron Dei opus.” In Calvinus Clarissimus Theologus, 286–300. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. De Klerk, Peter, ed. Calvin and Christian Ethics: Papers and Responses Presented at the Fifth Colloquium on Calvin & Calvin Studies sponsored by the Calvin Studies Society held at the Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, on May 8 and 9, 1985. Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Socity, 1987. –. ed. Calvin and the Holy Spirit: Papers and Responses Presented at the Sixth Colloquium on Calvin & Calvin Studies sponsored by the Calvin Studies Society held at Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, on May 6 and 7, 1987. Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1987. –. ed. Calvin and the State: Papers and Responses Presented at the Seventh and Eighth Colloquia on Calvin & Calvin Studies, sponsored by the Calvin Studies Society. Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1993. –. ed. Calvin as Exegete: Papers and Responses Presented at the Ninth Colloquium on Calvin & Calvin Studies, sponsored by the Calvin Studies Society, held at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, on May 20, 21 and 22, 1993. Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1995. –. ed. Renaissance, Reformation, Resurgence: Papers and Responses Presented at the Colloquium on Calvin & Calvin Studies, held at Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan on April 22 and 23, 1976. Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary, 1976. Doumergue, Emile. Calvin le Prédicateur de Genève. Genève: Édition Atar, 1909. –. Le caractère de Calvin. Paris: Editions de foi et vie, 1921. –. Jean Calvin, les hommes et les choses de son temps. 7 vol. Lausanne: G. Bridel, 1899–1917. Dowey, Edward A. The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952.

215

216

Bibliography

Drever, Matthew. “Redeeming creation: creatio ex nihilo and the imago Dei in Augustine.” IJST 15, no. 2 (2013): 135–53. Earnshaw, Rebekah. “Divine Majesty according to Calvin on Genesis.” CTJ 51, no. 2 (2016): 181–203. Edmondson, Stephen. Calvin’s Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. –. “Christ and History: Hermeneutical Convergence in Calvin and its Challenge to Biblical Theology.” MT 21, no. 1 (2005): 3–35. Ellis, Brannon. Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Engammare, Max. “Calvin Connaissait-Il La Bible? Les Citations de l’Écriture Dans Ses Sermons Sur La Genèse.” Bulletin de La Société de L’histoire Du Protestantisme Français 141, no. 2 (1995): 163–84. –. “Castellion et Calvin: Duo Lectores ad Davidis lyram.” In Bible, histoire et société: Mélanges offerts à Bernard Roussel, edited by R. Gerald Hobbes and Annie Noblesse-Rocher, 71–90. Turhout: Brepols, 2013. –. “D’une Forme L’autre: Commentaires et Sermons de Calvin sur la Genèse.” In Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, 107–37. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2004. –. and Francis M. Higman. “Calvin: A Prophet without a Prophecy.” Church History 67, no. 4 (1998): 643–61. Erasmus, Desiderius. The Education of a Christian Prince. Translated by Neil M. Cheshire and Michael J. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Farley, Benjamin W. The Providence of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988. Fergusson, David. Creation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. –. “Interpreting the Story of Creation.” In Genesis and Christian Theology, edited by Nathan MacDonald, Mark Elliott and Grant Macaskill, 155–74. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. –. “Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Creation: Church-bells beyond the stars.” IJST 18, no. 4 (2016): 414–31. Fox, Matthew. The Coming of the Cosmic Christ: The Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of a Global Renaissance. Melbourne: Collins Dove, 1989. Francis I, Pope. Laudato Si’. 24 May 2015. Fulkerson, Mary McClintock. “The Imago Dei and a Reformed Logic for Feminist/Womanist Critique.” In Feminist and Womanist Essays in Reformed Dogmatics, edited by Amy Plantinga Pauw and Serene Jones, 95–106. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Fulvio, Ferrario. “Calvin et la providence: actualité provocatrice d’un thème embarrassant.” Études théologiques et religieuses 84, no. 3 (2009): 359–72.

Other Sources

Gagnebin, Bernard. “L’incroyable histoire des Sermons de Calvin.” Bulletin de la Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de Genève 10, no. 4 (1955): 311–34. Gamble, Richard C. “Calvin’s Theological Model: The Case of Caroli.” In Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag: Festschrift für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65. Geburtstag, 130–37. Edited by W. Van’t Spijker. Kampen: Kok, 1991. –. ed. The Organisational Structure of Calvin’s Theology. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992. –. “The Sources of Calvin’s Genesis Commentary: A Preliminary Report.” Archiv Für Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 206–21. Ganoczy, Alexandre. Calvin: Théologien de l’Église et du ministère. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1964. –. Die Hermeneutik Calvins. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983. –. The Young Calvin. Translated by David Foxgrover and Wade Provo. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987. Garcia, Aurelio. “A Reformer’s Twilight. Character and Crisis in Calvin’s Dedicatory Preface to his Commentary on Genesis (1563), and in Beza’s Preface to Calvin’s Commentary on Ezekiel (1565).” In Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis and Arnold Huijgen, 287–96. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Gerrish, Brian A. “Brian Gerrish on Calvin, and Luther.” Lutheran Quarterly 24, no. 2 (2010): 186–87. –. Christian Faith: Dogmatics in Outline. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015. –. “The Mirror of God’s Goodness: Man in the Theology of Calvin.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 45, no. 3 (1981): 211–22. –. “Nature and the Theater of Redemption: Schleiermacher on Christian Dogmatics and the Creation Story.” Ex Auditu 3, no. 1 (1987): 120–36. –. “‘To the Unknown God’: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God.” Journal of Religion 53, no. 3 (1973): 263–92. Goldsworthy, Graeme. Christ-centred Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles. Nottingham: Apollos, 2012. –. Gospel and Kingdom: A Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1981. –. Gospel-centred Hermeneutics: Biblical-theological Foundations and Principles. Nottingham: Apollos, 2006. Gordon, Bruce. Calvin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Greene-McCreight, Kathryn. Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the “Plain Sense” of Genesis 1–3. Issues in Systematic Theology, vol. 5. New York: P. Lang, 1999. –. “‘We are Companions of the Patriarchs’ or Scripture Absorbs Calvin’s World.” MT 14, no. 2 (1998): 213–24.

217

218

Bibliography

Gunton, Colin E., ed. The Doctrine of Creation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. –. The Triune Creator. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Hall, David W. Preaching like Calvin: Sermons from the 500th Anniversary Celebration. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2010. –. ed. Tributes to John Calvin: A Celebration of His Quincentenary. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2010. Harrison, Peter. The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. –. The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015. Hasel, Gerhard F., and Michael G. Hasel, “The Unique Cosmology of Genesis 1 against Ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian Parallels.” In The Genesis Creation Account, ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil, 9–29. Berrin Springs: Andrews University Press, 2015. Helm, Paul. “Calvin on ‘Beyond all ages’.” Tyndale Bulletin 53, no. 1 (2002): 143–48. –. “Calvin, the ‘two issues,’ and the structure of the Institutes.” CTJ 42, no. 2 (2007): 341–48. –. John Calvin’s Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. –. ed. The Secret Providence of God. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010. Hesselink, I. John. Calvin’s Concept of the Law. Princeton Theological Monograph Series, 30. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications, 1992. –. Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary; Featuring Ford Lewis Battles’ Translation of the 1538 Catechism. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. –. “Calvin’s Theology.” In The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, edited by Donald K. McKim, Cambridge Companions to Religion, 74–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. –. “The Spirit of God the Creator in Calvin’s Theology.” In Sola Gratia: Bron voor de Reformatie en uitdaging voor nu, edited by A. van de Beek and W.M. van Laar, 53–69. Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 2004. Higman, Francis. “Calvin et des animaux.” In La Monde Animaux au temps de la Renaissance, edited by M.T. Jones-Davies, 245–56. Paris: Klincksieck, 1992. –. Lire et Découvrir: La circulation des idées at temps de la Réforme. Gèneve: Droz, 1998. –. “La Structure des Sermons de Calvin.” In Les Sermons au temps de la Renaissance, edited by M.T. Jones-Davies, 31–48. Paris: Klincksieck, 1999. Hildebrand, Pierrick. “Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17.” In Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis and Arnold Huijgen, 297–304. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016.

Other Sources

Holder, R. Ward, ed. Calvin and Luther: The Continuing Relationship. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. –. John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation: Calvin’s First Commentaries. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Vol. 127. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Huff, Peter A. “Calvin and the Beasts: Animals in John Calvin’s Theological Discourse.” JETS 42, no. 1 (1999): 67–75. Hütter, Reinhard. “‘Creatio ex nihilo’: promise of the gift.” Currents in Theology and Mission 19, no. 2 (1992): 89–97. Jenson, Robert. Systematic Theology. 2 vol. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. –. Theology as Revisionary Metaphysics: Essays on God and Creation. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2014. Jones, Serene. Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Kaiser, Christopher B. “Calvin, Copernicus, and Castellio.” CTJ 21, no. 1 (1986): 5–31. –. “Calvin’s Understanding of Aristotelian Natural Philosophy: its Extent and Possible Origin.” In Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin, edited by Robert Schnucker, 77–92. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1988. Kilby, Karen. “Is an apophatic trinitarianism possible?” IJST 12, no. 1 (2010): 65–77. Kim, Sung-Sup. Deus Providebit: Calvin, Schleiermacher, and Barth on the Providence of God. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2014. Kirby, W.J. Torrance. “Stoic and Epicurean? Calvin’s Dialectical Account of Providence in the Institutes.” IJST 5, no. 3 (2003): 309–22. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. “Calvin’s Exegetical Principles.” Translated by Keaith Crim. Interpretation 31, no. 1 (1977): 8–18. Kroeker, Greta Grace. Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul: A Pauline Theologian. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011. Lane, Anthony N.S. “Calvin’s Use of the Fathers and the Medievals.” CTJ 16, no. 2 (1981): 149–205. –. John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Lavater, Hans. “Calvin, Farel, and the Anabaptists: on the origins of the Briève Instruction of 1544.” Translated by John Roth. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 88, no. 3 (2014): 323–64. Leder, Arie C., and Richard A. Muller, ed. Biblical Interpretation and Doctrinal Formulation in the Reformed Tradition. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014. Lee, Daniel Y.K. The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2011.

219

220

Bibliography

Levering, Matthew. Engaging the Doctrine of Creation: Cosmos, Creatures, and the Wise and Good Creator. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, (forthcoming) 2017. Link, Christian. Schöpfung: Ein theologischer Enwurf im Gegenüber von Naturwissenschaft und Ökologie. Düsseldorf: Neukirchener Theologie, 2012. Linzey, Andrew. Animal Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000. –. Animal Theology. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1995. –. Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology, and Practical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Louth, Andrew, Marco Conti, and Thomas C. Oden, ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Old Testament I: Genesis 1–11. Downers Grove: IVP, 2001. Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. American Edition. 55 vol. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman. Philadelphia: Muehlenberg and Fortress, and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–1986. MacDonald, Nathan, Mark Elliott and Grant Macaskill, ed. Genesis and Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Malet, Nicole. Dieu selon Calvin: des mots à la doctrine. Lausanne: Editions L’age d’homme, 1977. Marcel, Pierre. “Calvin and Copernicus.” Philosophia Reformata, no. 1, SaintGermain-en-Laye: [Soc. calviniste de France], 1980. May, Gerhard. Creatio Ex Nihilo. The Doctrine of “Creation out of Nothing” in Early Christian Thought. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. McFague, Sallie. The Body of God: An Ecological Theory. London: SCM Press, 1993. McFarland, Ian. From Nothing: A Theology of Creation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014. –. “Present in Love: Rethinking Barth on the Divine Perfections.” MT 33, no. 1 (2017). doi: 10.1111/moth.12313. McGrath, Alister E. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. McKee, Elsie Anne. The Pastoral Ministry and Worship in Calvin’s Geneva. Genève: Librarie Droz S. A., 2016. McKim, Donald K., ed. A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. –. ed. Calvin and the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. –. ed. The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin. Cambridge Companions to Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. McNair, Bruce G. “Luther, Calvin and the Exegetical Tradition of Melchisedec.” Review & Expositor 101, no. 4 (2004): 747–61.

Other Sources

Melanchthon, W. Jacobus. Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Book of Genesis. Vol. 1. R. Carter & Brothers, 1866. Melanchthon, Philip. The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon. Translated by Charles Leander Hill. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1944. Merkle, Benjamin R. Defending the Trinity in the Reformed Palatinate: The Elohistae. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Merrill, Eugene. “Rashi, Nicholas de Lyra, and Christian exegesis.” WTJ 38, no. 1 (1975): 66–79. Milbank, John. Beyond Secular Order: The Representation of Being and the Representation of the People. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014. Millet, Olivier. Calvin et la dynamique de la parole: étude de rhétorique réformée. Genève: Editions Slatkine, 1992. –. “Calvin, Homme de Parole, Interprète de la Bible et écrivain.” La Revue Réformée 61, no. 5 (2010): 37–56. –. “Calvin orateur, auteur, ecrivain.” In Calvin Naissance d’une pensée, edited by Jacques Varet, 123–34. Tours: Presses universitaires François-Rabelais de Tours, 2012. –. Calvin: un homme, une oeuvre, un auteur. Gollion: Infolio éditions, 2008. –. “Doctrine réformatrice et pratique humaniste de la consolation chez Calvin.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 157, no. 3 (2011): 309–30. –. “Exégèse évangélique et culture littéraire humaniste: Entre Luther et Bèze, l’Abraham sacrifiant selon Calvin.” Études théologigiques et religieuses 69, no. 3 (1994): 367–80. –. “L’iconoclasme et la réforme.” Foi et vie 100, no. 1 (2001): 77–81. –. “La philosophie et les philosophes dans les sermons de Calvin.” Théologie et Philosophie en Prédication: de Thomas d’Aquin à Jean Calvin. Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 98, no. 3 (2014): 581–97. Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation. London: SCM, 2000. Muller, Richard A. Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2012. –. “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom.” In Bible in the Sixteenth Century, 68–82. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990. –. “A Note on ‘Christocentrism’ and the Imprudent Use of Such Terminology.” WTJ 68, no. 2 (2006): 253–60. –. “Not Scotist: understandings of being, univocity, and analogy in early-modern Reformed thought.” RRR 14, no. 2 (2012): 127–50. –. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725. 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

221

222

Bibliography

–. “The Placement of Predestination in Reformed Theology: Issue or NonIssue?” CTJ 40, no. 2 (2005): 184–210. –. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Muller, Richard A. and John L. Thompson, ed. Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Murphy, Francesca Aran, and Philip G. Ziegler, ed. The Providence of God: Deus Habet Consilium. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Murray, John. Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. –. “Calvin’s Doctrine of Creation.” WTJ 17, no. 1 (1954): 21–44. Niesel, Wilhelm H. The Theology of Calvin. London: Lutterworth, 1956. Neuser, Wilhelm H., ed. Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor: Die Referate des Congres International de Recherches Calviniennes ... vom 25. bis 28. September 1978 in Amsterdam. Kampen: Kok, 1980. –. ed. Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos: Die Referate des Congres International des Recherches Calviniennes ... vom 6. bis 9. September 1982 in Genf. Frankfurt: Lang, 1984. –. ed. Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor = Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scriptures: Die Referate Des Congrès International Des Recherches Calviniennes, International Congress on Calvin Research, Internationalen Kongresses Für Calvinforschung, Vom 20. Bis 23. August 1990 in Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. –. ed. Calvinus Servus Christi: Die Referate des Congres International des Recherches Calviniennes ... vom 25. bis 28. August 1986 in Debrecen. Budapest: Presseabteilung des Raday-Kollegiums, 1988. –. The Theology of Calvin. Translated by Harold Knight. London: Lutterworth, 1956. Neuser, Wilhelm H. and Brian G. Armstrong, ed. Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex = Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies. Volume 36. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997. Oberman, Heiko. The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. –. “The Pursuit of Happiness: Calvin between Humanism and Reformation.” In Calvin as Exegete, 19–58. Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1995. –. “Some notes on the Theology of Nominalism: with attention to its relation to the Renaissance.” Harvard Theological Review 53, no. 1 (1960): 47–76. Oecolampadius, Johann. An Exposition of Genesis. Translated by Mickey Mattox. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2013.

Other Sources

Oliver, Simon. “Augustine on Creation, Providence and Motion.” IJST 18, no. 4 (2016): 379–98. –. and John Milbank. The Radical Orthodoxy Reader. London: Routledge, 2009. Ong, Meng-Chai. John Calvin on Providence the locus classicus in Context. PhD Thesis: Kings College London, 2003. Opitz, Peter. ‘Calvin as Bible Translator: From the Model of the Hebrew Psalter.’ In Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, 9–26. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. 3 vol. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Parker, T.H.L. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. –. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. –. Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. –. Calvin’s Preaching. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992. –. John Calvin: A Biography. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975. –. Portrait of Calvin. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1954. –. Supplementa Calviniana: An Account of the Manuscripts of Calvin’s Sermons Now in Course of Preparation. London: Tyndale Press, 1962. Partee, Charles. Calvin and Classical Philosophy. Studies in the History of Christian Thought. Vol. 14. Leiden: Brill, 1977. –. The Theology of John Calvin. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Payer, Pierre J. The Bridling of Desire: Views of Sex in the Later Middle Ages. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. Pitkin, Barbara. “John Calvin and the Interpretation of the Bible.” In History of Biblical Interpretation volume 2: The Medieval through the Reformation Periods, edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, 341–71. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. “Nothing But Concupiscence: Calvin’s Understanding of Sin and the Via Augustini.” CTJ 34, no. 2 (1999): 347–69. –. “Seeing and Believing in the Commentaries on John by Martin Bucer and John Calvin.” Church History 68, no. 4 (1999): 865. –. What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvin’s Doctrine of Faith in Its Exegetical Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pouey-Mounou, Anne Pascale and Bénédicte Boudou. Calvin et l’humanisme: Actes du symposium d’Amiens et Lille III (25–26 Novembre 2009). Geneva: Droz, 2012. Poythress, Vern. “A Misunderstanding of Calvin’s Interpretation of Genesis 1:6–8 and 1:5 and its Implications for Ideas of Accommodation.” WTJ 76 (2014): 157–66. Prins, Richard. “The Image of God in Adam and the Restoration of Man in Jesus Christ: A Study in Calvin.” SJT 25, no. 1 (1972): 32–44.

223

224

Bibliography

Pryor, C. Scott. “God’s Bridle: John Calvin’s Application of Natural Law.” Journal of Law and Religion 22, no. 1 (2006): 225–54. Puckett, David Lee. John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Quistorp, Heinrich. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Last Things. Translated by Harold Knight. London: Lutterworth Press, 1955. Ratner, Joseph. “Some comments on Rosen’s ’Calvin’s attitude toward Copernicus,” Journal of the History of Ideas 22 (1961): 382–85. Ratzinger, Joseph. “In the Beginning…” A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and Fall. Translated by Boniface Ramsey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Reno, R.R. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2010. Rogers, Jack and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: an Historical Approach. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979. Rosen, Edward. “Calvin’s Attitude Towards Copernicus,” Journal of the History of Ideas, no. 3 (1960): 431–41. –. “Calvin n’a pas lu Copernic,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 182, no. 1 (1972): 183–85. –. “A Reply to Dr. Ratner,” Journal of the History of Ideas 22 (1961): 386–88 Saebø, Magne, ed. Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation: Volume II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Göttenburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Sanchez, Michelle Chaplin. Providence: From Pronoia to Immanent Affirmation in John Calvin’s Institutes of 1559. PhD thesis. Harvard Divinity, 2016. Scheffczyk, Leo. Creation and Providence. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970. Schnucker, Robert ed. Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1988. Schreiner, Susan E. “Exegesis and Double Justice in Calvin’s Sermons on Job.” Church History 58, no. 3 (1989): 322–38. –. The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1995. –. “‘Through a Mirror Dimly’: Calvin’s Sermons on Job.” CTJ 21, no. 2 (1986): 175–93. –. Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?: Calvin’s Exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Schwanke, Johannes. Creatio Ex Nihilo: Luthers Lehre von Der Schöpfung Aus Dem Nichts in Der Großen Genesisvorlesung (1535–1545). Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. –. “Martin Luther’s Theology of Creation.” IJST 18, no. 4 (2016): 399–413. Selderhuis, Herman J., ed. Calvin – Saint or Sinner? Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

Other Sources

–. Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms: Texts and Studies in Reformation and PostReformation Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. –. ed. Calvinus Sacrarum Literarum Interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. –. ed. Calvinus Clarissimus Theologus: Papers of the Tenth International Congress on Calvin Research. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. –. ed. Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Princeton, August 20-24, 2002. Geneva: Droz, 2004. –. John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009. Selderhuis, Herman J. and Arnold Huijgen, ed. Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae: Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Selderhuis, Herman J. and Henry J. Baron, ed. The Calvin Handbook. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Sherrard, Joseph. “The Way Down is Up: Charles Taylor, John Calvin, and Sacramental Worship in ‘A Secular Age’,” Bulletin of Ecclesial Theology 3, no. 1 (2016): 115–28. Smith, James K.A. Awaiting the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, (forthcoming) 2017. –. Desiring the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. –. Imagining the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. –. Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition: Creation, Covenant, and Participation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Smits, Luchesius A.H. Saint Augustin dans l’Oeuvre de Jean Calvin. Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis. Dissertationes Ad Gradum Magistri in Facultate Theologica Vel in Facultate Iuris Canonici Consequendum Conscriptae, Series 3, t. 4, pars 1–2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1956. Sokolowski, Robert. The God of Faith and Reason. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982. Sonderegger, Katherine. Systematic Theology: Volume 1, The Doctrine of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. Soskice, Janet M. “Athens and Jerusalem, Alexandria and Edessa: Is there a metaphysics of Scripture?” IJST 8, no. 2 (2006): 149–62. –. “Creation and the Glory of Creatures,” MT 29, no. 2 (2013): 172–85. –. ed. “Creation ‘Ex Nihilo’ and Modern Theology.” MT 29, no. 2 (2013). Stauffer, Richard. “Calvin et Copernic.” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 179, no. 1 (1971): 31–40. –. Dieu, La Création et La Providence Dans La Prédication de Calvin. Basler Und Berner Studien Zur Historischen Und Systematischen Theologie, Bd.33. Berne: Peter Lang, 1978.

225

226

Bibliography

–. “L’exegese de Genese 1, 1–3 chez Luther et Calvin.” In In principio: interpretations des premiers versets de la Genèse, 245–66. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1973. –. “Histoire et théologie de la réforme.” In Problèmes et méthodes d’histoire des religions: melanges publiés à l’occasion du centenaire de l’Ecole practique, 261–69. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1968. –. L’humanité de Calvin. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1964. –. Interprètes de la bible: études sur les réformateurs du XVIe siècle. Paris: éditions Beauchesne, 1980. –. “Johannes Calvin.” In Reformationszeit 2, 211–40. Stuttgart, West Germany: Verlag W Kohlhammer, 1981. –. “Quelques aspects insolites de la theologie du premier article dans la predication de Calvin.” In Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor, 47–68. Kampen: Kok, 1980. –. “La reponse de M. Edward Rosen a notre article ‘Calvin et Copernic’,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 182, no. 1 (1971): 185–86. –. “Les sermons inédits de Calvin sur le livre de la Genèse.” Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 15, no. 3(1965): 26–36. Steinmetz, David C. The Bible in the Sixteenth Century. Durham: Duke University Press, 1980. –. “Calvin and Abraham: the interpretation of Romans 4 in the sixteenth century.” Church History 57, no. 4 (1988): 443–55. –. “Calvin and his Lutheran Critics.” Lutheran Quarterly 4, no. 2 (1990): 179–94. –. “Calvin and the Absolute Power of God.” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988): 65–79. –. “Calvin and the Irrepressible Spirit,” Ex Auditu 12 (1996): 94–107. –. “Calvin as an Interpreter of Genesis.” In Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, 53–66. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Pubishers, 1997. –. “Calvin as Biblical Interpreter among the Ancient Philosophers.” Interpretation 63, no. 2 (2009): 142–53. –. Calvin in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. –. “Doing History as Theologians.” CTJ 50, no. 2 (2015): 174–80. –. “Heiko Oberman and John Calvin.” CTJ 41, no. 2 (2006): 347–52. Tanner, Kathryn. Christ the Key. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. –. “Creation and Providence.” In Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, edited by John B. Webster, 111–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. –. “Creation Ex Nihilo as Mixed Metaphor.” MT 29, no. 2 (2013): 138–55. –. God and Creation in Christian Theology: Tyranny or Empowerment? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. Thomas, Derek W.H. Proclaiming the Incomprehensible God: Calvin’s Teaching on Job. Fearn: Mentor, 2004.

Other Sources

Thompson, John L. “Calvin as Biblical Interpreter.” In The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, edited by Donald K. McKim, 58–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. –. “Hagar, Victim or Villain? Three Sixteenth-Century Views.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59, no. 2 (1997): 213–33. –. ed. Reformation Commentary on Scripture Old Testament I: Genesis 1–11. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012. Thompson, Mark, ed. Engaging with Calvin: Aspects of the Reformer’s Legacy for Today. Nottingham: Apollos, 2009. Torrance, T.F. Calvin’s Doctrine of Man. London: Lutterworth: 1949. –. “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity.” CTJ 25, no. 2 (1990): 165–93. –. Divine and Contingent Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. –. The Hermeneutics of John Calvin. Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 5. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988. –. Space, Time and Incarnation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Van der Kooi, Cornelius. As in a Mirror John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God: A Diptych. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Vol. 120. Translated by Donald Mader. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. “Calvin’s Theology of Creation and Providence: God’s Care and Human Fragility.” IJST 18, no. 1 (2016): 47–64. –. “Within Proper Limits: Basic Features of John Calvin’s Theological Epistemology.” CTJ 29, no. 2 (1994): 364–87. Van der Merwe, N.T. “On the trail of John Calvin’s Philosophy of Language: A few notes on his Commentary on Genesis 10 and 11.” In Ad fontes: teologiese, historiese en wetenskaps-filosofiese studies binne reformatoriese kader: Festschrift vir Ludie F. Schulze, ed. Victor E. d’Assonville. Bloemfontein: Redaksiekantoor van die Universiteit van die Vrystaat, 2004. Van Driel, Edwin Chr. “‘Too Lowly to Reach God Without a Mediator’: John Calvin’s Supralapsarian Eschatological Narrative.” MT 33, no.1 (2017). doi: 10.1111/moth.12314. Van Rooy, H. “Calvin’s Genesis Commentary - Which Bible Text Did He Use.” In Our Reformational Tradition, 203–16. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 1984. Van’t Spijker, W. ed. Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag: Festschrift für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65. Geburtstag, 130–37. Kampen: Kok, 1991. Van Veen, Mirjam. “‘Supporters of the Devil’: Calvin’s Image of the Libertines.” CTJ 40, no. 1 (2005): 21–32. Verhey, Allen. “Calvin’s Treatise Against the Libertines.” Translated by Robert G. Wilkie and Allen Verhey. CTJ 15, no. 2 (1980): 190–219.

227

228

Bibliography

Vorster, Nicolaas. “Calvin on the Created Structure of Human Nature: The Influence of his Anthropology on his Theology.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 151, no. 1 (2015): 162–81. Warfield, B.B. Calvin and Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1931. –. Calvin as a Theologian and Calvinism Today: Three Addresses in Commemoration of the Four-Hundredth Anniversary of the Birth of John Calvin (10th July 1509). Edinburgh: Hope Trust, 1909. –. “Calvin’s Doctrine of God.” The Princeton Theological Review, 13 (1915): 190–255. Webb, Stephen. On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Webster, John B. “Creation out of Nothing.” In Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, edited by Michael Allen and Scott Swain, 126–47. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. –. The Domain of the Word. London: Blomsbury T&T Clark, 2012. –. God without Measure I. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. –. God without Measure II. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. –. “‘Love is also a lover of life’: creatio ex nihilo and creaturely goodness.” MT 29, no. 2 (2013): 156–71. –. “On the Theology of Providence.” In The Providence of God, edited by Francesca Aran Murphy and Philip G. Ziegler, 158 – 75. London: T&T Clark, 2009. –. “Providence.” In Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, edited by Michael Allen and Scott Swain, 148–64. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. –. “Trinity and Creation.” IJST 12, no. 1 (2010): 4–19. Wells, P.R. James Barr and the Bible: Critique of a New Liberalism. Phillipsburg: P & R, 1980. Wendel, Francois. Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought. Translated by Philip Mairét. London: Harper and Row, 1963. Wesselius, Jan-Wim. “Calvijn en Abraham.” In Het calvinistisch ongemak: Calvijn als erflater en provocator van het Nederlandse protestantisme, edited by Rinse Reeling Brouwer et. al., 51–56. Kampen: Kok, 2009. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. London: SPCK, 1984. White, Robert. “Calvin and Copernicus: The Problem Reconsidered.” CTJ 15, no. 2 (1980): 233–43. Whitford, David M. “Erasmus Openeth the Way Before Luther: Revisiting Humanism’s Influence on The Ninety-Five Theses and the Early Luther.” Church History and Religious Culture 96, no. 4 (2016): 516–40.

Other Sources

Williams, Rowan. “Language, Reality and Desire in Augustine’s De doctrina.” Literature and Theology 3, no. 2 (1989): 138–50. doi: 10.1093/litthe/3.2.138 –. On Christian Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. Wilterdink, Garret A. Tyrant or Father? A Study of Calvin’s Doctrine of God, 2 vol. Bristol: Wyndham Hall Press, 1985. Wright, David F., Anthony N.S. Lane, and Jon Balserak, ed. Calvinus Evangelii Propugnator: Calvin, Champion of the Gospel: Papers Presented at the International Congress on Calvin Research, Seoul, 1998. International Congress on Calvin Research 7. Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 2006. Wyatt, Peter. Jesus Christ and Creation in the Theology of John Calvin. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1996. Young, Davis A. John Calvin and the Natural World. Lanham: University Press of America, 2007. Zachman, Randall C. “Calvin as Commentator on Genesis.” In Calvin and the Bible, edited by Donald K. McKim, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. –. “‘Do You Understand What You Are Reading?’ Calvin’s Guidance for the Reading of Scripture.” SJT 54, no. 1 (2001): 1–20. –. “Gathering meaning from the context: Calvin’s exegetical method.” The Journal of Religion 82, no. 1 (2002): 1–26. –. Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2007. –. John Calvin as Teacher, Pastor, and Theologian: The Shape of His Writings and Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. –. Reconsidering John Calvin. Current Issues in Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

229