Divinity Compromised: A Study of Divine Accommodation in the Thought of John Calvin (Studies in Early Modern Religious Tradition, Culture and Society, 5) 1402050550, 9781402050558

Citation preview

S T U D I E S I N E A R LY M O D E R N R E L I G I O U S R E F O R M S

Divinity Compromised A Study of Divine Accommodation in the Thought of John Calvin

Jon Balserak

DIVINITY COMPROMISED

DIVINITY COMPROMISED A STUDY OF DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE THOUGHT OF JOHN CALVIN

by

JON BALSERAK

STUDIES IN EARLY MODERN RELIGIOUS REFORMS VOLUME 5

Editor Irena Backus, University of Geneva Board of Consulting Editors Michael J.B. Allen, University of California at Los Angeles Guy Bedouelle, Université de Fribourg Emidio Campi, University of Zürich Bernard Cottret, Université de Paris-Versailles Denis Crouzet, Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne Luc Deitz, Bibliothèque nationale de Luxembourg Paul Grendler, (Emeritus) University of Toronto Susan C. Karant-Nunn, University of Arizona, Tucson Ralph Keen, University of Iowa Maria-Cristina Pitassi, University of Geneva Herman J. Selderhuis, Theological University Apeldoorn David Steinmetz, Duke University, Durham, NC Christoph Strohm, Ruhr Universität Bochum John L. Thompson, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena Mark Vessey, The University of British Columbia Lee Palmer Wandel, University of Wisconsin-Madison David F. Wright, The University of Edinburgh

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN-10 ISBN-13 ISBN-10 ISBN-13

1-4020-5055-0 (HB) 978-1-4020-5055-8 (HB) 1-4020-5056-9 (e-book) 978-1-4020-5056-5 (e-book)

Published by Springer, P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www.springer.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2006 Springer No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed and bound in the Netherlands.

CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................................................ ix

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1. Assessing the Progress of Research Since 1952 ................................................. 1 2. The Contents of this Study ................................................................................ 10

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN ................. 13 1. Accommodation in Christian Tradition............................................................. 13 2. Calvin and the Tradition; A Preliminary Sketch of Calvin’s Thought on the Motif ....................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Texts Touching on Contact Between God and the World ............................ 21 2.1.1 Joel 3: 4-5.............................................................................................. 21 2.1.2 Shewbread ............................................................................................. 22 2.1.3 Zephaniah 3: 16-17 ............................................................................... 24 2.2 Angels: Psalm 91: 11, 12 and Psalm 34: 7 .................................................... 25 2.3 Divine Promises: Hosea 2: 19-22 .................................................................. 27 2.4 OT case laws: Exodus 21: 7-11 ..................................................................... 29 2.5 Summary........................................................................................................ 32

HUMAN CAPTUS .................................................................................................... 35 1. Human Nature in Calvin.................................................................................... 35 1.1 Historical Background ................................................................................... 35 1.2 Calvin Studies and Calvin ............................................................................. 36 1.3 Sin and the ‘totus homo’................................................................................ 38 2. Human Captus in Calvin’s Thought in Relation to Accommodation............... 40 2.1 Assessing Opinion on this Issue..................................................................... 40

v

vi

CONTENTS

2.1.1 Edward Dowey’s Contribution ............................................................. 40 2.1.2 E. David Willis’ Contribution............................................................... 41 2.1.3 David Wright’s Contribution ................................................................ 41 2.1.4 Summary ............................................................................................... 42 2.2 Human Capacity: A Survey of its Various Senses......................................... 42 2.2.1 General References to Human Capacity............................................... 43 2.2.2 The Human Condition .......................................................................... 44 2.2.3 The Question of Sin and its Relation to Human Capacity.................... 46 2.2.4 Mental Weakness Respecting the Knowledge of God and Spiritual Matters............................................................................. 47 2.2.5 Fear, Grief and Doubt ........................................................................... 49 2.2.6 Lack of Restraint, Inappropriate Desires and Imperfection ................. 50 2.2.7 Sluggishness, Willfulness, and Hypocrisy ........................................... 51 2.2.8 Barbarity ............................................................................................... 53 2.3 The Various Senses Reviewed ....................................................................... 54 3. Analyzing Calvin’s Teaching on Human Captus: the Recipients of Accommodation............................................................................................ 54 3.1 Human Beings as Creatures ........................................................................... 55 3.2 Human Beings as Sinners............................................................................... 55 3.3 Israel as Primitive Nation............................................................................... 56 3.4 Human Beings as Either the Wicked or the Godly ........................................ 56 4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 57

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS.................... 59 1. God’s Accommodating According to Calvin ................................................... 59 1.1 When God Instructs........................................................................................ 59 1.1.1 God Reveals Himself Through his Works............................................ 60 1.1.2 God Speaks ........................................................................................... 60 1.1.3 God Discloses Himself in Christ .......................................................... 64 1.1.4 God’s Unaccommodated Revelation to his People in Glory................ 66 1.2 When God Legislates and Commands ........................................................... 67 1.2.1 God’s Moral Law.................................................................................. 67 1.2.2 God’s Old Testament Case Laws ......................................................... 70 1.2.3 God’s ad hoc Commands Given to Israel............................................. 71 1.2.4 God’s Rewarding of Obedience ........................................................... 73 1.2.5 The Duration of these Forms of Accommodation ................................ 75 1.3 When God Sanctions Religious Rites and Practices, and Receives the Worship of his People .............................................................................. 76 1.3.1 God’s Accommodating of the Practices Sanctioned in Worship.......... 76 1.3.2 God’s Accommodating of the Reception of Worship .......................... 81 1.3.3 The End of Accommodated Worship ................................................... 83 1.4 When God Pastors his Flock .......................................................................... 83 1.4.1 God Cares for, Leads, and Protects his People ..................................... 84 1.4.2 God Employs Angels ............................................................................ 85 1.4.3 God Rouses, Threatens, Tests, and Chastens........................................ 87

CONTENTS

vii

1.5 When God Comes to Earth............................................................................. 91 1.6 When God Covenants..................................................................................... 93 2. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 96 2.1 Reviewing the Chapter ................................................................................... 96 2.2 Assessing Findings up to this Point ............................................................... 97

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING—IMAGES OF GOD IN CALVIN’S HANDLING OF ACCOMMODATION ......................................... 99 1. An Introduction to Calvin’s Statements on God’s Reasons for Accommodating .......................................................................................... 99 1.1 Reference to a Motive .................................................................................. 101 1.2 Reference to a Cause .................................................................................... 102 1.3 Reference to a Purpose................................................................................. 102 1.4 Reference to a Contingency with Which God Must Deal............................ 103 2. Earlier Portraits of Calvin’s Accommodating God......................................... 104 3. Images of Calvin’s Accommodating God ...................................................... 106 3.1 Transcendent and Incomprehensible; Good and Loving ............................. 106 3.2 Practical and Productive............................................................................... 110 3.3 Expedient, Pragmatic ................................................................................... 113 3.4 Unprincipled, Desperate............................................................................... 117 3.5 Anxious, Obsessive ...................................................................................... 124 3.6 Tender, Tolerant, Enslaved .......................................................................... 130 4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 136

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON THE POWER OF GOD .................................................................................................................. 137 1. Calvin and the Potentia Absoluta/Ordinata Distinction................................. 137 1.1 A Brief History of the Distinction................................................................ 137 1.2 Calvin and the Distinction............................................................................ 141 1.2.1 Calvin and the Absolute Power of God—Traditional......................... 145 1.2.2 Calvin and the Absolute Power of God—Scotistic............................. 146 1.2.3 On the Joining of these Two Viewpoints............................................ 149 1.2.4 Summary ............................................................................................. 150 2. Accommodation and the Potentia Ordinata in Calvin ................................... 150 2.1 The Created Order........................................................................................ 151 2.2 The Order of Salvation................................................................................. 155 2.2.1 Instruments, Angels and Baptism........................................................ 155 2.2.2 The Law ............................................................................................... 157 2.2.3 God’s Providential Care ...................................................................... 158 2.2.4 Other Loci: The Incarnation and Atonement....................................... 161 2.2.5 Summary.............................................................................................. 161 3. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 162

viii

CONTENTS

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION..................................................... 163 1. Scripture, Meaning and Truth ......................................................................... 163 2. Scripture, Meaning and Application ............................................................... 168 2.1 Examples of Calvin’s Treating of Divine Injunctions ................................. 169 2.1.1 Deuteronomy 21: 10-13....................................................................... 169 2.1.2 Deuteronomy 20: 12-15....................................................................... 170 2.1.3 Deuteronomy 20: 16-18....................................................................... 171 2.1.4 Exodus 21: 12, 18 ................................................................................ 171 2.1.5 Matthew 19: 7-8................................................................................... 171 2.1.6 Deuteronomy 22: 22-27....................................................................... 173 2.1.7 Leviticus 18:22-30 and Exodus 22: 19................................................ 174 2.1.8 Exodus 21: 1-11................................................................................... 175 2.1.9 Summarizing Calvin’s Practice ........................................................... 176 2.2 Assessing Calvin’s Treatment of the Law ................................................... 177 2.2.1 Gauging Calvin’s Reception of the Law ............................................. 177 2.2.2 Questioning Calvin’s Practice ............................................................. 177 2.2.3 Examining Calvin’s Method................................................................ 178 3. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 183

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ........................................................................... 185 1. Summary ......................................................................................................... 185 2. Some Thoughts on Accommodation and Calvin’s Doctrine of God.............. 187 3. Future Topics for Research............................................................................. 190

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 193 1. Abbreviations .................................................................................................. 193 2. Bibliography.................................................................................................... 193 2.1 Calvin’s Works............................................................................................. 193 2.2 Translations of Calvin’s Works ................................................................... 194 2.3 Patristic, Medieval and Reformation Works................................................ 195 2.4 Secondary Works [selected]......................................................................... 197

INDEX OF CALVIN’S WORKS ........................................................................... 207 INDEX OF PERSONS ............................................................................................ 213

PREFACE

Divine accommodation in John Calvin’s thought has yet to receive the attention it deserves. To date it has not been the subject of a monograph-length treatment in any language (this study is the first) and the number of journal articles and book chapters devoted solely to it is small. The present work will, it is hoped, help to fill this lacuna in research on the topic, but additional research is undoubtedly still needed. Its title probably deserves a comment. The use of the word compromised is intended to raise the question of the extent of accommodation’s penetration into Calvin’s doctrine of God. It aims to suggest the idea that Calvin’s thinking on accommodation might possess qualities which push against traditional thinking on the divine attributes. The idea was first suggested by E. David Willis. The present study will aim to expand upon it. This monograph owes much to the efforts of Emeritus Professor of Patristic and Reformed Christianity, David F. Wright, who, as supervisor, colleague and friend, has offered assistance to me on innumerable occasions and has also demonstrated a level of scholarly excellence in his own work that has been enormously instructive and encouraging. Thanks are also due to a host of others. Thanks must be expressed to Professor Tony Lane, who offered very helpful criticisms of two earlier versions of this work and whose kindness has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. Thanks are also due to Buccleuch and Greyfriars Free Church of Scotland, whose love has been a regular source of strength (particularly Alex MacDonald and Bob Akroyd); to the theology department of the University of Birmingham (particularly Professor David Parker and Dr Philip Burton, whose friendship and counsel have been extremely helpful to me); to New Hope, P.C.A. (Fairfax, Virginia, U.S.A.); to my family (to whom I owe a huge debt of gratitude in so many ways); to Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III and Dr. W. Duncan Rankin (both of whom were enormously kind to me during my time in Mississippi), and to Dr Charles R. Vogan Jr. My wife has been the most wonderful friend, encouragement, teacher and companion to me; it is to her that this study is dedicated. If I can achieve in my lifetime what she has already achieved, I will be happy.

ix

x

PREFACE

This work contains shortcomings which are, unfortunately, all too apparent. Nonetheless it is an honest attempt to grapple with a concept in Calvin which is worth coming to terms with. May it serve the scholarly community of those who study the Reformation and Calvin, Christians and any who have an interest in the Genevan’s writings, and ultimately the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. J.B. Edinburgh, Scotland 21 February 2006 (the feast day of Saint Paterius)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The present work is a study of divine accommodation in the thought of John Calvin.1 It aims to analyze the character of Calvin’s thought on accommodation, to give an account of the ways in which it expresses itself in his writings, to probe how it penetrates his thought and doctrine of God, and to relate, to some degree, Calvin’s treatment of accommodation to that found in his predecessors and contemporaries. Although accommodation expresses itself throughout the reformer’s corpus—his Old and New Testament commentaries, lectures, sermons, tracts, treatises and, of course, the Institutes—the majority of citations found below will come from Calvin’s expositions of the Hebrew scriptures, because that is where accommodation is most often discussed by him. As this is not the first study of divine accommodation in Calvin’s theology, it seems appropriate that we begin by considering the scholarly work produced on this theme in the reformer up to this point.2 1. ASSESSING THE PROGRESS OF RESEARCH SINCE 1952 In the middle of the twentieth century a fourteen-page treatment of divine accommodation appeared in the introductory portion of Edward Dowey’s The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology. It is extremely unlikely that anyone realized at the time how significant it was. It was arguably the first treatment of this important motif within Calviniana, and the first of several perspectives on Calvin’s thinking on accommodation to arise during that century.3 Influenced, it seems likely, 1 For a broader consideration of divine accommodation in Christian thought, see K. Duchatelez, ‘La “Condescendance” divine et l’histoire du salut,’ Nouvelle revue théologique 95 (1973), 593-621; Stephen Benin, The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993). 2 The present study is a significantly-revised version of the author’s Ph.D. thesis, ‘“Deus humanitus saepe cum suis agere solet:” An Analysis of Divine Accommodation in the Thought of John Calvin’ (unpublished thesis, University of Edinburgh, December 2002). This work of revision has sought to sharpen analysis of the topic and expand its coverage with the addition of chapters seven and eight. Revision of the current chapter has resulted in the inclusion of Hedtke’s work, which did not feature in the thesis. For penetrating discussion of scholarly literature on accommodation in Calvin, see, David F. Wright, ‘Calvin’s “Accommodation” Revisited,’ in Calvin as Exegete: Papers and Responses Presented at the Ninth Colloquium on Calvin and Calvin Studies, ed. Peter De Klerk (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1995), 171-190. 3 Edward Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), 3-17. Though accommodation is mentioned in the modern period in relation to Calvin as early as 1849 by Thomas Myers (John Calvin, CTS Ezekiel, 2, 448-51), Dowey’s fourteen-page treatment is the

1

2

CHAPTER 1

by nineteenth and twentieth century dogmatics, Dowey presented an interpretation of accommodation which reflected the theological milieu of his day.4 Accommodation was, he argued, fundamentally related to the concept of knowledge (which Calvin’s theology ‘exalts’5), and specifically to the cognitio Dei. It helped explain how Calvin’s incomprehensible God could be known. More to the point, it explained how this God could reveal himself to his crude and mentally-feeble people; namely, by accommodating the knowledge of himself to their capacity. Dowey’s definition of the theme brings this out nicely: ‘[t]he term accommodation refers to the process by which God reduces or adjusts to human capacities what he wills to reveal of the infinite mysteries of his being, which by their very nature are beyond the powers of the mind of man to grasp.’6 In expounding this definition, Dowey added precision to it by carefully differentiating between accommodation to human finitude (what he called ‘essential’ limitations of human nature) and to human sinfulness (‘accidental’ limitations).7 This division became the structure for his treatment of the concept. Within that treatment, Dowey focused in the first section upon that knowledge of God which is learned from God’s works, and in the second upon the knowledge of God the Redeemer; thus reflecting Dowey’s indebtedness to the Institutes. With this pioneering treatment, the Princetonian not only introduced his now-classic interpretation of the knowledge of God in Calvin, but also helped the nascent study of accommodation in the reformer to take its first steps. Before introducing the second perspective, attention should be paid to the 1969 work of Reinhold Hedtke, Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin,8 which in some ways adumbrated it. Hedtke addressed accommodation in two sections, one on pedagogy (33-39) and the other preaching (106-114).9 Under the first of these, he noted the terms Calvin employs to refer to accommodation (accommodare and first extended discussion. Whether he should be credited with the discovery of accommodation in Calvin is perhaps open to question. Both Ford Lewis Battles and Richard Stauffer in 1977 and 1978 respectively seem to claim this honor for themselves. Both Battles’ and Stauffer’s studies will be discussed later in this chapter. The truth is that the tribute could go to several authors. See Paul Lobstein, ‘La Connaissance religieuse d’après Calvin. Étude d’Histoire et de Dogmatique,’ Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 42 (1909), 53-110 (we have been unable to see a copy of Lobstein’s essay and mention it on the basis of it’s appearance in Dowey); Rev. A. Mitchell Hunter, The Teaching of Calvin; A Modern Interpretation (Glascow: Maclehose, Jackson and Co., 1920), 48, no. 2; and Arnold Williams, The Common Expositor; An Account of the Commentaries on Genesis, 1527-1633 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1948), 176-177—nonetheless, Dowey’s, as was said, is the first extended discussion of the motif. 4 See Richard Muller ‘Directions in Current Calvin Research,’ in Calvin Studies IX: Papers Presented at the ninth Colloquium on Calvin Studies, January 30-31, 1998, ed. John Leith and Robert Johnson (Davidson, NC: Calvin Studies Society, 1998), 84. 5 Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 3. 6 Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 3. 7 Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 4. 8 Reinhold Hedtke, Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1969). Thanks are due to Dr Josef Boehle for help with the German. 9 Hedtke, Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin, 33-39, 106-114 (the endnotes for these sections appear on 170-74 and 203-206 respectively).

INTRODUCTION

3

attemperare) and to human capacity (ad captum, ad modulum nostrum, infirmitas, ruditas, imbecillitas and tenuitas). He also discussed the ideas, such as anthropomorphism, the will of God, sacraments, and the Incarnation, with which Calvin associates God’s accommodating. Following this, he, in a manner similar to what one finds in Dowey, Battles and others, commented on the important place accommodation holds in the reformer’s theology, declaring that the accommodation of God and the weakness and capacity of the people is the expression (Ausdruck) and centre (Zentrum) of God’s acting in salvation.10 This lead Hedtke to make several remarks on the consequences of this idea and on the nature of this divine pedagogy, including the nice observation that God is the supreme and only doctor (summus et unicus doctor) of the church (a quotation he drew from Calvin’s lectures on Micah).11 This was followed by discussion of the corresponding notions of the schola Dei, discipuli Dei, schola Christi and the like as he finished off the section. Under the section on preaching, Hedtke developed ideas on the relationship between the accommodation of God’s prophets, his apostles and the doctors and pastors of the church.12 He also commented on the character and intention of accommodation in preaching. What is especially impressive in this study is Hedtke’s engagement with Calvin’s corpus, which is extremely full, especially given that his treatment of the motif is short. He cites from a range of Calvin’s works—commentaries, sermons, selected treatises and the Institutes—with roughly 250 citations appearing in the endnotes.13 Not all of these deal specifically with accommodation, and the Institutes features more prominently than any other work, but the effort is still an impressive one. A second perspective on Calvin and accommodation emerged nearly twenty years after Dowey’s work but only a year after Hedtke’s in an important paper read by E. David Willis at the American Academy of Religion conference in 1970 and published four years later. This new interpretation conceived of accommodation as associated with divine revelation, as Dowey had, but took a different approach towards the motif. Broadly aligned with the growing interest in the reformer’s humanist background inspired by scholars like Quirinus Breen,14 Willis interpreted Calvin’s thinking on accommodation as one of several ‘[i]nstances of Calvin’s Rhetorical Theology.’15 This rhetorical theology, Willis argued, reflected themes 10 Hedtke, Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin, 36. 11 Hedtke, Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin, 36, the quote is found on 173. 12 Hedtke, Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin, 106-114. 13 He cites from random treatises as well as Calvin’s expositions of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1 Samuel, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel , Daniel, and a number of the minor prophets, three of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark and John), Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John. Although, as we say, the Institutes dominates, yet the sermons on Deuteronomy also features prominently. 14 Quirinus Breen, John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931); idem, Christianity and Humanism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968). 15 E. David Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin’s Theology,’ in The Context of Contemporary Theology: Essays in Honor of Paul Lehmann, eds. A. J. McKelway and E. David Willis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974), 53 (the essay runs from page 43 to page 63). Prior to Willis, see Charles Trinkaus, ‘Renaissance Problems in Calvin’s Theology,’ Studies in the Renaissance 1 (1954), 66-67, and Ford

4

CHAPTER 1

from classical rhetoric, Augustinian theology and the tradition of a Christian paideia, and was the product of Calvin’s legal training and his reading of the fathers (most notably Augustine). Furthermore, it emphasized educating and persuading, Willis believed. These were the divine activities that were paramount in God’s accommodating program as Calvin understood it; through these Calvin’s Lord purposed ‘to bring [humankind] to the maturity he wills for them.’16 Thus, Willis spoke of a God who ‘strategically adjusts his dealings with his people in order to inform, delight, and move them (cf. the three classical aims of rhetoric) to doing his will.’17 Willis’ emphasis set the study of accommodation in Calvin upon a more explicitly historical foundation than it had had with Dowey. This would accompany treatment of the topos into the last quarter of the twentieth century, turning analysis of it in a direction not anticipated by Dowey and only vaguely anticipated by Hedtke. Several studies in the same vein as Willis’ would follow. Of these, Ford Lewis Battles’ important 1977 article, ‘God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity’ is surely the best known.18 In this piece, Battles prepared the way for his discussion of Calvin with sections on classical authors and the church fathers,19 through which he argued that the concept of accommodation—as a category within rhetoric—championed by the likes of Cato and Cicero was taken up first by Augustine and other fathers and then by Calvin, who used it to explain God’s method of communicating with his people. While, in this way, Battles’ analysis resembled Willis’, there were other ways in which the two differed. Battles tended to expand his conception of accommodation to cover God’s works (as Dowey had argued), as well as the scriptures, the Incarnation and even things like civil government.20 He also emphasized the ubiquity of accommodation in Calvin’s corpus and its significance in his thought even more than Willis. Yet the foundation for Battles, as for Willis, was still the classical rhetorical tradition. Two French works ought also to be mentioned. Richard Stauffer’s Dieu, la création et la Providence dans la prédication de Calvin, which appeared a year after Battles’ essay, also takes the rhetorical line in its handling of accommodation, citing Battles and referring briefly to Cicero, Quintilian and several patristic authors in the

Lewis Battles, Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, eds. F.L. Battles and A.M. Hugo (E.J. Brill: Leiden, 1969), 78*. Both of these discussions, however, are too brief to be considered anything other than tantalizing adumbrations of Willis’ exposition. 16 Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility,’ 53. 17 Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility,’ 53. 18 It is not clear whether this is due to the direct influence of Willis or not. Battles, in particular, does not seem to have been aware of Willis’ piece; see, Ford Lewis Battles, ‘God was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity,’ Interpretation 31 (1977), 19 no. 1. 19 Battles, ‘God was Accommodating,’ 21-26. 20 Battles declares, ‘accommodation has to do not only with the Scriptures and their interpretation, but with the whole of created reality’ (‘God was Accommodating,’ 21; see also, Bru, who refers to Battles’ interpretation, ‘La Notion D’Accommodation Divine chez Calvin; Ses implications théologiques et exégétiques,’ La revue réformée 49: 5 (1998), 85-6).

INTRODUCTION

5

process.21 Like Battles, Stauffer points to different areas in Calvin’s thought where accommodation can be found—theology, cosmology and christology, not to mention general revelation as well. While not devoting significant attention to accommodation, the study’s importance (for our purposes) is found in its identifying of the presence of accommodation in the reformer’s homilectical corpus. The massive and scholarly tome of Millet, Calvin et la dynamique de la parole, was published in 1992. Covering much more than accommodation, it does dedicate ten pages to the idea, while also mentioning it in passing in various places.22 Millet’s treatment of it comports with that of Willis and Battles. Thus, it discusses accommodatio as a part of rhetoric, arguing that it consists of achieving an essential agreement (aptum, decorum) between several things: the discourse, the one delivering it, the audience to whom it is being delivered and any given circumstances. Millet relies, to some degree, on Heinrich Lausberg’s Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik to establish this.23 In relation to the Bible, Millet notes, this agreement must come to terms with the human condition, which is in Calvin’s thought so severely affected by sin. This, coupled with the great majesty of God (who is, in effect, the speaker here) leads to a distortion of the notion of decorum, since the disparity between speaker and audience is, in Calvin’s judgment, so great. Building on this, Millet develops several points on the nature of the interaction between speaker and audience in Calvin’s thought, particularly in relation to the reformer’s thinking on the effect which God’s accommodated discourse is intended to have upon his audience. Accordingly, Millet follows and expands upon the insights first articulated by Willis and Battles in this work. Meanwhile, outside of Calvin scholarship advances were being made in the study of divine accommodation which would prepare the way, so to speak, for a third perspective on Calvin’s thinking on the motif which was to appear in the late 1980s. If, for example, patristic studies are considered, we find that in 1959 R. P. C. Hanson discussed accommodation in Allegory and Event, a work covering the thought of Origen. Part of the chapter devoted to accommodation dealt with ideas similar to 21 Richard Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans le prédication de Calvin (Bern: Peter Lang, 1978), 21, 36 no. 31. Stauffer mentions accommodation only briefly in several places, but does produce some fine citations from the reformer’s sermons. 22 Olivier Millet, Calvin et la dynamique de la parole. Étude de rhétorique réformée, Bibliotheque litteraire de la Renaissance, série 3, Tome 28 (Geneva: Slatkine, 1992), 247-255, et passim. Also worth briefly noting is an earlier section of this work (170-181) in which Millet discusses ‘la vulgarisation’ of Christian doctrine in relation to Chrysostom and the homilies by him which Calvin was planning to publish. Touching on some of the same themes is, idem, ‘Docere/Movere: Les categories rhetoriques et leurs sources humanistes dans la doctrine calvinienne de la foi’ in CSRV, 35-52. For a treatment of Erasmus and accommodation which follows the same lines as, and is mentioned approvingly by, Millet, see Jacques Chomarat, Grammaire et rhétorique chez Erasme, 2 vols (Paris: Belles lettres, 1981), 1107-18 et passim (see index). It does not devote a huge amount of attention to accommodation, with its longest treatment of it coming under ‘Le Sermon’. However, what it does say on it offers much the same as what one finds in Millet. 23 Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (Münich: Max Hueber, 2 vols, 1960, 1973). ET: Handbook of Literary rhetoric: a foundation for literary study, trans. Matthew Bliss, Annemiek Jansen and David Orton; eds. David Orton and Dean Anderson (Leiden: Brill, 1998).

6

CHAPTER 1

those treated by Dowey, but in a later portion Hanson drew attention to the fact that some of the fathers (Clement of Alexandria and Origen) suggested that ‘God may have deliberately deceived people in the Old Testament for their own good.’24 This rather scandalous form of accommodation, Hanson explained, was viewed by these fathers as a necessary expedient. They compared it to the way humans might employ such measures when dealing with children or doctors when treating patients. The same findings also appeared in Henry Chadwick’s Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (1966), and were adumbrated much earlier in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia entry on accommodation (1908).25 Sandwiched between these last two works is the 1957 Ph.D. dissertation of John Reumann, which threw up equally suggestive findings through Reumann’s treatment of the concept of oikonomia in pagan and patristic usage. Comprehensive and painstaking in its analysis, Reumann’s dissertation interacted with major works by John Henry Newman, Adolf von Harnack and others which treat oikonomia, thus making his conclusions all the more impressive. Noteworthy for our interests, Reumann discussed the ‘“shady” ethical sense’ of the term ‘through which something otherwise offensive or questionable is seen in a new and more favorable light,’26 and argued that in the writings of the fathers ‘the economy of God portrays the deity winking at shady practices or playing a part in them himself.’27 Reumann claimed that such discussion of shady practices, or ‘ethical accommodation,’ was common in the fathers.28 The findings of all these various scholars predated and, in a sense, set the stage for the rise of a third perspective on Calvin’s handling of divine accommodation which appeared in 1986. In that year David F. Wright published his article on Calvin’s Pentateuchal Harmony commentary and followed it in later years with several other pieces on accommodation.29 Although Wright did not explicitly connect Calvin’s conception of accommodation with that of the fathers, he nevertheless found in the reformer’s writings the same kind of concessive, indulgent and ethically-questionable behavior 24 R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: a Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1959), 228-30. 25 Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966), 78. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 4th ed., s.v. ‘accommodation.’ 26 John Reumann, ‘The Use of oikonomia and Related Terms in Greek Sources to about A.D. 100 as a Background for Patristic Applications’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1957), 2. 27 John Reumann, ‘Oikonomia as ‘Ethical Accommodation’ in the Fathers, and its Pagan Backgrounds,’ Studia Patristica 78 (1961), 370-79, which is excerpted from the third section of his dissertation, ‘The Use of oikonomia and Related Terms,’ 487-613; especially, 587-608. 28 Reumann, ‘Oikonomia as ‘Ethical Accommodation’ in the Fathers,’ 370. Additional coverage of ethical accommodation in the fathers can be found in Stephen Benin, ‘The ‘Cunning of God’ and Divine Accommodation,’ Journal for the History of Ideas 45 (1984), 179-91. 29 David F. Wright, ‘Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism: Equity, Hardness of Heart, and Divine Accommodation in the Mosaic Harmony Commentary,’ Calvin Theological Journal 21 (1986), 3350; idem, ‘Accommodation and Barbarity in John Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries,’ in Understanding Poets and Prophets. Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson, ed. A. Graeme Auld (JSOTSup 152; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Series, 1993), 413-427; idem, ‘Calvin’s “Accommodation” Revisited,’ 171-90; idem, ‘Calvin’s Accommodating God’ in CSRV, 3-19; idem, ‘Was John Calvin a “Rhetorical Theologian”?’ in Calvin Studies IX, 46-69, especially 59-63.

INTRODUCTION

7

found in patristic descriptions of God. Indebted to the blossoming interest in Calvin’s commentaries brought about by studies such as T. H. L. Parker’s Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries,30 Wright’s work may not represent a full-blown perspective, strictly speaking, but unquestionably approaches the subject of accommodation in Calvin with different questions and concerns in mind. In his essays, Wright not only examined the important subject of Calvin’s conception of ethical accommodation, which had been completely overlooked by students of the reformer up to that point, but he also offered a corrective to the interpretations of contemporary scholarship, which had failed to take a serious look beyond the Institutes when drawing conclusions on the subject. In this way, his work set out a broader vision of Calvin’s accommodating God than had previously been contemplated. Three of Wright’s essays, moreover, raised explicit objections against the position of Willis and Battles concerning the idea that accommodation in Calvin was a rhetorical borrowing.31 Thus, Wright set himself against this important school of scholarship on accommodation, and sought, as the twentieth century was coming to a close, to reorient scholarly study of the motif in Calvin. These three perspectives cover the range of opinion existing on the subject today. If Wright’s studies offer a challenge (of sorts) to previous views—particularly the notion of accommodation as a rhetorical borrowing—this challenge has been effective, in part, because it has served to blur the tidy lines that had been drawn by the likes of Dowey, Willis, Battles and Millet regarding precisely what accommodation in Calvin was. This blurring work (if you will) has been contributed to by two other authors who might briefly be mentioned here. Jacobus de Jong, in his Accommodatio Dei which examined accommodation in the thought of K. Schilder, has provided evidence that Calvin discussed accommodation with respect to the providence of God; hence asking further questions of the borders of the concept.32 And the present author has, similarly, demonstrated the breadth and unwieldy character of accommodation in Calvin in an article from 2002.33 Thus, while several perspectives on the motif in Calvin have been identified above, it would appear that: (1) none of them at the present moment can claim an uncontested authority, and (2) more recent thinking on the motif has tended to highlight its complexity against the backdrop of earlier findings.34

30 T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (London: SCM, 1971); followed by, idem, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986). 31 Wright, ‘Calvin’s “Accommodation” Revisited,’ 171-190; idem, ‘Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism,’ 33-50; idem, ‘Calvin’s Accommodating God,’ 3-19. 32 Jacobus de Jong, Accommodatio Dei; a Theme in K. Schilder’s Theology of Redemption (Kampen: Dissertatie-Uitgeverij Mondiss., 1990). 33 Jon Balserak, ‘“The Accommodating Act Par Excellence?” an Inquiry into the Incarnation and Calvin’s Understanding of Accommodation’ in The Scottish Journal of Theology 55/4 (2002), 379394. See also, idem. ‘The God of Love and Weakness; Calvin’s Understanding of God’s Accommodating Relationship with his People’ in Westminster Theological Journal 62 (2000), 177-95. 34 Additional studies of accommodation in Calvin could, of course, be mentioned—those by Forstman, Kayayan, Bru and others—but they all fall broadly within the boundaries carved out above. Perhaps the most recent treatment of accommodation in Calvin is that of Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas

8

CHAPTER 1

As we begin the work of assessing these three perspectives, it should first be stated that considerable praise is due to all of the authors mentioned above for uncovering this important vein of thought in Calvin’s corpus. Their work has had a huge impact on Calvin studies over the last fifty years. Indeed, in that time accommodation has risen to a position of some importance within Calvin studies—a rise which has been remarkably quick. In a matter of twenty-five years (from Dowey (1952)35 to Battles (1977)), in fact, accommodation went from being an almost unknown subject within Calvin research to being one of undisputed importance. And by 1994, Wright could assert that ‘the motif, or cluster of motifs, of divine accommodation takes us to the heart of Calvin’s theology’36 This rise has been particularly impressive when one considers that it is the product of only articlelength treatments (conference papers, journal articles and book chapters). The rise is also impressive when one considers the haphazard quality that has characterized the study—for until Wright, there was almost no communication taking place between the scholars who treated the subject. Battles, for instance, does not appear to even be aware of the work of Dowey, which predated his own by a quarter of a century. Yet despite these potentially-limiting factors, the study has advanced. This advancement, however, has not kept the study of accommodation in Calvin from exhibiting some deficiencies, which will now be outlined briefly. One deficiency that must be pointed to has already been voiced by Wright, and concerns the fact that the Institutes feature far too prominently in assessments of the accommodation motif to the neglect of the reformer’s scriptural expositions. This is in fact still the case. Although the complaint is twenty years old, it is nonetheless still true. One can, to be sure, find references to Calvin’s commentaries on Genesis, Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel and John in the treatment of Dowey (roughly fifty in total), and a handful of citations from the Genesis, Psalms and 1 Peter expositions in Battles’ piece. There are thirty-five references to various expositions from the reformer—his sermons on Job and commentaries on Genesis, Psalms, some of the major and minor prophets, the Gospel harmony and Acts—in Millet’s handling of accommodation, with several other Calvinian works mentioned by Millet in relation to the motif elsewhere in the volume. Of course the fullness of Hedtke’s treatment has already been noted, and there is a full engagement with the Pentateuchal and Joshuan commentaries in Wright’s articles. Nonetheless, one still has to conclude that the Institutes holds too great a sway in studies of accommodation in Calvin’s thought and that the rest of his corpus has not been given its due weight. So much is this the case that Battles enshrines it as a kind of policy statement, declaring in a footnote at the beginning of his article that although ‘the evidence from Calvin’s biblical commentaries has been examined,’ his paper rests ‘primarily on the

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 184-208. See the bibliography for information on the contributions of these, and other, authors. 35 Accommodation does not figure in either B.B. Warfield’s ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God’ in Calvin and Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1931), 29-130; or T.H.L. Parker’s Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952). 36 Wright, Calvin’s Accommodating God,’ 18.

INTRODUCTION

9

Institutes in which every aspect of accommodation has apparently been set forth.’37 But, as we shall see, Battles’ policy (and his conclusions as well) is not wholly beyond criticism. A second shortcoming ought to be highlighted, namely, that while authors, specifically Willis, Battles and Millet, have examined Calvin’s humanist context, they—at least Willis and Battles—have paid relatively little attention to his exegetical context—Millet is surely the exception here, but his approach is hampered by another problem which will be briefly noted later. This deficiency is particularly unfortunate because accommodation is generally found within scriptural exposition—that is predominantly (though not entirely) where it appears within the tradition and that is predominantly (though, again, not entirely) where it appears in Calvin. Thus this context warrants careful attention, which it will be given in the present study. This attention will involve not so much a tracing of those theologians or schools which had the greatest influence on Calvin, but rather a comparing of Calvin’s exegetical work with that of other interpreters of the Bible. This will, it is hoped, aid us to see ways in which Calvin follows or diverges from traditional thinking on accommodation, highlights different themes, approaches standard questions in different ways, and so forth. A third limitation which raises concerns about the present state of study in this area has already been alluded to earlier but will now be addressed; it is that the strength of the three perspectives outlined above is unavoidably weakened by the fact that none of them is the fruit of a monograph-length study but they are all based on essentially article-length treatments of the subject, with Wright’s collection of essays (whose page count, if tallied, comes to slightly less than seventy pages) being the most substantial. It is, it would seem, essential that a work endeavouring to cover this topic be large enough to provide both a detailed consideration of Calvin’s individual references to accommodation and a broader consideration of his thought which recognizes themes and patterns in it. The present study will aim to do this and to overcome the other shortcomings mentioned above. There are, we would suggest, also problems with the content of each of these three perspectives. For the sake of brevity, this introduction will set out only a few short remarks on this score. In general, all three perspectives emphasize one or two aspects of Calvin’s work on accommodation to the neglect of others. It is this fact probably as much as any other that makes these three perspectives differ one from another. A second shortcoming which may be mentioned is that the link between accommodation and rhetoric made by some scholars is one which seems to this author, at best, unproven and one which (as noted earlier) tends to insist on clarity and ease of definition which are defied by the data of Calvin’s corpus. Echoing one of the criticisms made against this position by Wright, it may be pointed out that all three of the major proponents of it (Willis, Battles and Millet) invariably narrow the 37 Battles, ‘God was Accommodating,’ 19 no. 1. Precisely how Battles came to this conclusion is not clear. Surely his first assertion must now be questioned; it does not appear that he had examined the commentaries as thoroughly as his remark would seem to suggest. And as for the second observation, it has been convincingly shown—if one thinks of the discovery of ethical accommodation in Calvin’s writings—that every aspect of accommodation has not been set forth in the Institutes.

10

CHAPTER 1

idea of accommodation down to such a degree that it does not come close to resembling the broad and diverse concept which one finds in Calvin.38 This, then, is a second criticism. Others exist, but rather than list them the present author will endeavour simply to set out what he believes is the proper understanding of accommodation in Calvin.39 2. THE CONTENTS OF THIS STUDY The history of the study of accommodation in Calvin has been outlined and the views of the major scholars on the topic considered. Informed by this analysis, we have produced the present study, which may be outlined as follows. Chapter two begins the study by taking a preliminary look at the notion of divine accommodation. This is intended to orient readers, and is divided into two parts. First, a basic survey of the accommodation motif as it was handled by preReformation and Reformation thinkers is produced. This involves considering the character of the motif as it was employed during these periods, the words and phrases traditionally used to refer to accommodation (accommodo, attempero, etc), the basic elements which appear in discussions of it, and other similar issues. In part two, Calvin’s handling of accommodation is compared with that of his predecessors and contemporaries. The purpose of this comparison, which examines their interpretations of a number of biblical passages, is to introduce basic features which characterize the reformer’s treatment of the subject. Seven such features will be discussed. The next five chapters examine Calvin’s corpus in detail. Chapters three, four and five consider, in turn, the three elements which normally appear in Calvin’s discussions of divine accommodation—human capacity, God’s response to that capacity, and God’s reasons and motives behind his accommodating choice. These elements will be properly introduced in the next chapter. Chapters six and seven examine aspects of the notion of the penetration of divine accommodation into Calvin’s theology. Chapter three begins with a treatment of the Genevan’s views on human nature in general, setting them in the context of development of opinion on the subject since Irenaeus and Augustine. Following this, the chapter descends to the specific issue of human capacity. It reviews scholarly opinion on Calvin’s understanding of this issue, considering, primarily, the contributions of Dowey, Willis and Wright, after which it begins a consideration of the various senses of human captus found in Calvin’s thinking. It discovers seven different senses: (1) General References to Human Capacity, (2) The Human Condition, (3) Mental Weakness respecting the Knowledge of God and Spiritual Matters, (4) Fear, Grief and Doubt, (5) Lack of Restraint, Inappropriate Desires and Imperfection, (6) Sluggishness, Willfulness, 38 See Wright, ‘Calvin’s “Accommodation” Revisited,’ 171-190; idem, ‘Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism,’ 33-50; idem, ‘Calvin’s Accommodating God,’ 3-19. 39 For more, particularly criticism of Battles’ article, see Balserak, ‘“Deus humanitus saepe cum suis agere solet,” 20-49.

INTRODUCTION

11

and Hypocrisy, and (7) Barbarity. It describes each of these, drawing on Calvin’s writings to do so. The chapter concludes by proposing an alternative to the threefold understanding of the recipients of accommodation propounded by Wright, namely a four-fold understanding: that God accommodates to human beings as creatures, human beings as sinners, Israel as primitive nation and human beings as the wicked and the godly. Having discussed human capacity, chapter four treats Calvin’s thinking on God’s response to that capacity. God’s accommodating responses to human capacity are divided into six spheres or, if you will, events: (1) when God instructs, (2) when God legislates and commands, (3) when God sanctions religious rites and practices, and receives the worship of his people, (4) when God pastors his flock, (5) when God comes to earth, and (6) when God covenants. Within these spheres, numerous specific matters are dealt with including divine revelation, the moral law, God’s ad hoc commands to Israel, divine rewards for obedience, God’s reception of worship and answering of prayers, the sacraments, God’s employing of angels as his servants, God’s sending of Christ to die, and God’s use of threats and chastisements. Calvin’s writings are copiously cited throughout to substantiate the chapter’s findings. Chapter five is occupied with Calvin’s statements on God’s intentions, causes and motives for accommodating (the third element regularly found in his references to divine accommodation) and with the images of God which are found in Calvin’s treatment of accommodation, which are (largely) the fruit of these intentions, causes and motives. The main work of the chapter, in fact, consists of an examination of these images. The focus of the chapter will be on demonstrating the range and variety of these images and, in this way, exploring the peculiarities associated with the reformer’s usage of the motif. The chapter argues that in a certain undeniable sense this third element of Calvin’s discussions of accommodation carries us into quite deep waters since it relates, so it would appear, to the thinking of God behind his accommodating and since Calvin is so cavalier in his statements on this topic. The chapter also explores, to some degree, the ramifications of Calvin’s delving into such matters. Having examined the three elements which normally appear in Calvin’s discussions of divine accommodation, a picture of Calvin’s thinking on the motif should have emerged. Clarity will be added to this picture in chapter six, where a different approach will be taken towards the topic of accommodation in Calvin. The aim here, as mentioned above, will be to analyze accommodation’s penetration into the reformer’s thinking. Chapter six will approach Calvin’s thought on accommodation from the perspective of medieval theology. Specifically it will look at Calvin’s views on the potentia absoluta /ordinata distinction and related issues like the freedom of God, contingency of the created order and order of salvation and so forth, and attempt to demonstrate how accommodation is present in his thinking on these issues. After answering the basic question of Calvin’s relationship to this distinction, the chapter will seek to demonstrate that accommodation appears in his thinking on these issues, and to argue on this basis that accommodation penetrates his theology in a discernible and impressive way and that this reveals the importance of the motif to him.

12

CHAPTER 1

Treatment of the question of penetration continues in chapter seven, where some of the potential problems associated with one’s use of divine accommodation are examined. Chapter seven will examine two of these problems as they relate to Calvin’s use of the motif. First, it will look at whether Calvin’s use of accommodation undermines the authority of Scripture by raising questions about its truthfulness in relation to scientific knowledge about the world and the solar system (it will be remembered that the work of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo was raising huge questions concerning the issue of the Bible and science at this time). Secondly, the chapter will ask whether Calvin’s use of accommodation erodes the Scripture’s authority by raising questions about its applicability to New Testament Christians. Here we will focus on Calvin’s thinking on the Old Testament law and specifically the case laws, and attempt to probe how and why Calvin comes to the conclusions he does about the character and applicability of these laws to Christians; further, we will attempt to raise questions about the consistency of Calvin’s thinking on these matters. Chapter eight produces a summary of the findings of this study, endeavours to probe briefly the topic of Calvin’s doctrine of God in light of the discoveries made regarding his thinking on divine accommodation in the body of this work, and proposes some avenues which might be profitably taken up by one wishing to study accommodation in Calvin further.

CHAPTER 2 DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN 1. ACCOMMODATION IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION What, then, do you think? Do you think that the angels in heaven talk over and ask each other questions about the divine essence? By no means! What are the angels doing? They give glory to God, they adore him, they chant without ceasing their triumphal and mystical hymns with a deep feeling of religious awe. Some sing: “Glory to God in the highest;” the seraphim chant: “Holy, holy, holy,” and they turn away their eyes because they cannot endure God’s presence as he comes down to adapt himself to them in condescension.1 Various problems plagued the interpretative and apologetic efforts of the preReformation and Reformation Church. There was the Old Testament, which contained curious phenomena such as visions and divine epiphanies (like the one recounted in Isaiah 6, which is discussed by John Chrysostom in the above quotation), not to mention a God ‘who gets angry, laughs, and changes his mind.’2 There was the doctrine of God, specifically the Trinity and the question of the nature of the divine being, to grapple with. Spiritual realities, such as the sacraments, raised testing problems for the Church. The change of dispensation which many theologians claimed had taken place since Christ’s resurrection and which helped them explain why things that God had formerly commanded were now forbidden by him aroused enormous opposition and confusion. Many other issues could also be mentioned here, including the Incarnation of the Son of God. To deal with such problems, theologians and exegetes often turned to the notion of divine accommodation. Before proceeding further, it should be noted that accommodation will be spoken of in this study from two different vantage points or in two different ways. It will be treated as a concept (or collection of related 1 John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, Homily 1.35 (FC 72, 66). It may be noted that Chrysostom’s interest in accommodation is well documented, with Henry Pinard famously referring to him as ‘le docteur de la condescendance’ (‘Les Infiltrations paiennes dans l’ancienne loi d’apres les Pères de l’église,’ Recherches de Science Religieuse 9 (1919), 197-221). 2 Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation; the Shape of Late Medieval Thought Illustrated by Key Documents (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), 281.

13

14

CHAPTER 2

concepts). Spoken of in this way, it is understood to be something which is employed in order to explain a detail or resolve a problematic issue found in Scripture. But accommodation will also be spoken of as an act of God. Considered from this perspective, accommodation will be defined as a divine response whereby God reacts to his creatures in a manner informed by and adapted to their capacity. (This definition does not address a number of issues which will arise later on, but focuses only on the nub of the issue.) We will switch between these two perspectives continually throughout this volume. Accommodation was by no means the sole possession of Christian thinkers. Jewish writers also employed it (notably Philo3 and later Maimonides), as did, it would appear, pagan writers (with reference, of course, to their own literature).4 This raises the question of how, or from whom, Christian thinkers learned the idea. Its usage by Philo has moved some scholars to detect his influence on Christendom at this point.5 Others, such as John Reumann, have spoken of the ‘pagan backgrounds’ of the concept, though he also acknowledges the possibility of Philo’s influence.6 Not surprisingly, the question of the sources for this motif, or cluster of motifs, is an exceedingly difficult one.7 Thus it may be best, at this time, to say that the origins of its usage within Christian circles are still a matter of study. Amongst Christians, divine accommodation has an impressive pedigree. As early as Justin Martyr (ca. 165) it can be found in documents of Christian provenance being employed as a means of interpreting the ways of God with his people. Indeed accommodation was common amongst patristic authors, being found in the works of, among others, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Chrysostom (who employed it frequently) and Augustine. It can be discovered throughout the Middle Ages in writings from Gregory the Great, Hugh of St Victor, Duns Scotus, Hugh of St Cher, Nicholas of Lyra, Denis the Carthusian and many others. And in the Early Modern period its advocates included Erasmus, Thomas de Vio Cajetan, Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli. Of course, all these thinkers may simply have been following the lead of Jesus, who made use of accommodation in his disputes with the Jews.

3 Several scholars point to Philo’s statement: ‘The lawgiver talks thus in human terms about God, even though he is not a human being, for the advantage of us who are being educated, as I have often said in other passages,’ cited from Battles, ‘God Was Accommodating Himself,’ 19-38; especially 23. Additional references for Philo can be found in Hanson, Allegory and Event, 231. 4 See, John Reumann, ‘Oikonomia as ‘Ethical Accommodation’ in the Fathers, and its Pagan Backgrounds’ in Studia Patristica 3, I (1961), 370-9; Hanson, Allegory and Event, 210-31; Benin, Footprints, 10, 127; Folker Siegert, ‘Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style’ in Hebrew Bible, 130-98. 5. Battles, ‘God Was Accommodating,’ 23. 6 Reumann, ‘Oikonomia as ‘Ethical Accommodation’ in the Fathers,’ 370-9. The same history is briefly laid out by Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 74-5. Both suggest that the first to apply oikonomia to God were the Stoics. 7 For a more extensive consideration of the connection between Christian and pagan usage, see John Reumann, ‘The Use of oikonomia and Related Terms in Greek Sources to about A.D. 100 as a Background for Patristic Applications’ (unpublished dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1957).

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN

15

They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ [Jesus] said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.’ (Matt 19: 7-8)8 Whether Christian writers self-consciously followed the example of Jesus or not, his usage here is characteristic of what one finds throughout the Christian tradition, namely, that accommodation was employed largely for apologetic purposes. Indeed it is difficult for the present author to think of a reference to accommodation that is not in some way apologetic. This can be seen in ancient writers. When Celsus accuses Christians (in regards to the doctrine of hell) of absurdly believing in a God who is ‘a cook’ who would soon bring a fire upon the earth to consume it, Origen rejoines that what the Bible refers to is a refining fire, and explains that ‘the Scripture is appropriately adapted to the multitudes of those who are to peruse it, because it speaks obscurely of things that are sad and gloomy, in order to terrify those who cannot by any other means be saved from the flood of their sins.’9 It can also be seen in later writers like Calvin, who uses accommodation to take from the Catholics a proof-text for the mass.10 At times the apologetic can be more subtle. For instance, accommodation is often employed by biblical commentators to answer a question which may arise in the minds of their readers or which may be a standard query they feel they must address. An example of the latter appears in Bede’s comments on Genesis 9: 15, where he curtly explains that ‘it is said that God remembers his covenant after a human fashion (humano more dicitur).’11 And at times it can take on pastoral overtones as can be seen in John Chrysostom’s comments on a portion of Genesis 2: 21: ‘See the condescendence of divine Scripture, what words it uses because of our weakness. “And He took”, it says, “one of his ribs.” Do not take what is said in a human way, but understand that the crassness of the words fits human weakness.’12 Yet irrespective of the particular quality exhibited, the notion of apology is woven into the very fabric of divine accommodation. A variety of words, phrases and expressions are used by writers to refer to accommodation.13 Chrysostom, for example, normally used sygkatabainõn. Origen, 8 NRSVB, 23. 9 Origen, Contra Celsum, 5, 15. 10 CO 44: 420; CTS Minor Prophets, 5, 501 (on Mal 1: 11, which declares that there shall be a sacrifice offered—a declaration which the Catholics claimed referred to the fact that God could not be worshipped without some kind of sacrifice being made and which they used to defend the mass); similarly see, Interim adultero-germanum, cui adiecta est Vera Christianae pacificationis et ecclesiae reformandae ratio (CO 7: 644) and CO 42: 565; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 94-96 (on Joel 2: 28). 11 Beda, Commentarius in Genesim 9: 15 (CCSL 118A, 136) (‘And the Lord remembered his covenant’). 12 John Chrysostom, In Genesim 2: 20-22, hom. 15, 2 (PG 53: 121; FC 74: 189-90). 13 Here we should register our disagreement with Battles, who declares that Calvin never uses the noun accommodatio, but ‘always either the verb accommodare or attemperare, when he has recourse to this principle’ (‘God Was Accommodating,’ 19). While it is true that Calvin does not use the noun, it is far from true that he only employs these two verbs when referring to the concept. See also Stauffer’s comments, Dieu, la création et la Providence, 36 no. 31.

16

CHAPTER 2

too, used this verb, along with others. Humano more is employed by Latin patristic writers and may well be the earliest standard phrase to be used when referring to accommodation (appearing in forms such as humano more dicitur, loquitur scriptura de deo more humano, etc.).14 Other phrases, such as se captui nostro attemperat Deus, and quodammodo parvum facit appear in writings from the West. Of course, accommodo is a commonly-used verb, along with attempero and condescendo. Balbutio, while not particularly common, is nonetheless well-know, perhaps because of Calvin’s and Erasmus’ use of the term. Naturally, the language employed by different writers varies. Calvin’s own repertoire includes all the Latin verbs and phrases mentioned here as well as descendo, se ad captum nostrum submittet, loquitur improprie, ad nos se demittat, per indulgentiam and a host of others, as shall be seen from what follows. Of course, French equivalents must be included here as well. Stauffer rightly mentions a range of different phrases such as Dieu se fait petit, descende de sa hautesse, et qu'il se transfigure, qu’il s’abaisse, mais il s’est conformé à la rudesse et débilité des homes, which were employed by Calvin in his sermons.15 In the hands of Christian thinkers, accommodation was discussed in relation to a wide range of divine activities. It was, from early on, used to delineate the character of divine revelation generally.16 It was also employed by authors from Justin Martyr to Thomas Aquinas to describe the character of the sacrifices required from the Jews during the old covenant dispensation.17 These sacrifices were, it was argued, never pleasing to God but had been commanded by way of concession to the Jews, who simply would not refrain from adopting the ways of the surrounding nations. Similarly many authors, among them Augustine and Irenaeus, spoke of the divine economies of both the Old and the New Testaments as accommodated expressions of God’s will, each being suited to the capacities of their respective recipients.18 Specific aspects of the old economy were also called accommodations. So Duns Scotus, for example, called the law which allowed polygamy a concession to God’s ancient people.19 Likewise, numerous descriptions of God found in the Hebrew Scriptures were said to be accommodated to human finitude and weakness. This included passages which described God as descending (Gen 18: 21), portrayed him as a drunken man (Psalm 78: 65), and ascribed to him the feelings of one who is

14 On its development, see Amos Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middles Ages to the Seventeenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 213-21. 15 Stauffer, Dieu, la création et la Providence, 21-22, 55. 16 G.R. Evans, The Language and Logic of the Bible; the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 1-10. 17 Excellent examples of this can be found in Benin, ‘The ‘Cunning of God’ and Divine Accommodation,’ 179-91. 18 For example, Augustine, Augustine: Earlier Writings, trans. John Burleigh (London: SCM Press, 1953), xvii. 34. 19 John Duns Scotus, Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality, trans. Alan Wolter (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1986), 291-93. I owe this reference to Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 185, n. 6.

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN

17

distraught (Hosea 11: 8).20 Within the apostolic writings, God’s accommodating was also discovered. The sacraments, doctrine of hell and the Incarnation have already been mentioned.21 Other examples include Jesus’ words ‘[you must] eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood’ (John 6: 53),22 the Scripture’s handling of predestination, and even God’s use of the star to lead the magi to Bethlehem.23 In these and many other ways, accommodation was raised and discussed by ancient, medieval and early modern authors in relation to the Lord’s interactions with his creatures and specifically his own people. If the idea of accommodation is examined more closely, it can be seen that there is normally a rule or criterion on the basis of which accommodation is identified. For example, when Martin Luther comments on Genesis 6: 6, he like many others discusses accommodation. The biblical passage reads: ‘And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.’ Luther’s comments include the following: God in His essence is altogether unknowable; nor is it possible to define or put into words what He is, though we burst in the effort. It is for this reason that God lowers Himself to the level of our weak comprehension and presents Himself to us in images, in coverings, as it were, in simplicity adapted to a child, that in some measure it may be possible for Him to be known by us.24 Luther’s reasoning here rests on his convictions about God’s essential nature. This can be seen in the above quotation, and also from earlier remarks he makes about divine immutability. This is, in this case, the operative rule on the basis of which Luther identifies accommodation, since it makes a prima facie reading of Genesis 6: 6 impossible, and, thus, moves Luther to consider carefully what God was, in fact, doing when he expressed his sorrow and disappointment in this way in this passage. Other criteria for discovering accommodation in other biblical examples can be discerned in a similar manner. 20 Martin Luther, WA 43: 39.31-34; LW 3, 230 (on Gen 18: 21); Biblia Sacra cum glossis, interlineari & Ordinaria, Nicolai Lyrani Postilla & Moralitatibus, Burgensis Additionibus, & Thoringi Replicis (Lugduni: ex officina G. Trechsel, 1545), 3, fol. 201r (on Ps 78: 65, which is Ps 77 for the Glossa); Denis the Carthusian, D. Dionysii Carthusiani enarrationes piae ac eruditae in XII. prophetas minores … (Coloniae, 1539), fol. 32r (on Hosea 11: 8). John Cassian speaks of many such divine descriptions, John Cassian: the Institutes, trans. Boniface Ramsey, O.P. (New York: The Newman Press, 2000), 194-5. 21 The Incarnation, in particular, was often described in terms of divine accommodation; Augustine, NPNF 4: Augustine: Reply to Faustus the Manichæn, 22.46; Hilary of Poitier, NPNF 2nd ser., 9: On the Trinity, 9.66; Leo the Great, NPNF 2nd ser., 12: Selected Letters and Sermons, 28.8.1 (Sermon on the festival of the nativity). 22 Sebastian Castellio, Biblia Interprete Sebastiano Castalione. una cum eiusdem annotationibus … (Basileae, per Ioannem Oporinum, 1551), col. 165-166. 23 Chrysostom, Homilies on St. Matthew, 80 (homily on Matthew 2: 1-2); reference from G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: S.P.C.K., 1952), 61. 24 WA 42: 294; LW, 2, 45.

18

CHAPTER 2

These criteria, then, foster and support the exegete’s thinking. But they may or may not actually appear in the resultant discussion of accommodation. Such a criterion was mentioned by Luther, but this is not always the case. Rather, discussions of accommodation commonly focus on two issues: human capacity and God’s response to that capacity. This can be seen if we look again at Luther’s previously-cited observation. It contains references to human weakness—‘the level of our weak comprehension,’ and ‘child[hood].’ And it also contains discussion of God’s reaction to that weakness—‘God lowers Himself’ to this condition, and ‘presents Himself to us in images.’ These two issues are basic to Luther’s, and we would suggest all writers’, discussions of accommodation. They are the hinges, so to speak, upon which accommodation pivots. One can, however, also find in Luther’s remarks an assertion which appears to be explanatory in nature. ‘It is,’ he says, ‘for this reason’ that God responds as he does to our weak comprehension, namely, so ‘that in some measure it may be possible for Him to be known by us.’ This explanatory element, while not always present in discussions of accommodation, can also appear. It normally consists of observations on why, from what motive, or for what purpose God accommodated himself to his people. Since this third element is especially common in Calvin’s treatments of the motif, it has been considered in our structuring of the present study, as will be apparent from a glance at the table of contents, specifically chapters three, four and five, which treat human capacity, God’s response to that capacity, and his reasons for this response, respectively. The last point to be mentioned in this general introduction is the fact that accommodation can occasionally exhibit a kind of unpredictability or volatility, particularly in relation to the ideas which, at times, it appears to support or which seem to be implied by it. This can be seen, to some degree, in the issues raised up to this point, and may be illustrated further by the use to which accommodation is put by John of Damascus in his First Apology. Writing in defence of images in worship, John argues that the commandments against the making of images were given by God in accommodation to the Jews on account of their proneness to idolatry—a variation on a standard anti-Jewish theme (as mentioned earlier). But if this is so, John continues, then these restrictions no longer apply to Christians, who are now free to make images. This conclusion follows, John avers, because Christians are no longer prone to idolatry for they are spiritually mature and not Jewish ‘children,’ referring to Paul’s argument from the end of Galatians 3.25 Thus, John employs accommodation to argue for a plainly-contentious conclusion which many Christians, living before and after John, would argue vehemently against, and yet his argument is cogent and possesses at the very least a prima facie plausibility. He relies upon the themes set out in Galatians 3, as do many who employ accommodation, and presents his case reasonably and expertly. It is this kind of volatility or unpredictability that is sometimes present in, or connected, to accommodation

25 John of Damascus, ‘First Apology of St. John of Damascus Against Those Who Attack The Divine Images’ in St. John of Damascus on the Divine Images, trans. David Anderson (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), 18-19.

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN

19

and makes it such a potentially unstable concept, as we shall see in later portions of this work. 2. CALVIN AND THE TRADITION; A PRELIMINARY SKETCH OF CALVIN’S THOUGHT ON THE MOTIF This chapter now turns to Calvin. He would no doubt learn from traditional usage. But it is difficult to gauge exactly how much. His resources and mentors—in regards to any topic, not just this one—are notoriously hard to pin down (a fact which is witnessed to by the differences of opinion which exist on the question26). Moreover, Calvin was generally the kind of thinker who readily made the ideas of others his own, thus making connections between himself and his predecessors and contemporaries virtually impossible to trace.27 These points notwithstanding, the fact that he employs traditional language and raises accommodation in many of the standard contexts suggests a connection between himself and the tradition (referred to in a general way) in this area. The example of his exegesis of Genesis 22: 12, ‘now I know that you fear God’ will illustrate this. His commentary on the passage contains the following: The exposition of Augustine, ‘I have caused you to know,’ is forced. But how can anything become known to God, to whom all things have always been present? Truly by condescending to the manner of humankind, God here says that what he has proved by experience is now made known to himself. And he speaks thus with us, not according to his own infinite wisdom, but according to our infirmity.28 Here Calvin’s discussion of accommodation aligns him with other exegetes who address the idea in relation to God’s enigmatic affirmation of the piety of Abraham, including Chrysostom, Aquinas, Zwingli, Luther and Musculus, and separates him from those who follow the Augustinian reading.29 His choice of language, moreover, resembles that of Aquinas, Luther and Musculus, all of whom refer to God, or the

26 The obvious example is the question of the influence of John Major on Calvin, which finds such impressive names on both sides of the argument: François Wendel, Karl Reuter and more recently T.F. Torrance and Alister McGrath (arguing for Major’s influence on Calvin) and Alexandre Ganoczy, T.H.L. Parker and Heiko Oberman (arguing against). For a nice summary of scholarship on the question, see Anthony, N.S. Lane, John Calvin; Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 16-25. 27 See Lane’s discussion of the difficulty of tracing Calvin’s sources and influences and Lane’s prescriptions (if you will) or axioms with respect to such a venture, John Calvin, 1-13. 28 CO 23: 311-320; CTS Genesis 1: 559-574; slightly altered. 29 Numerous exegetes from early Middle Ages onwards follow Augustine here, with greater variation appearing in the late Middle Ages. For more on the trajectories of interpretation of this story, see Jon Balserak, ‘Luther, Calvin and Musculus on Abraham’s Trial; Exegetical History and the Transformation of Genesis 22’ in Reformation and Renaissance Review 6.3 (2005), 360-372.

20

CHAPTER 2

Scriptures, as speaking after a human manner (humano more).30 And while his discussion of the issue does not parallel that found, say, in Aquinas, it does follow lines set out in Luther’s treatment. Whether Calvin was in fact influenced by Luther is not known, though it is not improbable.31 But even if this matter is left unresolved, Calvin’s comments clearly fit the contours of one of the more important trajectories to appear in respect of Genesis 22: 12 and, in this way, demonstrate what would seem to be a plausible connection between him and tradition, even if particulars of that connection remain unclear. Yet although Calvin may have been influenced by traditional thinking on accommodation, he also cut his own path on the issue. This is implied in the very existence of the present monograph; that is, that Calvin’s thinking on divine accommodation is deemed (at least by the present author) to be worthy of study; that his handling of the motif is interesting enough and significant enough to warrant further examination. Yet although it is implied, a brief demonstration of it will not be out of place. What appears below will aim not only to demonstrate this but also to introduce features which are basic to Calvin’s thinking on and handling of divine accommodation (as was mentioned in the last chapter). This outline of basic features will look primarily to set out signposts marking the major points associated with Calvin’s treatment of accommodation which will be met with in the body of this study. These aims will be pursued by means of an examination of the exegetical histories of several biblical passages. The remainder of this chapter will be occupied with this examination. Two lines of approach will be pursued here. The following pages will investigate the exegetical histories of some passages with which accommodation is associated (as we saw in the case of Genesis 22: 12) and will highlight differences between Calvin’s handling of the concept and that of other exegetes. But because Calvin discusses accommodation in relation to biblical texts which do not have it as part of their exegetical history, this section will also examine the histories of several such passages as well—the hope here being that by probing the history of such passages and Calvin’s comments on accommodation in relation to them, access will be gained to occasions when (we can be relatively sure) something in the passage itself, rather than another exegete’s comments, provoked Calvin’s remarks on the motif; and thus, we will be able to dig that little bit deeper into Calvin’s own thinking on the subject. The passages treated below have been selected with the aims of the section in mind, and fall loosely into several categories: texts which touch on (1) contact or interaction (if you will) between God and the world, (2) angels, (3) divine promises and (4) Old Testament case law. Once

30 Thomas Aquinas, Sancti Thomae Aquinatis … Expositionem in Genesim (Parisiis: Apud Dionysium Moreau …, 1640), 75; Luther, WA 43: 200-270; LW 4: 91-186; Wolfgang Musculus, In Mosis Genesim … commentarii (Basileae: Ioannes Heruagios, 1554), 529-560. 31 Lane, in a chapter entitled ‘The Sources of the Citations in Calvin’s Genesis Commentary,‘ argues that Calvin made heavy use of Luther’s lectures on Genesis for the first-twenty four and a half chapters, see, John Calvin, 205-238.

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN

21

examination of these passages is completed, a summary of findings will be produced. 2.1 Texts Touching on Contact Between God and the World Here attention will be focused on Joel 3: 5, on the theme of the ‘shewbread’ (which is mentioned in Exodus 25: 30, Leviticus 24: 5-9, Numbers 4: 7 and several other places) and on Zephaniah 3: 16-17. 2.1.1 Joel 3: 4-5 The passage reads as follows: Now what have you against me, O Tyre and Sidon and all you regions of Philistia? Are you repaying me for something I have done? If you are paying me back, I will swiftly and speedily return on your own heads what you have done. For you took my silver and my gold and carried off my finest treasures to your temples.32 In all the commentaries examined for the present study, the question of the scope of these words is either implicitly or explicitly addressed. Jerome, whose commentary influences everyone within the boundaries of our research, acknowledges that the Chaldeans stole the vasa from the house of God, but argues that the scope of these words is broader and that they ought to be understood of the Romans; mentioning specifically Vespasianus et Titus and the building of the temple Pacis in this context.33 Hugh of St Cher and Nicholas of Lyra adopt this view.34 Conrad Pellican mentions the temple’s destruction but, likewise, does not restrict his attention exclusively to it.35 Francis Lambert of Avignon moves immediately into typological exegesis, seeing Tyre, Sidon and the regions of Philistia as types of the Antichrist, which he identifies with several groups, Rome, ‘Mahumetus’ and various heretics contemporary with Lambert himself.36 Luther, on the other hand, thinks the time in view here is the time when the gospel would come and God would call all nations to

32 NRSVB, 950. The English text cited here agrees, in all except very minor respects, with the Latin of Joel 3: 4-5 found in the commentaries of the exegetes examined for this paper. The Latin from reads: ‘Atque etiam, quid vobis mecum Tyre et Sidon, et cuncti termini Palestinae? An mercedem vobis rependitis mihi? Etsi confertis hoc in me, velox (subito) rependam mercedem vestram in caput vestrum; Quia argentum meum et aurum meum abstulistis, et desiderabilia mea bona transtulistis in templa vestra (alii, palatia.)’ (CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 119). 33 Jerome, Commentariorum in Joelem Prophetam 3: 1-6 (PL 25: 980-81). 34 Ugonis de S. Charo... Opera omnia in universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum (Venetiis : apud Sessas, 1600), 5, fol. 181v; Lyra, Biblia Sacra, 4, fol. 356v. 35 Commentaria Bibliorum (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1532-35), 1, fol. 27v-29r. 36 In Io helem Prophetam, qui e duodecim secundus est, Francisci Lamberti Auenionensis Commentarii (Straussburg, 1525), 48-49.

22

CHAPTER 2

judgment and reveal Christ as their only savior.37 Calvin adheres to a more historical reading, which gives priority to the time of the prophet himself. Despite these differences, however, a common theme is found in most of these expositions, namely, that in attacking God’s people, Tyre and Sidon and these other foreign nations had attacked God himself. Jerome expresses this sentiment explicitly, citing Matthew 10: 40 to support it. The thought is repeated by a number of other exegetes including Calvin. The sentiment is in many ways suggested most clearly by the objection found in verse 5 where God himself complains, ‘you have taken away my gold and my silver and precious things.’ Interestingly, however, most commentators say very little about this particular verse. Almost all the exegetes we read simply note that this refers to the gold and silver items—the candelabrum, vases, utensils and other things that were stolen from the temple. They say no more regarding the historical sense than that. Respecting the spiritual senses, Jerome argues that the silver and gold are the utterances (eloquia) of the Scriptures and all that is beautiful in the church.38 This is repeated by several commentators.39 Lambert makes no mention of the gold and silver of the temple, but speaks simply of the substantiam of the faithful.40 Calvin, however, produces quite a full treatment of this verse. He mentions the idea of foreign nations attacking God, as was said. But additionally, he turns his attention to a different concern; indeed one not touched on by any other exegete whom we are aware of. This concern has to do with the nature of God and his engagement with his people. Calvin does not like the idea implied in this passage that God seems, as Calvin says, ‘to be like a child, who takes delight in gold and silver and such things.’41 It is degrading, Calvin feels, to describe God in this way. God has no fondness for nor any need of such things. Thus, Calvin declares that God is speaking after the manner of human beings; putting on, Calvin says, ‘a character not his own,’ since he has no need of such things, and does not take pleasure in them. This—all the gold and silver utensils and furnishings—is part of the props and aids which were required by the crudeness (rudis) of God’s Old Testament people, but it does not reflect what God is really like or what actually pleases him.42 2.1.2 Shewbread And you shall make a table of acacia wood … You shall overlay it with pure gold, … And you shall make its plates and dishes for incense, and its flagons and bowls

37 WA 13: 116-117; LW, 18, 115-116. 38 Jerome, Commentariorum in Joelem Prophetam 3: 1-6 (PL 25: 980-81). 39 For instance, Lyra, Biblia Sacra, 4, 356v. 40 Lambert, In Iohelem Prophetam, 49. 41 CO 42: 587; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 122-23. 42 CO 42: 587; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 122-23.

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN

23

with which to pour libations; of pure gold you shall make them. And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always.43 Exodus 25: 23, 24, 29-30 Similar themes are found in Calvin’s handling of the shewbread. Here the passages in view are Exodus 25: 30; 35: 13 and 39: 36, Leviticus 24: 5-9, and Numbers 4: 7 and 28: 2, though mention of this bread is made elsewhere, like in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Most exegetes state their basic understanding of it in Exodus 25: 30, since this is the first text, according to the standard ordering of the books of the Pentateuch, to mention the bread. (This, obviously, is dependent upon which parts of the Old Testament an exegete comments upon, since they may not expound the whole of the Pentateuch.) This section will focus on expositions of Exodus, though the passage from Leviticus also receives some treatment. The subjects raised for discussion by commentators prior to and during the Reformation include the shape of the bread, how it was placed on the table, how often it was replaced, and in some cases how it was baked. There is also consist treatment of the question of why this bread was called the panes propositionis, or later, when examination of the Hebrew and of the opinions of the Jews became more common, the panes facierum. The most common answer given to this was that they are called this because they are always present before the face of the Lord. The spiritual meaning of the bread was also queried, with answers such as Johannes Brenz’s comment that the bread signifies the preaching of the gospel of Christ being common.44 In Calvin’s exposition we find, once again, that while he takes up some of the common exegetical questions, he moves analysis on to issues not raised by his predecessors or contemporaries. For instance when interpreting Exodus 25: 30, Calvin observes several times that God has no need for food and drink, patens and chalices. This being so, the idea of such offerings being presented to God appears ‘gross and rude’. Nevertheless, Calvin observes, God instructs that these loaves and the other items be set out before him, ‘not that he had need of meat and drink, but that he might prescribe the duty of temperance to his people, by deigning to have his table among them’, that they should learn to be content with simple and sober food.45 The idea of God supping with his people is also raised in Calvin’s treatment of Leviticus 24: 5-9, where he

43 NRSVB, 82. Although there are one or two minor differences in the Latin of Exodus 25: 23-30 expounded by the exegetes examined for this paper, the only one worth mentioning is that between panes propositionis and panes facierum. The Latin in Calvin’s commentary reads: ‘Facies quoque mensam ex lignis sittim: … Et teges eam auro puro, … Facies etiam scutellas eius, et cochlearia eius, et opercula eius, et crateres eius quibus libabitur: ex auro mundo facies ea. Et pones super mensam illam panem facierum coram me iugiter’ (CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 159-160). 44 In Exodum Commentarii Mosi (Halae Sueuorum: ex officina Petri Brubachii 1544), fol. 115v. 45 CO 25: 408; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 160-161.

24

CHAPTER 2

even suggests that the Lord descended familiarly to his people to be their ‘messmates.’46 2.1.3 Zephaniah 3: 16-17 As we take up Zephaniah 3, which is the well-known passage about the Lord rejoicing over his people with gladness,47 much the same situation prevails as far as Calvin’s relationship with his exegetical predecessors and contemporaries is concerned. The only caveat that must be added to this assertion is to note the comments of Conrad Pellican and Martin Bucer on this passage. They both, in a manner which suggests dependence of Bucer on Pellican, declare that God is not able to be revealed with human words, and that because of this, he compares and offers himself to his people at one time as a father (modo patris), another time as a mother (nunc matris) and then taking to himself the feelings of a married man (mariti affectum), since he surpasses all these in excellence.48 Thus Pellican and Bucer allude in a discernible way to the notion of accommodation. In comparison with Calvin’s remarks, however, theirs seem rather tame. These hyperbolic terms seem to set out something inconsistent. For what could be more alien to God’s glory than to exult like human beings when influenced by joy arising from love? It seems then that the very nature of God repudiates these modes of expression. In fact the prophet seems as though he had removed God from his celestial throne in heaven to earth. A heathen poet says, ‘Not well do agree, nor dwell on the same throne, Majesty and love.’ (Ovid. Met. Lib. 2: 846-7) God represents himself here as a husband who burns with intense love for his wife; and this does not seem (as we have said) to be suitable to his glory. But whatever tends to convince us of his ineffable love for us … [so that we may rest in it] … doubtless illustrates the glory of God and takes nothing away from his nature. We at the same time see that God, as it were, humbles himself. For if it were asked if these things are suitable to the nature of God, we must say that nothing is more alien to it. It may then appear completely incongruous that God should be described by us as a husband who burns with love for his wife, but we hence learn more fully, as I have already said, how great is God’s favor towards us, who thus humbles himself for our sake, and in a manner transforms himself, while he puts on a character not his own. … [let us learn how much unbelief is in 46 47

48

CO 24: 488; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 291. Again, there are a minor differences between the texts expounded by the interpreters we read for this chapter, however, they were not significant; Calvin’s Latin reads: ‘In die illa dicetur Jerosolymae, Ne timeas Sion, ne pigrescant … Iehova Deus tuus in medio tui fortis servabit, exsultabit (vel, gaudebit) super te in laetitia; quiescet (silebit, vel, quietus erit) in amore suo; exsultabit super te cum jubilatione’ (CO 44: 70; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 304). Pellican Commentaria Bibliorum 3, fol. 282r-v; Bucer, Psalmorum libri … Eiusdem commentarii … in Sophoniam prophetam … (Geneva: Oliva Roberti Stephani, 1554), 581.

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN

25

us] … for God cannot provide for our good and correct this evil, to which we are all subject, without departing as it were from himself, that he might come near to us. etc.49 Other similar examples can be found in Calvin’s corpus, as shall be seen later. At present, however, this study will turn to the second of our chosen themes. 2.2 Angels: Psalm 91: 11, 12 and Psalm 34: 7 Psalm 91 was thought by early Christian exegetes to apply to Christ, a view which was supported, or perhaps revealed, by Satan’s use of it when tempting Jesus: ‘he shall give his angels charge concerning you,’ that is, concerning Christ (Matt 4: 6).50 Thus these words were understood as a kind of prophecy. The fact that Augustine and Jerome both set out this reading guaranteed it a significant place in medieval exegesis. Cassiodorus, Peter Lombard and Hugh of St Cher, among others, all stay within the trajectory plotted by these two fathers.51 From these expositions issue comments on the two natures of Christ (prompted by the devil’s query ‘if you are the Son of God’ (Matt 4: 6) which precedes his citing of Ps 91: 11), the angels’ carrying of Christ up to heaven at his ascension (based on Ps 91: 12, ‘they will carry you in their hands’), and the ‘stone,’ that is the law, over which the Son of God was theoretically in danger of stumbling (regarding Ps 91: 12, ‘lest you strike your foot against a stone’). Not all medieval exegetes followed this line, however. Gerhoh of Reichersberg and Nicholas of Lyra are two who turn attention in their expositions to the work of angels in the lives of all the faithful.52 Such a focus also appears in the exposition of Denis the Carthusian.53 The fact that Denis’ treatment contains an explicit criticism of the once standard prophetic reading of the text is indicative, it would seem, of the shift occurring in the later middle ages as regards this passage. Accordingly, a similar focus on the work of the angels in caring for believers can also be found in the commentaries of Conrad Pellican, Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Musculus and in a brief remark of Luther.54

49

CO 44: 72-73; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 304-305. 50 Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 90, s. ii, 6-8 (CCSL 39.1271-1275); Jerome, Homilies on the Psalms, homily 20 (FC 48, 160-63). 51 Cassiodorus, M. Aurelii Cassiodori in Psalterium Expositio 90: 11-12 (PL 70: 652-653); Lombard, Petri Lombardi in Psalmos Dividicos Commentarii 90: 11-12 (PL 191: 852-53); Hugh, Opera omnia, 2, fol. 242v; see also Bruno of Asti, In Psalmos Expositio 90: 11-12 (PL165: 1259). 52 Gerhoh of Reichersberg, Expositio in Psalmos 90: 11-12 (PL 194: 555-560); Lyra, Biblia Latina cum expositione Nicolai de Lyra (Basle: J. Froben, J. Amerbach & J. Petri, 1502), 1, fol. 223v-224v. 53 D. Dionysii Carthusiani insigne commentariorum opus, in Psalmos omnes Dauidicos … (Parisiis: ex officina Roberti Masselin …, 1553), fol. 159v-160r. 54 Pellican, Commentaria Bibliorum 4, fol. 141r-v; Bucer, Psalmorum libri, 352; Musculus, In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium commentarii … (Basileae: per Ioannem Heruagium, 1551), 105758; Luther, Commentary on the Psalms 90: 8ff (WA 4: 77-78; LW 11: 227-28).

26

CHAPTER 2

Calvin may well be indebted to these later expositors in various ways. In fact, his exposition of Psalm 91: 11-12 bears some resemblance to that of Pellican. In both, one finds a note of tension regarding God’s apparent need for angels. Why, if God is omnipotent, does he seem to require the aid of these creatures when caring for his church? In addressing this problem, Pellican explains that God, who is purissimus actus and in need of nothing, does not require the assistance of angels, but chooses to use them simply because it pleases him to do so (quia sic illi placuit).55 Calvin, while agreeing with the general thrust of Pellican’s argument, provides an explanation which differs noticeably from it. To Calvin, God’s use of angels is an act act of divine indulgence, which amounts not only to his forgiving the sin of human diffidence but also providing a remedy for it. Thus, it is in accommodation to his people’s infirmity, specifically their fear, that God employs angels. This is added by the Psalmist expressly with the view of obviating any fears which might arise from our infirmity; so that we cannot fail to be struck with the benignant condescension of God in thus not only forgiving our diffidence, but proposing the means by which it may be best removed. Does he exhibit himself to us as a fortress and shield, proffer the shadow of his protection, make himself known to us as a habitation in which we may abide, and stretch out his wings for our defense—surely we are chargeable with the worst ingratitude if we are not satisfied with promises so abundantly full and satisfactory? If we tremble to think of his majesty, he presents himself to us under the lowly figure of the hen: if we are terrified at the power of our enemies, and the multitude of dangers by which we are beset, he reminds us of his own invincible power, which extinguishes every opposing force. When even all these attempts to encourage us have been tried, and he finds that we still linger and hesitate to approach him, or cast ourselves upon his sole and exclusive protection, he next makes mention of the angels, and proffers them as guardians of our safety. As an additional illustration of his indulgent mercy, and compassion for our weakness, he represents those whom he has ready for our defense as being a numerous host; he does not assign one solitary angel to each saint, but commissions the whole armies of heaven to keep watch over every individual believer. 56 Such sentiments are also stated in Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 34: 7—to which Calvin refers in his exposition of Psalm 91: 11 and which seems to have very little in the way of an exegetical history, with only the most general remarks being made on it by a host of different exegetes. Here Calvin, after declaring that David affirms that God’s servants are protected and defended by angels, writes: But in order to confirm them more in this hope he adds at the same time and not without reason that those whom God would preserve in safety he defends by the power and ministry of angels. The power of God alone would be sufficient of 55 56

Pellican, Commentaria Bibliorum 4, fol. 141v. CO 32: 5-7; CTS Psalms, 3, 484-85.

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN

27

itself to perform this, but in mercy to our infirmity he vouchsafes to employ angels as his ministers. It serves not a little for the confirmation of our faith to know that God has innumerable legions of angels who are always ready for his service as often as he is pleased to aid us; even more, that the angels … are ever intent upon the preservation of our life, because they know that this duty is entrusted to them. God is rightly designated as the wall and fortress of the church, but in accommodation to the measure and extent of our present imperfect state, he manifests the presence of his power to aid us through the instrumentality of angels.57 2.3 Divine Promises: Hosea 2: 19-22 Work on this passage begins for all intents and purposes with Jerome. He focuses his attention primarily on verses 19 and 20: And I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord.58 God repeats this language of betrothal three times—a point on which Jerome fixes. Jerome argues that the Lord betrothed, or espoused, himself to the people first in Abraham, secondly when he led them out of Egypt and thirdly when he reconciled the world to himself in Christ. Following this, Jerome’s work on verses 21-22, in which the Lord promises that a day is coming when he shall hear the heavens, and the heavens shall hear the earth, the earth shall hear the corn and the wine and the oil, and they shall hear Jezrael, involves Jerome’s painting a kind of spiritual picture of the Lord sowing the seed of God in a field (alluding to the parable of the sower - Mark 4) and describing how this seed would change everything so that those who were called not my people would become God’s people and so forth.59 The subsequent exegetical history of this passage is largely a response to Jerome’s reading. The Glossa Ordinaria responds by simply citing Jerome verbatim, as it does for the entirety of the minor prophets. Hugh of St Cher is also heavily reliant upon Jerome.60 57

58

CO 31: 339; CTS Psalms, 1, 562-63. For examples which are characteristic of the exegetical history of this Psalm, see Hugh of St Cher, Opera omnia, 2, fol. 83v and Denis, in Psalmos omnes Dauidicos, fol. 58r. NRSVB, 937. There are no noteworthy textual differences in the text that is expounded by the exegetes read for this section; the Latin in Calvin’s commentary reads: ‘Et desponsabo to mihi in perpetuum, et desponsabo te mihi in justicia, et in judicio, et in clementia, (vel bonitate) et in misericordiis. Et desponsabo te mihi in fide, (vel veritate) et cognosces Jehovam. Et erit in die illa, exaudiam, dicit Dominus, exaudiam coelos, et audient terram. Et terra exaudiet frumentum et mustum et oleum, et ipsa exaudient Iezreel’ (CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 111, 116).

59 Jerome, Commentariorum in Osee Prophetam 2: 20ff (PL 25: 841-42). 60 Biblia Sacra, 4, fol. 335v-336r; Hugh, Opera omnia, 5, fol. 169r-v.

28

CHAPTER 2

Others, however, do divert from him to varying degrees. Denis the Carthusian for instance offers a different trio of betrothals in his exposition of verses 19 and 20. Additionally, a number of exegetes produce readings of verses 21 and 22 (in fact the whole passage) which, while focusing on the gospel era as Jerome had done, betray a different, or at least more evangelical, understanding of how these verses speak about that era. Luther is a good example here. Whereas Jerome had cited the parable of the sower from Mark 4, Luther cites Paul. So when verse 21 speaks of a day which is coming, Luther sees this as the acceptable time, the day of salvation, spoken of in 2 Cor 6: 2.61 Wolfgang Capito is similar to Luther on the identification of the ‘day’ spoken of here, seeing it as the time of the revealing of the Messiah.62 Both Pellican and Johannes Oecolampadius do not explicitly identify the day.63 Nonetheless, in all these commentaries—those of Luther, Capito, Pellican and Oecolampadius—one finds expositions which all focus on the gospel era and discuss distinctly evangelical themes, such as faith, the preaching of the gospel, and the establishing of the kingdom of Christ. Calvin likewise acknowledges the day spoken of by the prophet as a prediction of Christ’s kingdom.64 He also takes issue with Jerome’s trio of betrothals, arguing that it is too refined. But the matter that specifically concerns us is Calvin’s reading of verses 21 and 22. He takes a more historical approach to these verses. Regarding the idea expressed in v22 that the corn and the wine and the oil will hear Jezrael or the Jezraelites—matters which were essentially passed over by many other exegetes65—Calvin says that people when in a famine will call out for food, and that this is what is in view here. The people are calling, out of blind instinct, for what will satisfy them. The text says that the corn, wine and oil will hear them. ‘But when?’, Calvin asks. When (following the logic of the passage) the earth hears the corn, wine and oil and provides them with the nutrients they need to grow. But, he continues, the earth cannot supply these things of itself. It needs to be provided with rain from the heavens—but the heavens are ruled by the will of God. And so, Calvin argues, people cry out in vain in a famine unless they learn to ascend up to God and seek their bread from him.66

61 WA 13: 11-13; LW, 18, 13-15. 62 In Hoseam Prophetam V. F. Capitonis Commentarius. Ex quo peculiaria prophetis, et hactenus fortassis nusquam sic tractata, si uersam pagellam et indicem percurris, cognoscere potes (Argentorati: apud Ioannem Hervagium, 1528), fol. 62v. 63 Pellican, Commentaria Bibliorum, 3, fol. 236v; Oecolampadius, Annotationes Piissimae doctissimae que in Ioseam, Ioelem, Amos, Abdiam, … (Basileae, 1535). 64 CO 42: 253; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 111. N.B. Richard Muller, ‘The Hermeneutics of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom’ in The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, David Steinmetz ed. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 67-82. 65 Where these matters were not passed over, they were generally understood to indicate that the creation would serve the people of God; see, for instance, Luther, WA 13: 12-13; LW, 18, 14. 66 CO 42: 255; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 118-19.

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN

29

Having thus objected in this way to people crying out instinctually and frantically for food instead of looking to God, Calvin now must face the fact that the text in question here does not seem to share his concern, because it promises that the corn, wine and oil will hear Jezrael, while Calvin has said that such a cry is made in vain. But he extricates himself from this problem by arguing that God had to speak in this way because of ‘the rude and weak comprehension of the people.’67 They instinctively look to food instead of to God. And so God indulged their foolishness by speaking in this way in order to lift their minds up by degrees from the food to the earth to the heavens and finally to himself; thus, this also betrayed God’s accommodating demeanor towards his people. 2.4 OT case laws: Exodus 21: 7-11 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt faithlessly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.68 Augustine’s contribution to the exegetical history of this text is considerable. His examination, found in Question 78 of his Quaestiones et Locutiones in Heptateuchum, opens with remarks on the obscurity of the passage and a promise to uncover its meaning, ‘as I am able.’69 His treatment takes as its point of departure the difference which exists in the law between the sale of a male (Exod 21: 1-6) and a female (more specifically, a daughter). Surely the same law should apply to both, Augustine insists. Yet the male slave may leave after six years, while a daughter sold into slavery may not. From this, Augustine concludes that these girls were not purchased merely to be slaves but to be concubines.70 In line with this, he argues that the various requirements placed by the text on her owner attempt to deal with the various problems which might arise from such a relation, including, for example, the likelihood that he has had sex with her but does not want her for a wife (which is how Augustine interprets Exod 21: 8). 67

CO 42: 255; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 119. 68 NRSVB, 77. There are textual issues associated with this passage which would need to be dealt with were an exhaustive study of its exegetical history being attempted but which have no bearing on the matters being discussed here. The Latin in Calvin’s commentary reads; ‘Quum vendiderit quispiam filiam suam in ancillam, non egredietur quemadmodum egredi solent servi. Si displicuerit hero suo, nec sibi desponderit eam, redimendam curabit; populo alieno non habebit potestatem vendendi eam, quum spreverit eam. Quod si filio suo desponderit eam, secundum morem filiarum faciet ei. Si aliam acceperit sibi, alimentum illius, operimentum illius, et constitutionem illius non diminuet. Quod si tria haec non fecerit illi, egredietur gratis absque argento’ (CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 80). 69 Quaestiones et Locutiones in Heptateuchum 78.1 (CCSL 33.107). 70 Quaestiones et Locutiones in Heptateuchum 78.2 (CCSL 33.108).

30

CHAPTER 2

Augustine’s reading of the passage was spread through the numerous medieval expositions which cited, paraphrased or generally followed it, such as those in the Glossa Ordinaria, Andrew of St Victor and Hugh of St Cher.71 Questions with Augustine’s reading eventually arose, however. This can be seen, for example, in the comments of Nicholas of Lyra, by whom the idea that this text implicitly sanctions a process whereby concubinage progresses to marriage is criticized. The general view of the passage set out by Lyra makes the whole procedure appear rather more civilized. He explains that the master purchases the girl so that he may test her character (mores) while she is serving in his household, and thus either take her for his own wife or give her to his son.72 Stipulations are laid down regarding how to handle various eventualities. But she is not, Lyra argues, purchased to be a concubine. By the time of Denis the Carthusian, these two views were being presented as rival interpretations. Interesting for our purposes is the fact that the Augustinian view, as elucidated by Denis, asserts divine accommodation in order to defend its legitimacy. So Denis notes that if someone objects to this interpretation on the grounds that God disapproves of all sex (concubitus) outside of marriage, its proponents (he mentions Rabanus and Peter Comestor) reply that it was permitted to the Hebrews on account of their lust ( propter eorum libidinem), giving as supporting examples the applying of interest to foreigners and the permission to divorce, (though, slightly curiously, Denis does not refer to Jesus’ words from Matthew 19).73 It is worth pointing out here that the assertion of accommodation is strictly linked to the Augustinian interpretation, namely, that the girl was being sold as a concubine to serve her master in bed (in lecto).74 Denis, we note, preferred the alternative reading (which we saw above in relation to the exposition of Nicholas of Lyra). A later proponent of the Augustinian reading is found in Thomas de Vio Cajetan.75 Interestingly, Calvin’s exposition does not fall neatly into either of these two lines of thought. He is opposed to the reading which sees a man purchasing a slave as a concubine, and so in that way he concurs with Lyra and Denis. And yet his reading appeals to accommodation, and so in that way is aligned with the Augustinian version of events. This combination of elements is significant because it implies that Calvin saw in the passage a problem that needed to be explained but that it was not the problem of concubinage. What, then, was it?

71 72 73 74 75

Biblia Sacra, 1, fol. 167v; Andrew of St Victor, Expositionem super Heptateuchum; in Exodum on 21: 7-11 (CCCM 53: 134); Hugh of St Cher, Opera omnia, 1, fol. 89r-90r. Biblia Sacra, 1, fol. 167v. D.Dionysius Carthusienus enarrationes piae ac eruditae in quinque Mosaicae legis libros … (Coloniae, 1548), 408. Enarrationes … Mosaicae legis libros, 408. Tommaso de Vio Cajetan, Thomae de Vio Caietani tituli SS. Sixti … Opera omnia quotquot in Sacrae Scripturae expositionem reperiuntur … (Lugduni: Sumpt. Iacobi & Petri Prost, 1639), 1, 212-13. Also Peder Palladius refers to the selling or prostituting of girls (de venditione seu prostitutione filiarum), Librorum Moisi … explicatio brevis (Vitebergae, 1559), 225.

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN

31

Unlike any author we have read on the passage, Calvin expresses feelings of disgust at the situation which was the occasion for God’s publishing of this law.76 This situation, however, was not simply the issue of concubinage, but rather a combination of concerns. Calvin was aghast at the idea that a father should sell his daughter for the relief of their poverty. Calvin expresses dismay at the thought, calling it an act of ‘barbarism (prorsus barbarum).’77 He also pours scorn on the fact that the marriage vow was held in such low regard by the Israelites (alluding to Exod 21: 8-9); it should, he insists—recalling Jesus’ words ‘those whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder (Matt 19: 6)’—have been stronger than to allow a master to repudiate the maidservant whom he had betrothed either to himself or to his son. And he expresses grave concerns over the potential for sexual sin given the awkward realities implied in the idea of a man buying a young girl as a slave; indeed, Calvin treats Exodus 21: 7-11 under his handling of the seventh commandment, separating it from Exodus 21: 1-6, which he treats under the eighth commandment. Thus the circumstances and implications surrounding this legislation were ones which Calvin found reprehensible. This new approach to the problems of the text, which is likely the product of several causes one of which may be his legal training,78 undergirds Calvin’s appeal to divine accommodation. It, combined with the strength of his feelings (as mentioned above), results in a discussion of accommodation that is considerably more animated than that found in Rabanus or Peter Comestor. So whereas Denis could compare the accommodation found in Exodus 21: 7-11 to the exacting of interest from foreigners, Calvin describes a situation in which God labored against his people’s stubbornness to express his wishes that they be holy. ‘From this passage,’ Calvin writes, ‘as well as other similar ones, it plainly appears how many vices were of necessity tolerated in this people.’79 Calvin also notes in light of the barbarity of the Jews that ‘liberty was accorded to the ancient people,’ but observes ruefully that God shows through these regulations that ‘chastity is pleasing to him, as far as the people’s hardness could take it.’80 Thus, one finds in Calvin’s exegesis a treatment of accommodation that is more interested in what (from a theological point of view) is happening in, or behind, the text; that feels more profound displeasure with the sinfulness of God’s ancient people; and, thus, that produces a more revealing portrait of the deity behind these acts of accommodation. More will be said about Calvin’s treatment of this text in later chapters, but for now this shall suffice.

76

Some feelings of concern are also expressed by Joannes Brenz, In Exodum Commentarii Mosi (Halae Sueuorum: ex officina Petri Brubachii 1544), fol. 96v-97r. Likewise, Cajetan expresses slight concern over issues of divorce in relation to the text, Opera omnia, 1, 213.

77 CO 24: 650; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 80-1. 78 This verdict is based on various considerations, some of which will be briefly taken up in chapter five. 79 CO 24: 650; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 80-1. 80 CO 24: 650; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 80-1.

32

CHAPTER 2

2.5 Summary The just-completed section has examined the exegetical histories of several biblical passages, comparing Calvin’s interpretation of these passages with that of his exegetical predecessors and contemporaries. From this comparison the basic qualities which characterize Calvin as an employer of the accommodation motif may begin to be seen. The most important of these qualities are listed below along with a brief explanation of each. 1. Calvin distinguishes himself as an exegete who is not averse to deviating from the standard reading of a passage or to raising for discussion new issues about which he feels strongly. This point does not only apply to Calvin’s use of the accommodation motif, 81 though it is (of course) on this that the present study focuses. Accordingly, what has been revealed above, and will be substantiated in what follows, is that many of the occasions on which Calvin discusses accommodation do not seem to draw on or be prompted by a previous exegetical tradition. 2. Calvin discusses accommodation very often (particularly when his practice is compared with that of others). Naturally the passages examined above were chosen precisely because Calvin discusses accommodation in relation to them. Nonetheless what has been illustrated in this representative sample is corroborated by our reading of the tradition and Calvin. For, with the exception of John Chrysostom, no other exegete or theologian whom we have read treats accommodation as often as Calvin. Nor, it should be said, is this point an insignificant one; rather it is clearly suggestive of the importance the reformer ascribes to accommodation. 3. Calvin’s treatment of God’s accommodating places huge importance upon human capacity. This can be seen in several of the instances cited above, but perhaps especially in the long citation from his exposition of Zephaniah 3: 16-17 and also his treatment of Exodus 21: 7-11—both of which reveal how intense is the reformer’s sense of the wickedness, weakness and incapacitating nature of human captus. While an essential theme in discussions of accommodation (as mentioned earlier), it is especially pervasive in Calvin’s thought on the motif. 4. Accommodation in Calvin is multi-facetted in character; that is, it expresses itself in different ways in his writings. Indeed, so true is this that it may well be best to think of it as a collection of closely-linked concerns, spanning or touching on a range of disciplines: theological, philosophical, legal and exegetical. This may be seen if the examples cited above are considered collectively, as each grouping deals 81 The novelty of Calvin’s exegesis is commented upon in John Thompson, ‘The Immoralities of the Patriarchs in the History of Exegesis: A Reappraisal of Calvin’s Position’ Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1991), 9-46; E. A. de Boer, John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel; Historical and Hermeneutical Studies in John Calvin’s 'sermons inédits,' especially on Ezek 36-48 (Leiden: Brill, 2004) and my, ‘Luther, Calvin and Musculus on Abraham’s Trial,’ 360-372.

DIVINE ACCOMMODATION IN THE TRADITION AND CALVIN

33

with a different aspect of God’s accommodating: from his describing of himself (Joel 3 etc) to his creating and employing of angels (Psalm 91 and 34), offering of promises (Hosea 2) and drafting of legislation (Exodus 21). A fuller range of aspects will be treated in chapter four of this study. 5. Calvin’s handling of accommodation exhibits different images of God. It will be apparent, for example, that the God revealed in Calvin’s remarks on Joel 3, the shewbread and Zephaniah 3 seems different from the God manifested in his exposition of Exodus 21; surprisingly different, in fact. The former is great, infinite and unsullied by the world to such an extent that all comparisons between the world and God are deemed, by Calvin, inappropriate. By contrast, the latter seems distinctly lacking in power, unable to accomplish his will and, generally, far less majestic. It is important, too, to note that both portraits are not necessarily found in the texts on which Calvin is commenting—a point which the exegetical histories of these texts would seem to confirm.82 Similar observations can also be made in respect of the God revealed in Calvin’s exposition of Hosea 2, who differs noticeably from the God found in his exegesis of Psalms 91 and 34. The former appears slightly compromising and less than omnipotent, whereas the latter is so powerful that Calvin feels the need to explain his reason for employing angels to govern of the universe. Other comparisons could be elicited from the examples treated above, but the basic point should be clear. 6. Calvin’s treatment of angels in Psalms 91 and 34 provides us with a sixth point, namely, that divine accommodation does not merely rest on the surface of his thought but penetrates it. In these two examples, accommodation is clearly present amongst Calvin’s thoughts on God’s structuring of the universe. Indeed his comments suggest the idea that God actually accomplished his designing and governing of the universe (an aspect of it, at least) with the capacity of his creatures in mind. Naturally, the precise character of accommodation’s influence on Calvin’s thought cannot be commented upon on the basis of these two examples, but the penetration we wish to highlight ought to be sufficiently illustrated by them. 7. Finally, what appears from the examples considered in this section is that Calvin is fascinated by the big picture (so to speak) of God’s engagement with his creatures; that is, he endeavours in his exegesis to step back from a biblical passage and analyze what is happening between God and humankind in that passage. This habit is quite common in Calvin and distinguishes him from many of his exegetical fellow-laborers, who engage in such a practice far less often. Its connection to accommodation is found in the fact that what Calvin often sees when he steps back from a passage is that God is accommodating himself in some way to his people.

82 To that end, it is also interesting to query why Calvin’s concern for the glory of God as seen in his treatment of Joel 3 did not move him to downplay the crudeness of the Jews in his exposition of Exodus 21. Rather, he emphasizes it far more than other exegetes.

34

CHAPTER 2

These seven points provide a precis of the basic features which characterize Calvin’s thinking on and treatment of divine accommodation. In order to defend and extrapolate upon these points, this study must take a more detailed look at divine accommodation as it appears in Calvin’s corpus. This will commence with the next chapter, which will examine the reformer’s thinking on human captus.

CHAPTER 3 HUMAN CAPTUS The following analysis of Calvin’s thought on human capacity (the occasional cause of God’s accommodating) will begin by considering some general aspects of the reformer’s teaching on human nature and especially the effects of Adam’s fall into sin upon that nature. Before this is taken up, however, the historical context of Calvin’s thought should be briefly set out. 1. HUMAN NATURE IN CALVIN 1.1 Historical Background Anthropology occupied Christian theologians from early on, as is apparent from the work of Irenaeus and Augustine on the question of the nature of the imago Dei. Perhaps the most anthropologically significant event of the period, however, was Augustine’s dispute with Pelagius, which raised enduring questions about human ability in relation to God and salvation. The North African’s writings on these matters, and particular ideas of his such as his proposed distinction between operating and cooperating grace, would contribute immensely to the structure and content of later discussions on a host of questions related to human sin, ability and regenerating grace. These later discussions would be carried on by Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas and numerous other medieval theologians, who gave careful consideration to human nature in their writings. Though of obvious significance in and of themselves, such considerations were of particular importance when dealing with soteriological doctrines and issues, especially given the emergence and rise to axiomatic status of the idea that one who does one’s best will not be denied grace by God. This, as well as the related issues of merit, the role of the sacraments, and the need for a supernatural habit of grace for justification focused attention on the powers of the soul in spiritual affairs. Accordingly, medieval works sought to address a gamut of related issues: the nature of the soul, the character of the original righteousness which Adam possessed before the fall, the nature of original sin, the effects of sin on the intellect and will, the question of the freedom or enslavement of the will, and the position of the soul vis-à-vis divine grace. As was true of the patristic period, the Middle Ages generated theologians who were more Pelagian in their views (such as Robert Holcot and Gabriel Biel) as well as those more Augustinian (such as Thomas Bradwardine and Gregory of Rimini). 35

36

CHAPTER 3

While Calvin would embrace some elements of medieval theological speculation and reject others, he would articulate a position which placed him unambiguously in the latter camp, along with other Reformers like Luther, Bucer and Bullinger. Accordingly, Calvin complained about the traditional notion of a higher and lower part to the soul which locates sin only in the lower ‘sensual’ part, and spoke against other related medieval ideas such as the fomes peccati and the idea that human beings could move towards or approach God ex puris naturalibus.1 Calvin’s leanings may also be gauged by the fact that he criticized the Augustinian distinction between operating and cooperating grace. His criticism, it must be said, was lodged against Peter Lombard’s use of the distinction, which Calvin felt represented a twisting of Augustine’s intention and ascribed too much to humankind.2 Nonetheless, the censure still provides a clear window into the strength of Calvin’s feelings as regards the severity of human depravity. For much the same reason, the Genevan would also criticize the common doctrine that one who does one’s best will not be denied grace from God, and speak against virtually all earlier views on the freedom of the will.3 All of this notwithstanding, Calvin appears to have agreed with the common assertion that the natural gifts in humankind were corrupted, but the supernatural taken away.4 But Calvin’s views on human nature will be easier to gauge if we turn to a focused consideration of them. 1.2 Calvin Studies and Calvin Calvin apportions five chapters to fallen human nature at the beginning of book two in the 1559 Institutes, having discussed humanity in its uprightness in an earlier chapter in book one. Further, his treatment in book three of faith, repentance, and the nature of justification amounts to an enormous discussion of human nature in its redeemed state.5 Of course, the various questions associated with human nature are also dealt with on many occasions in Calvin’s expositions of Scripture. Since he devoted such deliberate attention to the subject, one would expect his position on it to be coherent and in harmony with his whole theology. But Calvin scholarship has wrestled long and hard with the reformer’s views even on basic issues surrounding the locus, as recollection of the Barth-Brunner debate serves to remind us.6 As scholars have sought to extricate themselves from the tangle of issues 1 OS 3: 238-39; Inst. 2.1.9; OS 3: 244-47; Inst. 2.2.4; OS 3: 270-71; Inst. 2.2.27; OS 3: 271-73; Inst. 2.3.1. 2 OS 3: 248-49, 270-71; Inst. 2.2.6-7, 27; OS 3: 281-82, 286-88; Inst. 2.3.7, 11. 3 On the facientibus quod in se est axiom (OS 3: 285-86; Inst. 2.3.10); on free will (OS 3: 244-47; Inst. 2.2.4); on related issues (CO 43: 261; CTS Minor Prophets, 3, 67-68; altered (Jonah 1: 16)). 4 He cites it several times, not always approvingly (it would seem from the first citation): OS 3: 244-47, 254-56, 259; Inst. 2.2.4, 12, 16. 5 I am indebted to Dewey Hoitenga for this point; see, John Calvin and the Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 45. 6 See, Karl Barth, ‘No! Answer to Emil Brunner,’ Natural Theology, trans. Peter Fraenkel (London: Centenary Press, 1946), 80ff; Emil Brunner, ‘Nature and Grace’ Natural Theology, 20ff. We need not

HUMAN CAPTUS

37

raised by that contest, new questions have arisen, particularly regarding the internal consistency of Calvin’s anthropology. Such concerns are noted in early essays by John Leith and A. N. S. Lane,7 but Mary Potter Engel raises more serious worries in her positing of a kind of perspectivalism in Calvin which results in ‘inconsistent and even contradictory statements about the self.’8 A different angle is suggested by William Bouwsma, who argues that inconsistencies in Calvin’s statements on anthropological matters (as well as other loci) are the result of Calvin’s rhetorical bent, which sought effect rather than a clear and unerring statement of truth.9 But Dewey Hoitenga has again leveled the charge of ‘incoherence’ at Calvin.10 His work, adumbrated in many ways by a 1990 essay from Richard Muller11 which takes into account a fuller array of Calvinian writings than does Hoitenga, is a relatively recent effort on this question, but has already been critiqued on several points by Tony Lane, Barbara Pitkin and Paul Helm.12 Thus, it seems that the matter is far from being closed.

rehearse the matter here, but will briefly note one or two points that are pertinent to our own concerns. Barth and those who followed him taught that Calvin believed the imago Dei was entirely effaced from fallen human beings. Brunner and others differed from this view, teaching that Calvin held to the idea that a remnant of the divine image remains even after the fall. Susan Schreiner helpfully analyzes the situation and offers some thoughtful remedies to the impasse; see Susan Schreiner, The Theater of God’s Glory (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995), 55-72. 7 John Leith, ‘The Doctrine of the Will in the Institutes of the Christian Religion,’ Reformatio Perennis, edit. B. A. Gerrish and R. Benedetto (Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1981), 49-66; A. N. S. Lane, ‘Did Calvin Believe in Free Will?’ Vox Evangelica 12 (1981), 72-90 (Lane’s article has since been superseded by a paper from him to which reference will be made in a moment). It is not our intention to treat in an exhaustive manner the secondary literature on this multifaceted subject. Dewey Hoitenga helpfully surveys some of the current secondary literature; see, John Calvin and the Will, 14-21. Mary Potter Engel also reviews the matter and provides a helpful bibliography; see, John Calvin’s Perspectival, ix-xv, 221-26. 8 Engel, John Calvin’s Perspectival, 4. 9 William Bouwsma, ‘Calvinism as Renaissance Artifact’ in John Calvin & the Church: A Prism of Reform, ed. Timothy George (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), 38-41. For a thoughtful answer to Bouwsma, see Francis Higman’s paper from the Sixth International Congress on Calvin Research; see, ‘“I Came Not to Send Peace, but a Sword”,’ CSRV, 134. 10‘Nothing is so obvious in Calvin’s view of the will as its incoherence. Calvin’s view of the human will is inconsistent in two quite fundamental ways: first, in his account of the relationship of the will to the intellect as God created them and second, in his account of what happened to the will when it was corrupted in the fall’ (Hoitenga, John Calvin and the Will, 14). Hoitenga insists that while Calvin embraces an intellectualist view of human nature before the fall, he switches to a voluntarist position of post-fall and redeemed humankind. Hoitenga discusses Calvin again (though only briefly) in a more recent article, ‘The Noetic Effects of Sin: a Review Article’ in Calvin Theological Journal 38 (2003), 68-102. 11 Richard Muller, ‘Fides and Cognitio in Relation to the Problem of Intellect and Will in the Theology of John Calvin’ in Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990), 207-224. 12 Anthony N. S. Lane, ‘Bondage and Liberation in Calvin’s Treatise Against Pighius’ in Calvin Studies IX, 16-45; Barbara Pitkin, ‘Nothing but Concupiscence: Calvin’s Understanding of Sin and the Via Augustini’ in Calvin Theological Journal 34, no. 2 (1999), 351-2; Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 127-156; especially 144-146.

38

CHAPTER 3

1.3 Sin and the ‘totus homo’ But throughout these scholarly disagreements, no one has questioned that Calvin conceived of the fall as having had disastrous and wide-ranging effects. As already intimated above, Calvin argued ‘that the ‘whole person’ (totus homo) was fallen and that sin had affected both partes of the soul, both intellect and will.’13 As these matters are probed it will become clear that, for Calvin, sin is mixed into every human pursuit. To begin, Calvin’s views on the extent of the fall should briefly be demonstrated from his writings. He asserted the fallen character of the whole person, as can be seen, for instance, in Institutes 2.1.8-9. There, when defining original sin, Calvin writes that it ‘seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul (in omnes animae partes diffusa).’14 Extrapolating further, he declares that this means two things. First, that ‘we are so vitiated and perverted in every part of our nature (omnibus naturae nostrae partibus)’15 that we stand justly condemned before God. And second, that this perversity continually bears new fruit. Thus, Calvin concedes that the term ‘concupiscence’ is a satisfactory one, so long as we acknowledge that ‘whatever is in man, from the understanding (intellectu) to the will (voluntatem), from the soul (anima) even to the flesh (carnem), has been defiled.’16 It is here that he launches into one of his attacks on the traditional division of the soul, declaring in opposition to it that ‘impiety occupied the very citadel of his mind (arcem … mentis), and pride penetrated to the depths of his heart (cor intimum)’ … ‘all parts of the soul (cunctas animae partes)’ are possessed by sin.17 A catena of similar references from the Institutes could also be produced. Such thoughts make their way into Calvin’s expositions of Scripture as well. An impressive passage from his commentary on the Psalmist’s prayer, ‘Turn my eyes away from vanities’ (Psalm 119: 37) is cited by Muller, in which Calvin states: ‘And we surely know that the guilt of original sin is not confined to one faculty of human beings (in aliqua parte hominis) only, but possesses the whole soul and body (totam animam et corpus).’18 But while this last citation further substantiates Calvin’s position concerning the extent of the fall, it also raises the important issue of whether the corruption of both parts of the soul remains in those who are redeemed. For the Psalmist’s petition, ‘turn my eyes away from vanities’ is the petition of a saint, and Calvin clearly views it as such. Accordingly, the reformer applies the passage and its implications to himself and all believers:

13 Muller, ‘Fides and Cognitio,’ 213. 14 OS 3, 326; Inst. 2.1.8. 15 OS 3, 327; Inst. 2.1.8. 16 OS 3, 328; Inst. 2.1.8. 17 OS 3, 328; Inst. 2.1.9. 18 CO 32: 230; CTS Psalms, 4, 427; slightly altered.

HUMAN CAPTUS

39

we should lay down as a first principle that seeing, hearing, walking, and feeling are God’s precious gifts; that our understanding (iudicio) and will (voluntate) with which we have been furnished are a still more excellent gift, but meanwhile there is no look of the eyes, no motion of the senses, no thought of the mind (nullam cogitationem) to which vice and depravity do not adhere. Since this is so, it is with good reason that the prophet surrenders himself entirely to God in order that he may begin to live a new life.19 It must be granted that the use of ‘we’ and ‘our’ by Calvin does not always clarify the group to whom he is referring, and yet in his exposition of this Psalm it seems clear that the pious are in view. Hence, in his statement of the argumentum of the Psalm, Calvin explains that its scopus can be summarized as follows: first, the prophet exhorts the children of God ( filios Dei) to zeal for piety and a holy life; and second, he prescribes the rule and form of true worship in order that the faithful ( fideles) may dedicate themselves completely to the doctrine of the law.20 Not surprisingly then, several portions of Calvin’s commentary on this Psalm bear eloquent testimony to his conviction that believers, in intellect and will, ‘do not’ (as he says in another place) ‘immediately lay aside the flesh with its vices.’21 But these considerations evoke the further question of whether differences between believer and unbeliever exist. Perhaps they are equally sinful. Calvin, however, makes it clear that this is not so, as can be seen in his lecture on ‘the heart is deceitful above all else’ (Jeremiah 17: 9). There, following his handling of the circumstances and purpose of Jeremiah’s address, Calvin poses the objection that the prophet was merely speaking of his contemporaries. Answering, he reminds his hearers that everything written in the law pertains to all (citing Romans 15: 4), and then summarizes his discussion by stating that the character of all humankind is described by Jeremiah; all humankind, that is, ‘until (donec) God regenerates his elect.’22 Thus, there is according to Calvin a purity in the believer which is absent from the unregenerate. She or he is not sinless, but neither are they as sinful as an unbeliever. Thus, Calvin’s thoughts on the subject have been canvassed. It should be noted, however, that his position is probably more accurately registered by his comments on Psalm 119: 37 than by his interpretation of Jeremiah 17: 9. For surely the emphasis found throughout his writings is upon the sinfulness of all, including the elect. Hence, his reminder to his congregation at St Pierre—‘[h]e that is most perfect, condemns himself the most’23—so far from seeming out of character, seems to accurately encapsulate one of the major emphases of his theology.

19 CO 32: 231; CTS Psalms, 4, 428; slightly altered. 20 CO 32: 214. 21 CO 31: 822; CTS Psalms, 3, 439; slightly altered. 22 CO 38: 271; CTS Jeremiah and Lamentations, 2, 356. 23 CO 26: 532-545 (on Deuteronomy 7: 11-15); on the sinfulness of believers, see CO 31: 822; CTS Psalms, 3, 439; SC 1: 278-85; John Calvin, Sermons on 2 Samuel, Chapters 1-13, trans. Douglas Kelly (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1992), 476-89).

40

CHAPTER 3 2. HUMAN CAPTUS IN CALVIN’S THOUGHT IN RELATION TO ACCOMMODATION

Against this backdrop, human captus in the thinking of the reformer can now be investigated. This section will be divided into two parts. Scholarly opinion will be summarized and critiqued, after which this author’s views on the subject will be set out. These tasks will occupy us for the remainder of this chapter. 2.1 Assessing Opinion on this Issue The notion of human capacity is not restricted to Calvin’s discussion of accommodation. Rather, it is liberally sprinkled throughout his writings.24 Though often referred to by a general noun such as ‘capacity (captus, la capacité),’ it is also addressed by means of a large collection of adjectives which describe various aspects of it, as we will see. Yet even given the significance Calvin ascribed to the idea, he does not address it in an analytic fashion. Thus, he has left to scholars the task of organizing his understanding of the concept. Yet reflection on this understanding has been sparse. Battles’ discussion, ‘Man: Portrait of Insufficiency, Vocabulary of Weakness,’25 offers one of the earlier attempts explicitly to treat Calvin’s thinking on human captus. However, its impact on contemporary understandings of the idea has been minimal. Nothing of note on captus is found in Millet’s discussion of accommodation. Accordingly, the contributions of Edward Dowey, E. David Willis and David Wright are the three that must be examined; each shall be briefly treated in chronological order.

2.1.1 Edward Dowey’s Contribution Near the beginning of Dowey’s treatment of accommodation he states that, Calvin always recognizes that man was at creation and essentially remains a finite creature and that in addition he is accidentally a sinful creature. Thus, accommodation is of two varieties: (a) the universal and necessary accommodation of the infinite mysteries of God to finite comprehension, which embraces all revelation, and (b) the special, gracious accommodation to human sinfulness which is connected with the work of redemption.26 This basic distinction has received general acceptance among scholars. Much of Dowey’s discussion of finite comprehension focuses on Calvin’s conviction that 24 Particularly in the Institutes; a characteristic example of this can be found in Institutes 1.1.1, where Calvin mentions numerous aspects of human capacity—ignorance, vanity, infirmity, and the like—in reference to human weaknesses; see OS 3, 31-32; Inst., 1.1.1. 25 Battles, ‘God Was Accommodating,’ 31-32. 26 Dowey, Knowledge of God, 4; italics original.

HUMAN CAPTUS

41

God’s essence is inaccessible to us and that therefore what we receive in nature and in Scripture is an accommodated revelation not of what God is (quid sit) but of what God is like (qualis sit). When the American takes up the second variety, his treatment says little about the actual character of sinful human capacity. He speaks of the ‘aggravated condition’ of human sinfulness, but says little to define it further. Instead, Dowey focuses on Christ and the redemptive word spoken through him.27 2.1.2 E. David Willis’ Contribution In his paper ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin’s Theology,’28 Willis contributes to the treatment of this subject by noting the attention God pays to the human will. While this was not specifically excluded from Dowey’s treatment, one could very easily miss it, but surely not in Willis. Willis’ coverage of accommodation is rather short (slightly less than five pages), and he does not specifically deal with the question of the character of the human captus. Nonetheless, through his emphasis on God’s efforts to persuade human beings—referring to ‘man’s persuadability’29—Willis brings to the attention of scholarship the relation accommodation bears to human voluntas and, more generally, to the whole person. 2.1.3 David Wright’s Contribution In the early 1990’s David Wright, while not intending to draw any conclusions on the full scope of ideas associated with human capacity, qualifies the two-fold distinction bequeathed to posterity by Dowey. Reflecting particularly on his research into Calvin’s commentaries on the Mosaic Harmony and Joshua, he adds a third category to these two. But there is another sphere of divine accommodation in which the image of adapting to men and women as children applies specifically to the economy of Israel. It is important that we bear clearly in mind the distinction between these two applications of the accommodating-to-children motif. It is my submission that if we may differentiate between forms of God’s self-accommodation according to its recipients, then in Calvin it addresses first human beings qua finite creatures, secondly human beings qua sinners, and thirdly Israel as a primitive ethnos.30

27 See also Dowey, ‘The Structure of Calvin’s Theological Thought,’ 140, no. 19. 28 Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility,’43-63. 29 Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility,’55. 30 Wright, ‘Calvin’s ‘Accommodation’ Revisited,’ 178, cf. T.H.L. Parker on ‘The Church in its childhood’ in Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 83-90.

42

CHAPTER 3

Wright defends this third classification against the objection that it is uncalled for by remarking, essentially, that Calvin’s vocabulary requires it. For though Calvin does distinguish between Jews and Christians (via Galatians 4:1-5) in such a way that one might conclude that Dowey’s distinction was sufficient, yet in describing Israel as a primitive and barbaric people, he seems also to distinguish God’s accommodation to Israel from God’s accommodation to sinful human beings in general. 2.1.4 Summary Given the limited treatment the subject has received, it is perhaps not surprising that gaps remain in contemporary understandings of it. In particular, these three weaknesses can be detected. 1. The range of characteristics associated with Calvin’s conception of human capacity by scholars is neither sufficiently broad nor sufficiently detailed. 2. Tidy distinctions between different kinds of captus are inconsistent with Calvin’s usage. This being so, the reformer’s thought has been slightly misrepresented at times by those seeking to expound it. Such a misrepresentation is, it seems to this author, discernible in Dowey’s assertion: ‘accommodation is of two varieties: … accommodation … to finite comprehension, … and … accommodation to human sinfulness.’31 This is not to suggest that all distinctions are improper, but only that they should not be asserted in such a categorical manner. 3. Current distinctions do not pay enough attention to the different recipients of God’s accommodating activity. This shortcoming is not a particularly serious one, as we will see. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning. 2.2 Human Capacity: A Survey of its Various Senses Having critically surveyed scholarly opinion, what remains is to analyze Calvin’s numerous references to human capacity. As previously noted, Calvin does not make explicit distinctions when dealing with the subject, nor does he call our attention to them or say to us, ‘this is a different kind of accommodation from the one I previously discussed.’ Sometimes this is not a problem. The differences, for example, between human mental inability and the raw barbarity of the Israelites is not difficult to discern. However, on other occasions the differences are not as clear. One of the most obvious aids in drawing distinctions is Calvin’s vocabulary. But even here Calvin is not always as helpful as he could be. A number of the words he uses (like infirmitas, la infirmité) bear different shades of meaning depending on the context in which they are found. But more frustratingly, the reformer not infrequently mixes a wide variety of words together, piling them one on top of 31 Dowey, Knowledge of God, 4; italics original.

HUMAN CAPTUS

43

another and covering a range of human problems. Accordingly, lines are blurred and the work of differentiation becomes quite a formidable task. This in itself is actually instructive. Calvin clearly had the capability to draw his lines more plainly had he wished, but he did not. Hence, if the work of analyzing Calvin’s understanding of the various senses of human capacity is to be carried out successfully, distinctions must be drawn with care. Further, it must be acknowledged that the categories being discussed are going to be slightly contrived and not mutually exclusive but overlapping. These considerations have been kept in mind in working out the categorization which is presented below. Broader distinctions will be made later, but to begin with seven categories of human capacity will be set out. These represent the specific identifiable qualities of human capacity which are found in Calvin’s thinking on divine accommodation. Each will be introduced with appropriate citations from Calvin’s corpus and some brief clarifying analysis as well. 2.2.1 General References to Human Capacity The instances in this category are not numerous. Two examples will suffice. So then God truly hears us when he does not indulge our foolish desires, but tempers his beneficence according to the measure of our welfare (beneficentiam suam salutis nostrae modo attemperat), even as in lavishing upon the wicked more than is good for them he cannot properly be said to hear them.32 And on his commentary on Isaiah 40:11, ‘he carries them close to his heart’, Calvin writes: These words describe God’s wonderful condescension, for not only is he led by a general feeling of love for his whole flock, but, in proportion to the weakness of any one sheep (sed prout quaeque ovis imbecilla fuerit), he shows his carefulness in watching, his gentleness in handling, and his patience in leading it. Here he leaves out nothing that belongs to the office of a good shepherd. For the shepherd ought to observe each of his sheep, in order that he may treat it according to its capacity (ut illis pro cuiusque captu consulat); and especially they ought to be supported, if they are exceedingly weak. In a word, God will be mild, kind, gentle, and compassionate, so that he will not drive the weak harder than they are able to bear.33

32 CO 31: 731; CTS Psalms, 3, 249; altered (on Psalm 78: 26). 33 CO 37: 15; CTS Isaiah, 3, 216; slightly altered.

44

CHAPTER 3

While human welfare and human weakness are different, both are quite general and include such a wide spectrum of ideas that it is for practical purposes impossible to categorize them in a more precise way. 2.2.2 The Human Condition The conditions of human life, the trials of existence, weakness, sorrow and other matters including social customs and certain forms of culturally-influenced knowledge are neglected but nevertheless important aspects of Calvin’s analysis of human capacity in relation to accommodation. One significant focus of this category concerns the incarnate Christ, who ‘condescended to the mean condition of humankind (ad hominum humilitatem demisit),’34 abased himself, being made mortal and possessing a common condition with us (une condition commune avec nous),35 and partook of all our miseries (de toutes nos miseres).36 In these citations is contained a large collection of qualities— as broad as can be conceived under the notion of Christ becoming incarnate. They include all kinds of external trials, ‘cold and heat, hunger and other wants of the body … contempt, poverty, and other things of this kind’37 to which humanity is subject and with respect to which the human body is not invulnerable. They also must have included ‘the affections of the soul (affectus animi), to which our nature is liable.’38 ‘These infirmities (Has infirmitates) Christ of his own accord bore,’39 Calvin writes of the ‘fear, sorrow, dread of death and similar passions’40 which are an unavoidable part of life. Therefore, essentially everything that may be associated with the human condition is contained here, in a general way, and with the caveat that sin is (one must presume) excepted. Moving away from a focus upon Christ, and also from the general to the more particular, the quality of physical weakness and limitations may be taken up. Though not raised as frequently as other aspects, Calvin does broach the subject in relation to God’s accommodating chastising of his own, as we can see in his sermons on Job. There the reformer discusses the matter, for example, in his exposition of Job 2: 710, where Satan, at God’s secret behest, smites Job with sores. Treating God’s manner of trying his servants, Calvin makes a distinction between novices and those who are endurcis, by which he seems to mean accustomed to God’s afflictions, and then explains that the former God often spares, whereas the latter he afflicts more

34 CO 47: 195; CTS John’s Gospel, 1, 329 (on John 8: 19). 35 CO 46: 956 (on Luke 2: 1-14). 36 CO 53: 163 (on 1 Timothy 2: 5-6). 37 CO 55: 54; CTS Hebrews, 108; slightly altered (on Hebrews 4: 15). 38 CO 55: 54; CTS Hebrews, 109; altered. 39 CO 55: 55; CTS Hebrews, 109; slightly altered. 40 CO 55: 55; CTS Hebrews, 108; slightly altered.

HUMAN CAPTUS

45

severely.41 He spares the novices, Calvin says, in the same way as you or I would not lay as great a burden on a small child as we would on an adult.42 God then has a regard for our ability to bear things (regarde nostre portee) and according to this, he sends to us either smaller or greater troubles.43 Continuing, Calvin weighs our suffering against the heavy burden Job was made to endure, and concludes that we have reason to give thanks that God considers our infirmity (à nostre infirmité) and scourges us according to what we are able to endure (nous le pouvons souffrir).44 Although it must be granted that something more than physical limitation is probably in view here, yet as Job’s sufferings are the subject of Calvin’s remarks, bodily trials are surely within the scope of meaning. Calvin also speaks of human capacity with respect to the social dimensions of life. Here human capacity expresses itself through the societal conventions, expectations, and limitations that characterize both humankind as a whole and individual groups of people. So, with respect to Christ’s assertion that ‘the Son of man came eating and drinking’ (Luke 7: 34), Calvin notes that, in comparison to John the Baptist, ‘Christ accommodated himself to the customs of ordinary life (ad communis vitae usum).’45 Further, regarding aspects of the information communicated by Moses in his first book, Calvin remarks: ‘Moses (in my judgment) accommodated his topography to the capacity of his age (ad suae aetatis captum).’46 When Moses refers to a place as Bethel, Calvin writes, ‘Moses gives the place this name to accommodate his language to the people of his own age (suae aetatis hominibus).’47 Moreover, concerning Moses’48 account of creation, Calvin makes observations such as, ‘he begins the day [Genesis 1:5], according to the custom of his nation (usitatum gentis suae morem), with the evening’49 and ‘I conclude that the waters here [Genesis 1:6-7] ought to be understood as those which the rude and unlearned (rudes quoque et indocti) may perceive.’50 Though the last instance could perhaps have been classed under the category that has to do with mental weakness, since it has no apparent theological relevance and has to do with ideas that belong very much to a particular cultural context, it was deemed best to place it in this category. The same analysis applies for Calvin’s remark that Luke may have altered the number of family members that Joseph sent for from seventy to seventy-five

41 CO 33: 118. In expounding this idea the reformer makes use of the same comparison he employs in Institutes 2.11.13, where he attempts to clarify and defend the ways of God in the face of the curious differences apparent in God’s dealings with his people in the Old and New Testaments. 42 CO 33: 118. 43 CO 33: 118. 44 CO 33: 118. 45 CO 45: 308; CTS Synoptic Harmony, 2, 21; slightly altered. 46 CO 23: 40; CTS Genesis, 1, 119 (on Genesis 1: 10). 47 CO 23: 182; CTS Genesis, 1, 356 (on Genesis 12: 8). 48 Calvin says the same thing about David’s language in the Psalms concerning creation; see, for example, CO 31: 198; CTS Psalms, 1, 315-6 (on Psalm 19: 4). 49 CO 23: 17; CTS Genesis, 1, 77. 50 CO 23: 18; CTS Genesis, 1, 80; slightly altered.

46

CHAPTER 3

[Acts 7:14] for the benefit of the rude and illiterate (rudibus et elementariis), who were accustomed to the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew scriptures.51 Thus a broad range of qualities is stretched out before us here, moving from the personal to the societal,52 from the external to the internal, from the mundane to the excruciating. Although expansive, its general sense is not hard to understand. Interesting questions, however, arise from it concerning the relation of human sinfulness to the experiences mentioned above. One cannot help but wonder to what extent sin is mixed in with these aspects of human capacity. Is sin expressed, for example, in the physical weaknesses and limitations from which human beings suffer? Do the social dimensions of human life exhibit sin? What of Jesus’ condescension to human frailty? Here it would seem clear that his embracing of the human condition did not involve sin in any way which would tarnish him or make him sinful. Yet with respect to some of the other examples, answers are more difficult to construct. As these and similar questions will confront us in a number of the remaining sections, it will perhaps be best if we turn now to deal with the general issue around which these questions congregate. 2.2.3 The Question of Sin and its Relation to Human Capacity As treated earlier, Calvin viewed the effects of sin on human nature as severe. There is ‘no look of the eyes, … to which vice and depravity do not adhere.’53 This depravity is also a problem for the Christian as well. Calvin’s position here would seem clearly to imply that all human captus involved sin. Yet this implication has some problems attending it. Calvin’s references to human capacity do not always mention sin. In fact, many of them do not. Take, for example, Institutes 1.13.1. For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.54 Not only is sin absent from Calvin’s language, but it would seem to be missing from his thinking as well, at least as far as the notion of human capacity is concerned. Or to put it another way, the notion of sin is not necessarily needed in order to understand what the reformer means by ‘our slight capacity.’ This is true even if one wished to argue that in Calvin’s judgment God’s reducing of the knowledge of 51 CO 23: 562; CTS Genesis, 2, 391 (on Genesis 46: 8). 52 On the societal aspect, see also Calvin’s treatise against the Anabaptists where the reformer discusses the use of oaths in relation to human/societal dishonesty, CO 7: 98; Calvin, Anabaptists and Libertines, 100. 53 CO 32: 231; CTS Psalms, 4, 428 (on Psalm 119: 37). 54 OS 3, 109; Inst. 1.13.1.

HUMAN CAPTUS

47

himself to the level of his people’s comprehension was so dishonouring to God and his glory that it could be labelled a kind of (sinful) impropriety—an idea with which Calvin has some truck, as was noted in chapter one. Thus, these two positions appear to be slightly at odds with one another. Although Calvin’s opinion on the extent of the diffusion of sin into the human soul is plain, he seems to violate it, or at least to show a disregard for it, when making comments on human capacity. Nor, of course, is the instance from Institutes 1.13.1 the only place where such disregard appears. The dilemma is an interesting one. It may possibly add a new facet to the question surveyed earlier concerning the internal consistency of Calvin’s views on hamartiology.55 Whether the reformer would (were he to be asked) refine his position by stating that sin is in fact present in all human capacity despite his failure to mention it is unknown but seems possible. However, such a conjecture cannot be relied upon. The fact of the matter is that Calvin addresses human captus by means of a wide array of vocabulary, but does not always choose to indicate whether the sinfulness of the human beings being accommodated to is in view or not. 2.2.4 Mental Weakness Respecting the Knowledge of God and Spiritual Matters Some of Calvin’s simplest statements on accommodation seem to have mental frailty in mind. For example, when the Anabaptists, in order to refute Calvin’s assertions concerning the wakefulness of the soul after death, make use of the Scripture, ‘a thousand years are a day in the Lord’s sight’ (2 Peter 3:8), Calvin acknowledges that the passage states truth but points out that ‘it must be noted that when God speaks to people he accommodates himself to their understanding (à leur sens).’56 Additionally, God ‘accommodated himself … to the capacity of the prophet, because, as we are mortals (homines), we cannot penetrate beyond the sky,’57 ‘since human minds (humanae mentes) cannot rise to his boundless height, … as often as God exhibited himself to the view of the fathers, he never appeared as he actually is, but as human understanding could receive (qualis est, sed qualis hominum sensu capi poterat),’58 and so forth. For this reason, metaphors and other figures of speech and depictions of the Lord which are not proper, strictly speaking, but are necessary for human minds are a constant part of the Lord’s accommodating program, as Calvin frequently observes. This weak capacity, however, does not merely amount to a deficiency of learning or of mental acuteness. Rather, Calvin often seems to contemplate a kind of slowness and dullness of mind regarding spiritual matters. Truth, then, must not only be simplified, but the people themselves must in some sense be raised up to the consideration of spiritual matters. Hence, Calvin frequently insists that while God condescends to us, it is not for the purpose of detaining us here below (nous retenir 55 Leith, ‘Calvin’s Theological Method and the Ambiguity in His Theology,’ 106-14. 56 CO 7: 117; Calvin, Anabaptists and Libertines, 128. 57 CO 40: 40; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 78; slightly altered (on Ezekiel 1: 13). 58 CO 36: 126; CTS Isaiah, 1, 200; altered (on Isaiah 6: 1).

48

CHAPTER 3

ici bas),59 but rather that he may draw us to heaven60 and ‘lift on high our thoughts each and every time that God is mentioned.’61 This emphasis on the goal of God’s work, on his straining to effect change in his people, and on his lifting, raising, and awakening labors, heightens the aspect of dullness and lethargy that Calvin associates with the human mind. This dullness is, in Calvin’s conception, an aspect of the earth-bound condition of human beings. That is to say, the mental morass of God’s people is such that God must specifically stoop to the earthiness of creaturely existence, This not only means employing sacraments because his people are rude (rudes)62 and seeking to bring them back to what is visible (qui est visible)63 in the death of Christ, but also adjusting his ways by making use of senses other than hearing to try to drive home his message to his benighted people.64 Not surprisingly, Calvin refers in this context to the ‘carnal’ or ‘earthly’ sense of human beings, ‘to the feeble capacity of our flesh (ad carnis nostrae ruditatem),’65 to which God condescends. As was just remarked, such condescension is intended to lift his creatures from their creatureliness. Nevertheless, the reformer’s use of caro and synonyms also seems, at least to some extent, to hint at sinfulness.66 So we can see the ignorance, mental lethargy, and carnality associated with this aspect of human capacity. To this should be added Calvin’s references to human error and superstition. Perhaps his most common remark on this subject concerns Jesus’ encounter with those who seek him because he fed them (in John 6),67 but he certainly comments on it elsewhere. So, Zephaniah speaks ex communi hominum sensu when he refers to those who were, in fact, false professors as ‘worshipping’ God,68 and David, Calvin postulates, is probably speaking ex communi vulgi errore when he mentions snake charmers in Psalm 58: 4-5.69 In each case, Scripture speaks as if granting to people their errors (comme accordant aux hommes leur erreur).70 Accordingly, the capacity to which Calvin refers involves the mind’s embracing of error and falsehood.

59 CO 26: 158 (on Deuteronomy 4: 15-20). 60 ‘… Dieu descend tellement á nous, qu’il nous veult attirer au ciel’ (SC 8: 334; (on Acts 7: 38-42)). 61 OS 1, 406; John Calvin, Instruction in Faith (1537), trans. Paul Fuhrmann (Louisville, KY: the Westminster Press, 1992), 59-60. 62 CO 54: 575 (on Titus 3: 4-7). 63 CO 46: 920 (on Matthew 27: 45-54). 64 So Calvin remarks that the Lord, in order to affect his people more profoundly, ‘after he has reached their ears by his word, he also arrests their eyes by external symbols, that eyes and ears may consent together’ (CO 23: 210; CTS Genesis, 1, 402 (on Genesis 15: 2)). 65 See, for example, CO 45: 710; CTS Gospels, 3, 213 (on Matthew 21: 18). 66 CO 31: 448; CTS Psalms, 2, 172; Calvin refers to the perversa carnis imaginatio (on Psalm 44: 23). 67 See, for example, OS 3, 407; Inst 2.10.6. 68 CO 44: 10; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 196. The text upon which Calvin is commenting reads, ‘… and them that worship and that swear by the Lord, and that swear by Malcham’ (Zephaniah 1: 5). 69 CO 31: 561; CTS Psalms, 2, 372. 70 CO 26: 84 (on Deuteronomy 3: 23-25).

HUMAN CAPTUS

49

The conjoining of intellect and will in Calvin’s thinking should be apparent. Indeed, words like ‘dullness’ clearly refer as much to the affections as to the mind. Not surprisingly, they will be repeated in later categories. 2.2.5 Fear, Grief and Doubt All of the remaining categories emphasize the will and human affections. Fear, grief, and doubt are, of course, representative of a range of emotions referred to by Calvin; the point being that God takes human feelings into account and alters his behavior with them in mind. They are often referred to by the word ‘infirmity’ (infirmitas, la infirmité),71 though Calvin may also mention a troubled and confused (troublees et confuses) state,72 ‘anxiety (anxietati)’ and ‘grief (dolorem),’73 ‘present sorrow ( praesentis tristitiae),’74 and other emotions, additional examples of which can be found in this citation from Institutes 1.14.11. Therefore he makes use of angels to comfort our weakness (ad solatium nostrae imbecillitatis), that we may lack nothing at all that can raise our minds to good hope, or confirm them in security. … [it should be enough that God is our protector] … But when we see ourselves beset by so many perils, so many harmful things, so many kinds of enemies – such is our softness (mollities) and frailty ( fragilitas) – we would sometimes be filled with trepidation (trepidatione) or yield to despair (desperatione) if the Lord did not make us realize the presence of his grace according to our small capacity (pro modulo nostro).75 Imbecillitas, mollities, fragilitas, trepidatio, and desperatio, all defining the general notion of modulus noster, are piled one on top of the other by Calvin to make his point. Of these various affections, doubt is worth lingering on because of Calvin’s tendency to treat it in two slightly different ways. The reformer seems, at times, to construe doubt as an aspect of human feebleness, while on other occasions it is for him an example of human sinfulness. So, regarding Israel’s doubt prior to their entering the promised land, Calvin acknowledges that the promise of possessing the land should have been sufficient, ‘yet the Lord is so very indulgent to their weakness (suorum infirmitati), that, for the sake of removing all doubt (dubitationis causa), he confirms what he had promised by experience.’76 He speaks of the doubts (dubitatio) of Moses, and reflecting on the situation, remarks on how doubts ‘enfeeble and hold 71 See, for example, CO 24: 179; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 292 (on Exodus 17: 8), where Calvin refers to imbellis turbae infirmitati, which the CTS translates as ‘the cowardice of this unwarlike mob.’ 72 CO 46: 946 (on Matthew 28: 1-10). 73 CO 40: 638; CTS Daniel, 1, 230-1 (on Daniel 3: 24). 74 CO 23: 193; CTS Genesis, 1, 375; slightly altered (on Genesis 13: 14). 75 OS 3, 162-63; Inst. 1.14.11; slightly altered. 76 CO 25: 445; CTS Joshua, 55 (on Joshua 2: 24).

50

CHAPTER 3

back our minds (animos … retardet ac debilitet) with anxiety and care.’77 And concerning the prophets, Calvin notes their habit of frequently repeating themselves, and remarks that this was done ‘in order to strengthen feeble minds (ad fulciendos debiles animos), that [the people] might be more fully convinced of what was otherwise incredible.’78 But Calvin also calls believers depraved ( pervers) because they do not believe God’s simple word but require him to swear an oath in order to convince them that he speaks truthfully.79 He makes the same point in a sermon on Genesis 26:1-5 where, berating human arrogance, he identifies the distrust (la defiance) to which his people are always inclined as the reason for God’s oath.80 Similarly, Calvin declares that Moses must repeat himself numerous times because we do not believe promptly (nous ne croyons pas si promptement) as we ought.81 Without wishing to prolong these reflections, it should be noted that the difference just pointed to may simply be the difference between Calvin the commentator and Calvin the preacher—the latter, harsher examples all being found within the reformer’s sermonic output.82 But whether this is so or not, both accents do not seem inappropriate. Moreover, with respect to both, Calvin’s God accommodates himself; and not only respecting doubt, but also a wide range of human emotions and conditions as well. 2.2.6 Lack of Restraint, Inappropriate Desires and Imperfection In prayer, Calvin says, God’s children often make utterances which are ‘too free (liberius)’ in their pouring forth of feelings.83 They are expressions ‘with little modesty (parum modeste).’84 It is largely this sense that is intended here, with an additional significance which shall be added momentarily. This quality, often found by Calvin in the Psalms and the prophetic writings, both seemed to embarrass him and yet was found by him being frequently catered to by the self-adapting Lord. It ranged in signification from unrestraint to a kind of impropriety or indecency in the things desired by God’s people. The imperfection which is referred to in the heading has to do with a believer’s obedience. Calvin observes that human obedience is never pleasing to God per se or, it might be said, de condigno. Rather, human works deserve to be refused by him, because they are imperfect (imparfaites).85 Nevertheless, ‘[h]owever defective 77 CO 24: 39; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 66; slightly altered (on Exodus 3: 7). 78 CO 37: 301; CTS Isaiah, 4, 186 (on Isaiah 56: 8). 79 CO 26: 199 (on Deuteronomy 4: 27-31); also CO 43: 55; (on Amos 4: 2); CO 43: 11 (on Amos 6: 8). 80 CO 58: 97. 81 CO 26: 235 (on Deuteronomy 4: 44-5: 3). 82 Cf. William Naphy, Calvin and the consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), 154ff. 83 CO 43: 496; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 18 (on Habakkuk 1: 3). 84 CO 23: 209; CTS Genesis, 1, 401 (on Genesis 15: 2). 85 CO 33: 499 (on Job 10: 16-7).

HUMAN CAPTUS

51

(vitiosa) the works of believers may be’ they are still pleasing to God, says Calvin, and this is by accommodation as shall be seen more plainly in the next chapter.86 This is, it should be noted, a fault peculiar to God’s people. By contrast, the works of unbelievers, which are performed in their own power, are nothing but vilenie et rebellion.87 2.2.7 Sluggishness, Willfulness, and Hypocrisy With this collection of qualities human captus becomes crueler, harder, more obstinate. Yet not all is willfulness and defiance. Rather, in some of the milder expressions to be included here the stress is not so much on rebellion as on sloth and laziness. So when Christ raises his eyes to heaven—an action which expresses the serious and vigorous affection of prayer (serium ac vehementem precandi affectum)—he chooses, says Calvin, not to disregard the appointed outward forms which are so ‘useful to aid human weakness (infirmitati)’ and ‘sloth (tarditati)’88 Likewise David’s pious resolution in Psalm 119: 81 is uttered in order to awaken believers because they are so dull (hebetez).89 Similar aspects of sluggishness, and lethargy are, in fact, quite a regular focus of God’s appointing of external aids to worship. When the discourses of the prophets are turned to, though Calvin’s language does not change significantly, the sense of human incapacity seems to become harsher. The reformer observes that ‘because an unadorned style would be too cold, [Isaiah] contrived new modes of expression, that by means of them he might shake off our torpor (torporem nostrum).’90 Human indolence requires new inventions, says Calvin. Not only that, but it also necessitates extra efforts. The prophet tells us here that he had again aroused the leaders as well as the whole people. For unless God frequently repeats his exhortations, our alacrity (alacritas) relaxes. Therefore although they had all attended to God’s command, nevertheless it was necessary that they should be strengthened (confirmari) by a new promise. For there is no better method for people to be encouraged (animandis), and their indifference corrected (torpori eorum corrigendo) than when God offers and promises his help. Accordingly, this was the way in which they were encouraged, ‘I am with you.’’91

86 CO 25: 13; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony 3, 214 (on Leviticus 26: 3). 87 CO 33: 499. 88 CO 45: 439; CTS Gospels, 2, 235 (on Matthew 14: 19). 89 CO 32: 608. 90 CO 36: 263; CTS Isaiah, 1, 417-18 (on Isaiah 13: 9-10). 91 CO 44: 95; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 343; altered (on Haggai 1: 13-14).

52

CHAPTER 3

Here the sheer amount of maintenance that God’s people require, lest they atrophy, poignantly displays the apathy that characterizes human nature. But not infrequently sluggishness becomes willfulness, and God’s flock show that they are capable of considerably lower and more base levels of behavior. Here Calvin refers to God’s labors on account of ‘our thickness (pro nostra crassitie)’ and ‘stupor (stuporem),’92 to ‘unyielding people (praefracto illo populo)’ who are ‘perversely addicted to their sins (pervicaciter addicti sunt suis peccatis),’93 to the ‘malice (malitia),’ which keeps people from considering God’s grace,94 to those who are reminded ‘of their forgetfulness (oblivionis), or their sloth (socordiae), or their fickleness (levitatis)’ by God’s accommodating measures that are so plainly designed to rouse them from their ‘languor (languorem)’ and ‘inactivity (segnitiem),’95 and to the ‘so great senselessness (tanta … vecordia)’ of the people that moves God to use such extreme measures.96 With an expansive vocabulary, Calvin describes the capacity of those who are stiff-necked and recalcitrant. One additional matter must be dealt with, having to do with the fact that some of Calvin’s assertions distinguish between unbelieving people and believers and make it clear that God’s accommodation is directed at those with the capacity of the former. The two plainest statements97 on this matter are: first, from his commentary on Isaiah 24: 19-20: We have formerly said that the prophet explains the same thing in various ways, and for the purpose of striking and a rousing those minds which are naturally very sluggish (ut animos … natura tardissimos excitet). For carelessness of the flesh (carnis securitas) produces contempt for God_which we see in ourselves as well as others. For this reason the prophets adorn their discourses. Not because they desire to appear eloquent, but in order that they may render their hearers more attentive, and that they may prick their hearers’ hearts. Hence, the illusions, the splendid words, the threats and terrors, etc … it is all present so that secure men (securi homines) will be shaken. Now this doctrine ought to be limited to the impious. This is not because the pious are immune from these evils (horum malorum), for they are afflicted as well as other people. But it is because when the pious take refuge in God and rely thoroughly on him, they are not shaken but remain firm and stable against all assaults. However the impious, who despise the judgments of God, are terrified and alarmed and never find rest.98

92 CO 31: 230; CTS Psalms, 1, 376; altered (on Psalm 22: 17-18). 93 CO 44: 86; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 328; altered (on Haggai 1: 5-6). 94 CO 31: 178; CTS Psalms, 1, 275-6 (on Psalm 18: 15). 95 CO 25: 508; CTS Joshua, 167 (on Joshua 11: 6). 96 CO 43: 501; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 27; altered (on Habakkuk 1: 6). 97 Two additional examples are: CO 31: 288; CTS Psalms, 1, 478 (on Psalm 29: 3-4); CO 31: 495-96; CTS Psalms, 2, 259-60 (on Psalms 50: 1). Other instances can be found in Calvin’s Isaiah commentary. 98 CO 36: 409; CTS Isaiah, 2, 182-3; altered (on Isaiah 24: 19-20).

HUMAN CAPTUS

53

And from his commentary on Psalm 18: 25, 26: It is not without the best reason that the Holy Spirit employs this manner of speaking that he may awaken hypocrites and the gross despisers of God (hypocritas et crassos Dei contemptores) from their sleep. … Accordingly, this brutish and … monstrous stupidity (brutus et quasi prodigiosus stupor) compels God to invent new forms of speaking and as it were cloth himself with a foreign guise. … This is what stubborn people (praefracti homines) gain by their obduracy (sua duritie) that God hardens himself. … Another reason which we may assign for this manner of speaking is that the Holy Spirit, when addressing his discourse to the wicked (ad impios), commonly speaks according to their own apprehension (ex eorum sensu).’99 There are, to be sure, curious aspects to these remarks and a certain amount of ambiguity, particularly in the first citation. For instance, it is not entirely clear whether the reference to the Spirit speaking ‘according to their own apprehension’ is identical to the reformer’s comments, mentioned in the earlier treatment of mental weakness, on John 6 and Jesus’ encounter with those who sought him because he fed them (though this would seem quite likely). Nonetheless, it is plain in both that the reformer conceives of a difference between the capacities of believers and unbelievers, even if he may often use virtually identical language to discuss both. 2.2.8 Barbarity This final class of instances is distinguished from the previous one in that it refers particularly to Israelite barbarity and is therefore confined to a particular time and people as well as to a particular kind of behavior. In this regard, Calvin speaks of God as responding ‘to the people’s hardness (ad populi duritiem),’100 and (as was already noted in chapter one) of Israel’s acts as ‘wholly barbarous (prorsus barbarum).’101 The vocabulary clearly suggests the crude and primitive character of the people; a people like their pagan neighbors in far too many ways. But Calvin’s description of the influence this barbarous captus has on God, as is indicated by God’s response to it, is perhaps as significant for understanding this category as is the reformer’s vocabulary. As these responses shall be discussed in the next chapter, they shall not be taken up here. Suffice it to say that Calvin depicts God as one who must operate within circumstances with which he does not appear to be at all content and which seem to tax his powers to their limit. Thus, though in many cases the people’s hardheartedness is not entirely incurable, it is very nearly so.

99 CO 31: 183-4; CTS Psalms, 1, 286-7; altered. 100 CO 24: 688; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 140 (on Exodus 22: 1-4). 101 CO 24: 650; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 81; altered (on Exodus 21: 7-11).

CHAPTER 3

54 2.3 The Various Senses Reviewed

The range of characteristics associated with Calvin’s conception of human capacity is clearly broad. Numerous aspects can be seen: the social dimensions of human life as these are exhibited both in individual and corporate contexts, the mental inability which now hampers human beings in their acquiring and grasping of the knowledge of God and spiritual things, fear, grief, and other emotions, improper desires and the failings which cling to human endeavor, stubbornness and hypocrisy, and the intractability and barbarity which characterized Old Testament Israel, again both in an individual and a corporate sense. Though there is a discernible sophistication to the reformer’s thinking on the subject, it also often bears a kind of ad hoc character. Calvin clearly gave careful consideration to individual instances, yet his treatment is far from systematic in style. Nor does he attempt to provide his readers with answers to every question which might arise in their mind. This sometimes results in perceived problems. This appeared in the above discussion, where it was discovered that Calvin’s handling of the various features associated with human capacity seemed to differ somewhat from his expressed views on the pervasiveness of human depravity. Whether these two aspects of Calvin’s teaching are actually in contradiction is a question which we will not attempt to answer. However, the fact that such a question may legitimately be asked demonstrates that here, in Calvin’s reflections on God’s accommodation to human captus, we may very well be dealing with an issue which cuts its own distinctive path in Calvin’s theology, and one which does not always keep in step with the rest of his thinking. 3. ANALYZING CALVIN’S TEACHING ON HUMAN CAPTUS: THE RECIPIENTS OF ACCOMMODATION The seven categories treated above, it will be remembered, represent the specific identifiable qualities of that captus to which Calvin’s God accommodates himself. As we examine them, relationships between them appear. This suggests the appropriateness of combining some of them under broader topoi, similar to those which have previously been suggested by Dowey and Wright, who discussed accommodation according to its recipients. In this work, the two-fold and three-fold divisions proposed (respectively) by these two eminent scholars will not be discarded. An attempt will, however, be made to refine their conclusions somewhat. Accordingly, this four-fold division of the recipients of God’s accommodating actions is offered. God accommodates, first to human being as creatures secondly to human beings as sinners thirdly to Israel as a primitive nation and fourthly to human beings as either the wicked or the godly

HUMAN CAPTUS

55

3.1 Human Beings as Creatures This first classification, which is based on the findings of section 2.2.2, is perhaps broader than the similarly-named category which appears in the treatments of Dowey and Wright. It includes not only the finitude essential to human nature on account of which God must simplify the knowledge of himself (see, Institutes 1.13.1), but also two other sub-categories. Culture—both cultural knowledge and customs—must be included within the scope of this classification. This is testified to in Calvin’s comments on Moses’ calling a place Bethel in accommodation to the knowledge of ‘the people of his own age,’102 on Luke altering the number of family members which Joseph sent for from seventy to seventy-five in accommodation to those who were accustomed to the Greek Septuagint,103 and on Christ accommodating of himself ‘to the customs of ordinary life.’104 Furthermore, the human condition in its breadth—or, what Calvin calls ‘the mean condition of humankind’ to which Christ condescended—is also embraced here.105 This condition comprises the variety of human infirmities mentioned earlier when discussing Christ’s incarnation as well as those creaturely frailties alluded to in Calvin’s sermons on Job.106 Hence, general creatureliness as well as that ontological finitude which corresponds to the divine infinitude is included under this first classification. 3.2 Human Beings as Sinners Little elucidation is required here, except to note the breadth of the category. It includes everything from the mental weakness characterized by sluggishness and lethargy (sect. 2.2.4) to fear, grief and doubt (sect. 2.2.5) to wilfulness and hypocrisy (2.2.7). The inclusion of knowledge in this group as well as in the first group bears witness to the difficulty inherent in any attempt to distinguish between different kinds of captus. It was this which moved us to criticize, albeit mildly, Professor Dowey for distinguishing in too tidy a manner between different expressions of human capacity. 3.3 Israel as Primitive Nation As this category has not undergone any change from its treatment by Wright, no discussion of it is needed.

102 CO 23: 182; CTS Genesis, 1, 356 (on Genesis 12: 8). See also Calvin’s comments on Moses’ description of creation, CO 23: 17; CTS Genesis, 1, 77 (on Genesis 1: 5). 103 CO 23: 562; CTS Genesis, 2, 391. 104 CO 45: 308; CTS Synoptic Harmony, 2, 21. 105 CO 47: 195; CTS John’s Gospel, 1, 329 (on John 8: 19). 106 CO 33: 118 (on Job 2: 7-10).

56

CHAPTER 3

3.4 Human Beings as Either the Wicked or the Godly As a category, sinfulness includes a broad scope of ideas. This seems to suggest the need for some differentiation between different kinds of sinfulness. One might consider the work of Wright on the barbarity of Israel as an instance of such appropriate differentiation. Yet even taking his labors into account, this category still seems to bear a wide range of senses. At times Calvin appears virtually oblivious to this breadth. Naturally, his vocabulary varies somewhat as he deals with different kinds of captus—whether weakness, fear, petulance or something else. But he usually fails to distinguish in any fundamental way between various expressions of sinfulness. There are, however, occasions on which he does. Perhaps the most basic of these distinction is between unbelievers and believers. This was seen in the comments registered earlier (see 2.2.7) in which Calvin clearly set apart the wicked for God’s special treatment on account of their capacity. ‘This doctrine,’ the reformer stated in remarks on Isaiah 24: 19-20, ‘ought to be limited to the impious.’ The reason is not because wickedness is exclusive to them. ‘But it is because when the pious take refuge in God and rely thoroughly on him, they are not shaken but remain firm and stable against all assaults. However the impious, who despise the judgments of God, are terrified and alarmed and never find rest.’107 The difference, then, which causes him to limit the doctrine to the impious, seems to be found in the character of their captus. Similarly, when the Holy Spirit addresses his discourse ‘to the wicked (ad impios),’ he commonly speaks ‘according to their own apprehension (ex eorum sensu), ’ Calvin said on Psalm 18: 25, 26.108 These are (apparently) sensus which do not characterize the godly. Thus, at least in some cases, God perceives a difference in the capacity of the unbeliever and the believer, and treats the former in a different way accordingly. But what of believers? Here as well Calvin sometimes makes a distinction. He detects, for instance, occasions on which the recipients of God’s accommodation are specifically and solely the godly. This can be discovered in Calvin’s thinking on the imperfection of human capacity (see 2.2.6) in relation to good works. So, the picture of the child of God bringing his or her gift to the Father who then accepts and rewards this obedience even though it is imperfect is one which can only be true of the believer.109 This is, at least in part, because the works of the unbeliever are not merely imperfect but wholly repugnant to the Almighty.110 In fact, when Calvin declares: ‘since some fault (aliquid vitii) always adheres to our works, it is not possible that they can be approved, except as a matter of indulgence (cum indulgentia),’111 he is stating something which could not be said of an unbeliever for 107 CO 36: 409; CTS Isaiah, 2, 182-3; altered (on Isaiah 24: 19-20). 108 CO 31: 183-4; CTS Psalms, 1, 286-7; altered. 109 OS 4, 263-64; Inst. 3.17.10. 110 Conversely, Calvin seems to concede to Rome the presence of a real righteousness in the believer in respect of their works, declaring that they possess an uprightness, which is nonetheless ‘partial and imperfect’ (OS 4, 269-270; Inst. 3.17.15). 111 CO 23: 129; CTS Genesis, 1, 266 (on Genesis 7: 1).

HUMAN CAPTUS

57

two reasons: first because the unbeliever can only produce works which are wholly blameworthy; and secondly because God does not accept and approve of their works in any sense but completely rejects them. In contrast to this, God accepts the believer’s faulty works per concessionem. While there are disputes as to whether this position is consistently taught by Calvin, it is certainly asserted in some places in his corpus.112 One place where Calvin argues this most plainly is in his sermon on Job 10: 16-17. He declares the faithful to be righteous in their works, because God has accepted all believers into his favor. But, in actual fact, their works deserve to be rejected by God. At this point, Calvin reminds his hearers that he is not speaking of the works of unbelievers. These are characterized by nothing but rebellion. Yet, the reformer says, even when someone is governed by God’s Spirit, their works are imperfect (imparfaites) and God might cast them away if he wished. Nevertheless God receives them like a father receives the things that come from his child, even though they are worthless.113 So then, the recipients of this form of God’s accommodating actions are always believers, whose captus is discernibly different from that of the wicked. Although the lines which delineate this category of recipients are not perfectly and unmistakably clear at every point, they seem apparent enough to justify its inclusion as a separate classification. Perhaps further investigations will clarify matters further. Yet for the purposes of this chapter, this discussion will have to suffice. 4. CONCLUSION As a first step in this examination of Calvin’s handling on divine accommodation, this chapter analyzed his thought on human capacity. Calvin’s general teaching on human nature was first assessed, after which the main work of the chapter was undertaken. The four-fold division presented in the last section was suggested as a refinement of the model bequeathed to scholarship by the labors of Dowey and Wright. The findings presented above will, of course, be built upon in the next chapter. 112 Issues of consistency and ambiguities in Calvin’s teaching on this subject have received attention in the following: George Hunsinger, ‘A Tale of Two Simultaneities: Justification and Sanctification in Calvin and Barth’ in Zeitschrift fur Dialektische Theologie (2002), 316-38, and A.N.S. Lane, ‘The Role of Scripture in Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification by Faith.’ The latter is an unpublished paper given at a Calvin Studies Colloquium, but Lane treats issues of this kind in his Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (T&T Clark, 1999). 113 CO 33: 499.

CHAPTER 4 GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

In the following pages an analysis of God’s accommodating responses to human capacity, as discussed by Calvin, will be undertaken. This will entail pursuing two closely-related objectives. Previously it was shown that Calvin spoke of human captus as wide-ranging in character, which suggests that he construed God’s responses to that captus as similarly broad. The breadth of accommodation was also proposed as an important feature of Calvin’s thinking on the motif in the second chapter. The primary aim of what appears below will be to demonstrate that breadth by discussing the character of God’s accommodating as discussed by Calvin. 1. GOD’S ACCOMMODATING ACCORDING TO CALVIN Though common, accommodation cannot be found in all of the actions of Calvin’s God. Rather, it appears in (what might be called) certain spheres of God’s relationship with humankind. Within these spheres, Calvin’s God assumes a number of different roles. The purpose of this extended section is to delineate the contours of these diverse roles by listing and discussing some of the individual accommodating actions which make them up. As attention was paid earlier to the thought of other theologians and exegetes on accommodation, the present chapter will focus on Calvin. 1.1 When God instructs The first sphere of God’s accommodation to receive attention is the one most commonly referred to by Calvin, namely, that associated with God’s work as teacher.

59

60

CHAPTER 4

1.1.1 God Reveals Himself Through his Works1 The works of God, Calvin observes, are accommodated to human frailty so that his divine nature, which is incomprehensible, may in some way be perceived. He states this generally concerning all the Lord’s labors.2 He also declares it specifically about God’s creating of the world in six days,3 explicitly denying the suggestion that Moses might have simply distributed the work of an instantaneous moment into six days for the purpose of teaching.4 Rather, it was God’s deliberate choice to work in that way so that his children might meditate more profitably on his works. But it also served an additional purpose. For the beauty and revelatory potency of such handiwork also means that fallen men and women are without excuse.5 For, though they cannot be brought to a right knowledge of God by it, its power is such that even in their fallen state they cannot deny the Lord’s existence nor their duty to worship him.6 1.1.2 God Speaks Not only in the ‘theater of his glory,’7 but also in his verbal revelation God ‘makes himself small.’8 This appears in a number of different ways and is ultimately 1 While her work deals with other issues as well, the revelation of God in nature receives attention from Schreiner, The Theater of his Glory, passim. For a briefer summary of some important points related to this subject, see Randall Zachman, ‘The Universe as the Living Image of God: Calvin’s Doctrine of Creation Reconsidered’ in Concordia Theological Quarterly 61/4 (1997), 299-312. 2 ‘For God, otherwise invisible (as we have already said) clothes himself, so to speak, in the image of the world (mundi imaginem … induit), in which he presents himself to our observation … let the world become our school if we desire rightly to know God’ (CO 23: 7-8; CTS Genesis, ‘Argument’). 3 CO 48: 270; CTS Acts, 1, 484 (on Acts 12: 10). 4 CO 23: 17-8; CTS Genesis, 1, 78 (on Genesis 1: 5). But we shall see later that Calvin leaves a place for Moses’ accommodating of his account of creation. Calvin mentions accommodation quite often in his commentary on the early portions of Genesis and on various places which touch on the creation and movement of the spheres (in addition to the Genesis reference, see CO 33: 417-30 (on Job 9: 6-15)). This moves one to wonder to what extent he may have been influenced by, or simply interested in, the wranglings over various scientific questions which were sparked by Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543. The issue will receive some attention in chapter 7. 5 OS 3, 44-46; Inst. 1.5.1. 6 The question of whether Calvin left a place in his thinking for ‘natural theology’ is outside of the realm of this work; see Barth, ‘No!,’ 80ff, and Brunner, ‘Nature and Grace,’ 20ff. Ever since their debate, the subject has been one of immense interest. For a sampling of the literature, see: John T. McNeill, ‘Natural Law in the teaching of the Reformers’ in Journal of Religion 26 (1946), 168-82; Archur C. Cochrane, ‘Natural Law in Calvin’ in Church-State Relations in Ecumenical Perspective (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1966), 176-211; Paul Helm, ‘Calvin and Natural Law’ in Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 2 (1984), 5-21; idem, ‘John Calvin: The Sensus Divinitatis, and the Noetic Effects of Sin,’ in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (1998), 87-107; Muller, PRRD 1, 167-93; Schreiner, The Theater of God’s Glory, 55-72; also mentioned in idem, Where Shall Wisdom, 246, n. 94. The essay by Irena Backus, ‘Calvin’s Conception of Natural and Roman Law’ in Calvin Theological Journal 38 (2003), 7-26, is important for the background of Calvin’s thought on law. Natural law, aequitas and the lex gentium will be considered in chapter seven. 7 CO 8: 294; this reference is from Susan Schreiner. 8 SC 8: 334. (on Acts 7: 38-42).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

61

grounded in the eternal word, the second person of the Trinity,9 the one apart from whom no knowledge of God can be had. Thus, Christ the revealer must be treated, but in due course. First, the simplification apparent in the spoken and inscripturated word must be covered. God delivers this word in an accommodated manner. What this first means is that God chooses to reveal himself through human beings rather than by his own voice, since this will be easier for frail creatures to accept. We have seen already how God, having respect to our frailty, has vouchsafed to use this way to draw us to himself, that is, that we should be taught in a homely fashion by mortal men like ourselves, and in this he also shows that he had an eye to what might be fittest for his own.10 Whether, in Calvin’s judgment, God always employs human spokespersons is unclear. The reformer, for example, criticizes Luther’s suggestion that God employed a prophet to communicate the message of Genesis 13: 14ff (‘And the Lord said to Abram …’). But he does not expressly declare how God conversed with the patriarch, if not by means of a prophet.11 Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to assume that Calvin believed this to be God’s normal modus operandi. This belief, though, never keeps Calvin from introducing God12 and the Holy Spirit13 as the communicators of truth. In fact, it is his custom to speak in this way. The Lord’s delivery of his word bears an additional mark of accommodation as well. He simplifies the divinely-inspired sermons and writings of his messengers, expressing eternal verities in a straightforward and ‘homely’ manner.14 He employs metaphors and other figures of speech15 to make his prophet’s messages more

9 CO 23: 471; CTS Genesis, 2, 242 (on Genesis 35: 13). 10 CO 51: 565-7; Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians, trans. Arthur Golding (London, 1579; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1973), 376-7 (on Ephesians 4: 11-14); CO 26: 397 (on Deuteronomy 5: 23-7); CO 35: 52-3 (on Job 33: 8-14); CO 43: 33; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 191 (on Amos 2: 9-12). Interestingly, Calvin also calls this same concession a test whereby God will test their obedience by having them listen to human preachers rather than revealing his word from heaven (see, CO 44: 94-5; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 342 (on Haggai 1: 12)). This form of accommodation—that is, the appointing of human preachers or pastors—finds rare mention in E. David Willis-Watkins, ‘Calvin’s Theology of Pastoral Care’ in Calvin Studies VI; Papers Presented at a Colloquium on Calvin Studies at Davidson College and Davidson College Presbyterian Church, January, 1992. ed. by John Leith, 137, 39. 11 See, CO 23: 193; CTS Genesis, 1, 375. 12 CO 26: 236-7 (on Deuteronomy 4: 44-5: 3). 13 CO 31: 483; CTS Psalms, 2, 239 (on Psalm 49: 4). 14 CO 35: 624; Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, trans. and ed. T.H.L. Parker (London: James Clarke & Co., 1956), 71 (on Isa 53: 4-6); also Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ed. T.H.L. Parker (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 306 (on Romans 15: 4). 15 CO 37: 19; CTS Isaiah, 3, 223 (on Isaiah 40: 18); CO 44: 364-65 (on Zechariah 14: 4).

62

CHAPTER 4

perspicuous to dull men and women.16 Throughout Genesis, the prophets, and the Psalms such can be seen. Not merely the form, though, but the content of revelation is also adjusted.17 This is true of the Scriptures generally18 and of knowing God (in this life) generally.19 Further, specific truths about God—his triune nature,20 power,21 patience,22 goodness,23 faithfulness,24 his will25 and other qualities—are disclosed in a tempered guise. When God tells his people that he loves them,26 when he speaks angrily to them,27 expresses his grief28 (or, generally, shows himself subject to emotions29), testifies to his nearness,30 confirms that his children belong to him,31 reproves them 16 Calvin also occasionally remarks on the individual styles of particular prophets; see, for example, his utterances on Moses (CO 23: 22-23; CTS Genesis, 1, 86-7 (Genesis 1: 16)), David (CO 31: 174-5; CTS Psalms, 1, 268-9 (on Psalm 18: 7)), and especially on Ezekiel: ‘… our prophet is more verbose than Isaiah and even than Jeremiah, because he had accustomed himself to the form of speech which was then customary among the exiles. Therefore, he is neither precise nor polished. … [the people] had degenerated as much from the purity of the language as from that of their faith; hence the prophet purposely bends aside from elegance of language’ (CO 40: 83; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 139; slightly altered (on Ezekiel 3: 10-11)). 17 Wright raises questions which touch on this distinction between accommodated (or perhaps rhetorically-fashioned) presentation and accommodated content, and briefly introduces some of the issues involved in the latter. Through this exercise he clearly wishes to press home the implications of accommodation (as he understands Calvin’s use of the motif) upon the very substance of Christian doctrine; see, ‘Was John Calvin a ‘Rhetorical Theologian’?,’ 59-63. We concur with his views on this. Thus, although the treatment we have given here of pedagogical accommodation does include the mere alteration of presentation, it seems undeniable to us that at times, indeed often, it also involves the alteration of content as well. 18 See, CO 7: 169; Calvin, Anabaptists and Libertines, 214; see also, CO 31: 483; CTS Psalms, 2, 239 (on Psalm 49: 4); CO 31: 722; CTS Psalms, 3, 229 (on Psalm 78: 3). For sixteenth-century alternatives to Calvin’s conception of the clarity of Scripture, one may consult Priscilla Hayden-Roy’s comparison between Sebastian Franck and Martin Luther on this question; see, ‘Hermeneutica gloriae vs. hermeneutica crucis; Sebastian Franck and Martin Luther on the Clarity of Scripture’ in Archive for Reformation History 81 (1990), 50-67. On the reformation period in general, see Muller, PRRD 2, 340-57. 19 CO 30: 457-58 (on 1 Samuel 23: 7-18). 20 OS 3, 108-109; Inst. 1.13.1. 21 CO 24: 102; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 167 (on Exodus 8: 19). 22 CO 37: 284-5; CTS Isaiah, 4, 160 (on Isa 55: 3); CO 23: 116; CTS Genesis, 1, 247 (on Genesis 6: 5). 23 CO 31: 163; CTS Psalms, 1, 245 (on Psalm 17: 8). 24 CO 23: 149; CTS Genesis, 1, 300 (on Genesis 9: 15). 25 CO 8: 300-301; John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. J.K.S. Reid (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1961), 106; see also, CO 33: 579-80 (on Job 12: 7-16). Calvin speaks in different ways about the will of God and does not always mention accommodation when discussing it; compare OS 3, 203-205; Inst. 1.17.2 with CO 26: 687-9 (on Deuteronomy 9: 13-4). 26 CO 38: 677; CTS Jeremiah, 4, 108-9 (on Jer 31: 20); see also CO 27: 694 (on Deuteronomy 32: 8-11). 27 CO 26: 260-1; see also, CO 31: 692; CTS Psalms, 3, 161 (on Psalm 74: 1). 28 CO 42: 443; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 402 (on Hosea 11: 8-9). 29 SC 6: 21-2; John Calvin, Sermons on Jeremiah, trans. Blair Reynolds (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press, 1990), 37-8 (on Jeremiah 15: 6-19). 30 CO 31: 208; CTS Psalms, 1, 335 (on Psalm 20: 2). 31 CO 25: 685 (on Deuteronomy 1: 29-33).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

63

for their ungratefulness32 or reveals the mystery of his gospel,33 he alters his manner of dealing with them in order to suit human infirmities. Furthermore, various historical and spiritual truths: the creation account,34 as well as many scientific matters,35 assorted portions of history (especially, it seems, in Genesis),36 the discussion of specific doctrines such as election,37 providence,38 and marks of the church,39 and testimonies to the word itself40—all these are crafted by the Almighty with human captus in mind. On top of this, God attends to cultural norms,41 and even submits to human errors42 in his attempering of his holy truth. All of this is aimed at making his word clearer and more intelligible. This can be seen in Calvin’s remarks on John 3: 12. People, he says, are interested in ‘lofty and abstruse speculations,’ on account of which they hold the gospel in less estimation because what they find in it is so plain and straightforward. But, Calvin insists, it is a sign of terrible perversion that ‘we yield less reverence to God speaking to us, because he condescends to our ignorance (ruditatem).’43 It is just this—this attempt to reduce inaccessible truth to suit human simplicity, roughness, and unskillfulness—that characterizes the responsive labors of God here.

32 CO 25: 684. 33 ‘… if God has appointed nothing in vain, it follows that we will not be losers by listening to the gospel which he has appointed for us, for he accommodates himself to our capacity in addressing us’ (CO 49: 337; CTS Corinthians, 1, 104; slightly altered (on 1 Corinthians 2: 7)); see also, OS 3, 483-84; Inst. 2.16.2; CO 33: 536 (on Job 11: 7-12); CO 52: 286; CTS Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 86 (on 1 Timothy 1: 14-5). 34 OS 3, 154; Inst.1.14.3. This is in distinction to the Lord accommodating his creative work to human capacity. As mentioned, some discussion of these issues will be taken up in chapter seven. Dr Aza Goudriaan has pointed me to, R. Hooykaas, G.J. Rheticus’ Treatise on Holy Scripture and the Motion of the Earth, with translation, annotations, commentary and additional chapters on Ramus-Rheticus and the development of the problem before 1650 (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1984), 176-8, for material on Calvin’s influence on debate on these questions. 35 ‘For even though the other planets, it is true, also have their motions … it would have been lost time for David to have attempted to teach the secrets of astronomy to the rude and unlearned. Therefore, he reckoned it sufficient to speak in a homely style …’ (CO 31: 198; CTS Psalms, 1, 315; altered (on Psalm 19: 4)). 36 CO 33: 57-70 (concerning the activities that take place in the heavenly realm); see also, CO 23: 77-8; CTS Genesis, 1, 181 (on Genesis 3: 21 - concerning the fall of Adam and Eve). 37 OS 1, 87; Inst. (1536), 79. 38 CO 31: 833-4; CTS Psalms, 3, 462 (on Psalm 90: 2). 39 OS 5, 12-13; Inst. 4.1.8. 40 OS 4, 25-26; Inst. 3.2.15. See also, CO 31: 129-30; CTS Psalms, 1, 177 (on Psalm 12: 6). 41 CO 23: 17; CTS Genesis, 77-8 (on Genesis 1: 5 - regarding Moses beginning the day with evening); CO 31: 668; CTS Psalms, 3, 109 (on Psalm 72: 8; regarding David’s reference to the boundaries of Christ’s kingdom spreading ‘from sea to sea’ in accommodation to the people’s conception of the world); CO 31: 628; CTS Psalms, 3, 26 (on Psalm 68: 18; regarding Paul’s following of the Septuagint). 42 CO 38: 18; CTS Jeremiah, 1, 445 (on Jeremiah 8: 17) (this instance concerns the possibility of snakes being charmed, which Calvin says is impossible but was a belief commonly held to which the prophet refers ad hominem). 43 CO 47: 61; CTS John’s Gospel, 1, 119.

64

CHAPTER 4

These responsive labors also include the implementing of external signs as a concession to human weakness.44 Enormous are the issues involved with signs, sacraments and the like. Hence, they can only be touched on here. Through signs, God reveals himself more familiarly to his people,45 strengthens their reception of his word,46 and ‘raise us upwards (sursum).’47 This applies to all kinds of signs from both Old and New Testament periods—visions,48 dreams,49 miracles,50 and sacraments,51 as well, of course, as the Lord’s Supper and baptism.52 The fact that a thinker like Peter Martyr Vermigli expressed similar views seems to indicate something of the commonality of aspects of the material being rehearsed here.53 1.1.3 God Discloses Himself in Christ God’s disclosure of himself reaches its zenith in the sending of his only Son into the world.

44 Cf. Randall Zachman, ‘Calvin as Analogical Theologian’ in Scottish Journal of Theology 51 (1998), 162-187. 45 CO 31: 210; CTS Psalms, 1, 339 (on Psalm 20: 9). 46 OS 1, 118; Inst. (1536), 118. 47 CO 32: 345; CTS Psalms, 5, 150 (on Psalm 132: 7). 48 CO 48: 230; CTS Acts, 1, 418 (on Acts 10: 9-10). E. A. de Boer gives some consideration to Calvin’s views on visions in relation to accommodation; see, John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel, 114-116. 49 CO 40: 595-6; CTS Daniel, 1, 171 (Daniel 2: 31-35). 50 CO 24: 194; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 316 (on Exodus 19: 3). 51 ‘And surely God does accommodate himself to our rudeness thus far, that he shows himself visible, after a sort, under figures; for there were many signs under the law to testify his presence. And he comes down to us even at this day by baptism and the supper and also by the external preaching of the word’ (CO 48: 153; CTS Acts, 1, 291 (on Acts 7: 40)). On circumcision as a sign accommodated to the capacity of its recipients, see, CO 23: 241; CTS Genesis, 1, 453 (on Genesis 17: 11). 52 Accommodation is often mentioned by Calvin in relation to the sacraments; see, Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 (OS 1, 505; Tracts and Letters, 2, 166); Clear Explanation of … True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ … [against] … Tileman Heshusius (CO 9: 471-72; Tracts and Letters, 2, 509); Catechism of the Church of Geneva, ‘On the Sacraments’ (OS 2: 131; Tracts and Letters, 2, 84-85); and Articuli a facultate sacrae theologiae Parisiensi determinati super materiis fidei nostrae hodie controversis. Cum antidote, Art. VII (CO 7: 17; Tracts and Letters, 1, 8687), which suggests that the ascription of accommodation to a sacrament such as the Lord’s Supper was not uncommon in Calvin’s day. Some of the best recent work on the Lord’s supper in Calvin’s thought has been done by Thomas Davis; see The Clearest Promises of God: the development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching (New York: AMS Press, 1995). For a historical summary of the study of Calvin’s position on the Lord’s supper, see Brian Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), chapter one. 53 Vermigli declares that Christ ‘should be called figurator above all, for while we dwell here he heeds our infirmity through his kindness, by symbols’ (Cited by McLelland in Martyr, The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings, 134).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

65

There is no other way in which God can be known but through Christ … we cannot comprehend God in his majesty … Therefore he lowers himself to our weakness, gives himself to us through Christ, by whom he makes us partakers of wisdom, righteousness, truth, and other blessings.54 It was perhaps remarks such as these which moved a host of scholars to argue that the incarnation is for Calvin the supreme or epitomizing act within the repertoire of accommodating acts. Perhaps most famously, Battles declares it to be ‘the accommodating act par excellence.’55 Before him, Clinton Ashley made the observation.56 Rogers and McKim,57 Anthony Baxter,58 Stephen Benin,59 David Wright,60 Timothy George,61 Vincent Bru,62 John Witvliet,63 Thomas Davis,64 and Suzanne Selinger65 all make similar utterances; and before all of these, Edward Dowey alludes to the idea when he refers to ‘the final accommodation to human sinfulness, the Incarnation.’66 Such a sentiment has a number of considerations which commend it. However, we have come to consider the position difficult, if not impossible, to credit. For, can 54 CO 36: 421; CTS Isaiah, 2, 201-2; slightly altered (on Isaiah 25: 9); see also, CO 53: 92-3 (1 Timothy 1: 17-19). 55 Battles, ‘God Was Accommodating,’ 36. 56 ‘Man’s fullest knowledge of God is given him in the Person of Christ Jesus. In a word, Christ Jesus is the ultimate expression of divine condescension to the capacity of man’ (Ashley, ‘John Calvin’s Utilization of the Principle of Accommodation,’ 88-89). 57 Citing Battles, they declare, ‘in Jesus Christ’s taking on human form, we see God’s divine condescension ‘par excellence’’ (Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible; An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 99). 58 ‘[t]he ultimate example of divine condescension occurred, for Calvin, in the incarnation of Christ’ (Baxter, ‘What Did Calvin Teach?,’ 21). 59 ‘perhaps the sublime example of accommodation was for Calvin, …, the Incarnation’ (Benin, The Footprints of God, 191). 60 Wright refers to ‘the supreme accommodation of God … in the incarnation’ (Wright, ‘Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism,’ 44 (see also 50)). 61 George calls the incarnation ‘the supreme example of God’s accommodating of Himself to human capacities’ (Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988), 217). 62 ‘De même, pour Calvin, l’Incarnation constitue l’acte de condescendance et d’accommodation par excellence de Dieu envers l’humanité pécheresse’ (Bru, ‘La Notion d’accommodation,’ 86). 63 ‘[Battles] discusses in greater detail scripture and the incarnation as the examples par excellence of God’s accommodation’ (John Witvliet, ‘Images and Themes in Calvin’s Theology of Liturgy: One Dimension of Calvin’s Liturgical Legacy’ in The Legacy of John Calvin; Papers Presented at the 12th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society April 22-24, 1999, ed. David Foxgrover (Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 2000), 148). 64 Davis simply cites Battles’ statement in a footnote; see, Thomas J. Davis, ‘Not ‘Hidden and Far off’: the Bodily Aspect of Salvation and its Implications for Understanding the Body in Calvin’s Theology’ in Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994), 416, no. 32. 65 ‘[T]he Incarnation and the Cross are the maximum accommodation and the epitome of lowering’ (Selinger, Calvin Against Himself, 67). 66 Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 17. Whether Dowey’s comments amount to a full-blown declaration of what we find in Battles’ essay is difficult to say.

66

CHAPTER 4

there be a single, epitomizing act among such a diverse collection of acts? None of the authorities mentioned above defends their assertion, but to be fair most of them only make it as a passing comment. Therefore, although statements to this effect are understandable, since they concern a truth which is so evidently at the center and pinnacle of redemptive history, they seem indefensible or, at best, undefended. Nevertheless, the Lord’s accommodating of himself in the incarnation still seems to be of considerable importance to Calvin and the unquestioned highpoint of this sphere of accommodating activity. Accordingly, observations such as the one cited above and the one with which this brief treatment will conclude are not surprising. There are two reasons why faith could not be in God except Christ intervened as mediator: first the greatness of the divine glory must be taken into account and at the same time the smallness of our capacity. … all knowledge of God without Christ is a vast abyss … Hence it is clear that we cannot trust in God except through Christ.67 This well-known quote from the reformer’s commentary on 1 Peter confers on Christ the greatest significance as accommodating revealer of the otherwise inscrutable God. This is an accurate summary of the crucial place he holds in this aspect of redemption, according to Calvin. Revealing, though, is not the sum total of Christ’s work. Since this is so, the Mediator’s self-limiting work will also be dealt with in the treatment of a later category. 1.1.4 God’s Unaccommodated Revelation to his People in Glory In these various ways God adapts his truth to suit humanity’s need for a more familiar, less horrific mode of dealing. However, this adaptation will not continue forever. Though not the subject of prolonged scrutiny, this issue is occasionally raised by Calvin. His commentary on 1 John 3: 1-3 provides us with one such instance. When the apostle declares that ‘we shall see him as he is’ (1 John 3: 2), Calvin observes that right now God presents himself to be seen by his children ‘not such as he is, but such as our small measure can comprehend him (non qualis est, sed qualem modulus noster eum capit).’68 However, in this verse, John refers to ‘a new and an ineffable manner of seeing him, which we do not enjoy now.’69 According to this new vision, God’s people will not be able ‘to comprehend all that God is,’ for even then the distance between God and his own will be even ‘very great,’ but they will be able to see him in what would seem to be an

67 CO 55: 226-7; CTS Catholic Epistles, 53-4; slightly altered (on 1 Peter 1: 21). See also, CO 23: 471; CTS Genesis, 2, 242 (on Genesis 35: 13); CO 23: 622; CTS Genesis, 2, 491 (on Genesis 50: 24); CO 32: 51; CTS Psalms, 4, 78 (on Psalm 99: 5); CO 44: 177; CTS Minor Prophets, 5, 97 (on Zech 3: 8). 68 CO 55: 331-32; CTS The Catholic Epistles, 206. 69 CO 55: 331-32; CTS The Catholic Epistles, 206; slightly altered.

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

67

unaccommodated way; though, naturally, the particulars of this transformation are shrouded in mystery.70 Such considerations are striking, and may ultimately raise more questions than they answer.71 It must be said, though, that similar remarks from the reformer are rare. Thus, treatment of them and of the unaccommodating of God (so to speak) will not be found in the coverage of every modality, nor will they play a significant part in this chapter’s treatment of divine accommodation. This, then, is a sketch of God’s responses to human capacity within l’ecole de Dieu. The focus here has been—and shall be throughout this chapter—on drawing out, cataloguing, and briefly discussing these responses in order that the lineaments of each sphere of accommodating activity can be made clear. To be sure, overlap exists between this and others roles of the accommodating God. Further, the reformer has a number of purposes in mind (polemicizing, encouraging, and so forth) in the different citations referred to in this section. Nevertheless, throughout Calvin’s God can be seen to take self-limiting courses of action intended to effect the pedagogical ends which he has in mind. 1.2 When God Legislates and Commands In this second section, which treats God’s role as lawgiver/commander, his accommodating responses involve a more radical set of procedures. Here not simplification, but concession and capitulation can be seen—as was also the case in the remarks by Justin Martyr and the other writers whose thought was surveyed in chapter two. 1.2.1 God’s Moral Law God accommodates his ‘true and eternal rule of righteousness’72 at various levels, with each successive stage increasing, or rather deepening, the impact of this accommodating.73 First, God does accommodate his moral precepts in a way similar 70 ‘… yet the perfection of glory will not be so great in us, that our seeing will enable us to comprehend all that God is; for the distance between us and him will be even then very great … But when the Apostle says, that we shall see him as he is, he intimates a new and an ineffable manner of seeing him, which we enjoy not now; for as long as we walk by faith, as Paul teaches us, we are absent from him. And when he appeared to the fathers, it was not in his own essence, but was ever seen under symbols. Hence the majesty of God, now hid, will then only be in itself seen, when the veil of this mortal and corruptible nature shall be removed.’ (CO 55: 331-32; CTS The Catholic Epistles, 206). 71 One may contemplate recent work on the afterlife in Calvin’s thought; see, Carl Mosser, ‘The greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification’ in Scottish Journal of Theology 55 (2002), 36-57; J. Todd Billings, ‘United to God through Christ: Assessing Calvin on the Question of Deification’ in Harvard Theological Review 98 (2005), 315-334. 72 OS 5, 487; Inst. 4.20.15. 73 This arena of accommodation raises interesting and thorny questions about the nature of God’s righteousness, and provides rich avenues for inquiry. Generally, because of the numerous issues which can easily occupy an author regarding Calvin and the law, such questions have not been probed—nor has the specific issue of accommodation been examined as thoroughly as it perhaps should be. This is

CHAPTER 4

68

to what was seen in the last section; that is, by simplifying them. For example, he comprehends a whole command under one head so as to train his people as if they were child-like.74 Thus, he labors to make his law accessible to his subjects. In addition to this, he uses language which is deliberately intended to scare,75 and appends threats and promises in order to provoke his lazy servants to action.76 These persuasive endeavors, not entirely unlike the work of simplification, are naturally appropriate to the application of moral commands to a people unwilling to receive them. Yet, because such considerations open up new vistas, the discussion of them shall be delayed until a later section. In addition to these labors, the Lord also accommodates his law by altering its content. This can be seen, for instance, in Calvin’s exegesis of the fourth commandment. First, God requires that animals are to keep the Sabbath in accommodation to human hardness.77 But secondly, and more importantly, he enjoins only one day of worship on his children, as a concession to their callousness and inflexibility. In this way, God releases his stiff-necked people from the more rigorous requirement which he could have laid upon them;78 providing us with a glimpse of the direction in which we are heading. Yet, the content of the eternal precepts is accommodated by God in a much more radical way, as may be seen most poignantly in Calvin’s sermons on Job.79 In this enigmatic book, Job, though vindicated by God (Job 42: 7), suffers horribly (Job 1: 13-2: 9 et passim), complains that not even the pure can stand before God (Job 4: 17-9), asserts his own integrity before his friends and God (Job 12: 4 et passim), and even true in excellent works, such as T.H.L. Parker’s volume, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries. His treatment of Calvin’s exposition of the law (see Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament, 122-75) does not broach accommodation in any significant manner. The same can be said of I. John Hesselink’s work on the law. For, although his discussion is quite comprehensive and exceptional in many ways, he does not discuss accommodation. Significantly, he does not examine the material found in the reformer’s sermons on Job, thus effectively excluding altogether one aspect of divine attempering which is dealt with in those sermons much more clearly than in any other source; see, I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1992). See also, id., ‘Law and Gospel or Gospel and Law? Calvin’s Understanding of the Relationship’ in Calviniana. Ideas and Influences of Jean Calvin, ed. Robert Schnucker (Kirksville, MO: 1988), 13-32; Edward Dowey, ‘Law in Luther and Calvin’ in Theology Today 41 (1984), 146-53; David Wright, ‘The Ethical Use of the Old Testament in Luther and Calvin: a comparison’ in Scottish Journal of Theology 36 (1983), 463-85. 74 CO 26: 310 (on Deuteronomy 5: 16). 75 CO 26: 335 (on Deuteronomy 5: 18). 76 CO 26: 356 (on Deuteronomy 5: 19). 77 CO 26: 299-300 (on Deuteronomy 5: 13-15). 78 CO 26: 298 (on Deuteronomy 5: 13-15); CO 26: 294 (on Deuteronomy 5: 12-14). 79 The works on Calvin’s sermons on Job which shall be focused on here are treated by Susan Schreiner and shall be cited throughout the section. For other treatments of these sermons, see Paul Lobstein, Études sur la pensée et l’oeuvre de Calvin, ed. Lobstein (Neuilly: Éditions de ‘La Cause,’ 1927), 5167; Richard Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans le prédiction de Calvin (Bern: Peter Lang, 1978); and Derek Thomas, ‘Incomprehensibilitas Dei: Calvin’s Pastoral Theology in the Sermons on Job’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wales, 2000). The latter, though recent, is decidedly pastoral in intent (see his thesis statement), and says nothing of relevance to our subject which is not found in Schreiner’s research.

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

69

repents at the end (Job 42: 6). To make sense out of all this, Calvin posits the notion of a two-fold or double righteousness in God.80 God, he argues, possesses in himself a righteousness which is secret, infinite, incomprehensible to humans, and higher even than the righteousness of angels.81 But to his creatures the Lord has revealed an accommodated form of his own justice in the Ten Commandments (more broadly, the moral law).82 Unlike the first, this ordinary righteousness—which is in reality only half83 a righteousness, says Calvin—is tempered to the reason God has given to human beings, and thus is understandable to them.84 It is a justice which is bound or confined (compassee) within the measure of human beings.85 Nevertheless, Calvin affirms that it is still properly called perfect, so long as it is realized that this perfection is in relation to creatureliness (this does not mean humankind in its sinful state but in its unfallen state.86 Furthermore, this includes angelic creatures as well).87 Moreover, though lowered in this way, the law is still too high for humans to attain to, and thus no living creature can keep it perfectly.88 Exactly how God’s righteousness is circumscribed (the mechanics of it, that is), Calvin does not make clear. His statements on the subject are always general, and betray a reticence to probe the issue. So, for example, in describing God’s revealed justice, Calvin will call it manifest, note that it is expressed in the law, and observe that it has some agreement with our reason,89 but that is as far as he will go. His relative silence here is probably due to several factors, most notably the fact that his practical and apologetic interests to elucidate to his hearers the confusing ways of God in afflicting a pious man like Job did not require him to go into detail on the issue. Thus, he does little more than inform his hearers that that which God sets out in his law is an average justice (justice moyenne).90 80 The accommodation which will be discussed here is raised or at least alluded to elsewhere in the reformer’s corpus. Schreiner mentions the reformer’s 1558 treatise De occulta Dei providentia as a place where the concept of double justice is referred to (see CO 9: 310). It is also alluded to in Institutes 3.12.2. And, in Calvin’s commentary on Colossians from 1548, the reformer refers to the righteousness of the angels as not being so absolutely perfect as to put them in good stead with God and exclude them from the need of pardon (see CO 52: 88; CTS Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians, 156 (on Colossians 1: 20)); see Schreiner, ‘Exegesis and Double Justice,’ 322-3; Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom, 105-6. 81 CO 33: 202 (on Job 4: 12-9); CO 33: 726 (on Job 15: 11-6). 82 CO 33: 496 (on Job 10: 16-7); CO 33: 636-7 (on Job 13: 16-22). The question of whether, in Calvin’s opinion, the law had actually been inscripturated at the time in which Job lived is one which Susan Schreiner deals with. She concludes that, although he posits opinions on aspects of the question at various points in his treatment of the text, yet ‘[o]n a regular basis Calvin simply assumes the Law in his exegesis of the Joban text’; see Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom, 235-6. 83 CO 33: 457 (on Job 9: 29-35). 84 CO 34: 335 (on Job 23: 1-7). 85 CO 33: 459 (on Job 9: 29-35); CO 33: 725. 86 CO 34: 336 (on Job 23: 1-7). 87 CO 33: 458 (on Job 9: 29-35); CO 33: 496 (on Job 10: 16-7). 88 CO 33: 455-6 (on Job 9: 29-35). 89 CO 34: 447-8 (on Job 27: 1-4). 90 CO 33: 725 (on Job 15: 11-6).

70

CHAPTER 4

Significantly, though, he does indicate that this accommodation affects the substance of the law and reduces the level of righteousness found in it. This was seen in his reference to the law being only half 91 a righteousness. It is also apparent from his observation that the justice of the law falls far short of God’s higher justice.92 Therefore, though it is not clear how the righteousness of the infinite God has been tampered with (so to speak) to produce the expression of rectitude embodied in the moral law, it is plain that considerable differences mark the relationship between the two. Huge questions are raised by these considerations, a number of which are treated by Susan Schreiner in Where Shall Wisdom be Found. Further reflection upon some of these issues awaits us in chapter five.93 1.2.2 God’s Old Testament Case Laws So, in these ways Calvin’s God responds to his people’s captus. But in addition to accommodating the moral law, God also accommodates his case laws and the individual commands which he issues to his people. Yet here, as he applies his moral strictures to the particulars of Israel’s situation, the Lord stoops well below even the ‘average’ righteousness enshrined in the moral law. First, it is to be noted, God plays the part of the casuist; that is to say, he drafts case laws for his ancient church, and thus reveals something of the political dimensions of accommodation. This legislation takes into account their primitive condition. More precisely, as Calvin indicates in this general comment on the issue, he makes concessions to his people’s brutish character in these laws by not requiring of them the standard of moral purity which he might have demanded. But the fact, that God did not carry out the political laws to their full perfection (leges politicas Deus ad solidam perfectionem non exegit), shows that by this leniency he wished to reprove the people's perverseness, which could not even bear to obey so mild a law. Whenever, therefore, God seems to pardon too easily, and with too much clemency, let us recollect that he designedly deviated from the perfect rule (ab optima regula), because he had to do with an intractable people.94 This concessionary program is quite comprehensive, touching on numerous aspects of Israelite life. From what food the Israelites should and should not eat95 to

91 CO 33: 457 (on Job 9: 29-35). 92 CO 33: 496. 93 See Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom, 91-155; esp. 121-55. 94 CO 24: 624; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 39-40; slightly altered (on Leviticus 24: 18). In addition to the careful exposition of Wright, the broader constructs of the political dimensions of accommodation are briefly addressed by Ford Lewis Battles; see, ‘God Was Accommodating,’ 33-34. 95 God’s accommodation involved indulging them so as not to weigh them down with too great a burden, while also seeking to keep them from delighting in monstrous (monstris) food and keeping them from the intemperance of the heathen nations … ‘for there was a danger lest, by devouring filthy animals

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

71

allowances regarding divorce96 and men having multiple wives;97 from a concession for mourning for the dead98 to permitting the selling of one’s child into slavery;99 from the use of the Urim and Thummim for help in decision-making100 to lenient penalties for those who brawl101—everything from the petty to the gravely serious comes under the shadow of God’s accommodating influence, who involves himself (so to speak) in profound wickedness on behalf of his debased servants. Hence, what Calvin refers to as the need for the laws of a land to be accommodated to ‘the conditions of time, place, and nation’ is taken by Calvin’s God to extremes which far exceed its apparent meaning.102 Nor, though, is this the only way in which God seems to exceed the bounds of expectation. 1.2.3 God’s ad hoc Commands Given to Israel On top of the case laws, God also tempers the ad hoc commands he gives to his people with their barbarity in mind. Consider, for instance, the occasion when Joshua punishes five kings and hangs their dead bodies on gibbets. In his comments on this incident, recorded in Joshua 10: 15ff, Calvin first justifies these actions by falling back on the divine command, without which ‘it would argue barbarous atrocity and boundless arrogance (barbara … atrocitas et immanis superbia)’ and

they should harden themselves to join in various other corruptions’ (CO 24: 350; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 66 (on Leviticus 11: 13)). 96 CO 24: 657-58; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 93-94; slightly altered (on Deuteronomy 24: 1-4). 97 CO 27: 667. Interestingly, this text (Deuteronomy 21: 15) provokes a long discussion of marriage, its original intent and eventual corruption by the patriarchs, within which Calvin’s comment on accommodation can be found. But in the reformer’s commentary on the passage (CO 24: 709-10; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 174-5), his remarks are brief and do not refer to divine accommodation. 98 ‘ Nor can we doubt but that the mourning was improper, which God permitted as an indulgence; [but God regarded their weakness] lest immoderate rigor drive them to passionate excess’ (CO 24: 449; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 229) (on Leviticus 21: 1). 99 CO 24: 650; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 80-1. 100 ‘What Scripture sometimes relates, as to the inquires made by the Urim and Thummim, it was a concession made by God to the rudeness of his ancient people. The True Priest had not yet appeared, the Angel of His Almighty counsel, by whose Spirit all the prophets spoke …’ (CO 24: 430-1; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 198 (on Exodus 28: 4)). In very typical fashion, Calvin, though commenting upon the accommodated character of the Urim and Thummim in this place, can refrain from mentioning it on other occasions; see, CO 29: 133-8. 101 CO 24: 623-4; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 39-40 (on Exodus 21: 18-19). 102 In addition to this, Calvin mentions that the Lord, in taking upon himself the duties of lawgiver to Israel, had a special concern for them when drafting their code of conduct (OS 5, 487-89; Inst. 4.20.16). The relationship between these remarks and the reformer’s exegesis of Old Testament law certainly warrants further study and will receive some in chapter seven (cf. Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination, 117-290). It may certainly be noted in relation to Calvin’s point cited in the text that little in Calvin’s treatment of the last four books of the Pentateuch is adumbrated by either his remarks in Institutes 4.20 or his treatment of the similarities and differences between the Old and New covenants in Institutes 2.10-11; for more, see, Wright, ‘Accommodation and Barbarity,’ 416.

72

CHAPTER 4

would have been ‘contrary to the feelings of humanity.’103 But following this he goes on to give some explanation for God’s decision by briefly noting several facts, some of which point to the accommodated character of the injunction. For instance, it can be seen to some extent in the Lord’s using of this dreadful sight to ‘[strike] terror’ into the Israelites, and therefore keep them ‘from imitating the manners of nations whose crimes they had seen so severely punished.’104 Thus, just as Calvin had noted, respecting an earlier passage, that the hanging of criminals was useful ‘lest the people should become accustomed to barbarity,’105 so here it served the same purpose. But its appearance is much more obvious in this: that God’s command was an expedient by which the Israelites might learn the ‘inexorable rigor’ God expected from them.106 Such a contrivance was, Calvin says, intended to combat the ‘perverse affection of clemency’107 which existed in the people and might have tempted them to spare the lives of the kings. For it was the will of the Lord that all should be destroyed, but ‘[h]ad he not stimulated them strongly to the performance of [this command], they might have found specious pretexts for giving pardon.’108 In an additional example, God’s order to burn the city appears, Calvin says, to be ‘a concession to the grief of the people (populi dolori).’109 In this way, the reformer rather crudely observes, the taking of vengeance on this occasion would wipe out Israel’s remembrance of their earlier disgrace. Other examples of similarly crude and shocking accommodation can be found, especially in Calvin’s Pentateuch harmony and Joshua commentary. Yet the discourse thus far—both on the case laws and the commands—has, perhaps, given the impression that God was pleased with or at least undisturbed by these concessive measures. Such was not the case. His disagreement was expressed in different ways, but was always present. Hence, he begrudged his people these concessions, Calvin was in the habit of saying. For now this treatment will have to suffice. Thus, having broached the issue of the Lord’s response to situations in this arena, it seems appropriate to say a word about his response to his children’s obedience to his law—that is, about God’s rewarding of good works.

103 CO 25: 502; CTS Joshua, 159; slightly altered. See the similar example, CO 25: 479-80; CTS Joshua, 116-8 (on Joshua 7: 24); see also, Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 19-24. Calvin’s assertions here seem to raise questions, both ethical and philosophical. Calvin’s discomfort with this brand of accommodation is acknowledged by Wright, who points to his ‘wriggl[ing] uncomfortably to evacuate this concession to barbarity of its offensiveness’ (Wright, ‘Accommodation and Barbarity,’ 419). 104 CO 25: 503; CTS Joshua, 159 (on Joshua 10: 15ff). 105 CO 25: 487; CTS Joshua, 130 (on Joshua 8: 29). 106 CO 25: 503; CTS Joshua, 159. 107 CO 25: 503; CTS Joshua, 159. 108 CO 25: 503; CTS Joshua, 159. 109 CO 25: 483; CTS Joshua, 123 (on Joshua 8: 1-12).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

73

1.2.4 God’s Rewarding of Obedience God need not reward his subjects for their obedience. He, of course, owes them nothing, but may exact from them whatever obedience he wishes.110 Here Calvin, though citing it infrequently, relies heavily upon Luke 17: 10. We are all, he is convinced, worthless servants.111 Hence, God is not obliged to reward people, but does so in accommodation to their frailties. ‘God, of his own liberality, acknowledges as just those who aspire to righteousness, and repays them with the reward of which they are unworthy,’112 and God stoops (condescend) to people’s rudeness, says Calvin, when he commits himself to recompensing a believer’s works even though he is not required to do so,113 and ‘since some fault (aliquid vitii) always adheres to our works, it is not possible that they can be approved, except as a matter of indulgence (cum indulgentia).’114 But Calvin expresses himself most to the point when he declares, against the ‘Papists,’ that rewards do not indicate that God is beholden to his children, but rather that he wishes to win them to himself by gentleness and (so to speak) by breaking their hearts; God’s meaning, then, is to show us that he is ready to accommodate himself to us after a human manner (s’accommoder à nous à la façon des hommes).115 110 CO 26: 103 (on Deuteronomy 4: 1-2); CO 24: 378-9; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 111 (on Exodus 20: 5). 111 He does cite Luke 17: 10 occasionally. In a lengthy statement, he writes: ‘For, although God might in His own right simply require what He pleased, yet such is his kindness to humankind, that he chose to entice them by promises to obey him freely. Since, therefore, we are naturally attracted by the hope of reward, we are slow and lazy, until some fruit appears. Consequently God voluntarily promises, in order to arouse them from their sloth, that if men obey his law, he will repay them. Nor is this an ordinary act of liberality that he prefers to agree with us for the payment of a recompense, rather than simply to command by his sovereignty. For we must bear in mind the declaration of Christ, that when we have fulfilled the whole law, we still deserve nothing; since God claims for himself our entire services (Luke 17:10)’ (CO 25: 6; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 203 (on Deuteronomy 27: 11-26)). He also recalls this text from Luke in a sermon on Deuteronomy 26: 5-12, after which he suggests to his hearers an interesting prayer to God asking him to accept his people’s weak and imperfect service; see CO 28: 262-3 (on Deuteronomy 26: 5-12). 112 CO 40: 438-9; CTS Ezekiel, 2, 237-8 (on Ezekiel 18: 17). 113 CO 26: 480-1 (on Deuteronomy 6: 15-9). 114 CO 23: 129; CTS Genesis, 1, 266 (on Genesis 7: 1). 115 CO 26: 417 (on Deuteronomy 5: 28-33). The statement is admittedly slightly strange. He is clearly contrasting this accommodation with the idea that God is obliged to reward his servants. Yet it would have been nice if Calvin had chosen to spell out his meaning a bit more. See as well Calvin’s discussion in CO 6: 249-50; 336-40; Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation, 26.151-4. Two points should be briefly noted. First, as has already been alluded to earlier, God also accommodates himself by accepting the righteousness embodied in the moral law, rather than requiring his creatures to serve him according to his secret and higher righteousness (CO 34: 334 (on Job 23: 1-7)). Second, regarding rewards, Calvin expresses concerns regarding the idea that rewards may make God’s children haughty or possibly detract from the primacy of God’s mercy, and explains that they do not, or should not; see CO 26: 482, and also CO 31: 593; CTS Psalms, 2, 432 (on Psalm 62: 11-2). Yet even with such statements before us, it is apparent that Calvin’s concern about the Christian becoming boastful and proud because of works usually outweighs his belief that works do not produce pride. Hence, he pounces on every occasion to rid people of any cause for boasting.

74

CHAPTER 4

One of Calvin’s more enlightening statements addresses this recompensing in connection with God’s double righteousness.116 Declaring the promise ‘the one who does these things will live by them’ (Lev. 18: 5) to be a divine concession and the pledge made in it to be gratuitous, Calvin explains that the offer of life in return for obedience is actually a part of that average righteousness with which God contents himself simply because it pleases him to do so.117 In this way, God accommodates himself to his children’s weakness, for his rewards are never truly earned, but given freely and by divine decision in exchange for the trifling service which his children offer to him. Life, then, even when it is offered in the law and earned (so to speak) through obedience to that law, is a gift. But, as is well-known, Calvin does not restrict this truth to the sons of Adam. Rather, the notion of merit is even foreign, strictly speaking, to the work of Christ. For in no way can God be truly indebted to a human being118—for Calvin, this is axiomatic. Having thus decided freely to reward works, God still could refuse to recompense those efforts which through sin fall short of the already-accommodated standards. But, of course, all the works of God’s people without exception are blackened in this way. Therefore, although his promises are reliable, were he to demand perfect compliance to his commands, none of his creatures would ever obtain rewards. Yet the Lord does not attempt to extract such perfection, but indulgently receives and rewards his church’s labors even though they are tarnished with aliquid vitii.119 This he can do, being free: worth, merit, fault, and blame all seem almost meaningless in this context.120 Calvin regularly comments on this indulgence, both in general remarks121 and in comments on specific episodes, such as Rebecca’s deception,122 Zipporah’s circumcizing of her son,123 Rahab’s lie,124 and the lie of the 116 CO 33: 491-506 (Job 10: 16-7). The same argument is nicely presented in the reformer’s lecture on Ezekiel 20: 11; see, CO 40: 481-3; CTS Ezekiel, 2, 296-99. 117 CO 33: 496. 118 OS 3, 508-515; Inst. 2.17.1-6. As mentioned earlier, differing views exist on whether Calvin is indebted to John Major or some other aspect of his medieval past in his holding of this position, see McGrath, ‘John Calvin and Late Medieval Thought,’ 58-78; cf. Oberman, ‘Initia Calvini,’ 121-23. 119 CO 23: 129; CTS Genesis, 1, 266 (on Genesis 7: 1). Calvin’s reasoning on this issue is slightly peculiar. The passage just cited on Genesis 7: 1 argues that it is because ‘some fault’ clings to human works that God need not feel indebted to reward them, while the passages cited from the sermons on Job and the Institutes (on the obedience of Christ) argue that even perfect obedience can not demand payment from God. The issue is difficult and cannot be addressed here, but is well worth attention. 120 See Hunsinger, ‘A Tale of Two Simultaneities’ and Lane, ‘The Role of Scripture,’ for additional thoughts on this theme. A question revolving around these issues of worth, merit, the imperfection of the believer’s obedience, and Calvin’s consistency in treating these issues was briefly alluded to earlier. 121 CO 27: 98; CO 40: 438-9; CTS Ezekiel, 2, 237-8 (on Ezekiel 18: 17); CO 31: 593; CTS Psalms, 2, 432 (on Psalm 62: 11-2); CO 24: 258; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 414 (on Deuteronomy 30: 114); CO 23: 358; CTS Genesis, 2, 59-60 (on Genesis 26: 1-4). 122 CO 23: 374-5; CTS Genesis, 2, 84-7 (on Genesis 27). 123 CO 24: 65-6; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony 1, 107-8 (on Exodus 4: 24-31). 124 CO 25: 440-1; CTS Joshua, 47-8 (on Joshua 2: 4-6).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

75

Hebrew women.125 Furthermore, he applies the same analysis not only to obedience to the law, but also to repentance126 and, as shall be seen in a later section, to weak and imperfect prayers.127 1.2.5 The Duration of these Forms of Accommodation The reformer does not speak to all of the expressions of accommodation treated in this section, but he does address one of them, namely, the moral law.128 One such 125 CO 24: 19; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 35 (on Exodus 1: 18). The fact that the majority of these have to do with mendacity, suggests that it may have been a particularly relevant issue in Calvin’s day—though, as was mentioned in chapter two, the subject had been regularly discussed since at least the time of Plato. Concerning the subject in Calvin and the sixteenth century, see Perez Zagorin, Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990). 126 ‘Not that anyone perfectly renounces himself or his sin, but through indulgence that impenitence is acceptable to God, which might justly be rejected on the ground of its deficiencies’ (CO 24: 593-4; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 460-1 (on Leviticus 23: 27-8)). 127 Stepping back, a number of issues for discussion appear. First, it should simply be noted that God can and frequently does use the promise of recompense as a stimulant in accommodation to the sluggishness of his people. This shall be examined more fully later. But also, the question of Calvin’s relation with medieval Roman Catholicism is raised by these considerations. Joseph Wawrykow has argued that the reformer held to a kind of condign merit (Joseph Wawrykow, ‘John Calvin and Condign Merit’ in Archive for Reformation History 83 (1992), 73-90). Calvin can, of course, vehemently deny that believers ‘in any sense, merit what is bestowed upon them,’ (CO 31: 593; CTS Psalms, 2, 432 (on Psalm 62: 11-2)). Yet scholars have begun to point to apparent ambiguities in the reformer’s statements (We are referring especially to the papers by George Hunsinger and Tony Lane). He can, after all, speak of meriting salvation in a certain sense (see, for instance, OS 4, 23839; Inst. 3.14.21; this reference was brought to my attention by George Hunsinger and Tony Lane). Lane also observes: ‘Trent was not crass enough to state that works cause justification. Yet Calvin says as much of works, albeit as inferior causes (of eternal life)’ (Lane, ‘The Role of Scripture,’ 13). Could it be that Calvin’s true position, when more accurately understood, allies him more closely with Roman Catholics than had hitherto been conceded? In this regard, it is perhaps worth noting an interesting remark by Calvin on Jeremiah 10: 24 (where the prophet requests moderation in chastening). After noting that humankind cannot bear God’s strict rigor, and that therefore their only asylum is in his mercy, Calvin goes on to say: ‘not that he should pardon us altogether (ignoscat nobis in totum), for it is good for us to be chastised by his hand; but that he may chastise us only according to his paternal kindness’ (CO 38: 93; CTS Jeremiah and Lamentations, 2, 63). For a general summary of some theological developments concerning the meritum de congruo see Oberman’s essay, ‘Duns Scotus, Nominalism, and the Council of Trent’ in The Dawn of the Reformation, 204-33; esp. 211-225. 128 It should be noted, of course, that the Old Testament case laws were temporary and applicable only to the people for whom they were originally drafted. While they can still instruct God’s people in a general way, they no longer apply because they have served their purpose. Calvin makes numerous statements on the general abrogation of the shadowy and childlike portions of the law, but one of the clearest statements he makes about the civil law in particular is found in Institutes 4.20.14, 15 and 16. Introducing the common division of the law into moral, ceremonial and civil, he argues that the Old Testament civil law ‘imparted certain formulas of equity and justice’ to Israel ‘by which they might live together blamelessly and peaceably,’ but goes on to make it clear that it has been abrogated and that nations are now left to make such laws and they see to be profitable. Probing the matter further, he explains that the law of Moses is not ‘dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it.’ Rather, this is a necessity, given the ‘condition of times, place, and nation.’ He even states that these laws ‘were never enacted for us’ (OS 5, 486-489; Inst. 4.20 14-6). See chapter seven for more.

76

CHAPTER 4

instance is found in a sermon on Job 9: 29-35. When distinguishing the ordinary righteousness embodied in the law which angels and humans ought to yield to God from the perfect righteousness which humankind is not able to attain to, Calvin explains that such inability clings to human beings only in the present.129 For when the church is made like him and knows that glory which is hidden now, since ‘we see in a glass darkly’ (by which Calvin refers to 1 Corinthians 13: 12), they will be very different from what they are now.130 At that time, then, this accommodated form of legislation will pass away. Again, all, or any, of what this entails is unknown. Hence, it can be seen that as in the arena of teaching so also in that of legislating and commanding, when God exercises his authority over his people his behavior is characterized by self-accommodation. Yet this time it is of a more radical sort. For this reason it cannot help but approach towards and make inroads (as it were) into the very citadel of the divine character. 1.3 When God sanctions Religious Rites and Practices, and Receives the Worship of his People Within the cultic arena, God accommodates himself to his children both in his work of sanctioning the practices which are to characterize his people’s worship and in his reception of their acts of devotion.131 This two-fold division of the subject will provide the structure for this section. 1.3.1 God’s Accommodating of the Practices Sanctioned in Worship God accommodates himself in the realm of worship by adjusting the ‘diverse forms’ of cultic practice to the ‘different ages’ of the church without altering the doctrine or making himself subject to change—so Calvin argues in his well-known statement on the subject in Institutes 2.11.13.132 This declaration has received a skeptical review

129 CO 33: 458. 130 CO 33: 458. 131 Calvin’s views on worship have received treatment from Elsie Anne McKee; see, ‘Context, Contours, Contents: Towards a Description of the Classical Reformed Teaching on Worship,’ Princeton Theological Seminary Bulletin 16 (1995), 172-201 and Carlos Eire, War Against the Idols: the reformation of worship from Erasmus to Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). For one of the many older treatments, see Brian Gerrish, ‘The Reformers’ Theology of Worship’ in McCormick Quarterly 14 (1961), 21-29. For more on the matter, the bibliography provided in the first footnote of John Witvliet’s paper is helpful; see, ‘Images and Themes in Calvin’s Theology of Liturgy,’ 130. In this paper Witvliet notes the lack of attention to the theme of liturgy which is apparent in studies on accommodation. 132 OS 3, 435-36; Inst. 2.11.13, cited previously. He is, of course, not the only theologian to assert this view, as was seen in chapter two. Further, it should be conceded that Calvin’s declaration comprehends more than worship, being a commentary on the relation between the two testaments. But the objections with which he is dealing in this place focus particularly on the character of worship. So Calvin expresses the thoughts of his antagonists, which prompt his comments, as follows: ‘But it is

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

77

from David Wright, who suggests that it is difficult to credit and goes on to posit his distinction between a ‘primitive ethnos’ and ‘sinners’.133 Although Wright’s observations on Jewish primitiveness are based on Calvin’s comments on God’s civil regulations and military activities, it will be shown below that the Lord also tempered his cultic directives with Ancient-Near-Eastern primitiveness in mind. The Worship God requires: The breadth, magnitude, and sheer complexity of God’s accommodating campaign are monumental. Hence Calvin can, when discussing Jewish worship, refer to an accommodated gubernatio,134 and is able, when comparing Moses with Christ, to generalize as follows: ‘Moses was different from Christ in this respect, that while the love of the gospel was not yet known he kept the people under veils, and … in short, accommodated himself to the capacity of ignorant people.’135 Hence also, numerous particulars within the regimen of Old covenant worship can be pointed to which reveal God’s accommodating manner: the building of altars,136 various ceremonies,137 and sacrifices,138 the forms of prayer handed down for the people,139 as well as the most basic elements of symbol and imagery employed by the prophets,140 and even seemingly insignificant details such as the zeal of a Nazarite,141 the requirement to wear fringes,142 and God’s covering of the ark with gold143—all are eloquent examples of the responsive measures taken by the accommodating God in appointing means and setting down requirements for his worship. One instance which might be noted because of its impressive tenderness can be seen in God’s appointing of the shewbread. Here was an especially remarkable occasion on which God ‘descended familiarly to them, as if,’ Calvin says, ‘he were their messmates.’ Thus, he stoops to his children in their smallness to be intimate remarkable, they say, that [God] now despises and abominates animal sacrifices and all the trappings of the Levitical priesthood that of old delighted him’ (OS 3, 435; Inst. 2.11.13). 133 This material was considered in chapters one. See, Wright, ‘Calvin’s ‘Accommodation’ Revisited,’ 177-8. 134 CO 36: 40; CTS Isaiah, 1, 59 (on Isaiah 1: 14). 135 CO 55: 89; CTS Hebrews, 167 (on Hebrews 7: 12). 136 CO 23: 366; CTS Genesis, 2, 71 (on Genesis 26: 25). 137 CO 52: 108; CTS Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 189 (on Colossians 2: 14). 138 CO 24: 439; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 212 (on Exodus 29: 28-35). 139 CO 43: 564; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 132 (on Habakkuk 3: 1ff). This lasted throughout the Old covenant period, as we see from the fact that John the Baptist is included as one who handed down forms of prayer: ‘… John gave his disciples a particular training, and … a settled form and fixed hours of prayer. Now, I reckon those prayers among outward observances. For, though calling on God holds the first rank in spiritual worship, yet that method of doing it was adapted to the rudeness of human beings (ad hominum ruditatem), …’ (CO 45: 253; CTS Gospels, 1, 406; slightly altered (on Matthew 9: 14)). 140 CO 36: 343-4; CTS Isaiah, 2, 73 (on Isaiah 19: 19); see also, CO 31: 453; CTS Psalms, 2, 182 (on Psalm 45: 6). 141 CO 24: 304; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 487 (on Numbers 6: 1-21). 142 CO 24: 226-7; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 365 (on Numbers 15: 37-41). 143 CO 24: 404; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 152 (on Exodus 25: 8-22).

78

CHAPTER 4

with them and to show them his special favor, ‘as if coming to banquet with them.’144 At other times his accommodation would not be quite so gentle. Through these various means, then, the Lord considers the rude condition of his people and contextualizes the worship of himself appropriately, training them through these things to contemplate the grace which would come with the arrival of their savior.145 In the same way God tempers himself when sanctioning the rites and ceremonies which are employed by his New Testament church (though these are fewer in number146). So when discussing the matter, Calvin can move quite smoothly between the Jews and their ceremonies and the Christians and theirs. For example in a sermon on Deuteronomy 12: 3-7, he discusses sacrifices, burnt offerings, vows, and the like and then declares to his hearers that nous soyons exercez by the sacraments and by ceremonies, which were instituted because we are rude.147 Thus, both covenants witness to the divine penchant for accommodation. Worship and Barbarity in Israel: Though this summary reveals something of the scope of divine self-limitation, issues of greater moment regarding divine accommodating in worship appear only when the subject is probed more deeply. For in several areas of Jewish worship, God makes concessions to his people and their tendency to be influenced by their pagan neighbors. These bear a similar character to those seen in the legal arena. So, on 2 Samuel 6: 14, which concerns David’s dancing in a linen ephod before the Lord, Calvin remarks: Well, we may find this very strange indeed, but let us note in the first place that God permitted his people to have many things in common with the pagans (beaucoup de choses communes avec les payens). Now it was customary for the pagans to leap and dance while worshipping their idols. God guided his people in that matter, indeed, so that they would not give themselves to wicked superstitions, nor say: ‘We lack this; we must have it like the others.’ … But there was also another reason, for it is certain that he wanted to withdraw his people from all sacrilegious and dissolute joys so that they might learn to rejoice in him … [it is our nature to rejoice too wildly] … he holds an appropriate remedy for us, namely, that we may learn to rejoice in him. … [this is why David was permitted to dance] … Be that as it may, it was done in accordance with the times (selon le temps), which we must always remember.148

144 CO 24: 488; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 291 (on Leviticus 24: 5-9). 145 OS 3, 425-26; Inst. 2.11.3. 146 SC 1: 155; Sermons on 2 Samuel, 267 (on 2 Samuel 6: 14). 147 CO 27: 172. See also OS 1, 467; Tracts and Letters, 1, 39 (Calvin’s Reply to Sadolet). Of course, the fact that the sacraments figure both in this sphere and in the earlier, pedagogical, sphere simply demonstrates how integrated these different spheres are. 148 SC 1: 155; Sermons on 2 Samuel, 267.

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

79

What these ‘many things’ are is not clear. But in addition to dancing, another of them seems to have been the use of music and musical instruments in worship.149 Calvin alludes to this in at least two places. First, in a sermon on 1 Samuel 18: 6 he mentions that timbrels (or tambourines or tabrets) and other musical instruments were common in eastern regions, and later declares that, on account of the puerility of the Jews, musical instruments ‘were tolerated (fuisse toleratam)’—though he makes it clear that God’s people did not use them to sing dissolute songs.150 Secondly, in a curious remark on Miriam and the women singing and playing the tambourine (Exodus 15: 20), Calvin, saying nothing of God’s ordaining of such practices, declares: ‘the beating of tambourines may appear absurd to many, but the custom of the nation excuses it (eam mos gentis excusat), which David attests to have flourished in his time as well.’151 In addition to these considerations, it should be noted that such criticisms by Calvin of the use of tambourines, dancing, and the like in Jewish worship are not uncommon, and seem further to indicate a conviction on his part that these must have come into divine worship through a concession on God’s part. So, Calvin declares these things to be ‘immoderate and unsuitable (insolens et absonum),’152 ‘absurd (absurdum),’153 and ‘very strange (fort estrange),’154 and even goes so far as to say, in comments on Jeremiah 31: 4,155 that ‘it is the tendency of all dances and sounds of tambourines to benumb profane people.’156 Thus, even at his most gentle, Calvin can only bring himself to describe music and singing as ‘many restraints and constant exercises (multis fraenis atque assiduis exercitiis).’157 But Calvin can also speak of affinities between Jewish and pagan worship on a broader and more general scale.

149 Aside from the points which shall be rehearsed here, this assertion is further strengthened by the fact that Calvin seems often to treat music and dancing as intimately related, as can be seen from the examples cited in this section. 150 CO 30: 259. 151 CO 24: 162; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 263; altered (on Exodus 15: 20). 152 CO 30: 258. 153 ‘… as absurd as it may appear to us, it was customary then for the women to play [the timbret]’ (CO 31: 631; CTS Psalms, 3, 33; slightly altered (on Psalm 68: 27)); and also CO 24: 162; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 263 (on Exodus 15: 20). 154 SC 1: 155; Sermons on 2 Samuel, 267. 155 The text reads: ‘you shall again be adorned with your tambourines, and shall go forth in the dances of those who rejoice (adhuc ornaberis tympanis tuis, et exibis in chores ludentium)’ (CO 38: 646. English translation: CTS Jeremiah, 4, 60). 156 CO 38: 646; CTS Jeremiah, 4, 60-1; slightly altered). This is also apparent in his sermon on 1 Samuel 18: 6 (see, CO 30: 258-61). It should also be noted that Calvin is quite strong in his criticism of the contemporary use of music and dancing, the latter especially. Ronald Wallace’s Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life contains a helpful treatment of Calvin’s views on activities such as enjoying music and dancing for the Christian disciple; see Ronald Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1959), 174ff. 157 CO 32: 442; CTS Psalms, 5, 320; altered (Concerning David’s exhortation, ‘Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, … praise him with tambourine …’ (Psalm 150: 3-5)).

80

CHAPTER 4 Although between the Jews and Gentiles there were great affinities and likeness (affinitas ac similitudo) as regards the external form of their worship of God (colendi Dei), yet the end (finis) of each differed greatly.158

Here the reformer clearly implies that a range of practices could be found in the worship of both groups which were identical. Indeed, so true is this that similarities between Israelite and pagan practices could on many fronts only be differentiated by considering internal matters. We see this in respect of the subject already treated: musical instruments were used by pagans and were common, ‘I confess … to the church of God, and in fact by divine command, but the intention (ratio) of the Jews and the Chaldeans was different.’159 This can be seen elsewhere as well. When he explains the use of sackcloth among God’s people, Calvin observes that it was common practice for them and that ‘we know also that the orientals were addicted beyond all others to ceremonies.’160 Even when discussing the sacrificing of animals, he asserts that the Gentiles seemed to satisfy their gods by simply offering victims, but Jewish offerings were acceptable ‘because they were exercises of repentance and faith.’161 So, he asserts, the law instructed the Jews ‘in the spiritual worship of God and in nothing else (ad spiritualem solum Dei cultum),’ but it was clothed with ceremonies which agreed with ‘the requirements of the age (ut ferebat temporis ratio)’—implying again that the only differences were internal and that to accommodate to the age meant to be like the Gentiles in outward form.162 Thus in Calvin’s conception there was clearly a level of collusion between Jew and Gentile which was profound. This surely carries us closer to a conception of what the ‘many things’ to which Calvin referred may involve. For although an itemized list cannot be drawn up and explicit declarations from Calvin on the matter are rare, it seems apparent that the accommodating God made concessions to his people on numerous 158 CO 24: 404; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 154; altered (on Exodus 25: 1-22). 159 CO 40: 625; CTS Daniel, 1, 212; altered (on Daniel 3: 2-7). In this passage, Calvin goes on to describe in some detail the internal differences which would have differentiated Jewish worship from that of the Chaldeans. 160 CO 31: 299; CTS Psalms, 1, 496 (on Psalm 30: 11). Noting further the influence of pagan culture, Calvin, in a sermon on Deuteronomy 9: 15-21, seems to argue that the Israelites who danced before the golden calf were taking up a pagan custom: ‘dancing … according to the manner of Idolaters;’ see, CO 26: 690-702. 161 CO 24: 404; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 154 (on Exodus 25: 8-22). This emphasis on the internal nature of worship is standard for Calvin. Even when the text of Scripture states categorically that God was pleased with an offering, as when we read, ‘the Lord smelled a sweet aroma’ (Genesis 8: 21)-‘odorem quietis’—a pleasing aroma or an aroma of rest (CO 23: 139), Calvin denies it: ‘nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that God should have been appeased by the filthy smoke of entrails and flesh’ (CO 23: 139; CTS Genesis, 1, 282; slightly altered). The sacrificial rite was merely another of those rudimentary elements which God’s people required, and which God effectively overlooked. ‘[W]e must regard the end of the work (finem operis) and not confine ourselves to the external form’ (CO 23: 139; CTS Genesis, 1, 283). The same point is argued in a longer passage in a sermon on Deuteronomy 12: 3-7; see, CO 27: 172. 162 CO 24: 404; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 154; slightly altered. A page earlier, Calvin insists that the legal rites of Israel must not be understood as farces ‘in imitation of the Gentiles.’ He explains this point further by pointing to the internal issues to which we have been alluding (CO 24: 403-4; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 153).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

81

issues by specifically sanctioning as part of divine worship those religious rites and practices which would have been familiar to Israel because they were part of the public domain (so to speak). So then, the pervasiveness of God’s accommodating responses—or rather the invasiveness or even insidiousness of Ancient-Near-Eastern culture—in this area can be discerned. The latter clearly shaped the structure and content of cultic life, particularly, of course, in the experience of Israel. 1.3.2 God’s Accommodating of the Reception of Worship In a way similar to what was seen earlier regarding the divine rewarding of obedience to the law, it goes virtually without saying that the worship which the Lord receives from his people is received per concessionem. Indeed a defense of this proposition is already implicit in the discussion just completed. So when Calvin announces that God did not enjoin the playing of the harp ‘as if like ourselves he took pleasure in the melody,’ but for the sake of the underage Jews, the reformer is effectively declaring at least this aspect of public worship to be something which God accepts only by gracious dispensation.163 Nor is this the only element of cultic life about which this same argument could be made. From these considerations the truth of the stated proposition becomes increasingly clear. This being so, however, there are still two specific areas which receive individual attention from the reformer, and which ought, therefore, to be briefly examined. Vows and Prayers: Vows (oaths)164 demonstrate God’s concessionary acceptance of his people’s worship; this may be seen from two perspectives. The first appears in Calvin’s comments on the proclamation, ‘I will pay my vows to the Lord’ (Psalm 116:14). God’s people are weak, wavering, lacking in assurance. Accordingly, vows are given by God (says Calvin) not as a method by which his approval may be procured through flattery, but rather as an aid to strength doubting believers. God ‘condescends’ to allow his children ‘in their infirmity’ to use his name as a support to strengthen their confidence in the divine promise.165 In this way, the Lord’s awareness of, and response to, his people’s frailty betrays his accommodating disposition, as he virtually alters the focus of worship (or what one might presume was the focus of worship) so that its very institution is a kind of accommodation. Secondly, the greatness of the divine name becomes a vehicle through which the Lord’s accommodation can be seen. For the fact that God is willing to grant to his people the use of a thing as holy as his name is itself a kind of stooping or divine 163 CO 32: 11; CTS Psalms, 3, 495; altered (on Psalm 102: 3-4). 164 The question of whether vows are part of worship is directly answered by Calvin when he states: ‘[i]t is nothing strange that [Zephaniah] connects swearing with worship, for it is a kind of divine worship’ (CO 44: 11; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 198 (on Zephaniah 1: 5)). God understands the use of his name in swearing as a service to him, Calvin says in another place; see, CO 26: 271 (on Deuteronomy 5: 11). 165 CO 32: 199; CTS Psalms, 4, 371.

82

CHAPTER 4

condescension. Calvin calls it an inestimable kindness, and observes that the majesty of God is so precious that it should not be abased so low (qu’elle ne doit point estre abbaissee iusques là); God’s name is so great that it should not be taken up by human beings, but God accommodates himself to his people in this way.166 Here accommodation reveals the humility of God. So it is with prayer as well. It is, of course, a most holy act and one which ought not to be entered into flippantly or as if it were a conversation between a believer and an ordinary human being.167 Yet here as well God has a concern for his people’s captus. The Lord allows his people to conduct themselves in his presence in a manner hardly befitting a meeting with the Almighty. Some of these episodes are relatively harmless, while others strike at the very heart of what prayer is. So, God accommodates the forms of prayer recorded in Scripture to human understanding.168 He establishes fixed hours for prayer out of regard for believers’ frailties.169 He designs prayer so as to allow his children to approach him familiarly.170 Specifically, he permits petitioners to present arguments before him to substantiate their requests, though this is superfluous.171 He concedes to them the right to pour out their feelings to him,172 ask him to consider their infirmity,173 and even to urge him to wake up174 or make haste.175 He allows them to bring accusations against him,176 to utter ridiculous statements177 and make a variety of foolish requests of him.178 Given all 166 CO 26: 271. Calvin declares elsewhere: ‘For it is a singular indulgence on the part of God that he allows us to take up his name when there is any controversy among us, … it is surely a great favor, for how great is the sanctity of that name though it also serves even earthly concerns? Nevertheless, God accommodates himself so far to us, that it is lawful for us to swear by his name’ (CO 44: 11; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 198, slightly altered). 167 OS 4, 300; Inst. 3.20.5. 168 CO 31: 133; CTS Psalms, 1, 184 (on Psalm 13: 3). 169 CO 31: 542; CTS Psalms, 2, 339 (on Psalm 55: 16). 170 CO 31: 640; CTS Psalms, 3, 53 (on Psalm 69: 6); CO 23: 469; CTS Genesis, 2, 238 (on Genesis 35: 7). 171 ‘As then we flee to God, whenever necessity urges us, so also we remind him, like a son who unburdens all his feelings in the bosom of his father. Thus in prayer the faithful reason and expostulate with God, and bring forward all those things by which he may be pacified towards them; in short, they deal with him after the manner of men, as though they would persuade him concerning that which yet has been decreed before the creation of the world: but as the eternal counsel of God is hid from us, we ought in this respect to act wisely and according to the measure of our faith’ (CO 38: 203-4; CTS Jeremiah and Lamentations, 2, 244 (on Jeremiah 14: 22)). 172 CO 23: 209; CTS Genesis, 1, 401 (on Genesis 15: 2). 173 CO 23: 442-43; CTS Genesis, 2, 198 (on Genesis 32: 26). 174 CO 31: 566; CTS Psalms, 2, 382 (on Psalm 59: 2). 175 CO 31: 828-29; CTS Psalms, 3, 454 (on Psalm 89: 47). 176 CO 43: 386-87; CTS Minor Prophets, 3. 330-31 (on Micah 6: 3); CO 33: 613 (on Job 13: 1-10). 177 CO 31: 67; CTS Psalms, 1, 55 (on Psalm 5: 4 in which the Psalmist declares that God is not a God who delights in wickedness). 178 CO 31: 269; CTS Psalms, 1, 447 (on Psalm 26: 9 in which the Psalmist asks God not to gather his soul with wicked people).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

83

these concessions, it is perhaps not surprising to find Calvin again comparing believers with gentiles, for here as well they conduct themselves in ways which outwardly appear identical.179 1.3.3 The End of Accommodated Worship On the subject of the rescinding of God’s accommodated managing of worship, the reformer’s opinions are left to be inferred. For example, he states: Although full vision (plena visio) will be deferred until the day of Christ, a nearer view of God will begin to be enjoyed immediately after death, when our souls, set free from the body, will have no more need of outward ministry or other inferior helps (aliis inferioribus subsidiis).180 The crux of the assertion certainly suggests some kind of radical change. Though the scope of the phrase ‘inferior helps’ may be impossible to determine precisely, as also the nature of the glorified believer’s worship, yet this full vision to which Calvin refers seems clearly to consist of a hitherto unrealized sense of unaccommodated immediacy. Beyond this it is difficult to proceed. 1.4 When God Pastors his Flock Having treated three dimensions of God’s accommodating behavior, a fourth— shepherding—will now be taken up. ‘We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture’ (Psalm 100: 3), writes the Psalmist.181 God is called the shepherd of his flock. As indicated in remarks such as the following on the words, ‘he shall carry them in his bosom’ (Isaiah 40: 11),182 Calvin’s construal of God’s fulfilling of this role involves accommodation. These words describe God’s wonderful condescension, for not only is he led by a general feeling of love for his whole flock, but, in proportion to the weakness of any one sheep, he shows his carefulness in watching, his gentleness in handling, and his patience in leading it. Here he leaves out nothing that belongs to the office of a good shepherd. For the shepherd ought to observe each of his sheep, in order that he may treat it according to its capacity; and especially they ought to be supported, if they are exceedingly weak. In a word, God will be mild, kind,

179 Calvin does assert, we may note, that believers distinguish themselves from the wicked by the piety which tend to characterize even their cries and complaints, see CO 39: 531; CTS Jeremiah and Lamentations, 5, 338 (on Lamentations 1: 20). See also CO 26: 77. 180 CO 49: 515; CTS The Corinthians, 1, 431; slightly altered (on 1 Corinthians 13: 12). Reference to the beautific vision raises questions about the relation between Calvin and medieval thought/Aquinas, see, Arvin Vos, Aquinas, Calvin, and contemporary Protestant thought: a critique of Protestant views on the thought of Thomas Aquinas (Washington: Christian University Press, 1985). 181 Cited from NRSVB, 564. 182 ‘sinu suo portabit’ (CO 37: 15; ET: CTS Isaiah, 3, 216).

84

CHAPTER 4 gentle, and compassionate, so that he will not drive the weak harder than they are able to bear.183

The activities mentioned by Calvin—watching, handling, and leading—begin to sketch out for us the boundaries of this section. Here God’s responses are marked not so much by concession as by condescension and tenderness. That having been said, stern measures to persuade the recalcitrant will also figure in this section. But a full exposition of this sphere awaits a more careful examination of Calvin’s corpus.184 1.4.1 God Cares for, Leads, and Protects his People For God even to call himself a shepherd (as, for instance, in Psalm 23) is, Calvin says, an example of his stooping as well as a sign of his profound concern for his church.185 Accordingly, a variety of the Lord’s occupations towards his fold demonstrate this accommodating concern. He condescends to feed his children,186 and to take care of their lives.187 He stoops to provide for their needs, to be the guardian of their salvation,188 and to adorn his people with glory.189 He lowers himself to fight, as a mortal man would, for the cause of his church and to ensure their safety.190 He does not mind taking care of the smallest detail which concerns his people’s advantage,191 and always directs them with their capacity in mind. This directing often involves God in helping his children through difficulties. In such cases, he either eases or simply removes their trial or burden depending on his assessment of their ability to manage it. When his people, brooding outside the promised land, are beside themselves with anxiety, God sends spies from among their number to search it, bring back a report, and settle their minds.192 Reflecting on the episode, Calvin observes that God often gives his people means suited (convenables) to their infirmity.193 Following Israel’s grumbling over the bitter waters at Marah, he gives in per concessionem to their dissatisfaction and moves 183 CO 37: 15; CTS Isaiah, 3, 216; slightly altered. 184 As much of what will be dealt with here concerns God’s governing of providence, it is worth recalling the fact that de Jong also acknowledged this as an aspect of God’s accommodating behavior; see, Accommodatio Dei, 187-92. 185 ‘As this is a lowly and homely manner of speaking, he who does not disdain to stoop so low for our sake must bear a singularly strong affection towards us’ (CO 31: 238; CTS Psalms, 1, 392 (on Psalm 23: 1)). 186 CO 31: 738; CTS Psalms, 3, 265 (on Psalm 78: 52). Verbs like descendere, se demittere, and se submittere are not uncommon in Calvin’s writings and particularly relevant to this section. 187 CO 31: 302-3; CTS Psalms, 1, 502 (on Psalm 31: 5). 188 CO 31: 330; CTS Psalms, 1, 548 (on Psalm 33: 12). 189 CO 31: 91; CTS Psalms, 1, 100 (on Psalm 8: 4). 190 CO 42: 583; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 116 (on Joel 3: 1-3); also CO 44: 303, 308 (on Zech 11: 4-6, 8). 191 CO 32: 411; CTS Psalms, 5, 269-70 (on Psalm 144: 14). 192 CO 25: 664 (on Deuteronomy 1: 22-28). 193 CO 25: 664.

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

85

them to Elim.194 Additionally, as his people would have been gripped with no small fear, God ‘spared the weakness of his people (pepercit Deus suorum infirmitati)’ by delaying the alliance formed by the kings who combined to fight against Israel.195 And similarly, he causes the kings of the Amorites and Canaanites to be terrified by Israel as a concession so that victory might be easier for his people, because ‘they had already proven themselves to be far too sluggish and cowardly.’196 The same point is noted in God’s sending of such a large number of Israelites to fight against Ai.197 And when Jabin and a whole host of nations are providentially delayed from federating, this is done ‘in assisting [Israel’s] weakness by kindness and indulgence:’ God was, Calvin says, ‘unwilling to press beyond measure his own, who were otherwise feeble (praeter modum suos alioqui debiles), lest the excessive numbers of the enemy should strike them with terror and drive them to despair.’198 But even with these concessions, believers still find that their trials overwhelm them at times. Hence, God accommodates himself to hear their cries and complaints, and invites them to unburden themselves to him (as was seen earlier). He listens to their requests, granting many of them, but keeping from his flock those things which would be given only to their detriment.199 Aware of their frailty, he strives to encourage believers,200 and constantly offers them his protection and help: ‘God condescends to gather under his wings the mortal offspring of Adam.’201 In these general ways, then, God’s guardianship demonstrates his condescension. 1.4.2 God Employs Angels One way in which he facilitates this care for his flock and for the universe is by using angels in his governing of providence.202 Of course, Calvin explains, the power of God alone is completely sufficient to govern all things203 (a point which is

194 CO 24: 164; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 267 (on Exodus 15: 27). 195 CO 25: 490-1; CTS Joshua, 136 (on Joshua 9: 1-2). 196 ‘Thus God spared their weakness (eorum infirmitati pepercit Deus), as if he had opened up the way by removing obstacles, since in other respects they had already proven …’ (CO 25: 458; CTS Joshua, 77; slightly altered (on Joshua 5: 1)). 197 God had regard for their infirmity (eorum infirmitati consuluit); see, CO 25: 483; CTS Joshua, 122 (on Joshua 8: 1-12). 198 CO 25: 507; CTS Joshua, 166; slightly altered (on Joshua 11: 1-5). 199 ‘In fact, God thus attempers (temperat) his bounty towards us, lest we should be too much taken up with earthly prosperity’ (CO 24: 14; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 27 (on Exodus 1: 9)); see also, CO 31: 731; CTS Psalms, 3, 249 (on Psalm 78: 26). 200 CO 25: 429; CTS Joshua, 26 (on Joshua 1: 1-2). 201 CO 31: 363; CTS Psalms, 2, 11 (on Psalm 36: 7). 202 For a useful treatment of Calvin’s views on the subject of angels in its patristic and medieval context, see Schreiner, The Theater of his Glory, 39-53. She does not deal with accommodation in this discussion; nor does T.H.L. Parker in his discussion of angels in Calvin; An Introduction, 36-8. 203 CO 31: 339; CTS Psalms, 1, 562-3 (on Psalm 34: 7).

86

CHAPTER 4

implicitly testified to by the fact that God also stoops to care for the angels204). He is, therefore, not compelled by necessity to employ angels, but does so out of consideration for human capacity.205 Hence, the very presence of angels in redemptive history is a kind of accommodation to human fear and frailty. So also is virtually every thing we know about them. Indeed, a fact as seemingly insignificant as God’s refraining from mentioning them in the history of creation is attributed to divine accommodation.206 Equally, that they are depicted in Scripture as winged creatures having bodily form (though they are, of course, spirits who lack such form), and are designated by the names cherubim and seraphim, are both adjustments made on account of the believer’s feeble comprehension.207 Even when God gives them names—Michael, Gabriel and so forth—these, as may be discerned from their meanings, are given on account of human frailty.208 Turning attention to the divine employment of angels, God sends them as his messengers, governs the universe through them, and especially commissions them for the accomplishment of the salvation of his people, all in accommodation to their weakness.209 Angels are specifically mentioned and their activities recounted for the encouragement of the saints.210 God sends them to his servants to bolster their courage and comfort them.211 In fact, the appearance of angels is usually an indication of the severe state into which God’s servants have fallen, as can be seen, for example, with Mary at the tomb.212 Accordingly, it is not surprising that angels should appear to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,213 Daniel,214 and Christ,215 each of whom stood in need of this accommodated assistance. Angels accommodate their discourses.216 Even the questions asked by an angel can be intended to rouse the pious from their lethargy.217 They are normally marked with signs in accommodation

204 ‘… the prophet not only commends his mercy to human beings … but he reminds us that, by right, he is able to despise … the angels as well, except that, moved by fatherly love, he condescends to embrace them in his care’ (CO 32: 178; CTS Psalms, 4, 333; altered (on Psalm 113: 5)). 205 ‘… God, although he cannot stand in need of auxiliaries, has seen fit, in accommodation to our infirmity, to employ a multitude of [angels] in the accomplishment of our salvation’ (CO 31: 542; CTS Psalms, 2, 340; on Psalm 55: 18). 206 OS 3, 154-56; Inst. 1.14.3. 207 CO 23: 79-81; CTS Genesis, 1, 185-6 (on Genesis 3: 23). 208 OS 3, 160-161; Inst. 1.14.8. 209 ‘He provides for our infirmities by bringing us help by means of his angels, who act like hands to execute his commands’ (CO 41: 215-6; CTS Daniel, 2, 266 (on Daniel 10: 21)). 210 CO 31: 626; CTS Psalms, 3, 23 (on Psalm 68: 17). 211 CO 32: 5-7; CTS Psalms, 3, 484-85, 487 (on Psalm 91: 11-12); see also, CO 36: 642; CTS Isaiah, 3, 145-6 (on Isaiah 37: 36). 212 CO 47: 430-1; CTS John’s Gospel, 2, 255 (on John 20: 12). 213 CO 40: 638; CTS Daniel, 1, 230-1 (on Daniel 3: 24-25). 214 CO 41: 104-5; CTS Daniel, 2, 104-5 (on Daniel 8: 13-14). 215 CO 45: 726; CTS Gospel, 3, 237 (on Matthew 26: 42). 216 CO 45: 75; CTS Gospels, 1, 116 (on Luke 2: 11). 217 CO 41: 106; CTS Daniel, 2, 107 (on Daniel 8: 13-14).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

87

to human stupidity, as was the case, for example, with Hagar,218 Daniel,219 and Mary.220 And finally, the consolation provided by angels is given more permanent significance by the presence of the two cherubim on the ark, who indicate that God dwells familiarly with his people.221 In all these ways, God makes use of this host of angelic servants in his endeavors to guide, protect, and care for his flock. 1.4.3 God Rouses, Threatens, Tests, and Chastens But God’s children and all humankind often need a firmer kind of guidance. For this reason, the divine shepherd and physician employs a number of sterner means to try to extricate them from their lethargy, put a stop to their disobedience, or call them back from their declension. In the most gentle of these, the Lord strives to entice and arouse his people. Unlike his pedagogical endeavors, which normally involve the Almighty making himself more like his creatures, here he often manifests something of his incomparable majesty to his children in order to awaken them.222 Though this is by no means its only expression, it gives us a sense of the character of the actions being discussed under this head. A constant element in the preaching of his prophets,223 these attempts to stimulate are also present in God’s crafting of the law (as was seen earlier), the gospel message,224 in his instituting of sacraments,225 and is almost as likely to appear in more unexpected places, such as in the beauty which the Lord gave to the baby Moses.226 Even God’s governing of the times and seasons falls into this category. So, when the days of winter and summer differ in length, the temperature changes in each of the various seasons, and storms, snow, and sunny 218 CO 23: 227; CTS Genesis, 1, 430 (on Genesis 16: 7). 219 CO 41: 198-9; CTS Daniel, 2, 241-3 (on Daniel 10: 5-6). 220 CO 46: 950 (on Matthew 28: 1-10). 221 ‘… as often as [God] manifested himself to believers by angels, he in a manner extended his hand to them. … On this ground, David, and other prophets, in order to encourage themselves to confidence in prayer, often speak of God as dwelling between the cherubims, as much as to say, that he conversed familiarly with his people, since his virtue exercises itself by his angels’ (CO 24: 406; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 157 (on Exodus 25: 18)). 222 ‘What follows in the next verse, ‘say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord,’ is intended to remove their doubts. It was a thing as impossible to human apprehension, to tear way this weak and unwarlike people from their cruel tyrants, as to rescue sheep from the jaws of wolves,... therefore God begins by declaring his incomparable power, to show that there is no difficulty with him in performing anything whatever, although incredible’ (CO 24: 79; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 129 (on Exodus 6: 5)). Also, Isaiah 1:20: ‘to arouse people from a deep slumber, he reminds them that these words were not spoken by a mortal man but by the mouth of God’ (CO 36: 48; CTS Isaiah, 1, 72). 223 See, for example, CO 43: 499; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 23-4 (on Habakkuk 1: 5); CO 37: 230-1; CTS Isaiah, 4, 72 (on Isaiah 51: 7); CO 32: 608. 224 OS 3, 483-485; Inst. 2.16.2-3. 225 CO 26: 157-8 (on Deuteronomy 4: 15-20). 226 ‘… God had adorned him with this beauty, in order the more to influence his parents to preserve him; as it sometimes happens that when God sees his people slow in the performance of their duty, he spurs on their inactivity by allurements’ (CO 24: 23; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 42 (on Exodus 2: 2)).

88

CHAPTER 4

appear so randomly from one day to the next, ‘God rouses us up, that we may not grow torpid in our grossness.’ 227 Towards this end, as was seen earlier in relation to the law and worship, the Lord also offers rewards, by which he ‘allures his people to obedience.’228 In short, Calvin’s God is incessantly trying to quicken his sluggish people to a more heartfelt discharging of their duties.229 Increasing the intensity, God employs threats in order to startle those who pay no heed to his words. Not only are they appended to his commandments,230 but they regularly appear in God’s dealings, as a comment on Daniel 9: 13 explains: He gently and mercifully invites both bad and good by his word, and adds promises as well with which he may entice them. Then, when he observes them either slow or refractory, he uses threats that they might awaken them.231 And, in an individual example, God holds out the danger of plagues to Pharaoh so that, even if he does so unwillingly, he will be compelled to obey; ‘for so must the stubborn be dealt with.’232 But such treatment is by no means reserved for the wicked.233 As Calvin notes: ‘God also sometimes threatens his own servants in order to stimulate their laziness;’ a fact which finds ample substantiation within the Calvinian corpus.234 Though the reformer continues this sentiment by declaring that God is ‘more severe’ with the perverse than with his people,235 his comments elsewhere clearly contradict this. Calvin frequently asserts that God is harsher towards his own precisely because he loves them more. To offer one example, in a sermon on Deuteronomy 7: 11-15 he declares that the just often languish in misery

227 CO 40: 577; CTS Daniel, 1, 145 (on Daniel 2: 21). 228 CO 24: 241; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 388 (on Deuteronomy 8: 5); see also, CO 25: 21; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 228 (on Deuteronomy 12: 28).; CO 23: 176-76; CTS Genesis, 1, 346 (on Genesis 12: 2); CO 25: 214; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 345 (on Deuteronomy 5: 32); CO 24: 241; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 388 (on Deuteronomy 8: 5). 229 E. David Willis’ emphasizing of this aspect of accommodation has already been discussed in chapter one, and the strengths and weaknesses of it discussed there as well; See, Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility,’ 53-5. 230 So Calvin declares in his exegesis of the third commandment that a threat is added in which we see human dullness (la stupidé) (CO 26: 277) (on Deuteronomy 5: 11). 231 CO 41: 148; CTS Daniel, 2, 168; slightly altered (on Daniel 9: 13). 232 CO 24: 97; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 158 (on Exodus 8: 1-4). 233 Calvin makes it plain that while God wishes to arouse the wicked with his threats, he also intends to prepare them for judgment. So, in commenting on 1 Peter 4: 17, Calvin explains that God so tempers ‘his judgments (iudicia sua … temperat)’ in this life that he fattens the wicked for the day of judgment; see, CO 55: 282; CTS Catholic Epistles, 139. 234 CO 24: 97; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 158. Many examples could be cited, especially from the prophets, to show God’s use of threats. Calvin specifically comments on the need for them in respect to human captus quite often: ‘But because our sluggish flesh (carnis pigrities) needs to be spurred, threats are also added to inspire terror’ (CO 25: 23; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 231 (on Leviticus 26: 14)); see also, CO 24: 202; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 329 (on Exodus 19: 21-2); CO 33: 603-4 (on Job 12: 17-25); CO 44: 25; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 222 (on Zephaniah 1: 14). 235 CO 24: 97; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 158 (on Exodus 8: 1-4).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

89

while the wicked prosper precisely because God works towards their salvation.236 For the reformer, then, threats, trials, and temptations are part and parcel of the believer’s life on earth. Indeed, in this fact Calvin almost seems at times to revel.237 But here we have already begun to touch on the subject of chastisements, which God inflicts when his threats fail to work. So, the reformer’s analysis of Daniel 9 continues as follows: But when threats produce no effect, he goes forth in arms and chastises the sluggish people. Should these stripes produce no improvement, the desperate character of the people becomes apparent.238 At times, this discipline is brought against the wicked, though for the sake of God’s children. ‘When God perceives that we are so slow in considering his judgments, he inflicts upon the ungodly judgments of a very severe kind … in order thereby to correct our dullness.’239 But, very often, this punishment is inflicted by God on his own sons and daughters.240 The accommodation present in such scolding is expressed in two different ways. First, God accommodates himself to human dullness and hardness by applying correction to his unresponsive people. ‘We need not,’ Calvin avers, ‘be surprised if God often strikes us with his hand, since the result of experience proves us to be dull 236 CO 26: 540-41. 237 Hence, Calvin’s comments on Psalm 73 and on Jeremiah 12: 1 plainly acknowledge the prosperity of the wicked in comparison to the righteous in this life; see, CO 31: 675-6; CTS Psalms, 3, 125-6 (on Psalm 73: 2); CO 38: 127-8; CTS Jeremiah, 2, 118 (on Jeremiah 12: 18). See also a sermon on Job 42: 6-8, in which Calvin says that we daily find that ‘the state of the faithful is more miserable than the state of those who despise of God’ and goes on to explain the matter (CO 35: 492. See also, CO 33: 205 (on Job 21: 1-6). This is all nicely stated by Calvin in the following: ‘And this sentence deserves to be specially noticed; for we are reminded, that though the Lord does not indeed spare unbelievers, he yet more closely observes us, and that he will punish us more severely, if he sees us to be obstinate and incurable to the last. Why so? Because we have come nearer to him, and he looks on us as his family, placed under his eyes; not that anything is hid or concealed from him, but the Scripture speaks after a human manner’ (CO 43: 160-61; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 390-91; slightly altered (on Amos 9: 4)). Not surprisingly, then, Susan Schreiner declares: ‘Calvin is acutely aware that the faithful always suffer’ (Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom, 121). The Lord’s use of threats raise underlying questions about the integrity of the divine word with which Calvin must deal. How can God declare that Nineveh would be destroyed in forty days and then not follow through with this? Calvin normally declares that threats such as Jonah’s proclamation to Nineveh simply have an implied condition; see, CO 43: 250-1; CTS Minor Prophets, 3, 99-100 (on Jonah 3: 5). Yet, the reformer is not averse to lumping such a situation in with his discussion of those places in Scripture in which God is described as changing his mind. On these occasions, he treats the whole matter as an accommodation to human understanding; see, OS 3, 216-218; Inst. 1.17.12-13. 238 CO 41: 148; CTS Daniel, 2, 168; slightly altered (on Daniel 9: 13). On the general topic of providence and specifically the role of difficult providences and their relation to the Christian life, a sound treatment can be found in John Leith, John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989), 107-45. 239 CO 31: 684; CTS Psalms, 3, 146 (on Psalm 73: 19); altered; see also, CO 33: 559 (on Job 12: 1-6). 240 The question of how God could inflict punishment on his sons and daughters for whom Christ died and whose misdeeds have, thus, already been fully paid for does not seem to have occurred to Calvin. Or, at least, we are not aware of any place where he addresses the issue.

90

CHAPTER 4

and … utterly slothful.’241 Such severity can be seen with equal clarity in God’s bringing of tests and trials on his own throughout the course of their lives. Thus, because the Lord’s people are so indolent, he cannot allow them to be at ease in this life but must continually send afflictions to them or they will never think of heaven but will set their hearts on earth.242 So Calvin can write: ‘if it were not for our vices, God’s temporal kindness would shine more brightly upon us.’243 But God’s accommodation expresses itself in another way as well. For, Calvin points out that when the Lord chastens humankind, and this applies exclusively (it would seem) to his church, he is sensitive to their capacity so that he does not afflict them too severely. This can be seen in the reformer’s sermon on Job 2: 7-10, in which he explains that, just as people will not lay too great a burden on a little child, so God will not cause those of his children who are not accustomed to adversity to suffer too greatly under it.244 It can be seen elsewhere as well. In chastening, the Almighty does not look, says Calvin, to what our sins require, but what we are able to bear (mais ce que nous pouvons porter),245 regulating his treatment of his church according to what he knows of their infirmities246 (and he knows our infirmities better than we do247). Accordingly, he tempers his discipline, pitying his children’s feebleness ( foiblesse).248 Therefore, believers have reason to give thanks that God regards their infirmity (regard à nostre infirmité) when he punishes them only according to what they are able to endure.249 Moving outside of the Joban material, we find this sensitivity appears in the law also. Calvin states concerning a chastisement enjoined in Leviticus 19: 20-22 that ‘in consideration of the people’ s infirmity, the punishment is mitigated.’250 Likewise in 2 Samuel 7: 12-15, Calvin explains that ‘God must so moderate himself that he will temper his blows according to our frailty, in such a way that we can bear the chastisements which he sends us.’251 Nor is it absent from the prophets either, as Calvin’s thoughts on Jeremiah’s prayer, ‘correct me, but with judgment (in judicio)’ (Jeremiah 20: 24) indicate: ‘God, then, so indulges (ita indulget) miserable sinners, that he regards what they can bear (ut respiciat quid ferre queant), and not what they deserve.’252 And the same is seen in relation to all of life’s trials and afflictions. Accordingly, Calvin 241 The comments concern Nebuchadnezzar’s ascription of glory to God (in Daniel 4: 1-3), but they address the believer’s situation; see, CO 40: 649; CTS Daniel, 1, 245. The extremity of these measures will be probed further in the next chapter. 242 CO 33: 403 (on Job 8: 13-22). 243 CO 32: 172-3; CTS Psalms, 4, 322 (on Psalm 112: 2-3). 244 See CO 33: 116-17 (on Job 2: 7-10). 245 CO 33: 268 (on Job 5: 17-8). 246 CO 34: 614 (on Job 30: 21-31). 247 ‘… il cognoist nos infirmitez mieux que nous’ (CO 34: 614). 248 CO 33: 270 (on.Job 5: 19-27). 249 CO 33: 118 (on Job 2: 7-10). 250 CO 24: 650; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 80. 251 SC 1: 196; Sermons on 2 Samuel, 337 (2 Samuel 7: 12-15). 252 CO 38: 93; CTS Jeremiah and Lamentations, 2, 63; slightly altered.

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

91

explains that although a ‘continual warfare’ of cross-bearing is enjoined upon God’s people by divine appointment, yet ‘sometimes, it is true, a truce or respite is granted to us, because God has compassion upon our infirmity.’253 In these ways, then, God alters his conduct towards his children so that their suffering will not overwhelm them. In sum, the pastoring dimension of God’s accommodating program reveals a variety of divine employments. From God’s stooping to deal with his people, care for their needs, and protect them, to his commissioning of angels, to his easing of burdens, rousing, threatening, testing, and chastening—in all these ways, he tempers his involvement with his creatures and especially his household with their weakness in mind. Much of this is by its very nature going to end with the parousia. Yet, Calvin’s discussion of this fact does not add substantially to our knowledge of his position on the Lord’s accommodating ways, and therefore shall be passed over. 1.5 When God Comes to Earth When God comes to earth, he also accommodates himself. That a full section should be devoted to his endeavors in this area ought not to seem strange given the significance of the incarnation and its place in redemptive history.254 But, as the issue is probed, it will be discovered that Calvin’s assertions on this subject are themselves justification for giving careful treatment to the topic. Here then a summary of God’s accommodating work as it appears within this sphere of activity will be produced. Not only, as was seen earlier, is Christ himself an accommodated expression (as it were) of the knowledge of God, but also his life and work exhibit the divine penchant for such self-limitation. First of all, accommodation can be seen with respect to Christ’s incarnation itself. In becoming a man and taking upon himself our condition, Christ has lowered himself and condescended far below his majesty.255 ‘God himself condescended to become earth (Deus ipse terra fieri dignatus est).’256 This fact finds perhaps its most eloquent testimony from Christ’s own mouth. On many occasions Christ’s references to himself are interpreted by Calvin as attestations to his lowly state. For instance, when Christ states, ‘I am one who testify concerning myself, and the Father who sent me testifies concerning me’ (John 8: 1718), Calvin observes: 253 CO 31: 447; CTS Psalms, 2, 170; slightly altered (on Psalm 44: 22). 254 There is much too much work done on this subject to mention here. Standard treatments of the subject would include, John Jansen, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Work of Christ (London: J. Clark, 1956) and Paul Van Buren, Christ in Our Place: The Substitutionary Character of Calvin’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1957). So far as we are aware, there is no treatment of accommodation in relation to Jesus Christ which was not mentioned in chapter two. The scholarly community views God’s accommodation in Christ according to its revelatory character, as was discussed in the treatment of pedgagogical accommodation earlier in this chapter. 255 ‘God in Christ condescended to the mean condition of men, so as to stretch out his hand’ (CO 47: 194-5; CTS John’s Gospel, 1, 329 (on John 8: 19)); see also, CO 46: 956 (on Luke 2: 1-14). 256 CO 32: 51-2; CTS Psalms, 4, 78 (on Psalm 99: 5).

92

CHAPTER 4

As to his distinguishing himself from his Father, by doing so he accommodates himself to the capacity of his hearers, and that on account of his office (idque pro officii ratione), because he was at that time a servant of the Father, from whom, therefore, he asserts that all his doctrine has proceeded.257 On top of this, Christ’s life and behavior display accommodation. So, when he abases himself to become nothing,258 lowers himself to the state of being willing to serve, and shares in all the miseries of humankind,259 he descends from his regal status to a position far below it. ‘It is … surprising that Jesus Christ should be the servant of human beings; that the Son of God, who had equal glory with his father … should lower himself even to the state of being willing to serve us.’260 Such lowering of himself can also be seen in a bevy of specific activities: Christ’s using of the things of ordinary life,261 his manner in prayer,262 his willingness to take the position of a suppliant,263 his many discourses,264 and even his conceding to the superstitions of the people by healing the woman who touched his garment265—in all these things, the Son of God tempers himself to the human condition. Accordingly, in a fascinating comment on the text, ‘He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets’ (Matthew 12: 19), Calvin writes: The general meaning is that the coming of Christ will not be attended by noise, … And it is surely an astonishing display of human foolishness that their sentiments with regards to Christ are less respectful because he mildly and voluntarily accommodates himself to their capacity. Were Christ to appear in his glory, what else could be expected but that it would altogether swallow us up? What wickedness then is it to be less willing to receive him, when on our account he descends from his height?266 Though these are broad categories, when taken together they clearly reveal that in innumerable daily activities, many of them mundane if not irksome to Christ, he adapted his behavior to the capacity of the immediate public with whom he was interacting and with humankind generally. 257 CO 47: 194; CTS John’s Gospel, 1, 328 (on John 8: 17-8). Such statements are also, occasionally, concessions to the fact that his hearers think of him as a mere man; see, for example, CO 47: 333-4; CTS John’s Gospel, 2, 99 (on John 14: 24). 258 CO 35: 600; Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy, 35. 259 CO 53: 163 (on 1 Timothy 2: 5-6). 260 CO 35: 666; Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy, 125. 261 CO 45: 307; CTS Gospels, 2, 20 (on Luke 7: 33). 262 CO 45: 439; CTS Gospels, 2, 235 (on Matthew 14: 19). 263 CO 35: 683; Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy, 145. 264 CO 47: 146; CTS John’s Gospel, 1, 252 (on John 6: 38). 265 CO 45: 445; CTS Gospels, 2, 244 (on Matthew 14: 36). 266 CO 45: 332; CTS Gospels, 2, 61 (on Matthew 12: 19).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

93

Thus, it can be seen that Christ’s life was in many ways infused with accommodation. But also behind this life, accommodation appears, namely, as an element of the thinking which went into the decision to send the eternal Son of God. This sending, Calvin insists, was not a necessity in the absolute sense. ‘Rather it has stemmed from a heavenly decree, on which human salvation depended.’267 Furthermore and more precisely, Christ’s advent was not an essential prerequisite for the granting of forgiveness. Because God’s righteous judgment does not insist upon being compensated or avenged, he could have forgiven believers without the intercession of Christ. But, as Calvin explains in a sermon on Isaiah 53, human lethargy made the appearance of the Son of God a virtual necessity. Not that God demands vengeance in the same way as human beings. A man who is angry will want reparation made for the injury and some amends, and punishment meted out, so that he may be avenged. God has not passions like these. But all the same, in order that we may be the more horrified by our sins and that we may learn to detest them, he wishes us to be aware of His righteousness and the severity of his judgment. If God pardoned us without Jesus Christ interceding for us and being made our pledge, we should think nothing of it. We should all shrug our shoulders and make it an opportunity for giving ourselves greater license. But when we see that God did not spare His only Son, … it is impossible for us, unless we are harder than stone, not to shudder and be filled with [fear] … This, then, is why it was necessary for all the correction of our peace to be laid upon Jesus Christ … 268 So, because human lethargy and hardness is so profound, God was compelled to execute his only child in this horrific way in order to awaken it. Though the presence of accommodation here is, perhaps, slightly veiled, it is nonetheless present. Hence, from the very beginning, from its very source and fountainhead, the Mediator’s life exhibited the accommodating work of the sovereign Lord. 1.6 When God Covenants The coverage of this last dimension of accommodated behavior will be fairly brief. As with a number of the categories mentioned above, there is overlap between this sphere and others. Nonetheless, this divine activity seems to hold its own place within the accommodating repertoire.269 267 OS 3, 437-38; Inst. 2.12.1. 268 CO 35: 625; Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy, 72; slightly altered. On this position on the necessity of the death of Christ—or rather, the non-necessity of it—see also, CO 50: 293; (on Galatians 1: 3-5). 269 This topic again contains far too many issues to be covered in a kind of brief bibliography. It has been taken up with reference to the discussions of whether Calvin was a Calvinist; see, for example, R.T. Kendall, Calvin and the English Calvinists to 1649 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979); M. Charles Bell, ‘Was Calvin a Calvinist?’ Scottish Journal of Theology 36/4 (1983), 53540; Paul Helm, ‘Was Calvin a Federalist?’ in Reformed Theological Journal 10 (1994), 47-59; id., Calvin and the Calvinists (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1982). For some later reflection on these

94

CHAPTER 4

To begin with, Calvin calls God’s willingness to be in relation with his people a condescension.270 God condescends when he covenants with his children.271 He stoops to offer himself to them,272 to be reconciled with them,273 to set his heart upon them (‘though they are only a few obscure people’),274 to stretch out his hand ‘as far as hell itself to reach them,’275 to make their enemies his own,276 and to make them perceive his love for them.277 In fact, he must of necessity stoop, says Calvin, because he is great beyond any reckoning. What likeness is there between God and humankind? Yet, as if he descended from his heavenly glory, he bound to himself the seed of Abraham, that he might also mutually bind himself. Therefore, God’s election was like the joining of a mutual bond, so that he did not will to be separated from the people.278

things, see Richard Muller, ‘‘Calvin and the Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part I’ in Calvin Theological Journal 30/2 (1995), 345-75; ‘Part II,’ Calvin Theological Journal 31/1 (1996), 125-60—which is available in Muller’s work, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). On the issue of the covenant in Calvin, probably the best work is, Peter Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001). 270 See, Calvin’s comment on Psalm 144: 3: ‘Who am I, that God should deign to condescend (se dimittere) to me?’ (CO 32: 408; CTS Psalm, 5, 262). As is common, the descent being discussed here seems to encompass issues of both finitude and sinfulness. So Calvin declares: ‘… we might be troubled by thoughts such as these: ‘And who am I? Would God really deign to stoop to me? I am nothing but an earthen vessel – made of dust and ashes, and full of rottenness and decay. Furthermore, there is a bottomless pit full of sin within me, and yet I claim that God has come to seek me!’ (CO 50: 526; John Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, trans. Kathy Childress (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), 303 (on Galatians 3: 15-18)). See also, CO 42: 564; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 89 (on Joel 2: 27). However, a national sense must also be acknowledged; that is, God can be said to stoop in covenanting with the Hebrews instead of other nations. Yet, this does not receive the same amount of attention as the other senses—of finitude and sinfulness. For, when interpreting texts which seem to suggest such a sense, like, ‘The Lord did not set his love on you nor choose you because you were greater in number than all other nations (for you were the smallest of all)’ (Deuteronomy 7: 7), Calvin seems generally to be so quick to universalize its significance that nationality is essentially lost and the other senses accentuated. This can be seen, for example, in his sermon on the passage just mentioned (CO 26: 516-19. It can also be seen, though to a lesser extent, in his commentary on the same passage; see, CO 24: 219-21; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 355-7). 271 CO 26: 242 (on Deuteronomy 4: 44-5: 3). 272 CO 32: 485 (on Psalm 119: 1-8). 273 CO 32: 79; CTS Psalms, 4, 135 (on Psalm 103: 9). 274 CO 24: 221; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 357 (on Deuteronomy 10: 14). 275 CO 31: 605-6; CTS Psalms, 2, 457 (on Psalm 65: 4). 276 CO 58: 185 (on Genesis 27: 29-36). 277 CO 25: 684 (on Deuteronomy 1: 29-33). 278 CO 38: 158; the translation cited is from T.H.L. Parker, who brought this citation to my attention; see Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament, 180 (for another ET: CTS Jeremiah, 2, 168 (on Jeremiah 13: 11)). Parker addresses the covenant briefly but in a stimulating manner within his treatment of Calvin’s exposition of prophecy, though his thoughts have no real bearing on our discussion of accommodation; see, Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament, 180-7.

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

95

Nor is this condescending relationship temporary but permanent—a fact which marks this strand of divine accommodating out as different from many of the others which have been examined. God’s indulgence is such ‘that he does not begrudge binding himself (se obstringere non gravatur) to his servants’ even so far as to acknowledge their seed for his people.279 Thus, this self-humbling act is a protracted one; maybe even an eternal one. On top of this, the Lord renews his allegiance to his people from time to time.280 For, as circumstances may leave them uncertain as to their standing with their maker, he confirms his covenant with them in his self-binding grace so that they will have no doubts about it. It is asked, did not the Jews formerly enter into an everlasting covenant with God? For he appears to promise something new and uncommon. I reply, nothing new here is promised …but it is a renewal and confirmation of the covenant, that the Jews might not think that the covenant of God was made void on account of the long-continued banishment. … Therefore, Isaiah accommodated this mode of expression to the capacity of the people, that they might know that the covenant into which God entered with the fathers was firm, sure, and eternal.281 In this way, then, the Lord quells his children’s fears, though it involves him in voluntarily repeating his already-sure word of covenant. Thus, in his accommodating patience, God makes it unmistakably clear that he is committed to his sons and daughters. This commitment can also be seen more generally in the Lord’s willingness to repeat his promises,282 make oaths,283 and strive to support his people by means of exhortations lest their confidence should wane.284 What is impressive in all of this is God’s unabashed willingness to swallow his pride. Additionally, the great sense of responsibility which he feels towards those with whom he has entered into relations is equally remarkable. Finally, it is simply worth noting that Calvin does not comment upon the abrogating of this accommodated mode of engagement, so far as we are aware. One feels confident in assuming that it would continue in some form even after the parousia, given Calvin’s general understanding of the divine-human relationship. But this is just an assumption. Though further inferences on the subject might be drawn from Calvin’s corpus, such an endeavor is not crucial to the present volume and thus shall not be taken up.

279 CO 24: 379; Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 111 (on Deuteronomy 5: 9-10). 280 CO 24: 192; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 313 (on Exodus 19: 1-8). 281 CO 37: 285; CTS Isaiah, 4, 160-1 (on Isaiah 55: 3). God also confirms the calling he had already given to Isaiah for this same reason; see, CO 36: 125-6; CTS Isaiah, 1, 200 (on Isaiah 6). 282 CO 23: 387; CTS Genesis, 2, 106 (on Genesis 28: 1). 283 To ensure that they will be confirmed in the reliability of his word; see, CO 43: 576; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 154 (Habakkuk 3: 9); also CO 55: 79; (on Hebrews 6: 17). 284 CO 25: 429-30; CTS Joshua, 26-7 (on Joshua 1: 2-3).

96

CHAPTER 4 2. CONCLUSION

2.1 Reviewing the Chapter Accommodation is not discernible in all of the actions of Calvin’s God. Yet, as the various spheres of divine activity are examined, it becomes apparent that it figures prominently in a number of them. Indeed, if we have satisfactorily demonstrated the presence of accommodation within the different arenas treated above, its diffusion throughout the divine economy cannot be questioned. When the Lord teaches, he accommodates. Given his own incomprehensibility, he labors to simplify spiritual truth, through his works, his word and especially the revelation given in his Son, in order to make it intelligible. Such accommodation—a necessity even for unfallen humanity—has become all the more essential for fallen human beings. Accordingly, it permeates God’s revelatory dealings with his creatures and people, affecting both the form and the content of divine teaching and moving God to employ signs and symbols to make his meaning clear. To God the lawgiver and commander, his self-limitation entails compromise and concession. Working within the context of Israelite primitiveness, he ‘designedly deviated’ from perfection in his drafting of case laws for Israel.285 For similar though more universally-applicable reasons, and because of the infinitude which characterizes his essential righteousness, he furnishes humankind with a reduced code of justice in his moral law. Both these instances bear clear testimony to the impact human sinfulness has had upon God’s legislative endeavors. Nor is this impact any less apparent in God’s accommodated commands. In his bestowal of good works, his concession of a more fatherly kind comes to the fore. The cultic domain also reveals God’s self-accommodation, as he adapts the stipulations he lays down for his people’s venerating of him. As in the legal realm, here also he does so with the Israelites’ customs and cultural situation in mind, which means that pagan influence is also discernible in Jewish religious practices. Moreover, the Lord’s acceptance of the worship of his church exposes an additional side to his condescension and adaptability. In his role as shepherd, God accommodates himself with impressive care and devotion. He condescends to take care of many aspects of the lives of his children. He adapts providence to protect his flock and lighten their burdens. He employs angels for the sake of his elect in accommodation to human captus, and also threatens, tests, and chastens his sheep, lest their dullness get the best of them. Yet being tender and considerate, he always tempers his blows out of deference to the weakness of his fold. God in Christ also accommodates. From Christ’s condescending to experience the miseries of the human condition to his self-limitation in numerous daily activities, the incarnate Son of God accommodated himself in many ways during his time on earth. Calvin seems to indicate that the earthly life of the Lord of glory was essentially a continual exercise in accommodation, and one which was even 285 CO 24: 624; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 39-40; slightly altered (on Leviticus 24: 18).

GOD’S ACCOMMODATING RESPONSES TO HUMAN CAPTUS

97

undergirded by an accommodated decision on the part of the Father. Hence, the life of the Mediator provides a suitable confirmation of what has been seen in the other areas treated in this chapter. Finally, the Lord’s covenanting betrays his accommodating demeanor. When God makes a covenant with human beings, he lowers himself and deigns to enter into an abiding relationship with them. This aspect of divine self-adaptation is noteworthy, if for no other reason, because it is an accommodating act which, unlike many others, endures not only for centuries and for the earthly life of individuals, but (presumably) for as long as God decides to remain in covenant with his people. To Calvin, then, accommodation is multiform. Demonstrating this was the primary purpose of the lengthy taxonomy produced in this chapter. From these efforts, the breadth and character of God’s accommodation to human captus should now be apparent as should something of Calvin’s connection with the three spheres of accommodation discussed in chapter two. 2.2 Assessing Findings up to this Point As already seen in chapter three, Calvin construed human capacity as a remarkablyvaried notion. The findings of this chapter show that he viewed God’s accommodating response to that capacity as equally varied. Such considerations, coupled with the sheer frequency with which Calvin refers to accommodation, force us to conclude that divine accommodation played an important role in Calvin’s understanding of God’s relationship with humankind. This, however, raises questions about Calvin’s God, who is not normally thought of as a God who responds but as one who predetermines everything that comes to pass. This being the case, it seems appropriate that such matters be pursued further. One of the first questions which might be asked at this point has to do with why Calvin’s God accommodates. Thus an investigation of the motives, reasons, and purposes behind the Lord’s accommodating practices will be undertaken. As has been mentioned earlier, Calvin often speaks to these issues. A related query that might be asked here has to do with the portrait (so to speak) of Calvin’s accommodating God which arises from the material being unearthed. Accordingly, both these matters will receive attention in the next chapter, which will aim to consider further the question of the character of divine accommodation according to Calvin but will also begin to take up its.

CHAPTER 5 GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING—IMAGES OF GOD IN CALVIN’S HANDLING OF ACCOMMODATION

An attempt will be made here to treat Calvin’s statements on God’s causes, intentions and motives for accommodating, which represent the third element commonly found in his references to divine accommodation (the other two having been treated in chapters three and four). This third element, it is worth noting, is slightly different from the other two, in that it purports to address the inner thoughts and reasoning of God. Thus, delving into such matters in this way, Calvin carries us into deeper waters, so to speak. As this study has now made discernible progress in analyzing the rudimentary elements of his thinking on accommodation, it will also endeavor here to consider the issue raised briefly in chapter two concerning the images of God found in Calvin’s handling of the accommodation motif. These two issues will be treated simultaneously in this chapter. Indeed, they plainly belong together. For the images, or traits or characteristics, which appear in Calvin’s accommodating God are simply the fruit of his statements on God’s motives and purposes for accommodating. Thus, joining the two issues together is sensible and will assist in the work of probing Calvin’s thinking on the accommodation motif. In order to prepare for this undertaking, two preliminary matters must be dispensed with; these are: (1) an introduction to the reformer’s statements on the Lord’s reasons for accommodating, and (2) a survey of previous scholarship on the various images of Calvin’s God (in relation only to studies of his thinking on divine accommodation). Once these are produced, the main work of the chapter can commence. 1. AN INTRODUCTION TO CALVIN’S STATEMENTS ON GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING Calvin’s comments on accommodation often provide insight into the thoughts and decision-making processes behind God’s accommodating. As noted earlier, such insights are a regular part of his treatment of the subject, appearing as early as the 1536 Institutes and developing in character and sophistication as he begins to 99

100

CHAPTER 5

comment on the books of the Bible. While Calvin does occasionally discuss accommodation without making such observations, it is rare for him to do so.1 Similar comments, it should be noted, can also be found in other authors. They are, however, less frequent in our reading of the tradition. One example of such a remark can be seen in the interpretation of Luther on Genesis 6: 6, which was cited in chapter two. It is for this reason that God lowers Himself to the level of our weak comprehension and presents Himself to us in images, in coverings, as it were, in simplicity adapted to a child, that in some measure it may be possible for Him to be known by us.2 Nicholas of Lyra also provides an example, which appears in his remarks on God’s remembering of Noah (recordatus est autem deus) (Gen 8: 1). Lyra declares that it ought not to be thought from this text that there is a kind of forgetting (oblivio) that happens to God, but that ‘scripture speaks according to our measure (secundum modum nostrum)’ when it speaks in this way. For, he goes on to explain, one is said to forget someone when he will not free him from present difficulties though he is able to; and one is said to remember him when he begins to help him.3 And a third example appears in Cajetan’s treatment of Leviticus 2, a passage which will be examined later in respect of Calvin’s exposition of it. In treating, ‘the priest shall burn its memorial portion (recordatio eius) on the altar’ (Lev 2: 2), Cajetan notes that this is spoken after a human fashion (humano more). For when the vessel is full of some fruit which is offered to the chief priest, he takes it, and commands the priest to take some from it for himself in remembrance of the one making the offer, that it may be a sign of the benevolent acceptance of the offering. For God stands in the person of the priest, in order that something from the sacrifice offered should be burned for him [God], so as kindly to accept the offering being made by the person.4 1 Calvin asserts: ‘But they do not remember that God accommodates himself to human sense as often as he speaks to human beings’ (Psychopannychia (CO 5: 199; Tracts and Letters, 3, 447; altered)). Such unadorned declarations are rare. 2 WA 42: 294.3-5; LW, 2, 45. 3 Biblia Sacra, 1, fol. 54r. The Latin reads: Dicitur enim aliquis alicuius oblivisci, quando eum non liberat a pssuris pntibus cum posit.& dicitur ipsius recordari quando incipit eum liberare. The abbreviated phrase ‘pssuris pntibus’ I had a difficult time cashing out even with the help of Cappelli and Bischoff. I finally settled on ‘pressuris praesentibus.’ 4 Cajetan, Opera omnia, 1, 267. The Latin reads: ‘et appellatur id, quod incenditur, recordatio eius, hoc est offerentis, humano more loquendo: cum enim vas plenum aliquorum fructuum alicui Principi offertur, sumit, vel sumi mandat Princeps aliquid inde pro se ipso in recordationem offerentis, et hoc sit in signum benevolae acceptionis. Ad instar ergo Principis statuit Deus, ut ex munere oblato aliquid incendatur sibi, tanquam benevole suscipienti munus ab offerente homine.’

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

101

As stated, remarks such as these are generally not as common in other authors as they are in Calvin. Exactly how Calvin, or anyone for that matter, can believe that he can know the mind of God in these matters to the extent of knowing God’s purposes and motives is not clear. On some occasions, of course, they are divinely revealed (see, for instance, Exodus 13: 17). Yet on others, Calvin feels confident in asserting them despite God’s silence. He presumably feels competent to do so on the basis of the various details provided in the passage he is dealing with. Yet, while others clearly feel a similar competence at times, Calvin’s boldness here ought not to go unnoticed. Pellican, it will be remembered, in his remarks on Psalm 91 (examined in chapter two), commented on the question of why God needed to use angels given the fact that he was fully able by himself to govern the universe, but refrained from providing a reason for God’s choice to employ them. God did so, Pellican said, ‘simply because it pleased him to do so.’5 Calvin, as we saw in chapter two and will see further in what follows, is generally not as cautious. In fact, he betrays a willingness to speculate on these matters which many today would consider uncharacteristic of him. A division of Calvin’s comments on the divine reasons for accommodating yields the following categories. 1. No comment 2. Reference to a motive 3. Reference to a cause 4. Reference to a purpose 5. Reference to a contingency with which God must deal 6. Multiple remarks The first and last entries are added simply for the sake of completeness and will receive no formal treatment. Thus, four items remain. A sketch of each of them will conclude these introductory remarks. 1.1 Reference to a Motive Calvin speaks about the inner motive which moved God to accommodate himself. ‘It was a marvelous act of loving kindness (mirae humanitatis) that, accommodating himself to their ignorance, he familiarly presented himself before their eyes.’6 God ‘magnifies his mercy towards human beings,’ Calvin declares, and ‘moved by paternal love (paterno amore adductus), he condescends to embrace them in his care.’7 The reformer does not always address the question of motives, but when he

5 Pellican, Commentaria Bibliorum 4, fol. 141v. 6 CO 24: 145; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 236; slightly altered (on Exodus 13: 21). 7 CO 32: 178; CTS Psalms, 4, 333; slightly altered (on Psalm 113: 5).

102

CHAPTER 5

does it is consistently to the love, mercy, compassion, and familial feelings of God that he points. 1.2 Reference to a Cause Calvin’s comments on the causes of divine accommodation bear profound testimony to God’s interest in the condition of his creatures and especially his people, their environment and circumstances. The causes to which he refers may be divided into two general heads: those matters found within the people to whom God is accommodating (in other words, their capacity), and those external to them. First, human captus. When, for instance, Calvin comments on why God accommodates to use baptism as a means for applying his word to his people, he says God does this ‘because of our rudeness and infirmity.’8 Many similar examples could be cited. But as this cause was already discussed in chapter three, no more need be said about it here. The second head, factors outside the creature, can also be mentioned briefly. Strictly speaking, they do not play a part in accommodation the way captus does. Nonetheless they are intertwined with Calvin’s comments on it to such a degree that they are worthy of being noted here. For instance, Isaiah labors to urge believers to look upon their deliverance as an accomplished fact, since they might be tempted to doubt it ‘because they still languished amidst their miseries and were almost dead.’9 Similar reference to the people’s circumstances can, for example, be found in Calvin’s remarks on the Babylonian king’s dream and Daniel’s interpreting of it.10 In these various remarks, human capacity is undoubtedly intermingled with Calvin’s discussion of these circumstantial aspects such that the circumstances would almost seem to play a part in God’s thinking on accommodation. Of course all of this evokes various questions, including that of what it means for God to be ‘caused’ to accommodate, in the first place. Issues such as this will be touched on once or twice below and will be considered in more detail at a later point in this study. 1.3 Reference to a Purpose The accommodating God is exceedingly purposeful, so Calvin believed. Scholarship is, it would seem, largely indebted to Willis for bringing this to light. Thus, Calvin asserts: ‘God deigned to descend among the Israelites by the ark of the covenant in order to make himself more familiarly known to them (quo familiarius innotesceret).’11 The ceremonies of the Old and New Testaments were not instituted for any need which God had for them, argues Calvin in another example. Rather God considered human weakness and designed these rites, for the instruction (pour 8 CO 50: 567 (on Galatians 3: 26-29) . 9 CO 37: 121-2; CTS Isaiah, 3, 383-84 (on Isaiah 44: 23). 10 CO 40: 594-5; CTS Daniel, 1, 169; slightly altered (on Daniel 2: 31-35). See comments prior to these as well; see also, CO 32: 608. 11 CO 31: 210; CTS Psalms, 1, 339; altered (on Psalm 20: 6). Again such additions are quite common.

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

103

l’instruction) of the people.12 Additionally, when Christ declares ‘the Father is greater than I’ (John 14: 28), he speaks neither of his human nature nor of his eternal divinity, but in accommodation to humankind who cannot reach to the height of God, he descends to them ‘that he might raise us to it (ut nos eousque attolleret).’13 A range of other purposes are mentioned by Calvin, as shall be seen. 1.4 Reference to a Contingency with Which God Must Deal The observations handled under this heading add nothing new, because they could have been included under one of the earlier categories. But the sense of contingency present in them warrants individual treatment. The basic idea is best broached by means of a representative citation. Nor can it be doubted but that the mourning was improper which God permitted to them out of indulgence. But regard was had to their weakness, lest immoderate strictness drive them (ne immodicus rigor… abriperet) to passionate excess.14 This instance, which is from Calvin’s commentary on Leviticus 21: 1-12, comes in the middle of his treatment of the approach God takes with his people concerning mourning. Relevant portions of the biblical text read: And the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them that none of them shall defile himself for the dead among his people, but for his kin, that is nearest unto him, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother, and for his virgin sister … They shall not make tonsures upon their heads, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh; therefore they shall be holy to their God, … The high priest among his brethren, … he shall not go in to any dead body, nor defile himself, even for his father or for his mother; (Lev 21: 1-2, 5, 10-11)15 Calvin notes that although God had granted greater liberty to the rest of the posterity of Aaron than to the high priest, there were restrictions in place to which they were to attend. They were only to mourn for certain family members, each of which the text names (mother, father, etc). All other individuals were not to be mourned. Having briefly commented upon this prohibition, however, Calvin returns to God’s permission to mourn and makes the comment cited above.

12 CO 27: 172 (on Deuteronomy 12: 3-7). 13 CO 47: 336; CTS Gospel of John, 2, 102. 14 CO 24: 449; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 229; slightly altered. This instance catches the attention of Wright, but for different reasons; see, Wright, ‘Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism,’ 42. 15 CO 24: 449; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 229.

104

CHAPTER 5

The root idea to be highlighted here is found in the last phrase, where Calvin implies that the Lord’s reasoning in his granting of permission was influenced by matters which appear to have been out of his hands, and specifically by the possibility that his people might overreact if he attempted to issue an overly-rigorous directive, although it is clear that he would prefer a stricter injunction. Here, then, not only do we have a notable example of divine concession, but coupled with it the remarkable notion that God engages with temporal reality in such a committed way. He must take into account, as if he did not know the eventual outcome, the likelihood of his people not being able to handle certain circumstances and the possibility that an injunction which savored of excessive severity would not be accepted by his people and might move them to cast off any concern for obedience. The uncertainty, the ideas of appraisal and conjecture, are fascinating. Though, on one level Calvin denies that God is hindered by such contingencies, yet on another level he deems this reality important enough to state and leave unqualified. It is worth noting here that such ideas—not only accommodation itself, but also the notions of contingency and engagement with potential problems—are missing from the expositions of Leviticus 21produced by others, such as the Glossa Ordinaria, Nicholas of Lyra, Denis the Carthusian, Thomas de Vio Cajetan, Conrad Pellican and Johannes Brenz.16 Indeed the tendency of most of these commentaries is to focus more on the heathen element; that is to say, on the fact that the Lord was striving to extricate his people from the practices associated with mourning for the dead with which they would have been familiar because they could see them in the peoples who inhibited that part of the world at the time; practices which are mentioned in the text: cutting one’s hair, slashing one’s body and so forth. Some, like Thomas Aquinas (whose opinions are briefly summarized by Denis the Carthusian), also mention necromancy and other more offensive practices. Some of these matters are mentioned by Calvin as well, it must be said. But what he seems more intent to focus on is the simple idea of mourning, which he views as improper (vitiosi) and from whence his comments on accommodation arise. The result is that Calvin’s exposition must deal more carefully with several topics, including human psychology, which barely receive a mention in the expositions of others. This, coupled (it seems likely) with views arising from his legal training, result in the comments he produces on the passage. 2. EARLIER PORTRAITS OF CALVIN’S ACCOMMODATING GOD It was the aim of the last section to introduce the material that will be examined in this chapter, namely Calvin’s statements on God’s reasons for accommodating. A similar aim will be pursued now in relation to previous scholarship on the various images of God that appear in Calvin’s writings. 16 Biblia Sacra, 1, fol. 251r-252v(contains both Nicholas of Lyra and the Glossa Ordinaria); Denis, Enarrationes … Mosaicae legis libros, 368; Cajetan, Opera omnia, 1, 321; Pellican, Commentaria Bibliorum 1, fol. 148r-v; Brenz, In Leviticum librum Mosi commentarius (Francoforti, 1542), fol. 100v106v.

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

105

This survey begins with the work of Ford Lewis Battles. The late University of Pittsburgh professor describes Calvin’s God as father, teacher, physician, and judge.17 In reality, however, his essay discusses only the first three and focuses on the general sense of kindness which is common to them. Hence, God’s tenderness, care, and concern are stressed throughout the piece, such that Calvin’s accommodating God appears as the condescending father. The portrayal of God as divine rhetor is also highlighted by Battles, but perhaps more so by an author like Serene Jones, who dubs Calvin’s God the ‘Grand Rhetorician.’18 This conclusion, which is also expressed in a more careful fashion by Millet,19 has one of its sources in the previously-discussed essay of Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility.’20 There Willis refers to the ‘loving Father [who] strategically adjusts his dealings with his people in order to inform, delight, and move them … to do his will.’21 Significantly, in the same piece Willis also makes an insightful remark of a different sort. Noting that Calvin never questioned the notion of God’s immutability, he then acknowledges that the reformer had to defend his teaching against those who charged that accommodation introduced the idea that God is affected by emotion or his purposes are changeable by people’s actions. Willis continues by stating: My point is that the equation between the divine and the immutable which Calvin inherited was mitigated by this other insight—that God persuasively accommodates his purpose to man’s persuadability. Calvin was not able to expand this insight, as I think we must today, to argue from the variety of God’s dealings with men that God himself changes in some sense in his relation to his changing creation.22 This statement clearly expands matters beyond the scope of rhetoric. Though not necessarily constituting a portrait, Willis’ observation is of immense importance in that it clearly implies that accommodation could have altered the reformer’s conception of God. We can say nothing more about Willis’ views on this matter since his statement is so short. Yet his suggestion is noteworthy for its highlighting of this point and of the tension which appears in Calvin’s theology in relation to accommodation. His work adumbrates issues which will arise in the remainder of this chapter and, to some degree, the rest of this study. Much the same assessment can be made of David Wright’s work. He is the first author to explore the significance of Calvin’s statement on God’s reasons for 17 Battles, ‘God Was Accommodating,’ 20. 18 See, for example, Serene Jones, Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995), 187, et passim. 19 In several places in, Calvin et la dynamique, 247-56. 20 Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility,’ 43-63. In treating accommodation, Willis cites a large segment of Institutes 2.11.13. He also refers to several other portions of this work in his footnotes; see, Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility,’ 53-58. 21 Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility,’ 53. 22 Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility,’ 55.

106

CHAPTER 5

accommodating and their effect on Calvin’s conception of God. His studies, as anyone who has read them will know, are surprising in what they unearth. Wright’s depiction of Calvin’s self-accommodating God, like Willis’, pushes strongly against the bounds of conventionality within Calvin studies to reveal the more peculiar side of the reformer’s God—a God who seems, at times, vulnerable, malleable and (in short) surprisingly human. Though none of these authorities sets out to study the character of Calvin’s God, they have all made valuable contributions to the question. Willis and Wright in particular raise hugely important issues in relation to this subject, and the thinking of both of them has been influential on our own. Nonetheless, there is still more to be learned. It is hoped that a fuller picture will result from the main work of this chapter, which now commences.

3. IMAGES OF CALVIN’S ACCOMMODATING GOD Having introduced Calvin’s statements on God’s reasons for accommodating and some of the ideas raised by earlier scholars concerning the images or traits of God found in Calvin’s corpus, the main work of this chapter can now commence. What follows below will take the form of a discussion of the traits exhibited by Calvin’s accommodating God, particularly in the purposes, causes and motives for accommodating which are ascribed to him by Calvin in his exegesis of a variety of biblical passages. This being the case, a large number of examples from the reformer’s corpus will be considered in the ensuing pages. There are, of course, difficult questions raised by the material considered here, as has already been intimated above. These will receive some, albeit limited, treatment below. The primary focus of the ensuing pages, however, will be on demonstrating the range and variety of the portraits of God found in Calvin’s handling of the accommodation motif—through which the peculiarities associated with the reformer’s usage of the motif will be explored. 3.1 Transcendent and Incomprehensible; Good and Loving It is well established that Calvin depicted God as exalted and transcendent, existing on a plane unknown to mere mortals.23 On many occasions, this is the reason that he engages in his self-accommodating activities. For example, in speaking of the plans he has for his people, God refers to ‘my whole heart and soul’ (Jer 32: 41). For God to speak of himself after this fashion (apparently) seems peculiar to Calvin, and evokes from him the observation that ‘unless he prattled, where would be found so much understanding as would reach the immense altitude of his wisdom?

23 Many have noted this emphasis in Calvin. See, for instance, Eire, War against the Idols, 197ff. Eire emphasizes this notion of transcendence in discussing Calvin’s theology of worship; also, Muller, Christ and the Decree, 20ff.

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

107

[wherefore] the mysteries with which he favors us are incomprehensible,’ such that he must accommodate himself to his creatures if he is to be understood.24 Such is, to be sure, standard practice for the accommodating God of John Calvin. As has already been seen in chapter four, his endeavors in the areas of teaching doctrine and revealing himself to his people are hampered not only by his people’s weakness but also by his inscrutability such that he must adapt himself in a variety ways if he is to manage to be understood. Indeed, Calvin even makes assertions to the effect that there is nulla proportio between the infinite and finite realms—a conviction which seems to be at the foundation of the reformer’s belief in and articulation of God’s ‘double justice.’25 Such transcendence, then, is of the utmost importance to Calvin. Possessing such an exalted majesty, this God’s every approach towards his creatures is a movement downwards; a fact which illumines other attributes of the self-limiting God. One such attribute can be observed in Calvin’s comments on God’s taking up of the task of teaching the believing community, in which work God ‘makes himself small,’ Calvin says, and ‘he does this out of his goodness.’26 Besides suggesting again the notion of transcendence, these remarks also refer to the goodness of God—an attribute which is equally common to the reformer’s reflections on God’s accommodating actions. This goodness is expressed in a number of different ways. Because of his mercy, the Almighty ‘tolerated (tolerasse)’ the Jews, Calvin says. This was not because they deserved it, but ‘because their frail and transitory condition called forth his indulgence (or kindness or favor - veniam) towards them.’27 Not only God’s tolerating of his children but also his blessing of them is an expression of this goodness. God, for example, does not need to promise rewards to his children. He might compel them with one word to obey his will. But although he has this right over them, he chooses to use a more loving (plus amiable) kind of dealing towards us.28 Accordingly, commenting on the Lord’s general deportment towards his flock, Calvin asks whether God does not accommodate himself to his people in order to win them to himself, and towards the end that they should have his love (amour) imprinted on their hearts?29 Such love is absolutely basic to this God’s accommodating program, and though it would be an exaggeration to say that it is apparent in all Calvin’s statements on the matter, it is nevertheless the case that much of what will be expounded in this chapter will be a working out of this pervasive theme. Expressions of this God’s 24 CO 39: 45-46; CTS Jeremiah and Lamentations, 4, 219-22 (on Jeremiah 32: 41). The text reads ‘I will rejoice over them … with my whole heart and my whole soul (in toto corde meo, et in tota anima mea).’ Similar reasoning to that found in Calvin’s commentary on Jeremiah 32 is seen in his sermon on Ezekiel 37: 11ff, reference to which can be found in de Boer, Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel, 185. 25 Schreiner, ‘Exegesis and double justice,’ 322-38. 26 SC 1: 136; Sermons on 2 Samuel, 235 (2 Samuel 6: 1-7). See similar comments in CO 26: 119 (on Deuteronomy 4: 3-6) and CO 33: 63 (on Job 1: 6-8). 27 CO 31: 735; CTS Psalms, 3, 255-6; altered (on Psalm 78: 39). 28 CO 26: 424 (on Deuteronomy 5: 1-5). 29 CO 26: 474 (on Deuteronomy 6: 15-9).

108

CHAPTER 5

accommodating love are plentiful in Calvin’s writings. It may be seen, for instance, in the empathy he shows towards the plight of his people. He chooses teachers for his children from among their own number so that they will not need to run around looking for revelations and also that they might be taught in a way more suited to their needs, which Calvin calls ‘no common act of indulgence.’30 He gives them visible signs in the sacraments, which clarify the achievements of Christ for his flock, because he sees them unable to comprehend them; showing his empathy and tenderness.31 He renews his covenant with his followers ‘about forty years after its first promulgation,’ and adds an exposition of it, ‘because … he was dealing with a new generation’ to whom it might not have been familiar—an ‘extraordinary proof of his indulgence,’ the reformer says.32 And he provides for the infirmity of his servants by means of angels; an act which Calvin again calls ‘no common proof of his paternal goodness and indulgence.’33 In all of this, Calvin’s God’s fatherly pity is deep, heartfelt, and in its own way, passionate. Indeed he labors to express this love to his children and grapples with the difficulties of communicating to them how intense his feelings are for them. In this regard, Calvin’s repeated insistence on divine impassibility is not a bald assertion of God’s apatheia (if that is taken to connote the simple idea that God is without feelings) but an expression of the superhumanness and (again) transcendence of the feelings which burn in the divine breast; for God’s love and sympathy far surpass anything exhibited on earth. God could not indeed express how ardently he loves those whom he has chosen without borrowing a human persona (mutuando hominum personam). For we know that passions do not pertain to him … [so he portrays himself as a father or a husband] … Such a character, then, God assumes, that he might better express how much and how intensely he loves his own. 34 These comments are not intended to suggest that Calvin’s views on impassibility were different from traditional views, but rather simply that he believed that an intense love is present in God, and that the problem is that it is so much higher than anything comprehended by humans that it cannot be rightly comprehended by them. Further discussion of Calvin’s views on God’s accommodating love may be pursued by taking up the subject of chastisements. In keeping with the Lord’s gentleness, he often lessens the intensity of the corrections which he brings to his people in accordance with their frailty. Calvin notes the ‘gradation of punishments’ in commenting on Leviticus 26: 18,35 and explains that such a gradation indicates 30 CO 24: 273; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 436 (on Deuteronomy 18: 15-6). 31 CO 27: 367 (on Deuteronomy 16: 1-4). 32 CO 24: 260; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 416-7 (on Deuteronomy 1: 1ff). See also CO 24: 254; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 408 (on Exodus 23: 31). 33 CO 41: 104-5; CTS Daniel, 2, 104-5 (on Daniel 8: 13-4). 34 CO 42: 55; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 75; see also, CO 29: 35 (on Deuteronomy 32: 28-30). 35 The text reads: ‘Quod si usque ad haec non audieritis me, addam corripere vos septuplo …’ (CO 25: 24).

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

109

that ‘they are so tempered by God’s kindness, that he only lightly chastises those’ whose condition he has not yet sufficiently proved.36 In another place, Calvin remarks that ‘God deals gently with us, and acts with little severity in correcting our sins, because he takes into account our weakness, and wishes to support and relieve it.’37 God ‘strikes us with a human rod (humana virga)’ when he chastens, says Calvin.38 He ‘must chastise us humanely (chastie humainement), as a father does his children.’ He ‘chastises us with the hand of men (chastie en main de hommes),’ for ‘if God chastised us according to the greatness of his majesty, would we not remain broken down and confounded a hundred thousand times?’39 Accordingly, those in the household of faith should be content with the measure of afflictions which their Lord applies, for they should know very well that he is aware of what is expedient for their feebleness.40 This is a frequent theme in Calvin’s expository efforts, especially the Job sermons and Psalms commentary. God, Calvin says, has always moderated his afflictions so as not to ‘abolish the memory of Abraham’s race.’41 But God’s mildness is not, according to Calvin, so pronounced as to remove from his corrections all their sting. Though great, the father’s sympathy for his children persuades him neither to withhold affliction nor to extract from it every ounce of its force. This should be obvious, but it is still worth reflecting on briefly. Calvin observes that ‘[God] tames his children with cords when they will not profit by his word.’42 Clearly, God’s use of cords is intended to hurt. This is further indicated by the fact that Calvin feels that reminders such as the following are necessary: ‘although he chastises us, he does not cease to cherish a father’s love and affection towards those whom he has once embraced.’43 God’s empathy does not handcuff him, and his desire to temper his lashes does not mean that he withholds them altogether. God handles his own as their hardness requires, since he knows they will not approach him unless they are drawn in this manner.44 In these ways the Lord strenuously labors to effect the good of his creatures. 3.2 Practical and Productive This is, however, not the only way in which God’s practicality (so to speak) expresses itself. The God whom Calvin describes longs to do good, and displays a keen interest in the outcome of his actions and in effecting his desired ends. This is 36 CO 25: 24; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 233. 37 CO 37: 318; CTS Isaiah, 4, 216 (on Isaiah 57: 16). 38 CO 23: 443; CTS Genesis, 2, 196 (on Genesis 32: 24). 39 SC 1: 195, 6; Sermons on 2 Samuel, 334, 7 (2 Samuel 7: 12-15). 40 CO 33: 337 (on Job 7: 1-6). 41 CO 44: 35; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 240 (on Zephaniah 2: 4). See also, CO 31: 734; CTS Psalms, 3, 255; altered (on Psalm 78: 38). 42 CO 40: 700-1; CTS Daniel, 1, 317 (on Daniel 5: 6). 43 CO 37: 319; CTS Isaiah, 4, 217 (on Isaiah 57: 17). See also CO 31: 403; CTS Psalms, 2, 85 (on Psalm 39: 10-1). 44 CO 26: 299 (on Deuteronomy 5: 13-5).

110

CHAPTER 5

not efficiency for efficiency’s sake. He wants to do good for his creatures because he loves them and because he wishes to promote his own glory. Yet, even when such considerations are taken into account, the sheer determination of Calvin’s accommodating God cannot fail to be seen. For example, Calvin depicts the Lord as deliberately altering his method of creating the universe, not because he needs six days to finish the job, ‘but that he might better fix us on meditating upon his works.’45 And in a fascinating instance already cited in the last chapter concerning his governing of providence, God varies the length and temperature of summer and winter days and causes numerous other changes on the earth, not for abstract or esoteric reasons, but specifically so that he might ‘rouse’ his people ‘that we may not grow torpid in our own grossness.’46 Examples such as these might very well be used by Willis to support his claim concerning God’s desire to persuade (and we would have no objection to this), but they evince with equal potency the Lord’s regard for and pursuit of outcomes. God changes his way of working towards the specific end of producing a result which he desires. The same can be seen elsewhere. In addition to his works of creation and providence, Calvin’s God accommodates his revelatory endeavors ‘in order to be understood,’47 the expression of his infinite righteousness in the Ten Commandments to condemn us, 48 and his plan of salvation because ‘he does not want to have the eternal salvation of believers brought into opposition to his glory.’49 He also submits to human lethargy by sending his Son to die (rather than pardoning without Christ’s death, which he could have done) ‘in order that we may be the more horrified by our sins and that we may learn to detest them.’50 But, in Calvin’s view, productivity also governs God’s thinking in trivial matters as well. The reformer notes that although God is of the opinion that uncovering one’s feet in worship is of no value per se, he commands Israel to take off their shoes ‘so that they may better excite and prepare themselves for veneration.’51 The same is true with the Lord’s instruction to Israel to wear the commandments on bands on their arms.52 In so doing, Calvin explains, he ‘had no regard for the bands themselves.’ Perfunctory implementation of the regulation itself was not his objective. Rather he wished ‘to rouse their senses ... [and] to suggest and renew their care for religion.’53 Hence, neither the weighty nor the trivial evades his notice.

45 CO 48: 270; CTS Acts, 1, 484; slightly altered (on Acts 12: 10). 46 CO 40: 577; CTS Daniel, 1, 145; slightly altered (on Daniel 2: 21). 47 CO 7: 169; Calvin, Anabaptists and Libertines, 214. 48 He needed a way, Calvin says, to condemn people which was propre to their nature (CO 33: 460 (on Job 9: 29-35)). 49 CO 25: 98; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 360-1 (on Exodus 32: 31). 50 CO 35: 625; Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy, 72; slightly altered. 51 CO 25: 464; CTS Joshua, 89; slightly altered (on Joshua 5: 15). 52 CO 24: 229-30; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 368 (on Deuteronomy 11: 18). 53 CO 24: 230; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 368.

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

111

From this general analysis the purposefulness of Calvin’s accommodating God begins to appears. But it can also be discovered in some of Calvin’s more specific reflections, such as those on God’s power and authority. When, for instance, God went before Israel in a cloud by day and fire by night, Calvin acknowledges that he was ‘able to protect and direct them in some other way’ from the sun and the difficulties of the night.54 And yet, with such ability and with an (presumably) infinite variety of options at his disposal, God chose to accommodate himself to his people in this way ‘in order that his power might be more manifest, … to remove all room for doubt.’55 Such is observable elsewhere. In discussing God’s sending of rain on the earth so that it brings forth food (Deuteronomy 28: 12), Calvin observes that if God were pleased to do so, he could cause the earth to bring forth fruit without rain.56 Earlier in his exposition, Calvin had reminded his hearers that once upon a time God did this very thing, referring to Genesis 2: 6.57 Why, then, does God choose to use rain now? It is, says Calvin, because he wants to help his people to perceive his goodness in a more visible manner, since they are so insensitive.58 And in his commentary on the parallel passage (Leviticus 26: 3ff ), Calvin notes: God ‘might with one word have promised great abundance of food.’59 For that matter, he might have chosen to give bread to his people in the former way, raining down manna from heaven.60 But he chose the means which currently prevails ‘that his grace may be more illustrious … [and] that the signs of his paternal solicitude may be constantly (assidue) before us.’61 Furthermore, although ‘God might in His own right simply require what He pleased’ from his people, Calvin declares at the beginning of his treatment of Old Testament threats and promises that the Lord chose the more effective route of enticing them by promises to obey him. Since, therefore, we are naturally attracted by the hope of reward, we are slow and lazy, until some fruit appears. Consequently God voluntarily promises, in order to arouse them from their sloth, that if people obey his law, he will repay them.62 54 CO 24: 145; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 236; slightly altered (on Exodus 13: 21-22). 55 CO 24: 145; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 236. Similar are Calvin’s remarks on Deuteronomy 5: 29; see CO 26: 408-9. 56 CO 28: 377. 57 CO 28: 376. 58 CO 28: 376. 59 CO 25: 14; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 217; slightly altered. 60 CO 25: 14; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 217. 61 CO 25: 14; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 217. 62 CO 25: 6; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 203; slightly altered (on Leviticus 18: 5). It should be acknowledged that Calvin puts this offer of reward down to the kindness of God. This is, of course, often the case, as an examination of the reformer’s comments will attest. But such a motive does not detract from the fact that the Lord’s outlook and reasoning would seem to have been focused on producing the outcome which he desired.

112

CHAPTER 5

Thus, the reasoning of Calvin’s God is again shown to be purposeful in its outlook. In addition to these considerations, God’s habit, as described by Calvin, of doing more than a situation calls for also demonstrates his results-oriented mentality.63 For an example of this one need only look at the well-known comment on the Spirit’s accommodating of his expressions of the gospel (Institutes 2.16.2),64 but it is expressed with equal clarity elsewhere, as can be seen in Calvin’s comments on an episode recorded in Matthew 28: 1-6. The women at the tomb receive two visits, one from an angel and one from Christ. First, the angel comes and instructs the women to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. His countenance being like lightning, he gave clear testimony that he was not a mortal man but a messenger from the Almighty. But the women are so weak. Though it should have been enough that the angel had come, since he had clearly been sent by God, nonetheless the women require confirmation. Therefore, Christ comes as well to tell them what he would have them do. We see, Calvin says on these grounds, how the Lord draws his people by degrees to himself until they are fully confirmed, as they need.65 In another instance involving an angel, when the progress of the heavenly messenger sent in response to Daniel’s prayer is impeded by the Prince of the kingdom of Persia, God sends Michael to assist the first angel (Daniel 10: 12-13). Surely one angel was sufficient, Calvin notes. God, however, is anxious to make known to his church, and particularly to these troubled believers, his care for them, says Calvin, and so for this reason he sends a second angel, ‘in order that his love towards these afflicted and innocent ones may be more manifest.’66

63 This is often provoked by his children’s stubborn hardness, as can be seen, for example, in Ezekiel’s vision. The feet of the four creatures are made to shine like polished brass because ‘if the usual fleshy color had appeared in these animals this perhaps would have been neglected,’ but by doing this, Ezekiel is compelled to apply his mind to things more attentively (CO 40: 35; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 71 (on Ezekiel 1: 7)). 64 ‘The Spirit usually speaks in this way in the Scriptures: ‘God was men’s enemy until they were reconciled to grace by the death of Christ’ … Expressions of this sort have been accommodated to our capacity that we may better understand how miserable and ruinous our condition is apart from Christ. For if it had not been clearly stated that the wrath and vengeance of God and eternal death rested upon us, we would scarcely have recognized [our misery] … For example, suppose someone is told: ‘If God hated you … and cast you off … destruction would have awaited you. But because he kept you in grace voluntarily … he thus delivered you from peril.’ … [this person would know something of his indebtedness to God’s mercy]. On the other hand, suppose he learns … that he was estranged from God … is an heir of wrath, subject to the curse of eternal death … and that at this point Christ interceded as his advocate … Will the man not then be even more moved by all these things …?’ (OS 3, 483-484; Inst. 2.16.2). See also CO 24: 293-4; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 469 (on Exodus 13: 3-10). Similar instances can also be found in the prophets; see, CO 36: 464; CTS Isaiah, 2, 272-3 (on Isaiah 28: 2-4). 65 CO 46: 950. 66 CO 41: 207; CTS Daniel, 2, 254; slightly altered. This is perhaps not unlike some of Calvin’s comments on the sacraments. For instance he explains that they are added to seal the promise of God in accommodation to human frailty ‘to make [the promise] as it were more evident to us’ (OS 1, 118; Inst. (1536), 118).

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

113

And in a further occurrence from the case laws, a woman who has given birth is required to bring a sacrifice for a sin offering on behalf of herself and her child.67 One would have thought, Calvin points out, that circumcision (in the case of a male child) would have sufficed to remove the stain of human corruption. But here again, the Lord applies supplementary measures. For God was not content with one symbol for the expurgation of sin, but ‘added another subsidiary sign, and did this especially because he knew’ the profundity and depth of human sinfulness.68 His object in this was ‘that he might exercise his people in continual meditation upon [their depravity].’69 Hence in a variety of ways the accommodating God portrayed in Calvin’s writings appears as one who is very purposeful. 3.3 Expedient, Pragmatic But all this is tame in comparison with the more surprising manifestations of divine efficiency to which this study now turns. Consider, for example, some additional comments on angels. It is God’s goal in employing them ‘to comfort our weakness,’70 Calvin asserts, and towards this end the Lord informs his children that there is a vast host of superhuman beings guarding them at all times.71 Yet in so doing God overlooks, says Calvin, the fact that believers act ‘wrongly (perperam)’72 when they fail to be sufficiently comforted by the simple promise of God’s protection. Although such unbelief is sinful, he is willing to ignore it in order to console his people. Similar forbearance can be found in a second instance in which God is compelled to swear an oath to his church. He does this in order to confirm and strengthen his people. Yet as it is a sign of disrespect to require an oath from a fellow human, surely when believers require one from the Lord it is terrible villainy (trop vilains) and a sign of distrust.73 But once again Calvin’s God, who has pity on his children, accommodates himself to them, overlooking their impertinence in order to assure them.74

67 Although in Leviticus 12: 1-8 Moses seems only to mention the mother, Calvin asserts that Luke 2: 23 teaches that the sacrifice was for both mother and child; see CO 24: 312-3; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 500. 68 Calvin’s full sentiment is quite long: ‘… he knew how profound human hypocrisy is, with what complacency people flatter themselves in their vices, how difficult it is to humble their pride, and, when they are forced to acknowledge their wretchedness, how easily forgetfulness creeps over them’ (CO 24: 313; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 500; slightly altered (on Leviticus 12: 1-8)). 69 CO 24: 313; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 500; slightly altered (on Leviticus 12: 1-8); see also SC 6: 64-65; Sermons on Jeremiah, 104 (on Jeremiah 16: 8-12). 70 OS 3, 162; Inst. 1.14.11. 71 OS 3, 163; Inst. 1.14.11. 72 OS 3, 163; Inst. 1.14.11. 73 CO 58: 97 (on Genesis 26: 1-5). 74 CO 58: 97. Calvin’s comments on Exodus 6: 7-8 resemble these; see, CO 24: 80; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 131.

114

CHAPTER 5

Though the surprising quality to which we wish to point is not established by the citing of only two examples, they introduce the subject and provide us with something on which to build. What we will find as we continue is that the God depicted in Calvin’s writing is not only very purposeful but also one who is willing to employ peculiar means in order to achieve his purposes. But to continue, more particular issues must be taken up. Inappropriate language seems a good subject on which to become more specific.75 The Spirit uses the unseemly image of Christ’s flesh as meat and his blood as drink, and does so in order that believers might have a certain pledge of their salvation.76 It is, Calvin say, because believers are gross (grossiers) that he employs correspondingly gross language.77 The same rationale is given for the prophet Ezekiel, whom Calvin feels he must defend from the charge of barbarism because of the character of his speech.78 His crude discourses, some of which will be examined more carefully in a moment, were indicative of his surroundings; because the exiles had declined in language and piety, the prophet was compelled to accustom himself to their manner of speech.79 Such coarseness, however, is not relegated solely to this late period, for it is found in Moses as well. This can be seen in the matter of the shewbread, a topic which was briefly treated already in chapter two. In a portion not cited there, Calvin notes God’s reference to ‘my bread’ (Numbers 28: 2) as an example of his use of such inappropriate language—a ‘hard (aspera) saying,’ Calvin insists, which God employed because of the people’s crudeness ‘in order that [the people] should more earnestly beware of every transgression.’80 And same may be found in Calvin’s comments on, ‘The Lord has rejected his altar and abandoned his sanctuary’ (Lamentations 2: 7): First he says, ‘God rejected his altar,’ which is obviously said improperly (improprie), but the prophet could not otherwise fully show the Jews what they deserved.81 Similar qualities are betrayed in the way in which God describes himself. On a number of occasions the Lord applies to himself images and figures which, in 75 Slightly similar is God’s use of earthly elements in his dealings with his people. As the sacraments were added to seal God’s promise and ‘make it as it were more evident to us,’ so Calvin also notes that God leads us ‘even by these carnal elements (elementis etiam istis carnalibus)’ and ‘in the flesh itself’ causes us to contemplate spiritual things (OS 1, 118; Inst. (1536), 118; slightly altered); see also, CO 31: 248; CTS Psalms, 1, 410; slightly altered (on Psalm 24: 7-10). 76 CO 46: 920 (on Matthew 27: 45-54). 77 CO 46: 920. 78 Calvin declares that Ezekiel is ‘not a barbarous man,’ and this seems to flow from the fact that his speech would tend to indicate that he is (CO 40: 71; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 122 (on Ezekiel 2: 6)). 79 CO 40: 83; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 139 (on Ezekiel 3: 11). See also CO 40: 133; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 212 (on Ezekiel 5: 15); CO 40: 153; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 241 (on Ezekiel 7: 1); CO 40: 243-4; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 373 (on Ezekiel 11: 19-20); CO 40: 256-7; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 392 (on Ezekiel 12: 4-6); CO 40: 340; CTS Ezekiel, 2, 101-2 (on Ezekiel 16: 7). 80 CO 24: 493; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 300. 81 CO 39: 542; CTS Jeremiah and Lamentations, 5, 355; altered (on Lamentations 2: 7).

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

115

Calvin’s judgment, are unsuitable but are employed by God because of the people’s hardness in order to achieve his desired ends. God’s complaint ‘you have taken away my gold and silver … and my desirable goods’ (Joel 3: 5)82 was considered earlier; Calvin’s position being that it depicts God as a child who takes delight in shiny trinkets, but that it was used by him in order that his people might know that he approves of the worship which he has ordained by his command.83 Similar alarm is expressed by Calvin when God compares himself to a drunk man (in Psalm 78: 65), transforming himself in this ‘very harsh (asperior)’ saying to show that his sudden awakening in judgment after a period of delay would be more alarming than if he executed his wrath immediately.84 And the same is detected in Calvin’s comments on God’s saying that he deceives the false prophets (Ezekiel 14: 9). It is a ‘very harsh’ and ‘improper’ figure by which God transfers to himself ‘what properly does not belong to him,’85 but which he employs so that the Israelites would stop turning their backs on God and claiming that if they remain in doubt amidst the various opinions it would not be imputed to them.86 So, a child, a drunkard, and a deceiver. But what is particularly troubling to Calvin, curiously, are the images of God as husband and lover, such as one finds in Zephaniah 3: 17 and Ezekiel 16: 8. 87 Concerning the former, we have already spoken in chapter two, nonetheless Calvin’s thoughts on it may briefly be recalled: What could be more alien to God’s glory than to exult like a human being who is carried away by joy arising from love? It seems that the very nature of God repudiates these modes of expression. … [But the figure was necessary] … in order to convince us of God’s ineffable love for us.88 Though his response to the passage from Ezekiel is not quite as expressive, it contains the same concerns. The depiction of God as a man struck with the beauty of a girl and offering her marriage is described as God speaking ‘grossly (crasse).’89 Loving ‘as young men do’ is associated with ‘the people’s obtuseness (stupor).’90 Thus, we are told that the people ‘could not be usefully taught unless the prophet

82 ‘… desiderabilia mea bona…’ (CO 42: 585). 83 CO 42: 587; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 122-3. 84 Again Calvin says, God assumes ‘an alien guise’ (CO 31: 742; CTS Psalms, 3, 274; altered (on Psalm 78: 65-6)). 85 CO 40: 310; CTS Ezekiel, 2, 59. 86 CO 40: 308; CTS Ezekiel, 2, 57. 87 Zephaniah 3: 17, cited from the NRSVB is: ‘The Lord, your God, is in your midst, a warrior who gives victory; he will rejoice over you with gladness, he will renew you in his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.’ Ezekiel 16: 8 reads: ‘I passed by you again and looked on you; you were at the age for love. I spread the edge of my cloak over you, and covered your nakedness: I pledged myself to you and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord God, and you became mine.’ 88 CO 44: 72; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 304. 89 CO 40: 341; CTS Ezekiel, 2, 103 (on Ezekiel 16: 8). 90 CO 40: 341; CTS Ezekiel, 2, 103.

116

CHAPTER 5

accommodated himself to their crassness (crassitiem).’91 Similar sentiments are also expressed in relation to Jeremiah 31: 20, where God declares: ‘Therefore my bowels are troubled for him.’ Since God, Calvin explains, ‘could not otherwise express the greatness of his love towards us, he thus speaks crassly in order to accommodate himself to our rudeness.’92 In all these examples, the same basic idea can be found. God appears as one who is so intent upon pursuing his aim to do his people good that he is willing to stoop to the use of language which is extreme, inappropriate and in some cases, Calvin comes close to suggesting, indefensible. Whether this makes the God depicted in Calvin’s writings opportunistic or pragmatic93 is an interesting question but one which will not be pursued in detail here. His behavior appears rather pragmatic to us, but it is not our aim to argue the point but rather merely to draw attention to the qualities that seem to be exhibited in Calvin’s discussion of the divine reasons for accommodation. Before proceeding to the next section, a brief concluding word is in order. For, it will be good at this point to register the fact that it would be a mistake to think that the issues that have been discussed above simply arise from the biblical passages themselves and that, therefore, Calvin’s discussion of them does not distinguish him in any way from other exegetes who take up these texts. On the contrary, in respect to many of the passages mentioned thus far, our own perusal of their exegetical histories has found that Calvin is alone in regards to the issues he raises (those issues which have been highlighted above).94 He is the only exegete whom we have read who discusses accommodation in relation to these texts, and the only one who complains about the language and figures used by God in them. 3.4 Unprincipled, Desperate As surprising as Calvin’s God’s use of inappropriate language is, his employing of rewards is perhaps more so. For although the notion of the Eternal Father offering his children blessings and gifts for their obedience usually testifies to his kindness— and, of course, it does in Calvin’s thought as well—yet in Calvin it also testifies to 91 CO 40: 341; CTS Ezekiel, 2, 103. 92 CO 38: 677; CTS Jeremiah and Lamentations, 4, 109; slightly altered. 93 Related to such a suggestion is the material found in William Bouwsma, ‘Calvinism as Renaissance Artifact’ in John Calvin & the Church, 38; cf. Francis Higman, ‘I Came not to Send Peace, but a Sword,’ in CSRV, 123-37. In regards to this peculiar behavior of God (as it has been described above and as it will be considered in what follows), it is interesting to note that Calvin himself warned his hearers to acknowledge God to be righteous even though they find his deeds to be strange (estrange) (CO 34: 369 (on Job 24: 1-9)). 94 Though not all of the exegetical histories of all the biblical passages referred to above were examined when preparing this study, many of them were—particularly the texts mentioned from Numbers 28: 2 through to that of Jeremiah 31: 20. Here, the commentaries of various exegetes, including Origen, Jerome, Gregory the Great, the Glossa Ordinaria, Hugh of St Victor, Nicholas of Lyra, Hugh of St Cher, Denis the Carthusian, Conrad Pellican, Martin Bucer, Johannes Brenz were examined— depending, of course, on the biblical passage in view and whether or not these exegetes commented on them. A fuller engagement with these sources appears in the remainder of this chapter.

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

117

the awkwardness of God’s position in relation to his children. For in Calvin the notion depicts a God laboring strenuously to try to win over a people who seem determined to thwart his every attempt to lead them. Hence the (arguably) pragmatic or unprincipled character of Calvin’s accommodating God also appears within this sphere of activity. God, Calvin unquestionably held, could require of his people whatever he wished by simple fiat, since ‘the simple authority of God ought to be sufficient’ for his people.95 But this is not what he chooses. Rather, Calvin’s God gives up a part of his right over his church.96 As if in their debt, he recompenses them for their labors. And in addition he lessens his demands, receiving and rewarding works which are sub-standard and tarnished by sin.97 Thus what ought to be the Lord’s sovereign reign over his servants actually bears closer resemblance to a father receiving the worthless service that comes from his son.98 But the God found in Calvin’s corpus is by no means satisfied with any of this. Why, then, does he settle for it? Because, Calvin answers, he wishes to spur his children on to do better. God wants them to honor his authority, to be zealous in serving him and to excel in holiness, but he knows they are lazy and self-indulgent. So he offers them rewards to try to persuade them to serve him. In this way, he labors to win over his people,99 ‘to keep them in the way of duty,’100 to encourage his own to keep his commandments,101 to provoke his children to serve him with cheerfulness and courage,102 to move them to serve him more willingly,103 ‘that they may be more disposed to obedience,’104 that they should serve him more earnestly,105 and even to animate to obedience those ‘who would otherwise have neglected their duties’ if some favor were not offered.106 95 Calvin’s full statement declares that although the simple authority of God ought to be sufficient, yet God ‘deigns to humble himself (se … submittere)’ on account of their infirmity (CO 39: 225; CTS Jeremiah and Lamentations, 4, 488; altered (on Jeremiah 42: 7-10)). 96 CO 26: 103 (on Deuteronomy 4: 1-2). 97 CO 34: 338 (on Job 23: 1-7); see also SC 11/2: 778-89 (on Genesis 15: 6-7). Calvin compares human works to wine which is criticized in various ways by people—it is too sharp, musty and so forth—and always has some fault attached to it (CO 28: 185-6 (on Deuteronomy 24: 10-13)). In addition to the examples of God’s gracious acceptance of the flawed works of his saints which were listed in chapter four, the women at the tomb (CO 46: 946-8 (on Matthew 28: 1-10)), may also be pointed to. 98 CO 33: 497 (on Job 10: 16-7). On the worthlessness of works generally see also, CO 23: 318-19; CTS Genesis, 1, 572 (on Genesis 22: 15-16). Of course, the issue is dealt with in the Institutes as well. There Calvin refers to that generosity of God which ‘bestows unearned rewards upon works that merit no such thing’ (OS 4, 242; Inst. 3.15.3)—this passage from the Institutes was brought to my attention by George Hunsinger. 99 CO 26: 536 (on Deuteronomy 7: 11-15). 100 CO 24: 378; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 110 (on Exodus 20: 5). 101 CO 27: 98 (on Deuteronomy 11: 8-15). 102 CO 58: 98-9 (on Genesis 26: 1-5). 103 CO 26: 234-5 (on Deuteronomy 4: 39-43). 104 CO 24: 214; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 345 (on Deuteronomy 5: 32). 105 CO 26: 424 (on Deuteronomy 6: 1-4). 106 CO 24: 478; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 275 (on Leviticus 7: 6-36).

118

CHAPTER 5

While this in itself may seem slightly strange, a less-flattering aspect of God’s approach towards his children, as described by Calvin, is still to be considered. For, as the recalcitrance of God’s people is, in the reformer’s reckoning, virtually unbounded, so God’s accommodation must follow suit. Accordingly, he is often willing to appease the purely carnal appetites of his people in the hope that he can lead them up from there to the contemplation of spiritual truths. Moreover, although Calvin’s God loves his children and does not want to ‘hire their services like those of slaves, so that they should be mercenaries in heart,’107 he is often (it would seem) given little option. Calvin’s exposition of Hosea 2: 21-22 provides us with a suitable example with which to start here. Although it was looked at in chapter two, it can still be profitably expanded upon briefly now. When Israel is famished and obedient to a stomach which, as Calvin says, ‘has no ears, nor … reason and judgment,’ God has regard to ‘these blind instincts,’108 and promises them, And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, says the Lord, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; and the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel (Hosea 2: 21-22) Here, Calvin argues that God alludes to, and tolerates, the idea that when people are in extreme need they will ‘invoke (invocant) bread, wine, and oil.’109 This is why he says the bread, wine, and oil will hear Jezreel. But these can do nothing to help apart from the nourishing of the earth and the rain from heaven and, ultimately, the blessing from God. Thus, Calvin remarks: Therefore, we now see how apt is this gradation employed by the prophet, where God, on account of human rudeness and weakness, leads them at last to himself. For they turn their thoughts to bread, wine, and oil; from these they seek food, yet in this they are very stupid (nimium stupidi). Be that as it may, God indulges their simplicity and ignorance (indulget … ruditati et inscitiae) and proceeds gradually from wine and corn and oil to the earth, and then from the earth to heaven, and afterwards he shows that heaven itself cannot pour down rain except by his will.110 Thus one can see what Calvin’s God is forced (as it were) to do to raise his people from their carnality. The same can be found in the reformer’s comments on Joel 2: 23, in which he argues against those who think it absurd that God would set in the first and highest place temporal blessings like rain, ‘which belong to the support and nourishment of

107 CO 24: 478; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 275 (on Leviticus 7: 6-36). 108 CO 42: 253; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 118. 109 CO 42: 253; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 118; slightly altered. 110 CO 42: 254; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 119; altered.

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

119

the body.’111 The prophets often lead God’s children by rudimentary principles to higher truths, Calvin asserts. Thus there is nothing surprising about the fact that Joel first affords the Jews a taste of God’s blessings belonging to the body. ‘He begins with temporal benefits in order that little by little and by certain steps he may lead a rude and weak people’ to a higher level.112 But God’s behavior as it is described in Calvin’s treatment of Haggai 2: 15-19 provides the clearest insight into the matter. Here the Lord, having spoken to his church through a succession of prophets,113 still found them cold and recalcitrant. Accordingly he disciplined them, bringing a famine upon them to express his anger.114 Yet, so far from being stirred, the people were now dull (crassum ingenium),115 and ‘so insensible that their want and famine could not touch them.’116 So, when Haggai preaches, he speaks ‘in a crass manner to earthly people (hominibus terrenis).’117 He does not even try to turn their thoughts to heaven or proclaim mysteries, ‘but only speaks of food and daily support.’118 Following this approach, Haggai mentions the famine which God sent, calls them to take it to heart, reminds them that it was caused not by something like excessive cold or heat but by hail (thus making the divine element more difficult to deny),119 and promises them a fruitful harvest if they take up that task which is their duty. But all this raises an objection in Calvin’s mind; namely, that such an approach would almost certainly produce only a ‘servile and mercenary’ obedience with which God, we know, is not pleased. Calvin does not deny that such obedience is unsatisfactory, but gives the following answer: I answer that God often stimulates people by such beginnings when he sees them to be extremely tardy and slothful, and afterwards he leads them by other means to serve him truly and from the heart. When therefore anyone obeys God only that he may satisfy his appetite, it is … [like someone who works for a wage without regard for the one who hired him] … It is certain that such service is counted as nothing before God. For he wishes to be worshiped freely (ingenue) by us. … But as generally people, because of their rudeness, are not able to be led at first to such liberality so as to devote themselves willingly to God, it is necessary to begin by using other means, as the prophet does here, who promises earthly and daily sustenance to the Jews—for he saw that they could not immediately, at the first step, ascend upwards to heaven … [but it was his purpose ultimately to raise their minds higher]. Let us then know that this was 111 CO 42: 560; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 83. 112 CO 42: 560; CTS Minor Prophets, 2, 83. 113 These were Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. 114 CO 44: 117; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 379. 115 CO 44: 118; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 381. 116 CO 44: 117; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 380. 117 CO 44: 116; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 377. 118 CO 44: 116; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 377. 119 CO 44: 117; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 379.

120

CHAPTER 5

only a beginning, that they might learn to fear God, and to expect whatever they desired from his blessing, and also that they might shake off their stupor by which they had been completely paralyzed before that time.120 In this way, Calvin explains what he sees as God’s apparent disregard for the absence of piety which God normally requires from those who would be his servants. This reading, it may again be worth noting, is discernibly different from that offered by others. If, for instance, the exposition of Haggai 2: 15-19121 of Hugh of St Cher is considered, one finds that his treatment of the literal sense amounts to saying that the prophet is warning the people that their negligence in obeying the Lord has resulted in everything working contrary to their wishes, but that blessing and abundance is promised if they observe diligently (viriliter) what God requires.122 The same can be said of the reading of this passage offered by Nicholas of Lyra.123 Similar readings also appear in the expositions of Luther and Pellican. They do, it should be said, offer more evangelical interpretations than Hugh, with both exegetes pointing out in relation to Haggai 2: 14 (‘So is this people, and so is this nation before me, says the Lord, and so is every work of their hands; whatever they offer there is unclean’) that obedience without faith cannot please God.124 Yet in large measure, and certainly with respect to the issue being addressed here—that is, likeness to Calvin in regards to God’s promise of blessing (Haggai 2: 19)—Luther and Pellican agree with Hugh. And when one examines a work slightly later than those of Luther, Pellican and Calvin, namely that of Johannes Drusius,125 the results are the same. In impressive fashion, Drusius interacts in his exposition of Haggai 2 with the Hebrew text, Josephus, the Talmud, various Targums, various rabbis, Jerome, the Septuagint and a range of authors from Lanctantius to Virgil, but his treatment, particularly of Haggai 2: 19, follows the contours set out by Hugh of St Cher and the others.126 Neither he, nor the others, say anything along the lines of what one finds in Calvin’s exposition. This difference between Calvin and other interpreters helpfully sets his fascination with the big picture of God’s engagement with his creatures (mentioned in chapter two) into stark relief against their less ambitious expositions. While this 120 CO 44: 119-20; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 383; altered. 121 There is a difference, present in various commentaries, in the verse numbering of Haggai. Depending on which exegete one examines, one finds that the last verse of Haggai 1 is treated as the first verse of Haggai 2. 122 Opera omnia, 5, fol. 212r-v. 123 Biblia Sacra, 4, fol. 403v-405r. The Glossa Ordinaria does not discuss what is, for the purposes of the present study, the most important portion of this text, namely Haggai 2: 19, ‘I will bless you.’ 124 WA 13: 543; LW 18: 385; Luther even cites Romans 14: 23 in his exposition of Haggai 2: 14; Pellican, Commentaria Bibliorum, 3, fol. 284v - 285r. 125 S.S. Literarum in Acad. Franekerana, … Commentarius in Prophetas Minores XII. Quorum VIII. Antea editi, nunc auctiores; reliqui IV. iam primum prodeunt (Amstelredami: Sumtibus Henrici Laurentii, 1627), 906-924 (this covers to the end of v20 for Drusius, who takes the last verse of chapter 1 as the first of chapter 2). 126 Commentarius in Prophetas Minores XII, 923-24.

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

121

point could have been made with respect to many of the examples cited thus far, a word may nonetheless be profitably said about it here. It is essentially this fascination of Calvin that accounts for the difference himself and the others. For Calvin’s interpretation of Haggai 2 agrees in many ways with those of Hugh and the others. This is particularly true of Haggai 2: 19. After all, it is hard to deny that the text says, ‘I will bless you.’ But while Calvin agrees with them that God promises to bless, he also goes beyond them. He does this, as is often the case, by raising an objection which he considers worthy of treatment. And his answer to it entails his stepping back to query the way in which God is interacting with his people on this occasion, which (Calvin asserts) is by accommodating to their ‘crassness.’ Well, all of this—getting back to Calvin’s understanding of God’s employing of rewards—is obviously far from the picture of a God whose sovereign rule over his people allows him to command them without any promise of reward. Here the God described by Calvin would seem to have little real authority over his subjects. So far is he from simply blessing the obedience of his children with gifts that he is now reduced to promising these gifts to his people in order to persuade them into the performance of what is effectively a mock-obedience, which would otherwise be wholly unacceptable, in the hope that better things will follow. Finally, in addition to inappropriate language and divine rewards, Calvin’s God uses chastening and afflictions to effect his purposes.127 This was, it will be remembered, briefly mentioned earlier in this section but will now be examined more thoroughly. ‘God,’ says Calvin, ‘allures us at first to himself, he employs kind and gentle invitations; but when he sees us delaying, or even going back, he begins to treat us more roughly and more severely.’128 This rough treatment is clearly a last resort. Its harshness makes it an option which the Lord delays until other methods have failed. ‘God is not accustomed to deal so severely with people except when he has tried all other remedies.’129 But even given this, it is a means which the God of Calvin regularly employs in his dealings with his stiff-necked people. The divine intentions behind it have already been implied in the above citations, but they are identified more explicitly by Calvin as God’s purpose ‘to force us, so to speak, to return to him,’130 ‘to lead us to repentance,’131 and ‘to draw us back to himself,’132 or, speaking of general afflictions, to try his servants’ obedience,133 to 127 Under this heading mention will also be made of God’s practice of trying and testing his creatures, which is clearly related to, and not always distinguished from, chastisements. 128 CO 44: 47; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 263 (on Zephaniah 3: 1-2). So, in Calvin’s exposition of the second commandment, he declares: ‘[God] prefers to attract people (adducere malit homines) to duty by gentle invitations, than by terrifying threatenings to extort from them more than they are willing to do’ (CO 24: 380; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 113 (on Deuteronomy 5: 9)). 129 CO 42: 202; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 41; slightly altered (on Hosea 1: 2). So Calvin also says that God does not lift up his hand to strike his people except with the best intentions, knowing what his people are like and having thoroughly considered whether there are any other means by which to reclaim them. (CO 26: 679 (on Deuteronomy 9: 13-4)). 130 SC 1: 310; Sermons on 2 Samuel, 532 (on 2 Samuel 12: 1-6). See also CO 26: 114. 131 CO 40: 649; CTS Daniel, 1, 245 (on Daniel 4: 1-3). 132 SC 1: 200; Sermons on 2 Samuel, 344 (on 2 Samuel 7: 12-17). 133 CO 35: 218-9 (on Job 35: 1-7).

122

CHAPTER 5

purify them and make them know themselves,134 and ‘to stir them up … to the consideration of the celestial life.’135 It is not, Calvin seems to feel, the administration of justice that God seek, which awaits the afterlife, but the betterment of those in his household.136 Yet because of a fundamental decision on God’s part, according to which, as Calvin sees it, God chooses to employ means and to relate to his creatures in this way137 (this issue will be examined in greater detail in the next chapter), God finds these aims difficult to achieve. Calvin’s God can find the going exceedingly arduous and can even be put under a kind of necessity by his people’s recalcitrance. So when God threatens, ‘Therefore will I return and take away my corn in its time, and my new wine in its stated time’ (Hosea 2: 9),138 Calvin observes: ‘[h]ere again the prophet shows that God was constrained by extreme necessity to take vengeance on an ungodly and irreconcilable people.’139 And in a sermon on the promise, ‘God will chastise with the stripes of men and with the blows of the sons of men’ (2 Samuel 7:14),140 Calvin notes: And what is more, just as a father does not strike his son except with regret, God also shows that if he were not, so to speak, forced by our actions, he would not always continue dealing with us in this way. Of course, we cannot properly speak of forcing God, but what we mean is (as I said) that when he chastises us, he would certainly wish to spare us if it were useful for us, but he has our salvation in mind.141 Thus, Calvin holds, God’s assumed limitation commits him to the employment of means and implies that he can, in a certain sense, be pressed by exigencies which are effectively out of his control. But the reality of these necessities leads to a more anomalous situation. In the circumstances which prevail in the world, Calvin’s God must obscure, conceal, and even violate his own nature in order to try to rescue his lost sheep. This problem (which can be seen in God’s general governing of providence as well142) was adumbrated in an earlier portion of this chapter but must be considered more carefully now. For in treating divine chastening, the reformer’s handling of the issue becomes more explicit and, in some ways, more provocative. 134 CO 33: 69-70 (on Job 1: 9-12). 135 CO 23: 362; CTS Genesis 2, 65; slightly altered (on Genesis 26: 14). 136 This is even his purpose, or one of them, in chastening the wicked. Calvin says one of God’s purposes in this is to make his people walk in fear (CO 33: 559 (on Job 12: 1-6)). 137 Perhaps the plainest reference we have come across to this notion is found in Calvin’s sermon on Job 5: 17-18, which will be considered later when Calvin’s relation to the potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata is examined. 138 As cited by Calvin in CO 42: 235; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 92. 139 CO 42: 235; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 92. 140 Text cited from SC 1: 200; Sermons on 2 Samuel, 343 (on 2 Samuel 7: 12-17). 141 SC 1: 200; Sermons on 2 Samuel, 343. 142 CO 33: 593-94 (on Job 13: 17-25).

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

123

By declaring ‘I have hewed them by the prophets … and my judgments are as the light which goes forth’ (Hosea 6: 5), God shows that ‘he was constrained by urgent necessity to deal sharply and roughly with the people.’143 However, this is not the norm, Calvin adds. As God is the best father, nothing is more pleasing to him than to treat his people kindly. But when we are perverse we ‘do not allow (non patimur) him to follow the inclination of his nature.’144 In the reformer’s sermon on the words ‘Behold, the one whom God corrects is blessed’ (Job 5: 17),145 he follows the same pattern. God’s nature (nature) is to show himself gracious and tender towards his creatures.146 However, if the Lord were to handle his people according to his nature, they would perish, because they are so froward and rebellious. Therefore, God is required to change his intention and to deal with them differently from the way in which he would like to.147 He is compelled to treat them roughly and effectively to disguise himself (se desguise), if he wishes them not to fall away.148 Similarly, in his exposition of Job 22: 23-30 Calvin asks why God’s people are afflicted, one person with poverty, another with disease, and so forth. Is it because God the father delights in treating them roughly?149 Calvin’s answer (‘surely not’) is followed by the interesting observation that his children are not ready (capables) for him to treat them according to his natural inclination (son naturel).150 If his children had everything they wanted in this life, they would become drunk with pleasure and kick against God. In short, Calvin insists, believers constrain God (contraignons Dieu) to deal rigorously with them.151 Likewise, preaching on Job 36: 18-19 Calvin once more acknowledges that God’s nature is to be gentle, patient and loving.152 Surely then, when God disciplines his children he transforms himself (se transfigure) and chooses, in a certain sense, not to act according to his own nature.153 Since his church is stubborn, this is necessary if God wants to bring his people home.154 In all these examples one discovers a hiding of the divine face which easily rivals those discussed by Brian

143 CO 42: 327; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 227. The passage from Hosea is quoted as it appears in Calvin’s lecture. 144 CO 42: 327; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 227. 145 ‘Voici, l’homme que Dieu corrige est bien-heureux’ (CO 33: 257). 146 CO 33: 265. 147 ‘Dieu change quasi de propos, c’est à dire qu’il se monstre envers nous autre qu’il ne voudroit estre’ (CO 33: 265). 148 CO 33: 265. 149 CO 34: 323. 150 CO 34: 323. 151 CO 34: 323. 152 CO 35: 286. 153 CO 35: 286. 154 CO 35: 286-7.

124

CHAPTER 5

Gerrish, Susan Schreiner, Herman Selderhuis and others; for here the Eternal God not only conceals but contradicts (says Calvin) his nature.155 The ramifications of this are felt at least to some degree by Calvin, or this would appear to be the case in his Job sermons. Accordingly, he is pressed to acknowledge that God dissimulates for a time (Dieu dissimule pour un temps): things seem to be hidden from him, Calvin explains, when he stands by unmoved by the plight of his people, fails to hear their sighs, and seems to forget his tender kindness, while allowing the wicked to run riot without lifting a finger to stop them.156 A startling conclusion, no doubt—and one which Calvin seems to draw back from later.157 At other times, however, the reformer does not attempt to deny or remove from God’s ways this appearance of deception, but simply reminds his hearers that this is how God must treat his people if they are to be brought by him safely to heaven. These various examples are impressive and suggest once again how the accommodation motif has made inroads into Calvin’s thought. The themes discussed above of God’s promising rewards and using the chastening rod with his children reveal not only how frequently Calvin turned to accommodation when explicating the actions of God but also how remarkable his discussions of it could at times be. 3.5 Anxious, Obsessive Thus the accommodating God described by Calvin frequently labors (often in vain) to accomplish the good he wishes for his people. But this is not the only way he expresses himself. Accordingly, having come to the end of a long section dominated by the issues of purpose and intention, and having beheld a God who is impressive almost entirely because of his determination, a different set of concerns will now be taken up in the material that follows. When Calvin’s God legislates for the various feasts, he seems almost to bend over backwards making allowances for his people. The necessity of going up to Jerusalem five times a year is not imposed upon them, but God, wishing to make a concession for their infirmity, requires only three visits, Calvin explains in remarks on Deuteronomy 16: 16.158 Furthermore, because travel was less convenient for the women—who would have been almost always either pregnant or nursing

155 See, Brian Gerrish, ‘‘To the Unknown God,’ Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God,’ in The Old Protestantism, 131-49; Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom, 91-155; Schreiner, of course, deals specifically with the Job sermons and covers them in exemplary fashion; Selderhuis, ‘Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms’ in Calvin Studies IX, 1-15. See also, C.J. Kinlaw, ‘Determinism and the Hiddenness of God in Calvin’s Theology’ in Religious Studies 24 (1988), 497-510. 156 CO 34: 374 (on Job 24: 1-9). See similar remarks in an earlier part of the same sermon (CO 34: 369). Also, on a different occasion, Calvin declares simply that God seems to dissemble (qu’il semblera … qu’il dissimule) (CO 33: 404 (on Job 8: 13-22)). 157 This comes in Calvin’s sermon on Job 34: 4-10. There, Calvin declares that the rebuke Job receives from Elihu warns believers to bridle themselves when they behold the things which happen on earth lest they be tempted to say, ‘why does God dissemble thus?’ He goes on to warn of the temptations which can move God’s children to blaspheme against the Lord (CO 35: 139 (on Job 34: 4-10)). 158 CO 24: 600-1; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 471.

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

125

anyway159—only the fathers and males above twenty are required to make the journey, being permitted to present themselves in the names of their wives and children. But this second capitulation could put the Jews in peril of their lives, for they could very well find themselves in danger of enemy attack during those times when all the males are gathered together in one place. Accordingly, Calvin’s God anticipates this and promises that no one shall desire their land at these times. Commenting on this, the reformer notes that the promise was given ‘lest the Jews should object’ over the threat of invasion and not obey the Lord’s instructions.160 Though this assertion is simple enough, it implies that God acts on the basis of a possible outcome which he foresees and about which he is concerned. Other similar instances are common in Calvin’s exegesis. They include God’s repeating his promises to his servants ‘lest at any time their confidence should be shaken through fleshly infirmity,’161 and an occasion on which God, following his giving of rest to the Israelites, instructs them to divide amongst themselves the Mediterranean coastline (which was still in the hands of rival nations), ‘lest the intermission which was given for the purpose of restoring them to new vigor might provide an occasion for sloth.’162 While the idea of Calvin’s God displaying such cares (if you will) is in itself fascinating, what is particularly significant here is that these apprehensions have a marked effect upon his approach, and behavior, towards his people. At times, God’s concern, as it is described by Calvin, seems to make him more generous and compliant. Calvin’s God provides an explanation of the Decalogue, though it should have been sufficient by itself to instruct the people, ‘lest its brevity should render it obscure to an ignorant and slow-hearted people.’163 When Israel mix superstitious prayers with their use of vows, these are tolerated by God, ‘lest in his hatred of them, he should altogether abolish what was useful and laudable.’164 Moreover, their vows were confirmed by God, not because they were completely pleasing to him, but ‘lest the people should accustom themselves to impious contempt of him’ if they kept their vow and yet found that there was no difference between themselves and those who broke their promise.165 Also, as was noted earlier, the God described by Calvin permits mourning amongst the sons of Aaron rather than legislating against it (as he would clearly like to do), ‘lest immoderate

159 CO 24: 600-1; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 471. 160 CO 24: 600-1; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 471. 161 CO 23: 387; CTS Genesis, 2, 106 (on Genesis 28: 1). In a specific example of this, God confirms Noah in the truth of divine assurances, ‘lest he should faint’ (CO 23: 128; CTS Genesis, 1, 264 (on Genesis 7: 1). And in the same way, he institutes the Passover to signify his grace to Israel, ‘lest it should ever depart from their memory’ (CO 24: 286; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 456 (on Exodus 12: 1-2)). 162 CO 25: 515; CTS Joshua, 182; slightly altered (on Joshua 13: 1-14). 163 CO 24: 260; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 416 (on Deuteronomy 1: 1). 164 CO 24: 569; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 423; slightly altered (on Leviticus 27: 1-29). 165 CO 24: 568; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 421.

126

CHAPTER 5

strictness drive them to passionate excess.’166 He promises prophets to his people ‘lest Israel should object that they were more severely dealt with than the rest of the nations.’167 And he takes a cautious approach when chastening the righteous, not always allowing the wicked to triumph over them, ‘lest the just, being overcome by temptation, should abandon themselves to the things which they desire.’168 Probably more often, this uneasiness moves Calvin’s God to be more cautious and less indulgent. Normally this is due to his characteristically uncomplimentary assessment of human nature, which makes its presence felt throughout his engagements with humankind and seems to have convinced Calvin’s Lord that his people could not be trusted to perform even the simplest of tasks. When Israel crosses the Jordan, God attempers himself to direct almost every step of their progress by his own voice, Calvin explains, ‘lest any perplexity should occur to retard them.’169 He restricts the high priest from entering the inner sanctuary except once a year, ‘lest a more frequent entrance of it should produce indifference.’170 This God instructs Israel to write the commands on their city gates, on the stones which they set up near the Jordan, on their door-posts and the borders of their garments, ‘lest by the people’s carelessness the knowledge of the law should be obscured or in any way obliterated.’171 He apportions to the priests their due from the sacrifices, not only for their sake but ‘lest the priests should basely and greedily take more than their due.’172 He also forbids any use whatsoever to be made by Israel of the silver and gold from which the idols of other nations had been formed, not because it was polluted in itself or because the idol worshippers had contaminated the good things of God, but because the people were prone to superstition, and thus, such snares ‘might easily have separated them from the pure worship of God’ unless they were completely pulverized.173 He prescribes the measure of each particular element, when instructing his children regarding their offerings, ‘lest the people should 166 CO 24: 449; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 229; slightly altered (Leviticus 21: 1-12). So, God reprimands Joshua, says Calvin, not for lying on the ground and lamenting but ‘for excessive sorrow’ (CO 25: 477; CTS Joshua, 110 (on Joshua 7: 10)). 167 CO 24: 271; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 433 (on Deuteronomy 18: 15-8). 168 CO 32: 315; CTS Psalms, 5, 92; altered (on Psalm 125: 3-5). 169 CO 25: 455; CTS Joshua, 73; altered (on Joshua 4: 16). 170 CO 24: 501; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 314 (on Leviticus 16: 2). 171 CO 24: 229-30; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 368-70 (on Deuteronomy 11: 18 and Deuteronomy 27: 1-4, 8). 172 CO 24: 487; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 289 (on Deuteronomy 18: 3). God, Calvin adds, ‘prescribes certain limits to which they were to confine themselves,’ lest they should give in to their covetousness (CO 24: 487; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 290). See also, CO 24: 458; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 243 (on Leviticus 22: 10ff). 173 CO 24: 553-4; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 399; slightly altered (on Deuteronomy 7: 25-26). The same care to curtail human sinfulness can be seen in God’s instruction to make an altar of earth upon which sacrifices were to be offered (Exodus 20: 24-5), or alternatively an altar of unfashioned stones which permitted (Deuteronomy 27: 5-7). On this Calvin comments that God anticipates the fact that ‘if anything in the shape of an altar had remained’ for long, ‘immediately religious notions would have been associated with it.’ For this reason, ‘this evil is anticipated when he forbids altars to be built which might exist for any length of time’ (CO 24: 397; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 139).

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

127

introduce many worthless and superfluous religious practices.’174 The same is true with respect to the shewbread, ‘lest diversity in so serious a matter might gradually give birth to many corruptions.’175 The people must, in Calvin’s reckoning, not dare to invent anything arbitrarily. For the same reason, he commands one form of offering to be observed both by Jews and by the stranger who may be living with them, ‘lest if any distinction should be made, corrupt mixtures should immediately creep in.’176 He even prescribes fine flour, frankincense, and the like to instruct his children, even though he himself is not attracted by sweet tastes or pleasant smells, ‘lest they should corrupt God’s service by their own foolish inventions.’177 But, more extreme than any of these instances is God’s condemning to death of any person who drinks the blood of an animal—even though there is obviously no proportion between the two in terms of intrinsic worth—because, as Calvin explains, he determines such instruction to be necessary for a rude people such as the Jews, ‘lest they should speedily lapse into barbarism.’178 These are the lengths to which Calvin’s God can be moved by his concerns. To be sure, not all his decisions are as extreme as the last one.179 Nevertheless, Calvin’s thought on these matters consistently depicts a God who feels concerned over possible outcomes and over the wickedness of his people and, thus, is moved to be extremely cautious respecting what he can allow his people to do, say, and think. The character of God’s anxieties, as considered by Calvin, may be further elaborated upon by way of bring this short sub-section to a close. Let us consider God’s concern as it is discussed by Calvin with respect to Leviticus 2: 1-16 and God’s choice to use frankincense and fine flour to instruct his children. To put matters in context, we might briefly consider the exegetical history of the passage. Various allegorical readings of the text are offered by Isidore of Seville and before him, Origen. ‘The fine flour (simila),’ to give one example, ‘signifies the church’ says Isidore.180 These spiritual readings are propagated through various sources, including the Glossa Ordinaria. Many of them are also included in the comments of Hugh of St Cher181 and (to a lesser extent) Nicholas of Lyra. Yet they, and here it is especially Lyra that we have in mind, tend to concern themselves more with providing basic descriptive details of the sacrifices being prescribed. So Lyra begins 174 CO 24: 538; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 376-7; slightly altered (on Numbers 15: 1-16). 175 CO 24: 488; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 292 (on Leviticus 24: 5-9). 176 CO 24: 539; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 377; slightly altered (on Numbers 15: 14-16). 177 CO 24: 509; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 328 (on Leviticus 2: 1-16). 178 CO 24: 619; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 31; altered (on Leviticus 17: 10). Similar reasoning is also found in CO 24: 544; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 385 (on Exodus 23: 19); also, CO 25: 487; CTS Joshua, 130 (on Joshua 8: 29). 179 Having said that, we do find God commanding the indiscriminate exterminating of all nations living in the promised land, for ‘if any of the old inhabitants had survived, they would have soon endeavored to revive their corruptions’ and been a stumbling block to Israel (CO 24: 552-53; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 397 (on Deuteronomy 7: 16-26)). Here Calvin has support from Scripture itself. 180 Biblia Sacra, 1, fol. 216v. 181 Opera omna, 1, fol. 103v.

128

CHAPTER 5

his remarks by noting that these instructions in Leviticus 2 discuss the sacrifices of non-living things to the Lord. God, he explains, wanted to provide this so that the poor amongst the people could express their devotion through sacrifice. When, he adds, Leviticus 2: 1 declares ‘when one (anima) shall offer …,’182 Lyra observes that the word anima is used because when the poor offer sacrifice to God it is regarded as if they offered their soul, ‘that is, their life’—a point which Lyra substantiates by noting Jesus’ words to this effect in Matthew 12 concerning the offering of the poor widow. Continuing, Lyra comments on the various items that may be offered. He explains what ‘fine flour’ (simila) is. He describes the other items spoken of in the text which were to be sacrificed or were to accompany the sacrifice. These remarks include the interesting note, with respect to unleavened cake made of flour (lagana azyma) (Lev. 2: 4), that this (namely, lagana) is what the Italians call food made from pasta cooked in water.183 Such, however, is the extent of Lyra’s interest in the items prescribed for sacrifice in this chapter. The same may be said of the comments of Cajetan. He engages with the text of the Vulgate often, comparing the Hebrew with it, as he does throughout his biblical commentaries, and on the whole, his treatment is not unlike Lyra’s. Cajetan explains in a simple manner how the sacrifices work. He details the materia which was to be sacrificed, dividing his treatment into the groupings which appear in the passage, namely things which fall under the category of corn or flour (sub forma farinae), the category of bread (sub forma panis) and the category of grain (sub forma grani).184 He simply notes that they were to be joined with oil (oleum) and frainkincense (thus).185 He discusses Leviticus 2: 2 in the manner noted earlier, and treats various specific points as they arise in the text. So, on the oblation of salt (Leviticus 2: 13), he explains that this was the profession of the covenant between God and the people, and notes that no explanation of why salt was used for this purpose is provided in the passage, since it would have been known to the people of that time.186 Thus, Cajetan’s comments are terse, plain and adhere closely to the specifics addressed in the passage. Protestant commentaries also betray similar traits. Johannes Brenz’s commentary on Leviticus 2, for instance, treats the relation of this sacrifice to the others, the Hebrew ‘Minha’ and its meaning and translation, the relationship between gentile sacrifices and those commanded in the Mosaic administration, and numerous other details concerning the types of oblations being spoken of in this chapter, their relation to Christ’s sacrifice and their spiritual meaning.187 The only comment he makes which begins to resemble those found in Calvin has to do with the idea of a sacrifice being a sweet smell to the Lord.

182 Biblia Sacra, 1, fol. 216v-217r. 183 Biblia Sacra, 1, fol. 217r. 184 Cajetan, Opera omnia, 1, 267. 185 Cajetan, Opera omnia, 1, 267. 186 Cajetan, Opera omnia, 1, 267. 187 Brenz, In Leviticum, fol. 18v-25v covers the whole of chapter two.

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

129

For even if the Lord, concerning those things which pertain to himself, does not need signs (signis), with respect to which he is reminded of his clemency towards his people, yet we need such signs, with respect to which we are reminded that God always looks after his church and protects it in adversity.188 Turning again to Calvin, one can see more clearly the distinctiveness of his statements. A fuller quotation of the passage in question follows: In this chapter Moses prescribes the rules for those offerings to which the name of minha is peculiarly given. They were not bloody sacrifices, nor offerings of animals, but only of cakes and oil. If anyone would offer plain flour, he is commanded to season it with frankincense and oil, and also to choose fine flour, that the oblation may not be defiled by the bran. Thus here, as in all the service of God, the rule is laid down that nothing but what is pure should be offered; besides, by the oil its savor is improved, and by the frankincense a fragrant odor is imparted to it. We know that God is not attracted either by sweetness of taste nor by pleasant scents; but it was useful to teach a rude people by these symbols, lest they should corrupt God’s service by their own foolish inventions.189 Calvin enters here into the consideration of ideas which are simply not mentioned by these other exegetes. This being so, the God whom he describes ends up possessing unusual traits, such as (on this occasion) a surprising level of cautiousness. Perhaps it is a concern to safeguard the divine transcendence that moves Calvin to speak in this way. But whatever it is, it leaves his readers with a God who seems suspicious and exceedingly mindful of his own people’s sinfulness. The above quotation also raises a number of questions. Why did Calvin’s God not acquiesce to his children’s foolishness on this occasion, as he had on others? Why do such differences appear in Calvin’s descriptions of God’s treatment of his people? And, more significantly, how were the people to know what was foolish invention and what was not, since the God described by Calvin was inconsistent, and so (seemingly) random, in his legislating against it?190 Thus, in a number of ways the concern of Calvin’s God discovered in these examples makes him appear slightly strange. Nor can this only be said of this example from Leviticus 2. In many of the examples cited above, the same qualities can be discovered and the same queries raised. And again, as has been seen, the views of other exegetes on this text do not express the same concerns found in Calvin’s exposition of it. 3.6 Tender, Tolerant, Enslaved But more may be said about the images of God found in Calvin’s thought. The characteristics to be discussed in this section include ideas such as tenderness, 188 Brenz, In Leviticum, fol. 19r-v. 189 CO 24: 509; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 328 (on Leviticus 2: 1-16). 190 Such a question is raised by David Wright, ‘Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism,’ 46.

130

CHAPTER 5

tolerance (or perhaps patience) and enslavement; the last of these being an idea that is, of course, especially startling when applied to God. Calvin’s thought on the believer’s approach to God in prayer will provide the point of departure for this section. The reformer speaks of prayer as that ‘than which nothing is more holy.’191 Furthermore, as was seen in the last chapter, any employment which includes the use of God’s name involves an accommodation on God’s part, as Calvin’s words on vowing clearly state: For it is a singular indulgence on the part of God that he allows us to take up his name when there is any controversy among us, … it is surely a great favor, for how great is the sanctity of that name though it also serves even earthly concerns? Nevertheless, God accommodates himself so far to us, that it is lawful for us to swear by his name192 Thus God’s tenderness is, in Calvin’s reckoning, revealed in the very nature of prayer.193 The tenderness of Calvin’s God is also seen in his recording of forms of prayer in Scripture which are accommodated to human understanding, his establishing of fixed hours for prayer, and the like (mentioned in the last chapter). Included here also are the indulging of the weaknesses which cling to believer’s petitions,194 the permitting of arguments in prayer although they are superfluous,195 God’s complying with believer’s prayers for God ‘to make haste,’196 ‘to rise up or wake up,’197 and similar instances, which Calvin declares are examples of God’s accommodating.

191 ‘… prayer, than which nothing is more holy, …’ (CO 31: 448; CTS Psalms, 2, 172; slightly altered (on Psalm 44: 23)). 192 CO 44: 11; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 198, slightly altered (on Zephaniah 1: 5). 193 Related to this is Calvin’s assertion that all prayer would be ineffectual were it not for God’s indulgence, cf. CO 24: 474; CTS Joshua, 107 (on Joshua 7: 6). 194 CO 36: 625; CTS Isaiah, 3, 119 (on Isaiah 37: 14). Here Hezekiah spreads letters out before God when threatened by the Assyrians, which God allows out of accommodation to the king’s frailty. 195 ‘It is indeed superfluous to bring arguments before God, for the purpose of persuading him to grant us what we ask; but still he permits us to make use of them, and to speak to him in prayer, as familiarly as a son speaks to when earthly Father. It should always be observed, that the use of prayer is, that God may be the witness of all our affections’ (CO 31: 116; CTS Psalms, 1, 150 (on Psalm 10: 13)). 196 CO 31: 773; CTS Psalms, 3, 338; altered (on Psalm 83: 1). 197 CO 31: 447-8; CTS Psalms, 2, 171; altered (on Psalm 44: 23). Calvin is not consistent in this interpretation; or, at least, he does not always mention the Lord’s patience and tolerance when exegeting these passages. On occasion, he assigns to the Psalmist’s prayer for the Almighty to arise the following rendering: ‘the expression to arise does not apply to God but to the external appearance of the matter and to our senses. For we do not perceive God to be the deliverer of his people except when he appears before our eyes, as it were sitting upon the judgment seat’ (CO 31: 106; CTS Psalms, 1, 131; slightly altered (on Psalm 9: 19). Likewise, more generally, Calvin often speaks of the prayers of the saints as being crafted according to ‘the sense of the flesh (carnis suae sensu)’ (CO 31: 432; CTS Psalms, 2, 141 (on Psalm 42: 9)).

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

131

This sense of tenderness takes on the additional qualities of patience and toleration, however, when the accommodating of Calvin’s God as it is exhibited in his actually engagement with believers is considered. This is perhaps most clear in the reformer’s remarks on Job. Calvin observes that Job’s patience is not what it ought to be,198 and that he utters passions with which he is carried away and which Calvin himself found deeply disturbing, as Schreiner rightly observes.199 Job, Calvin declares, confesses that he is filled with such bitterness that even if it did not benefit him, he could not help but continue his complaining and loosening of the reins of his frustration. He speaks as a man full of passion and out of his mind (bout de son sens), Calvin says.200 Yet in all this, God abases himself (qu’il s’abaisse) and allows the Uzite to pour out his feelings.201 And the same is observable in comments by Calvin found elsewhere.202 The God found in Calvin’s writings does not approve of such prayers, but he answers them—a fact which also exhibits his tolerance. God, the reformer explains, often grants to his people their ill-advised (inconsiderement) requests.203 The words of the Institutes are even stronger: ‘the prayers which God grants are not always pleasing to him (non semper placere Deo).’204 And the same is found in individual examples. When God forbids a master to oppress his servant, and declares that he will hear the oppressed servant who cries out against his unjust master (Deuteronomy 24: 14-5), Calvin asks if this is not a violation of Christ’s injunction to pray for your enemies. He answers simply that it is but that ‘God does not always approve of the prayers which he nevertheless answers.’205 Likewise, the imprecatory prayer of Jotham, Gideon’s son, against the Shechemites (Judges 9: 20) was answered although, Calvin explains, ‘it was plainly the offspring of immoderate anger.’206 But the tolerance ascribed to God is perhaps most apparent in Calvin’s descriptions of God’s submitting to his creatures. When the angel is delayed in coming to Daniel, God explains the situation and through his messenger ‘excuses himself to his own prophet.’207 Ezekiel, wishing to know whether God would destroy

198 CO 33: 478 (on Job 10: 1-6). 199 Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom, 95-105, 108, et passim. 200 CO 33: 467-8 (on Job 10: 1-6). 201 CO 33: 475 (on Job 10: 1-6). 202 Note Calvin’s comments on Joshua’s litigious query (CO 25: 474; CTS Joshua, 107-8 (on Joshua 7: 6)); or Abram’s question (Genesis 15: 8) (CO 23: 215; CTS Genesis, 1, 411). 203 CO 23: 683 (on Genesis 15: 4-6). 204 OS 4, 318; Inst. 3.20.15; slightly altered. In fact, Calvin goes on to argue in this section that God hears and answers the prayers of unbelievers at times. 205 CO 24: 672; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 115. 206 CO 24: 672; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 115. 207 ‘We must notice, secondly, God’s kindness (humanitas Dei) because he deigns through his angel, so to speak, to excuse himself to his own prophet. He offers a reason for the delay of the angel’s return, and the cause of this hindrance was, as I have already stated, his regard for the safety of his elect people. The wonderful clemency of the Almighty is here proved by his offering an excuse so

132

CHAPTER 5

even the remnant of Israel, vehemently entreats the Lord to answer him and receives an explanation in which Calvin finds an impressive indulgence. God, the reformer declares, deigns out of his goodness ‘to give an account of himself as if he wished to satisfy them.’208 In both instances the Lord seems almost to adopt the position of a subordinate, a fact which is most astonishing given Calvin’s views on the nature of prayer which were described a few paragraphs ago. But perhaps more remarkable are those occasions when God is described by Calvin as capitulating to the terms laid down by his children. Psalm 145: 19, for example, declares, ‘he will perform the desires of those who fear him.’ With respect to this text, Calvin queries concerning the standing of humanity that the Almighty should show compliance or obedience (morigerum)209 to their will, and wonders at the fact that God ‘voluntarily lowers himself to these terms that he may yield to our desires.’210 Similarly evocative is Calvin’s comment on Numbers 2: 1-34, that although the Lord’s authority was completely sufficient (in this case, to prevent quarrels among the people), he ‘rather conformed himself to their wishes than drove them by compulsion.’211 On such occasions, the divine tenderness, tolerance and (even) compliance is nothing less than astonishing. In all of these examples one finds a God full of gentleness and patience. If, in Calvin’s judgement, it is an accommodation for God even to allow his people to take his name on their lips, then the ideas proposed by the reformer here are impressive ones. While some of the individual instances cited in this group may not qualify as examples of accommodation, they nonetheless fit into the broader sense of those which do. Such then is what one finds when one examines the subject of prayer. But this gentleness takes on different shades of meaning, including indifference, resignation and enslavement, when other subjects are taken up. While these traits may be discovered in varying degrees in a number of instances, such as God’s capitulation to the people’s mourning212 or in the budding of Aaron’s rod,213 a stimulating example comes in Calvin’s discussion of God’s instituting of the Sabbath, where God releases his people from the more rigorous demands which he could have placed upon his people.214 It is, the reformer explains, ‘as if he had said, “since you cannot be instant in seeking me with all of your affection and attention, at graciously to his Prophet, because he did not shew himself easily entreated on the very day when prayer was offered to him’ (CO 41: 205; CTS Daniel, 2, 251; altered (on Daniel 10: 13)). 208 CO 40: 204; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 315; slightly altered (on Ezekiel 9: 9). See also Calvin’s comments on Ezekiel 16: 34-7, where the Lord gives to his people some explanation of the chastisements he is about to send to them; a fact which leads Calvin to observe: ‘This passage teaches us that although the reason for God’s judgments does not always appear, yet they are never too severe; and when he condescends to afford us a reason, he grants us a gratuitous indulgence’ (CO 40: 370; CTS Ezekiel, 2, 142). See also CO 43: 386-87; CTS Minor Prophets, 3. 330-31 (on Micah 6: 3). 209 CO 32: 419; ET: CTS Psalms, 5, 282. 210 CO 32: 419; CTS Psalms, 5, 282; slightly altered. 211 CO 25: 150; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 449. See similar comments in CO 25: 221; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 4, 111 (on Numbers 16: 21). 212 CO 24: 449; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 229 (on Leviticus 21: 1-12). 213 CO 25: 229; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 4, 123-4 (on Numbers 17: 1-13). 214 CO 26: 298 (on Deuteronomy 5: 13-5).

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

133

any rate give up to me some little undistracted time,”’ adding that in the phrase ‘all your work’ God ‘signifies that they have plenty of time, excluding the Sabbath day, for all their business.’215 Here Calvin’s God comes close to appearing callous, his actions tainted with cynicism. Though early in his remarks Calvin had called this an expression of love by which the Lord wished to entice Israel to obedience ‘since he only claims a seventh part for himself,’ the remainder of his comments do not seem (at least to this author) to entirely support that interpretation.216 Indeed the sentiments which prevail are closer to pessimism than affection. Calvin’s God, it would seem, cannot imagine the idea that his people might actually delight in worshipping him—that they might ever find worship enjoyable—but rather takes it for granted that they wish to break free of such an onerous obligation. Thus his accommodation is one which is given with more than a hint of resignation. One cannot help but wonder if the reformer’s own experience of almost thirty years in the pastorate is not expressed in the reasoning which he ascribes to God. Moving from Sabbath legislation to other aspects of Old Testament law, not only is further pessimism discovered but also an increasing sense of enslavement. Such an idea was briefly introduced in chapter two and is, it must be said, no longer a novel one. Having been treated by Wright twenty years ago, this and related concepts are now recognized as ones which Calvin expounded and applied to God. For this reason, they may have taken on an air of familiarity which renders them less shocking. Yet these are without doubt some of the most explosive ideas to be found in the Calvinian corpus. The concepts presented below are ones which seem extraordinarily odd, even inconsistent with the very notion of deity. For in these the God described by Calvin is one who is so confounded by his people’s intractability that, being unable to effect his desired aims, he opts for an alternative and lessambitious set of goals. Of course no one is suggesting that Calvin was the only exegete to suggest such things. But what is being suggested here (as was related briefly in chapter two) is that his assertion of these ideas was especially sharp and startling if compared with his predecessors and contemporaries and, in some sense, entered into territory not broached by other exegetes. This enslavement of God (so to speak) is found in a number of places in Calvin’s writings. When dealing with the liberties which victors take in war (Deuteronomy 21: 10-3), Calvin’s Lord is forced to set aside any hopes he has that his people might remain chaste, endeavoring instead ‘to restrain their lusts’ by granting them the lamentable right to marry pagan women. ‘It was better, indeed, that they should completely abstain from such marriages,’ Calvin says, but this was simply too much to ask.217 215 CO 24: 579; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 438; slightly altered (on Exodus 20: 8-11 and Deuteronomy 5: 12-5). One must question whether the reformer does not contradict himself elsewhere in his remarks on the nature of the law. For example, Calvin writes on Matthew 22: 378—God’s requirement that he be loved with all the heart, soul and strength: ‘It now appears from this summary that in the commandments of the law, God does not look at what human beings can do, but at what they ought to do. For in this infirmity of the flesh it is not possible that perfect love for God can obtain dominion’ (CO 45: 611-2; CTS Gospels, 3, 59; slightly altered). 216 CO 24: 579; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 438. 217 CO 24: 353; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 71.

134

CHAPTER 5

The same sense of capitulation can be seen in the allowance made for the taking of vengeance against the murder of a close relative (Numbers 35: 19ff). This was ‘tolerated, and not approved of,’ Calvin says, being granted by God because ‘the fury of those whose kindred had been slain could hardly be restrained.’218 So Calvin’s God, limited as if he were human, is said to be hindered by ‘the people’s hardness of heart’ on account of which this concession was made.219 The desperateness (so to speak) of God’s circumstances is also expressed in Calvin’s remarks on slavery. It was seen, in chapter two, in relation to the divine instructions to a father who wishes to sell his daughter into slavery (Exodus 21: 711). But it can also be discovered in the reformer’s comments on the earlier portion of that chapter (Exodus 21: 1-6), which records God’s pronouncements concerning the fact that if a male slave is granted his freedom at the end of seven years, and he has taken a wife during his servitude, he must leave his wife, and any children she has given birth to, with his master, and go free by himself. This, Calvin says, is ‘monstrous (prodigio).’220 ‘Nothing could be more opposed to nature’ than such a stipulation. He complains, moreover, that there was ‘gross barbarity (prorsus barbarum)’ in the idea that a man may only obtain his freedom if he leaves his wife and offspring, which he compares to a man disuniting himself from half of himself and his own bowels.221 Calvin’s opinions here, it might quickly be noted, are not ones shared by all commentators. Many, such as Nicholas of Lyra and Cajetan, simply comment on the passage, with its various individual instructions, and say nothing whatsoever about the idea of slavery. Johannes Brenz, on the other hand, expresses explicitly his lack of patience with those who speculate on the morality of such a stipulation.222 Whether the difference between Brenz and Calvin may be explained in part by Calvin’s legal training is a possibility; in fact, Calvin seems to exhibit in his comments on biblical legislation a greater interest in the notion of individual freedom, which would be consistent with the drift of some of the thinking coming out of late-medieval legal thought by which he may have been influenced.223 But the answers to such questions await fuller investigation. In considering matters related to Exodus 21: 1-6 further, Calvin acknowledges that the option of allowing the wife and children to go free with their husband would have presented legitimate problems to their master, since the wife was his slave and he also would have incurred expenses in bringing up the children. Thus, Calvin explains that in this case 218 CO 24: 638-40; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 64-5. 219 CO 24: 638-40; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 65. 220 CO 24: 650; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 80. 221 CO 24: 650; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 80-1. 222 Brenz states two reasons for thinking that such matters ought not to be looked into; first, the simple fact that the law, as a political law, does not apply to New Testament Christians any longer, and secondly, that it is part of that catalog of laws which were conceded to Israel on account of their hardness of heart (pars referenda est in catalogum earum legum, quae fuerunt Israelitis concessae propter duritiam cordis eorum). This, however, is all Brenz says on the issue of accommodation (Brenz, In Exodum, fol. 96v). 223 See, Brian Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law, 1150-1625 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). More will be said on Calvin’s relation to medieval and early modern legal thought in chapter seven.

GOD’S REASONS FOR ACCOMMODATING

135

the sanctity of marriage gave way to private right. But he adds that ‘this defect is to be reckoned amongst the others which God tolerated on account of the people’s hardness of heart, because it could hardly be remedied (quia vix corrigi poterat).224 Additionally, in God’s command to kill all the males of captured cities (Deuteronomy 21: 12-15), Calvin again depicts God as one who is constrained, indeed even to an extent which Calvin finds censurable: ‘the concession given here seems to confer too great license.’225 Further, Calvin complains that heathen enjoin those conquered in war to be spared while God does not. ‘How,’ Calvin inquires, ‘does God, the Father of mercies, give his sanction to indiscriminate slaughter?’226 Assessing the situation, Calvin can only declare that more was conceded to the Jewish people ‘than was justly lawful for them.’227 ‘This permission,’ Calvin further remarks, ‘falls far short of perfection.’228 In these places, we discover helplessness on a different scale than has been seen previously. This is not the first time these notions have been broached in this chapter, but when the magnitude of sinfulness is calculated it becomes apparent that the necessity being discussed here cannot be compared with that treated earlier. Calvin’s God accommodates, but he does so because he has no choice in the matter (it would appear). Surely if he did, Calvin suggests, he would not allow such heinous crimes and propensities to go unremedied. And, while other exegetes also note accommodation in regards to some of these biblical passages, what was noted in chapter two is still true, namely, that Calvin’s expression of these matters, particularly the intensity of it, is provocative in that it forces upon us issues which the expositions of other exegetes leave in the background such as questions about God’s holiness and about his sovereignty. What extremes of offensiveness will Calvin’s accommodating God endure? The answer to such a query is not clear. What is clear, however, is that in Calvin’s conception of accommodation one often finds a God who consistently struggles, experiences resistance, labors strenuously and with profound tenderness, but accepts second best (so to speak) in his dealings with his people. The accommodating God pictured in Calvin’s corpus, in other words, is generally not the God of allconquering power who effortlessly brings his perfect will to pass. At times, he is. At times, he is immeasurably great and incomprehensible. But, probably the majority of the time, the accommodating God described by Calvin betrays markedly different qualities. He is more like the one who looks at a situation, thinks of what he would like to have happen, and then takes into account the various limitations which hinder the realisation of that goal, and, putting his first desire aside, does what seems most feasible given the circumstances. Often this is far from his desired outcome. Often this involves him (at least to some degree) in acquiescing with sin. Often he expresses his clear disapproval at the situation. Often he strives against it and loses 224 CO 24: 650; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 80-1. 225 CO 24: 631; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 53. 226 CO 24: 631; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 53. 227 CO 24: 631; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 53. 228 CO 24: 631; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 53.

136

CHAPTER 5

and resigns himself (as it were) to a situation that seems entirely unsatisfactory but lives with it anyway. This is what this face of Calvin’s accommodating God is like; a God who prizes realism, opportunism, and shrewdness; a God who endures hardship and exercises patience; a God who seems more often than not to fail at his first try but continues to labor and toil. 4. CONCLUSION This chapter discussed the traits exhibited by Calvin’s accommodating God in the causes, purposes and motives for accommodating ascribed to him by Calvin. Through this discussion, the chapter sought to demonstrate the range and variety of portraits of God found in Calvin’s thought on accommodation and, in this way, to explore the ideas and peculiarities associated with the reformer’s usage of the accommodation motif. Various issues touched on above await consideration in the ensuing pages, as the chapter raised more sharply than had previous chapters some of the implications of accommodation’s penetration into Calvin’s thought. But for now, having treated the three elements normally found in Calvin’s discussions of God’s accommodating, this study will move on to address Calvin’s thinking on the motif from a different angle.

CHAPTER 6 ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON THE POWER OF GOD The three elements which normally appear in Calvin’s discussions of divine accommodation have now been examined, from which a picture has begun to emerge of his thinking on the motif. This chapter aims to add to this picture, by considering the matter of the influence of accommodation on the reformer’s theology. To this end, it will consider Calvin’s thought on divine accommodation from the perspective of medieval theology and, particularly, from the perspective of the notion of the power of God and, particularly, the potentia absoluta/ordinata distinction. It will, first, look at Calvin’s acceptance of the potentia distinction. Following this, it will demonstrate that accommodation appears in his thinking on this distinction and argue on this basis that accommodation penetrate his theology in a discernible way; thus revealing further the importance of the motif to him. 1. CALVIN AND THE POTENTIA ABSOLUTA/ORDINATA DISTINCTION 1.1 A Brief History of the Distinction A growing number of scholars believe Calvin adheres to some form of the distinction between the absolute and ordained power of God.1 There are some, however—most notably David Steinmetz—who argue that Calvin does not hold to, but rejects, this distinction. Yet even when defending his position, Steinmetz does not deny that the reformer’s thought betrays views on the contingency of the created order and order of salvation and the freedom of God which are broadly in keeping with the distinction.2 So, what is to be thought on this question? What view is the correct one? While not intending to treat this issue in an exhaustive manner, this section will look to set out a clear understanding of Calvin’s basic relationship to 1

2

Recently see, Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 312-346; Gijsbert van den Brink, Almighty God: a Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence (Kampen: Kok, 1993); Michael Sudduth, ‘Calvin and the Medieval Dialectic of Divine Omnipotence’ on http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/ Calvin_Distinction_FD.htm. See, Steinmetz, ‘Calvin and the Absolute Power of God’ in Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 41. We have unfortunately not been able to obtain a copy of Anna CaseWinters, God’s Power: Traditional Understandings and Contemporary Challenges (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990) which (according to Michael Sudduth) concurs with Steinmetz in arguing that Calvin rejects the distinction as such.

137

138

CHAPTER 6

this distinction. In order to do so, it will be best if a brief history of the development of, and thinking on, the potentia absoluta/ordinata distinction is first produced. According to scholars such as William Courtney,3 the distinction between the absolute and ordained power of God arose in a nascent form in the eleventh century through the reflections of Peter Damian and Desiderius and was intended, at first, to help in working through questions on divine inability. ‘In light,’ Courtney writes concerning the thoughts of these early theologians, ‘of the firm belief and almost daily affirmation of divine omnipotence in the opening line of the creed, how is a Christian theologian to understand or interpret authoritative statements that speak of things that God cannot do?’4 The initial answers given to questions such as this related to the connection or relationship between the divine ability and the divine will. Can, for example, God do other than he has willed? Or are the boundaries of the divine power determined by those of the divine will? Perhaps not surprisingly, issues of freedom and necessity were linked to these matters as well. By the early twelfth century a consensus had been reached on these issues, which saw theologians generally acknowledging a sphere of potentiality open to God (i.e. to his power) which he did not realize because he chose not to; as Augustine had declared much earlier, ‘he was able, but did not want to’ (potuit, sed noluit).5 One can find statements to this effect, for instance, in the Glossa Ordinaria. Not everyone adhered to this consensus, however. Peter Abelard was one of those who rejected it, arguing instead that since God’s actions are expressions of the divine nature, God could not have acted in any other way than he did. His views were attacked by William of St Thierry, Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter Lombard and others. By 1245, Courtney argues on the basis of works such as the Sentences commentary of Albertus Magnus, the ‘classic’ shape of the distinction had been achieved. Absoluta had a generation earlier begun to be used as an adjective to modify God’s power. Likewise potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata began to be employed when discussing the issue, though they were not the only ones employed at this time. These phrases, and the realities they embodied, did not, it should be noted, express the idea that God had two powers according to which he could act. Rather, they were two ways of speaking about the divine omnipotence. God’s absolute power was the consideration of that power in the abstract, that is, apart from God’s will. God’s ordinate power was the consideration of that power in terms of what he has chosen to do. God never, and cannot ever, act in an absolute way, these thinkers maintained. His actions were comprehended as a subset of the possibilities open to him, which he chooses to actualize. And yet during this same period, changes were occurring in the use of this distinction. The distinction was no longer being used simply to comprehend the 3

4 5

This section leans heavily on the work of Courtney, although studies by Gijsbert van den Brink, Francis Oakley, Heiko Oberman and Paul Helm, which either have been mentioned, or will be in due course, have also been extremely helpful. Courtney, ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages,’ 244. Courtney, ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages,’ 246.

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

139

notion of divine inability, but was being employed to describe God’s relationship with his creation. ‘The order that God has established, therefore, is not necessary in any absolute sense but is only relatively or contingently necessary inasmuch as it has been established by God out of free choice.’6 In this sense it was applied to creation, the incarnation, justification, the sacraments and other matters, and stressed the freedom of God, the non-necessity of the things of this world but also the reliability of these things (because God has bound himself to them by his own choice). Yet problems would eventually arise; indeed they were, in some senses, inherent in the very ideas being discussed. These problems need not be outlined exhaustively in this chapter, but may simply be illustrated. A significant number of difficulties, for example, were associated with the fact that in order to speak about God and his power, theologians tended to speak as if he were subject to the constraints of time. So one spoke, or implied in one’s discussion, of a time when God acted, a time before he acted, a time when all potentialities were open to him, and so forth. Other theologians, however, endeavoring perhaps to state matters more precisely, sought to express the eternality of God in their discussions of these issues. ‘God could and still can’ do such and such, they would say.7 Yet neither solution was entirely satisfactory. Furthermore, the potential for misstatement and misunderstanding, irrespective of the approach taken, was great. Other problems, including what exactly was meant by potential ordinata and how miracles fit in to the discussion, may also be noted and are treated by Courtney and other scholars who have studied the distinction. As these problems were addressed and solutions to them offered, more problems seemed to appear. In order, in part, to deal with these problems and also simply to advance understanding of the issues, theologians began to conceptualize the distinction by means of analogies between divine power and human experience, which would (they hoped) help to clarify murky, troublesome concepts. One of the more influential of these analogies was that between divine power and human sovereignty. This analogy, which seems to have arisen out of canon law, was often applied to the pope, for instance. It was argued that the pope was de potentia absoluta not bound by the law but bound himself to it de potentia ordinata. And yet, the argument goes on to state, there may be times when a particular law may need to be suspended for some reason by the pope (as could be seen in papal dispensations, etc) and that this was permissible. Such analogies may perhaps not have seemed especially provocative, but did nonetheless embody a profound change as regards understandings of the distinction. For now the concept of potentia absoluta no longer described the idea of the total possibilities open to a person (God, the pope, a king, etc) but a course of action. This analogy was applied to God, perhaps most famously by Duns Scotus. For Scotus, God’s absolute power represented a kind of alternative to his ordained power. Scotus applied the distinction to a range of subjects, in which it played an 6 7

Courtney, ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages,’ 247. Courtney cites Hugh of St Cher to this effect, see, ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages,’ 249.

140

CHAPTER 6

integral part; his doctrine of justification and his ethics provide representative examples here, though other topics could be mentioned. According to Courtenay, Scotus equated potentia ordinata with the orders of nature and grace as they exist at present, but which God is only bound to as he chooses. God can act in a manner which differs from or even contradicts the present order, and this would simply result in another order. God can change his established order as he sees fit (Thus, many would argue that Scotus did not believe that God could, strictly speaking, act inordinately). Scotus, then, in an effort to stress God’s unbounded nature and the contingency of the created order and order of salvation, developed ideas wherein God possessed two forms of action, ‘one in conformity with law and one outside and against the law.’8 These developments, influential as they were, were alarming to William of Ockham, who (again according to Courtenay) conceived of the distinction in a more traditional manner, seeing the ordinate power and absolute power of God as two ways of conceptualizing that power rather than as two ways of actualizing it.9 Indeed, others too, Pierre d’Ailly and Gregory of Rimini to name just two, repeated many of Ockham’s concerns. Yet despite this resurgence or reassertion of a traditional viewpoint, the Scotist line of approach continued to thrive. Additionally, there continued to be developments in respect of the potentia distinction, which appeared on a number of different fronts. Some, like Ockham, labored on what Courtenay calls ‘the outer frontier between impossibility and possibility … in order to establish the necessary or contingent status’ of the world and its relationships; a course of action which caused him to raise for consideration numerous, and sometimes quite imaginative, queries and miraculous biblical examples in the process.10 Others employed the distinction in order to analyze causal relationships; one thinks here in particular of the maxim ‘God will not deny grace to the one who does his best,’ which embodied a causal relationship that was in many ways the backbone of medieval soteriology. While still others applied the distinction to propositions in logic and physics; Courtenay mentions here issues raised within the terminist logic, such as the way in which the truth value of propositions changed with circumstances. In all these endeavors, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries presented a landscape, in regards to the potentia distinction, which was growing in complexity and diversity. This may be seen to be even more true when it is considered that some theologians were working through these issues from a moreor-less traditional understanding while others adhered to the notion of God’s absolute power as an active power in the Scotistic and canonistic manner. On top of this, some were exploring new ways of conceptualizing aspects of the subject, and probing knotty questions such as whether miracles ought to be considered part of 8 9

10

Courtney, ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages,’ 254. Courtney, ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages,’ 254-55. This interpretation of Ockham is not universally held; see Francis Oakley, ‘The Absolute and Ordained Power of God in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Theology’ in Journal of the History of Ideas 59 (1998), 444-446. Courtney, ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages,’ 255.

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

141

God’s ordained power or his absolute power. All of these things added to the complexity related to thinking on the issue. This complexity would continue into the sixteenth century. Such can be seen, for instance, in Luther’s usage of the distinction in his commentary on Genesis 19: 1214 (the visit of the angels to warn Lot of the approach judgment), where the reformer introduces a temporal element into his conception of the distinction. Oberman summarizes Luther’s discussion here: God could have governed this world by direct intervention—as he did indeed do, when he punished culprits and sometimes still does with murderers—foregoing the proper legal procedures by the civil magistrates, when he created Adam and Eve without carnal union or when he gave bread to the Israelites in the desert without their having to work for it. But it pleased God in his majesty to use human beings and angels and to make them his cooperators. … Since the advent of Christ—though Luther does not indicate the exact moment in time—God no longer wishes to act according to his absolute power but according to his potentia ordinata, i.e., through the ministry of angels and human beings.11 Similarly Luther comments on the attempted burning in the furnace of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego by Nebuchadnezzar (a favorite biblical text for discussions of the potentia distinction): ‘It is in accordance, then, with “God's ordained power that water dampens, fire burns, etc.” But by the extraordinary interposition of God's absolute power, “in accordance with which he acted at that time,” Daniel’s companions were delivered from the flames of the Babylonian furnace.’12 Hence Luther argues that God once acted according to his absolute power but now wishes to act in accordance with his ordained power. He clear exhibits an understanding of the distinction which is more in line with the Scotistic conception, but nuances his treatment of the matter. The varied views of other thinkers, such as John Eck, the Jesuits at Coimbra, Francisco Suárez, Balthasar Hubmaier, Erasmus and Zwingli, several of which also exhibit Scotistic interpretations, are discussed by Oakley and Oberman.13 1.2 Calvin and the Distinction Returning to John Calvin, we now have some sense of the various approaches to the potentia distinction and related issues with which he could have come in contact, and some general sense, as well, of the difficulties facing contemporary scholars of Calvin who wish to discern his thinking on these matters. As mentioned earlier, a 11 12 13

Oberman, ‘Via Antiqua and Via Moderna: Late Medieval Prolegomena to Early Reformation Thought’ in Journal of the History of Ideas 48 (1987), 33. Oakley, ‘The Absolute and Ordained Power of God,’ 456; italics belongs to Oakley. The citations found in this quote are from Luther’s Genesis 19 commentary and are from LW 3: 274-90. Oakley, ‘The Absolute and Ordained Power of God,’ 451-56; Oberman, ‘Via Antiqua and Via Moderna,’ 23-40.

142

CHAPTER 6

growing number of scholars believe Calvin to hold to some form of this distinction. But, as also noted, Steinmetz and others maintain that he rejects the distinction as such. The latter base their position largely on statements, from Calvin’s pen, such as the following. We should ever, indeed, bear in mind that which I have before said, that God does nothing without the highest of reasons. But as the will of God is the surest rule of all righteousness, that will ought ever to be to us the principal reason, yea (if I may speak in this way) the reason of all reasons! … [humility, which is begotten by reverence for God’s justice, is not foolish] … For who but the man that has the persuasion deeply forced on his heart that God is just, and all his works righteous, will rest satisfied with his good pleasure alone? That Sorbonic dogma, therefore, in the promulgation of which the Papal theologians so much pride themselves, ‘that the power of God is absolute and tyrannical,’ I utterly abhor. For it would be easier to force away the light of the sun from his heat, or his heat from his fire, than to separate the power of God from his justice. Away, then, with all such monstrous speculations from godly minds, as that God can possibly do more, or otherwise, than he has done, or that he can do anything without the highest order and reason. For I do not receive that other dogma, ‘that God, as being free from all law himself, may do anything without being subject to any blame for doing so.’ For whosoever makes God without law, robs him of the greatest part of his glory, because he spoils him of his rectitude and justice. Not that God is, indeed, subject to any law, excepting in so far as he is a law unto himself. But there is that inseparable connection and harmony between the power of God and his justice, that nothing can possibly be done by him but what is moderate, legitimate, and according to the strictest rule of right. And most certainly, when the faithful speak of God as omnipotent, they acknowledge him at the same time to be the Judge of the world, and always hold his power to be righteously tempered with equity and justice.14 Moreover, they elucidate that position in the following way: Because the distinction, even rightly understood, invites speculative reflection on God outside revelation and allows a hypothetical, if not actual, separation of God’s power from his justice, Calvin’s rejection of the distinction must, I think, be understood as a rejection of the distinction as such and not as a protest against its abuse. At no time does Calvin suggest that there is a licit use of this distinction or that it can be salvaged for Christian theology. Calvin reads the distinction between the potentia absoluta and the potentia ordinata, not as a distinction between the absolute and ordained power of God, but as a distinction between ‘ordered’ and ‘disordered’ power. What the scholastics call the absolute power of God is a disordered power because it disjoins God’s power

14

CO 8: 361; Calvin, The Secret Providence of God in Calvin’s Calvinism, 248 (slightly altered).

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

143

from his justice. In that sense all power of God, realized and unrealized, actual and potential, is potentia ordinata, power ordered by God’s justice.15 While this interpretation may seem in many ways airtight, it has its detractors. For other scholars, such as Paul Helm, argue that careful consideration of Calvin’s language and theology leads one to the conclusion that ‘Calvin is clearly endorsing a distinction between absolute power on the one hand and inseparable power and will, which is, he believes, how we are taught about God’s will in his word.’16 Thus, Calvin is not, Helm believes, denying that God could have willed what he chose not to will, but he is objecting to the consideration of God’s power in abstraction from his justice. As these two views on the question of Calvin’s relationship to the distinction are examined, it becomes increasingly clear to the present author that the view espoused by Helm is the correct one. This is not to assert full agreement with Helm as regards the particulars of Calvin’s thinking on the distinction, which shall be discussed momentarily. But with regards to the general question of whether Calvin adheres to some form of the distinction between the absolute and ordered power of God, Helm’s argument is persuasive. He writes: It seems clear that here Calvin is simply reaffirming what we have seen that he maintains in the Institutes and elsewhere, that discussion of God’s power in abstraction from what he has in fact willed is speculative and profitless. But his words ought not to be taken as a claim that there is no distinction between God’s power and his will to be made. Otherwise his objection to the ‘Papists’ makes no sense. For Calvin is clearly endorsing a distinction between absolute power on the one hand and inseparable power and will, which is, he believes, how we are taught about God’s will in his word. But if Steinmetz is correct, and Calvin rejects the distinction tout court, then this for Calvin amounts to a distinction without a difference.17 As Helm rightly argues here, there is no way that one can take Calvin’s words to mean that there is no distinction between God’s power and his will to be made. If, in truth, Calvin actually denied the potentia distinction as such, then his words (as cited above18) would be a betrayal of that position, since his words acknowledge a distinction between God’s power and his will. To be sure, they urge that that distinction, particularly the absolute power of God, ought not to be speculated upon (though it will be seen that Calvin does not always abide by his own rule). But they 15 16 17 18

Calvin in Context, 49. We were reminded of this particular portion of Steinmetz’s piece by Sudduth. Helm, Calvin’s Ideas, 329. Helm, Calvin’s Ideas, 329. Helm is speaking in this quote in relation to a passage from Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 18: 18, but his points apply equally to the passage we have cited. Steinmetz cites several passages from Calvin, including ones from his commentaries on Genesis 18, Isaiah 23 and from the Institutes; they all deal with themes such as those raised in the passage cited in this chapter; Steinmetz, Calvin in Context, 40-52.

144

CHAPTER 6

do not deny that a distinction is able to be made; in fact, they affirm this. Thus, while one may have all sorts of questions about the way Calvin speaks here, who in particular his criticism is aimed at and so forth, one cannot question that Calvin held to some form of the distinction. But what form? In relation to this question, scholars have offered two options. The first to be mentioned here is that espoused by Paul Helm (and similarly by Michael Sudduth). Helm argues that Calvin holds to what is essentially the classical view mentioned above in relation to Albertus Magnus; Helm associates it with the thought of Thomas Aquinas. Thus, Calvin acknowledges that God has ordained all things not out of necessity but freely. He further acknowledges the absolute power of God as including or encompassing not only all things which he has chosen to bring to pass but also all things which he could have brought to pass but chose not to. Additionally, he refuses to speculate on this realm; that is, on absolute power of God.19 A second reading of Calvin’s position is offered by Oberman, and echoed by van den Brink.20 It argues that the Scotistic notion of God’s potentia absoluta as a presently active, extra-ordinary power was appropriated by Calvin and played an active role in his theology. Oberman finds it in the well-known extra-Calvinisticum, upon which Oberman expands in developing his thesis concerning the reformer’s thought. Thus, although Calvin does not employ the technical nomenclature, for him the sphere of potentia Dei absoluta is equivalent to God’s acting ‘extra ordinem.’21 This is not to say that Calvin finds God to be unreliable. Rather Calvin emphasizes God’s commitment to the present order. But he also asserts God’s operating outside of that order. So Oberman can declare that the following is typical of Calvin: ‘God operates not only beyond the incarnate Son but also beyond the confines of the visible church, the Eucharist, and the law.’22 Along similar lines, Gijsbert van den Brink observes that ‘Calvin implicitly uses the distinction in its later operationalized interpretation, but then as on a par with the distinction between providentia ordinaria and extraordinaria.’23 While both these interpretations possess qualities which commend them, neither is, in our view, entirely satisfying. The first is, in many ways, true in what it states. It is, however, too neat and tidy (if you will), failing to take into account to any serious degree the speculative side of Calvin and failing also to explain the ‘extra’ dimension which is, we believe (and will be argued below), discernible in the reformer’s thinking. The second interpretation is certainly bold and very persuasive. Yet, it does not attempt to address the question of how Calvin related to the classical understanding of the potentia distinction, which seems at times to appear in his 19 20

21 22 23

Helm, Calvin’s Ideas, 312-346. Our treatment of this view is based on Oberman’s account of it. For this account, see both his ‘Via Antiqua and Via Moderna’ essay to which reference has already been made above and, ‘The “Extra” Dimension in the Theology of Calvin’ in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21 (1970), 43-64. Oberman, ‘Via Antiqua and Via Moderna,’ 39. Oberman, ‘Via Antiqua and Via Moderna,’ 38-39. Van den Brink, Almighty God, 90.

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

145

thought. There are, in other words, places in Calvin’s corpus where he speculates on what God might have done as if he had in mind something closer to the traditional notion of the absolute power of God as the total possibilities initially open to God— and this, as we say, is not dealt with by proponents of the second view. Thus, neither option is without its weaknesses. Yet, if the two views are melded together, the result offers what seems to the present author to be the most convincing interpretation of Calvin’s thinking on the subject. While some of the evidence for this conclusion will be found in the section which follows this one, a short explanation and defense of it will be offered here. 1.2.1 Calvin and the Absolute Power of God—Traditional Passages can be found in Calvin’s writings which suggest that he understood God’s absolute power as encompassing all the possibilities initially open to God. One such instance may be found in his treatment of the fall of humankind. In Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 3, he declares that God did, in fact, will Adam’s lapse into sin; yet on this occasion his comments proceed no further.24 However, when addressing this issue in a sermon on Galatians 3: 21-25, Calvin sheds his much-vaunted reticence for speculation. Thus, if we ask the question, why did God allow man to fall and become so miserably lost, the answer is that God desired us to lean on his grace alone. … [this seems strange to arrogant people] … But Paul wishes us to submit to this teaching, that is, that God has concluded all under sin. In other words, God could have created us stronger and more perfect than he chose to do. He could also have preserved us as he did the angels. Adam, and indeed we ourselves, could have been granted such perseverance that he could have entered his heavenly home without having to die first. But God did not plan it this way! He could even have ensured that only Adam fell and that alone was corrupted. Why did evil have to spread so far and wide? Surely, God intended it this way!25 In these observations, Calvin makes it manifestly clear that ‘what God created or established did not exhaust divine capacity or the potentialities open to God.’26 The second and third examples cited here press, to some degree, our use of the word ‘traditional.’ In Daniel 1: 1-18 we read of the preparation of Daniel. He requested that the guard set over him and his companions test them by giving them only vegetables and water, instead of the fare offered them from the king’s table, and after ten days they looked healthier than those who had eaten from the king’s table. Additionally, the text explains that God gave knowledge and understanding to these men, and gave to Daniel the ability to understand visions and dreams. In 24 25 26

CO 23: 55; CTS Genesis, 1, 144. CO 50: 549-50; Sermons on Galatians, 329-330; I owe this reference to Paul Helm. Courtenay, ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages,’ 243.

146

CHAPTER 6

reflecting on God’s preparation for service of these men, and especially Daniel, Calvin explains that: Certainly, God was able (Potuit) to prepare [Daniel] in a single moment; also he was able ( potuit etiam) to strike terror and reverence into the minds of all, and induce them to embrace his teaching; but he wished (sed voluit) to raise his servant by degrees, and to bring him forth at the fitting time.27 Thus Calvin declares that God could have acted differently in his dealings with the prophet. But this citation raises a question having to do with the limitations of language; a question which Courtenay discusses in his previously-cited article and which we alluded to briefly above. Is this divine ability to which Calvin refers to be understood as an ability which is presently open to God? Or does Calvin have in mind a kind of eternal present according to which God ordains all things, being outside of time?28 Or, as Luther proposes (as was noted earlier), did God use his potentia absoluta, understood in a Scotistic sense, when dealing with his Old Testament saints though he refrains from using it following Christ’s advent? The answer is simply not clear. Nonetheless, the example will be included under this heading, seeing that it does acknowledge various options open to God and also differs distinctly from the examples which will be considered in the next subsection. A third example is found in Calvin’s remarks on Genesis. In comments on ‘And God remembered Noah … and made a wind to pass over the earth’ (Genesis 8: 1-2), Calvin argues that the wind is, as it were, the effect of God’s remembering of his servant, Noah, which was intended to reveal to Noah that God cared for his life. This, Calvin avers, is particularly apparent from the fact that God employed the means of wind to do what he could have done without the use of any means. For when God, by his secret power, might have (posset) dried the earth, he made use of the wind; which method he also employed in drying the Red Sea.29 Here questions similar to those raised in the previous paragraph are also mooted, but the same conclusion reached.30 1.2.2 Calvin and the Absolute Power of God—Scotistic One also, however, finds in Calvin statements of a kind different from those discussed above. In his sermon on Job 5: 17-18, for example, Calvin discusses God’s chastening of his people in considerable detail. Near the end of this sermon, 27 28 29 30

CO 40: 554; CTS Daniel, 1, 113; altered (on Daniel 1: 17). Courtney, ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages,’ 249. CO 23: 136; CTS Genesis, 1, 277 (on Genesis 8: 2). A similar example can be found in Calvin comments on God’s parting of the Red Sea CO 24: 123, 125-26, 153-54; see Exodus 10: 13, 19; 14: 21.

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

147

he continues treatment of the theme, referring to the people’s numerous diseases (as he terms human vice) which God cannot heal except by means of afflictions. Following this remark, Calvin, as if he wanted to clarify for his hearers the fact that God was, in actual fact, not dependant upon any of the means which he chose to employ in his dealings with humankind, notes that if God chose to use his absolute power ( puissance absoluë) he could do otherwise, by which he plainly means that God could forgo the use of afflictions. Having made the remark, Calvin simply declares that he is not going to speak about the power of God (la puissance de Dieu) but only about the way God wishes to treat his people (seulement du moyen qu’il veut tenir envers nous).31 The observation is a fascinating one, of course, and suggests that Calvin understood the concept of the potentia Dei absoluta as referring to a presently active, intervenient and extra-ordinary power; that is, he understood the concept in a broadly Scotistic way. If one is searching for further examples of such thinking in Calvin (albeit it without the technical language), one may look with profit to a sermon he preached on Deuteronomy 8: 3-9. The sermon is an important one because it speaks about God’s commitment to the means he appointed as part of the order of nature but also of God’s present ability to operate outside of those appointed means. The treatment of such matters actually begins in the earlier sermon on Deuteronomy 8: 1-4, when Calvin takes up the assertion that ‘man does not live by bread alone’ (Deut 8: 3). Bread, Calvin insists, does not refer to the doctrine of salvation. Rather Calvin explains here, and in his sermon on Genesis 26: 1-5, and expositions of Leviticus 26: 26, Psalm 63: 3 and Matthew 4: 4 as well (with varying degrees of specificity), that what this passage teaches is that food is a means used by God to sustain and strengthen human beings but is only a means and one to which God is not bound. Calvin explains that if people have the food they need and receive their strength in that way, they should acknowledge that it is God who ‘has set that order in nature.’32 Likewise, in his sermon on Deuteronomy 8: 3-9 he calls food the ‘ordinary means’33 and declares that God has ‘ordained it to do us service.’34 And yet Calvin insists that people ought not to think that bread has any power in itself to sustain human existence.35 ‘Can a dead thing have power to give us life?’ he asks in his earlier sermon on Deuteronomy 8: 1-4.36 The same is true, Calvin argues, with shoes and clothing.37 Although a person be clothed with sheep wool, it is still God who blesses that sheep wool to keep its wearer warm. It is not able of itself to keep a person warm. These are all simply means and, thus, ought not to have attributed to them the praise which is due to God alone. God showed ‘by his establishing of the order of 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

CO 33: 269. CO 26: 597. CO 26: 599. CO 26: 600. CO 26: 600. CO 26: 596. CO 26: 603.

148

CHAPTER 6

nature’ that it is he in whom all these various things have their being.38 He does not stand in need of his instruments. What is more, however, since food, shoes and clothing are only means, God can effect the same outcome without them. This, Calvin argues in his exposition of Deuteronomy 8: 1-4, is the very point Christ was intending to make when he cited this text to Satan during the temptation. Satan spoke to Jesus as though he could not live without bread, and therefore, since none had been provided to him by the Father, he should make bread out of stones. But Christ responded that he is able to be sustained by the power of God alone.39 Calvin goes on to compare God to an earthly father. If an earthly father has no bread to feed his children, he will weep and tell his children that he would feed them with his own blood if he were able to. But things are different with God, Calvin says. For ‘he is not bound to any necessity.’40 He can sustain someone without using food. So Calvin declares in treatment of Deuteronomy 8: 3-9 that if all ordinary means fail, ‘God will provide for us after a different fashion.’41 This could be through some miraculous provision, such as the feeding of Israel with manna from heaven, or it could be through no means whatsoever but simply by his secret power. In this second example, we see that although Calvin does not employ technical language, he certainly has the same ideas in mind. God has established de potentia ordinata means by which human being are to be clothed and fed. God commits himself to those means. They are the regular way he deals with humankind. And yet God is not bound to, or dependent upon, those means. If he chose to use his absolute power (puissance absoluë) he could do otherwise, as Calvin said on Job 5: 17-18. In a third example, Calvin treats the curious circumstance recorded in Joshua 5: 2-9, where the Lord instructs Joshua to take sharp knives and circumcise the children of Israel. This command is explained in the passage itself, where the author of Joshua comments that all the people who had come out of Egypt had been circumcised but that those who had been born in the wilderness had not. But this still leaves questions for Calvin to ponder. The most interesting for the purposes of this section is the question of how Israelites who were uncircumcised could have enjoyed the use of other sacraments ‘of which they could not be partakers, except on the grounds of their being separated from profane nations.’42 In dealing with the matter, Calvin first admits that it is an unusual situation. None, he says, were admitted to the Passover except those ‘initiated into the worship of God; just as in the present day the ordinance of the Supper is common only to those who have been admitted into the church by baptism.’43 Calvin’s explanation is introduced in the following manner:

38 39 40 41 42 43

CO 26: 601. CO 26: 596-97. CO 26: 597. CO 26: 599. CO 25: 459; CTS Joshua, 79 (on Joshua 5: 2-9). CO 25: 459; CTS Joshua, 79.

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

149

But the Lord might choose for a time to alter the ordinary rule (ordinaria ratione ad tempus mutata), and allow those from whom he had taken away circumcision to be partakers of other sacred rites. Thus the people were excommunicated in one matter, and yet, in the meanwhile, furnished with fit aids to prevent them from falling into despair. … This seems to me to have been the reason why God, while depriving the people of the special pledge of adoption, was, however, unwilling to deprive them of other ordinances.44 This instance again refrains from employing technical language but nonetheless asserts the same ideas. Its comparison between circumcision and New Testament baptism marks it out as a rather important example. Calvin, here, is clearly indicating that God can alter the ordinances of the present order of redemption, when he sees fit to do so. Thus, again, a Scotistic conception of God’s power seems to be implied. 1.2.3 On the Joining of these Two Viewpoints It would seem, then, that both positions, that of Helm and that of Oberman, can be found in Calvin’s writings. Accordingly, the most appropriate option left to the student of Calvin attempting to expound his position is to join the two together. One could argue, perhaps, that these two approaches to God’s power represent a contradiction in the reformer’s thought. But such a conclusion seems unwarranted, for the following reasons. The two viewpoints, although quite different in ways, agree on at least one thing, namely that, for Calvin, God’s potentia ordinata (viz. the established order of creation and redemption) represents the realm which God freely ordained and to which God has freely committed himself. This agreement is of obvious importance for any attempt to join these interpretations together, as it establishes significant common ground between them. As for the potentia absoluta, it is clearly the case that the two views, traditional and Scotistic—at least as they are maintained by Calvin—are not mutually exclusive. One may think of it in this way: there are times when Calvin speculates on things which God might have done but did not do, and times when he speculates on things which God might have done and might still do. Stated in this way, these are surely not mutually exclusive conceptions. It may be a rather careless way to handle the topic of God’s power, that is true. But, then, Calvin rarely raises the issue. Perhaps if his discussions of it were more frequent, he would explain himself in a more thorough, careful and consistent manner. Thus, this interpretation seems the most accurate description of Calvin’s thinking on the potentia distinction. Further support for this reading of Calvin can be found in his corpus, and some of this support will be examined below. For the sampling offered above does not exhaust his statements on the issue. Rather, while Calvin complains about the speculations of others, he grants to himself the liberty to engage 44

CO 25: 459; CTS Joshua, 79.

150

CHAPTER 6

in such speculation, without which he would not have said much of what will be cited in this chapter. 1.2.4 Summary It was the aim of this section to answer the basic question of how Calvin relates to the distinction between the absolute and ordered power of God. The section has argued that he accepts and works with a form of that distinction. In the latter portion of this section, it proposed an interpretation of Calvin’s approach to the distinction and endeavored, to some degree, to sketch the lineaments of that approach.

2. ACCOMMODATION AND THE POTENTIA ORDINATA IN CALVIN Thus, it has been established that Calvin holds that the orders of nature and grace are the result of God’s will; that although that will is the surest rule of righteousness, these orders could nonetheless have been different, if God had willed them to be so; and that God does, in fact, operate outside of the structures of creation and redemption according to his absolute power. This having been established, it will now be asked: how, in Calvin’s thinking, does divine accommodation fit into this picture? What will be argued below in answer to this question is that Calvin maintains that God ordained the natural and redemptive orders in accommodation to human capacity. While this cannot, strictly speaking, be asserted for the entirety of these orders since Calvin does not speak to every aspect of them, nonetheless it will be argued here that, in a general sense, God’s decision to ordain was, in Calvin’s view, a decision to accommodate. Thus, in a very real sense, the created order, for Calvin, is an accommodated created order; the order of salvation an accommodated order of salvation; the potentia ordinata a potentia accommodata. By demonstrating this, this chapter intends, as was explained in the introduction, to argue that accommodation penetrates Calvin’s theology to an discernible degree and, thus, to reveal further the importance of the motif to him. It is, we should state for the purposes of clarification, not being argued here that accommodation in Calvin is wholly associated with God’s establishing of the orders of creation and redemption such that the two are inextricably linked, but rather that an important segment of Calvin’s thought on the former is related to the latter. How will this be shown? What will be considered in the ensuing pages are places in Calvin’s writings where, grappling with the details of God’s ordaining of the structures of creation and redemption, he comments on or alludes to the distinction between the absolute and ordered power of God—normally along with a range of related ideas such as God’s freedom, the contingent character of these orders, God’s commitment to them, his use of means and the like—and links God’s decision to ordain to his decision to accommodate. This linkage will not be something upon which Calvin himself comments. Rather it will merely be implied. Nonetheless it is

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

151

significant because it brings accommodation down, in Calvin’s thinking, to the level of God’s ordination. It may appear in conjunction with Calvin’s commenting on alternatives which God might have chosen or simply in his remarks on God’s establishing of the orders of nature and grace, but (again) what it will suggest is that accommodation has entered down into the reformer’s thinking on the pre-temporal counsels of the Almighty. Naturally, this section would like to focus on some of the standard loci discussed when dealing with such issues—viz., creation, the law, justification and the like. It is, however, known that Calvin simply does not speak to the potentia distinction often enough to satisfy this desire. (One cannot expect to find examples in Calvin like those which await the student of Scotus, Ockham or Biel!). Accordingly, while some of the standard loci associated with this distinction will be examined below, many of them will be passed over. The Calvinian citations discussed below will take different forms, but will generally be of a character similar to those treated up to this point. For as we have seen already, despite Calvin’s exclaiming, ‘Away, then, with all such monstrous speculations from godly minds, as that God can possibly do more, or otherwise, than he has done,’ 45 he does occasionally enter into such speculation, and even when he does not he still sometimes comments in a meaningful way on God’s ordaining of the natural and redemptive orders. In order to progress in this section with the greatest profit, the ensuing treatment will be divided into two sections. The created order will first be examined, followed by the order of salvation. 2.1 The Created Order Consider the following statement from Calvin’s Institutes 1.14.22: Indeed, as I pointed out a little before, God himself has shown by the order of creation that he created all things for humankind’s sake. For it is not without significance that he divided the making of the universe into six days [Gen. 1: 31], even though it would have been no more difficult for him to have completed in one moment the whole work together in all its details than to arrive at its completion gradually by a progression of this sort.46 Here, Calvin observes that God, who could have chosen to create the universe in a moment, opted to divide its creation into a period of six days for the benefit of humankind. The same thing is asserted in the reformer’s commentary on Genesis 1: 5. Having declared that the passage refutes the error of those who maintain that ‘the world was made in a moment,’ Calvin then insists that we ought not to think that Moses was the one responsible for distributing the work of God into six days. ‘Let us rather conclude,’ he says,

45 46

This was, of course, cited earlier from, ‘The Secret Providence of God’ in Calvin’s Calvinism, 248. OS 3: 172-73; Inst 1.14.22; slightly altered.

152

CHAPTER 6

that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of humankind. We slightly pass over the infinite glory of God, which shines forth here; from whence does this arise but from our excessive dullness in considering his greatness? In the meantime, the vanity of our minds carries us away elsewhere. For the correction of this, God applied the most suitable remedy when he distributed the creation of the world into successive portions, that he might fix our attention, and compel us, as if he laid his hand upon us, to pause and to reflect.47 Here, although the suggestion of alternatives open to God is less explicit, Calvin contends for the same interpretation. In both of these passages, he maintains that God had the ability to choose to create in a variety of different ways (admittedly he only mentions the one, but his language suggests that numerous options were open to him) and that the course of action he chose when creating was one which was accommodated to human capacity. God’s choice de potentia ordinata was a choice to accommodate. Although the link is, as we said, not commented upon or highlighted in any way, it is still present. The same thing is implied in another example. God’s accommodating of the created order can be seen in a portion of Calvin’s sermon on Deuteronomy 8: 3-9, part of which was, of course, examined in the last section. Here the specific portion in question focuses on verse 5: ‘Know in your hearts that God nurtured you like a father nurtures his son.’ Having commented on the fact that God’s works are a ‘bottomless pit,’ Calvin reminds his hearers of the passage from Job 26: 14 which declares that humankind only has access to the fringes of the divine deeds. This being so, he observes that all people should look upon these fringes in order to learn what they can for their benefit and salvation. If they do this, Calvin continues, they will see that ‘God accommodates himself to our rudeness’ in such a way that no one can complain that he has made matters too difficult to understand.48 Thus there is no excuse if a person does not know God. Following this, Calvin makes the fascinating assertion that God even accommodates himself ‘by the order of nature.’ (It will be remembered that he discussed God’s ordaining of the order of nature, and specifically things like food, shoes and clothing in an earlier portion of this sermon). He then explicitly lists the seasons of the year, the growing of fruits upon the earth, the shining of the sun, the moon and the stars as some of the things he has in mind— even, he says, ‘by these things we can see that the Lord accommodates himself wholly to us.’49 The remainder of his comments move on to discuss other matters, but again it can be seen that accommodation is linked to Calvin’s thinking on the created order in a way which suggests that God’s ordaining of that order was influenced by his desire to accommodate himself to his people’s frailties. In another passage, which contains explicit reference to God’s ability to act in a variety of different ways if he wishes, one again finds Calvin commenting on God’s 47 48 49

CO 23: 17-18; CTS Genesis, 1, 78. CO 26: 606. CO 26: 606.

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

153

ordering of the world, namely, in a passage which comes (again) from Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy, this time from chapter twenty-eight. The fact that so many of these examples come from sermon is itself interesting. Of course, Calvin would have tended to speak in a more verbose manner in his sermonic discourses in order to make sure that he was understood by his hearers. This alone may explain the fact. It also may be, however, that Calvin viewed the points that have been, and will be, covered in this chapter (more examples from sermons will appear below) as ones which were particularly likely to edify; a point which seems to this author to be borne out by the content of this and other examples to be cited here. But whatever the case may be, Calvin’s treatment of Deuteronomy 28: 9-14, which lists among its promises the promise that the Lord will open the heavens and send down rain in due season, contains speculation which include some fascinating and important points about God’s establishing and governing of his creation. In treating this promise of rain in due season, Calvin begins by observing that Moses sets forth the order of nature and draws his hearers’ attention to it that they might see that God is their father and sustainer.50 Calvin is particularly concerned in his exposition of this text, as he was in his treatment of Deuteronomy 8, to make clear to his own hearers that although the food that nourishes humankind comes from the earth, yet it is God alone who sends these good things. And this provides the door (as it were) through which Calvin’s speculations on accommodation and the created order enter. Taking up discussion of the established order as it exists at present, Calvin notes that the earth has a nature given to it ‘to bring forth fruit,’ but that unless rain falls to replenish the earth (as the promise of Deuteronomy 28: 12 offers) it will dry up, become parched and, as it were, cry out for moisture. He notes in this regard that David, in Psalm 143: 6, uses this similitude to describe his thirst for the Lord. Then Calvin, wishing (presumably) to reflect further on this state of affairs, makes the observation that if it had pleased the Lord he could have given to the earth the ‘property … to have substance of itself;’51 that is, to not be in need of rain. This suggestion is followed by the point that God, as we are told in Genesis, did not use rain in the beginning (referring to Genesis 2: 6) but simply caused mist to rise and moisten the earth, through which Calvin seems to want to establish the fact that God is free to do what he wants with his creation. In fact, Calvin further notes in the next sentence: ‘can he not do the same now?’—a statement which bears witness, it would seem, to his Scotistic understanding of the potentia absoluta. This question is followed by the further suggestion that perhaps, instead, the Lord could cause water to proceed from below the earth. All of this proposing of various options leads Calvin to the basic question: where does the rain come from? If you ask the philosophers, he says, you will discover that it comes from the vapors which ascend from the earth, which being drawn up into the air then falls again to the earth. Taking this, it would seem, as an accurate description of how the weather system at present actually works, Calvin then inquires as to why things work in this way. Why could not God make the earth so that it retains its strength always without needing to 50 51

CO 28: 376. CO 28: 376.

154

CHAPTER 6

be replenished by rain, and why do the heavens not yield rain except it rises from the earth? What, he asks, is the cause of all this? Calvin answers the question by pointing to accommodation. God orders the rain in the way that he does because he sees humankind to be so doltish and so gross (tant lourds et tant grossiers).52 He wants, the reformer explains, to make his people perceive, in a visible manner, the truth that all good things come from God’s hands. Following this assertion, Calvin enters into an exposition of Hosea 2: 21 (which concerns the heavens hearing the earth, and the earth hearing the corn and so forth—Calvin’s lecture on the passage was examined in the last chapter) which pursues the same end and concludes with a further assertion to the effect that God could cause the earth to bring forth fruit without rain or dew if he wished but that he chooses means ‘that are suited to human rudeness.’53 Here, then, Calvin again describes God as one who had options at his disposal which he did not choose to bring into effect—he could have made the earth so that it possessed its own strength without requiring rain to replenish it; he could have caused the heavens to yield rain without it rising from the earth, and so forth. Here, interestingly, Calvin asserts an ‘operational’54 understanding of the potentia absoluta, noting that God could work outside of the normal means he ordained if he saw fit to do so. And here, Calvin again describes God as one who chose de potentia ordinata to accommodate in his establishing of these aspects of the created order. Hence accommodation and the ordained power of God are, again, linked in such a way that God’s decision to ordain was, for him, a decision to accommodate. The examples considered in this section looked briefly at Calvin’s thinking on various aspects of the order of nature as it was established by God. Though far from exhaustive in the topics they treat, these examples were nonetheless revealing as regards Calvin’s views on the basic issues associated with the potentia distinction and creation. What they revealed was that divine accommodation is linked in Calvin’s thinking with God’s establishing of this order de potentia ordinata. God, in other words, is described by Calvin as having ordained aspects of the structures of creation with human capacity in mind or, more precisely, in accommodation to that capacity. The same will now be seen with respect to Calvin’s thinking on the order of salvation. 2.2 The Order of Salvation 2.2.1 Instruments, Angels and Baptism In point of fact, Calvin attaches divine accommodation to a number of the loci with which one normally associates the potentia ordinata. So, the church, the sacraments, God’s use of angels and, in general, of externa are all things which Calvin describes 52 53 54

CO 28: 376. CO 28: 377. See also, CO 25: 14; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 217 (Leviticus 26: 3ff). The word is Oberman’s, see, ‘Via Antiqua and Via Moderna,’ 39.

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

155

as accommodated, as was already noted in chapter four. They are, interestingly, also things which he describes as instruments or means; means to which God is not bound, but which he freely chooses to employ. Thus there is in Calvin’s thought a link between these two ideas, namely, that externa are means employed by God to accomplish his aims and that they are accommodated to human capacity. Calvin does not consistently note or allude to this link in his comments on these various topics, but he does on occasion. The first several examples to be discussed here will explore this theme. One such example can be seen in his exposition of ‘they were in great numbers with me’ (Psalm 55: 18), where Calvin considers the possibility that this text refers to the angels which God often employs as his ministers. ‘This interpretation,’ he declares: conveys a doctrine full of consolation, because God, although he does not need assistance from anyone (alienis subsidiis), has seen fit, in accommodation to our infirmity, to employ a multitude of aids in the accomplishment of our salvation.55 Although he is speaking in relation to angels, the language used by Calvin here is general in its scope. God’s use of auxiliaries is commented upon, with angels being one example of such auxiliaries. While his language in this case is not as clear as the material considered in some of the previously-cited examples, such as Deuteronomy 8, it still seems to comport with what he says in them. Calvin’s thinking in the above citation sets out the belief that God is not dependent upon auxiliaries. His relationship with these auxiliaries is governed solely by his own will (‘God … has seen fit’). He chooses to ordain them and employ them for the accomplishing of his purposes (‘to employ a multitude of them in the accomplishment of our salvation’); thus, they are part of the present providence as God has established it. But he ought never to be thought to be bound to these auxiliaries such that he cannot operate without them if he sees fit to do so (‘he does not need assistance from anyone’). And furthermore, with respect to these aids, Calvin explains that when God was ordaining them, he chose to accommodate them to human captus—thus, God’s stooping to human capacity is exhibited in his establishing of the order of salvation. What Calvin says about aids generally, he says about angels more specifically. This can be seen in his remarks, cited earlier in this work,56 on Psalm 34. But in order to confirm them more in this hope he adds at the same time and not without reason that those whom God would preserve in safety he defends by the power and ministry of angels. The power of God alone would be sufficient of itself to perform this, but in mercy to our infirmity he vouchsafes to employ angels as his ministers. It serves not a little for the confirmation of our faith to know that God has innumerable legions of angels who are always ready for his service as often as he is pleased to aid us; even more, that the angels … are ever 55 56

CO 31: 542; CTS Psalms 2, 340; for a similar statement see Psalm 60: 11; CO 31: 578-79. See chapter two.

156

CHAPTER 6

intent upon the preservation of our life, because they know that this duty is entrusted to them. God is rightly designated as the wall and fortress of the church, but in accommodation to the measure and extent of our present imperfect state, he manifests the presence of his power to aid us through the instrumentality of angels.57 Again, Calvin describes a situation similar to what was discovered with respect to God’s use of externa generally. God has no need of angels. His power alone could perform all that he wishes done. But, in ordaining the present structures of this world, God chose to employ angels to accomplish his purposes, and his choice of angels exhibits (again) his accommodation to the capacity of humankind. God is free, but his will, when actualized in ordaining the basic elements of the structure of the present order, is an accommodating will. One other means discussed by Calvin which exhibits these qualities is the means of baptism. In remarks on ‘He who shall believe and be baptized shall be saved’ (Mark 16: 16), Calvin, after explaining something of the import and benefit of believing, addresses the fact that the text seems to make baptism a requirement. After explaining in a brief way the meaning of baptism, he writes that it ought not to be thought that baptism is required as absolutely necessary (necessari) to salvation.58 It is not, he says, as if all who have not received baptism will ipso facto perish. Continuing, Calvin enters into a statement of concerns similar to those seen earlier. He acknowledges that people are under the necessity of appreciating the signs of God’s grace. ‘But,’ he says, ‘though God uses such aids in accommodation to human weakness, I deny that his grace is limited to them.’59 Thus, he concludes that baptism is not ‘necessary in itself’ but only as part of the believer’s obedience.60 We see here, then, the same ideas and concerns observed earlier. God employs instruments, like baptism. It is part of the present order of redemption (here Calvin does not enter into the question of the change of the sign from circumcision to baptism, but does opt on a number of occasions in his treatment of this text for the more general phrase of ‘sign of the grace of God,’ presumably in order to avoid this issue). And yet the fact that it is part of God’s redemptive scheme does not indicate that it is absolutely necessity in order for a person to be redeemed. God is free to work outside of baptism, because it is only an instrument. And, once again, when addressing these issues, Calvin declares explicitly the fact that baptism is an instrument that was accommodated by God to human weakness.

57 58 59 60

CO 31: 339; CTS Psalms, 1, 562-63. CO 45: 824; CTS Gospels, 3, 388. He declares that it ought to be held that baptism is not so necessary that all who have not obtained it will perish. CO 45: 824; CTS Gospels, 3, 388. CO 45: 724-25; CTS Gospels, 3, 388.

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

157

2.2.2 The Law Much the same can be discovered in the reformer’s remarks on the law. Calvin’s sermon on Job 10: 16-17 provides a representative example. In a long section that treats the law, Calvin comments on several of the Ten Commandments, and notes that any one of them is enough to condemn all of humankind. After running through these, he then changes perspective. He observes that this same law is a sufficientlyperfect rule for people, by which they may live a holy life. The law is, Calvin observes, perfect righteousness ‘in respect of human beings; that is to say, according to their capacity and measure (leurs capacité et mesure).’61 Having acknowledged the accommodated character of the law, Calvin then turns to consider God’s law in respect of the righteousness that is in God himself. The two, he argues, simply do not compare with one another. Using the angels as a means for making his point, Calvin notes that, even without a written law, they obey God perfectly. Indeed, it is for this reason that believers pray ‘your will be done on earth as it is in heaven’ because they want to be like the angels whose obedience is so full and perfect. But, he asks, do the angels have a righteousness that compares with that found in God? No. Their righteousness is as smoke in comparison with God’s infinite majesty. Thus, the same must be true of the righteousness found in the Ten Commandments. Summing up, Calvin declares again that Christians can follow the law confidently, knowing that if they were to follow it completely and perfectly they would be reckoned righteous before God. But he then qualifies this statement by noting that it ought not to be taken to mean that there would be any worthiness in them, even if they did obey the law perfectly, such that they would deserve anything from God. Why not? Because, Calvin observes, God cannot be bound in this way. It is, he contends, of God’s own free favor that God said ‘the one who does these things shall live by them’ (Lev 18: 5). In other words, God is not bound, or constrained out of necessity, to reward the one who obeys him. Indeed, there is no intrinsic worthiness in such obedience. Continuing, Calvin declares that God could ask humankind to do anything, and yet they could never say that he was in their debt such that he owed them as a result of their obedience. He then notes that the only thing that moves God to grant a reward to those who obey him is God’s own will and decision. God satisfies himself with the righteousness found in the law, ‘because it pleases him to do so (pource qu’il luy plaist ainsi).’62 Taking up this same subject several paragraphs later, Calvin describes further this idea, declaring that the works of God’s children are far from being meritorious, and comparing God’s rewarding of them to a father who receives what comes from his child, though it is worthless. Admittedly the matters under investigation in this sermon are rather more convoluted than was seen in earlier examples. Nonetheless, what appears from Calvin’s sentiments expressed in this sermon is that God’s engagements with 61 62

CO 33: 496. CO 33: 496. For another discussion of these points, which is particularly revealing in respect to the character of the ordinary righteousness embodied in the law, see Calvin’s sermon on Job 27: 1-4 (CO 34: 447-48).

158

CHAPTER 6

humankind in relation to the law are characterized by two things: first divine freedom in relation to God’s entering into covenant (pactum)63 and his rewarding of works—indeed, Calvin is at pains to stress the divine freedom in relation to these issues; and secondly, accommodation in relation to the law which God gave to his people and the pattern he established with his people of stooping to reward their flawed works. While little evidence for a Scotistic understanding of the absolute power of God can be found here, yet in all other way the reformer’s thinking is the same as has been seen above. Calvin, then, seems in this treatment of the law to have held to the conviction that God, when freely ordaining the commandments and the promise to reward his people’s obedience de potentia ordinata, accommodated himself to his people. 2.2.3 God’s Providential Care Similar thoughts appear in Calvin’s comments on a variety of passages which discuss God’s providential care for his people. One such instance is found in Exodus 13: 17-22, where the Lord went before the children of Israel in a cloud by day and fire by night. In treating the passage, Calvin recalls how cowardly the people are, how easily they would have backed down had they faced any warring nation that decided to come against them, and how quickly they would have acquiesced to the Egyptians and begged them for forgiveness. In this context, Calvin notes the wonderful care which the Lord showed to them in providing this cloud and fire to guide and protect them. God was, he then observes, ‘accommodating himself to their ignorance, presented himself familiarly before their eyes’ in this cloud and fire.64 Reflecting further on this curious manifestation of the Lord’s presence, he declares: He was clearly able (Poterat quidem) to protect them in some other way from the heat of the sun and direct them in the darkness of the night, but, in order that his power might be more manifest, he chose to add also his visible presence, to remove all room for doubt.65 Here the language employed by Calvin highlights the variety of different ways in which God might have acted, in a manner similar to what was seen earlier in relation to God’s preparation of Daniel. God used the instrument of this cloud and fire to guide his people, but could have protected them in any number of ways. But, what is of particular importance here is the fact that God’s accommodating choice is commented on and linked with his choice de potentia ordinata. 63

64 65

It appears that in the moral law Calvin discerns God’s pactum, to use the language of late-medieval theology—indeed, he states this very thing elsewhere: ‘the reward of good works does not depend upon their dignity or merit, but upon [God’s] covenant (pactum)’ (CO 25: 6; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 203). CO 24: 145; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 236; slightly altered. CO 24: 145; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 1, 236; slightly altered. See also, CO 40: 700-1; CTS Daniel, 1, 317-8 (on Daniel 5: 6); and CO 42: 468-69; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 440 (on Hosea 12: 10).

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

159

Another instance may be found in Calvin’s sermon on 1 Samuel 23: 1-6, in which the reformer discusses the incident where David liberates the inhabitants of a town called Keilah from the Philistines only to have them prepare (at least mentally) to betray him into the hands of Saul, who is by this point in time David’s sworn enemy. In speaking of the warning which God issues to David not to entrust himself to the inhabitants of Keilah (1 Samuel 23: 12), Calvin remarks that commentators ought not to inquire speculatively into whether, in fact, these people would have handed David over to Saul. After speaking briefly against such speculation, Calvin observes that God’s purposes are beyond human comprehension. Thus, the things which appear to humankind to be accidents and the like are actually the eternal decrees of God. Adding to this, Calvin declares that statements such as this one made by the Lord to David are accommodations made precisely because God’s will is incomprehensible to humankind: ‘with certain phrases of Scripture God accommodates himself to our capacity, as when he says if you remain in the city, you shall die, but if you escape, you shall save your life.’66 This, Calvin continues, is simply how things will remain for as long as humankind is on the earth. God will continue to accommodate himself to them in his pronouncements, since his will is incomprehensible (apart from such accommodated expressions of it) and since God desires to keep humankind within their small measure. Thus, Calvin explains, For this reason, when the Lord says to David, if you should remain in the city you will be betrayed by the inhabitants, it ought not to be understood as if the Lord were incapable of arranging matters differently (quasi Dominus non posset aliter disponere), or to bend the minds of the inhabitants of the city, but the Lord warned David concerning their treacherousness lest he rashly commit himself to their care.67 In some ways this example is slightly different from others examined thus far, and from the instance with which this section will end. In many of the examples considered thus far, Calvin has linked God’s potentia ordinata with accommodation by way of interpreting or explaining the ways of God; that is to say, Calvin has essentially been declaring: God had options at his disposal and opted to accommodate himself to his people; his choice was an accommodating choice. Here, however, Calvin’s discussion, which meanders somewhat, effectively turns into a brief analysis of the power of God and, specifically, how an exegete ought to understand that power. When one reads a statement from God which ascribes, or seems to ascribe, weakness or inability to God, how ought one to understand that statement? And what we have seen here is that Calvin’s answer is to say that one ought to realize that God, naturally, always has a variety of options at his disposal, and thus one ought to interpret the divine pronouncement as an accommodated statement. Although slightly different, as we said, this example is no less useful for the purposes of this chapter, since it still links together the ideas of the power of God 66 67

CO 30: 455-56 (on 1 Samuel 23: 1-6). CO 30: 455-56 (on 1 Samuel 23: 1-6).

160

CHAPTER 6

(and the options available to him de potentia absoluta) and accommodation in the mind of Calvin. Additionally, when discussing God’s instructing of Moses in the making of the tabernacle (Exodus 25: 1-22 and Exodus 35: 4-19), Calvin sets out a similar group of concerns. Within his treatment of this matter, Calvin enters into a discussion of whether or not the tabernacle existed before Moses went up on the mountain for forty days. He argues that it did exist prior to this time. Because of his answer, however, Calvin is forced to satisfy those who object that it could not have, since it was designed according to the pattern that Moses saw on the mountain. In answer to this objection, Calvin explains that Moses’ experience on the mountain was not the first time he had been ‘instructed in the true worship of God and heavenly mysteries.’68 In fact, Calvin believes Moses was shown at that occasion things which he had already learned before, ‘in order that the people might be more disposed to meditate diligently on the law.’69 He goes on to argue that this is implied from the length of time Moses spent on the mountain, from which the people would be able to understand that nothing was omitted from Moses’ training which might be useful for them to know, Since, although God might have (potuit Deus) so instructed his servant in a moment that nothing should have been lacking, still God chose (voluit) gradually, and as if at his ease, to form for himself a perfect teacher.70 Having explained, then, that options were open to God, Calvin asserts God’s purpose in the option he chose. So, the above citation continues as follows: this concession was made to the infirmity of the people.71 Here, then, it can be seen again that, in Calvin’s reckoning, God had options at his disposal but the choice he made de potentia ordinata was one which sought to accommodate to his people’s weakness.72 2.2.4 Other Loci: The Incarnation and Atonement These examples will have to suffice for this chapter. Of course, Calvin reflects on God’s absolute power in relation to the fall of humankind (as was seen earlier) but says nothing about accommodation in relation to it.73 Likewise, he notes God’s 68 69 70 71 72 73

CO 24: 401; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 147 (on Exodus 25: 1-22). CO 24: 401; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 147. CO 24: 401; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 147. CO 24: 401; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 147. Other examples can be found in: CO 42: 468-69; CTS Minor Prophets, 1, 440 (on Hosea 12: 10), and CO 39: 700-701; CTS Daniel, 1, 317 (on Daniel 5: 6), and in the instances cited in chapter five. Admittedly, it would be difficult to imagine how a desire to accommodate to human capacity could, in fact, be linked with an event which had such a crippling effect on human capacity.

ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S THINKING ON GOD’S POWER

161

accommodation in respect to the plan of salvation,74 but makes no explicit remarks on the potentia Dei absoluta in respect to it. With regards to the incarnation of the Son of God, Calvin calls it divine accommodation on many occasions75 (indeed, one of the more impressive), and also asserts that it was not necessary in an absolute sense but stemmed from a heavenly decree76 (thus aligning him with the Scotistic criticism of Anselm’s argument for the necessity of the incarnation and, in that way, with ideas connected with the potentia distinction77). Additionally, with regards to the atonement, one finds Calvin declaring on a number of occasions78 that God could have pardoned in a single word—indeed, ‘by a mere act of his will’79—without the death of his only Son, and, likewise, discerning God’s concession to human dullness as the reason for his sending of his son. Thus, there are other loci with respect to which Calvin seems to join the ideas of God’s power and divine attempering. But Calvin’s treatment of these concerns is, in respect of these loci, less clear and therefore less useful in aiding this chapter to make its case. Thus, the loci covered above shall suffice. 2.2.5 Summary It was the aim of this section to inquire into the place of divine accommodation within Calvin’s understanding of the potentia distinction. With respect to this question, the section concluded that accommodation is linked, in Calvin’s thought, to God’s potentia ordinata, such that God’s choice to ordain is depicted by Calvin as God’s choice to accommodate. This section acknowledged that its findings could not, strictly speaking, be asserted of Calvin’s thinking on the entirety of the orders of creation and redemption but only on these realms considered generally.

74

75 76 77

78

79

In order that the desire for God’s glory would not bring one in conflict with a desire for one’s own salvation (an issue raised by Moses’ prayer to be blotted out of God’s book (Exodus 32: 31)). Calvin says in his comment on the matter, ‘although God’s glory may well be preferred to a hundred worlds, yet he so far accommodates himself to our ignorance that he will not have the eternal salvation of believers brought into opposition to his glory; but has rather bound them inseparably together, as cause and effect’ (CO 25: 98; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 360-1 (on Exodus 32: 31)). CO 2: 252; Inst. 2.6.4. His comments on 1 Peter are also well-known; CO 55: 226-7; CTS Catholic Epistles, 53-4; see also CO 51: 194; CTS Galatians and Ephesians, 274. OS 3, 437-38; Inst. 2.12.1. Of course, Calvin detests the speculation that took place on the incarnation, even mentioning individual examples of it which he found especially abhorrent For instance, Calvin criticizes those who ask whether the Son of God could have become incarnate as an ass (Inst. 2.12.5). Specifically in sermons on Isaiah 53 (CO 35: 625; Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy, 72; slightly altered), Matthew 26: 36-39 (CO46: 833) and Galatians 1: 3-5 (CO 50: 293), and in comments on John 15: 13 (CO 47: 344-45; CTS Gospel of John, 2, 116). CO 47: 344-45; CTS Gospel of John, 2, 116.

162

CHAPTER 6 3. CONCLUSION

What has been seen from the preceding material is that Calvin makes statements which reveal his convictions on the power dialectic, God’s freedom, the contingency of the present order and related issues. This is true with respect to the orders of both creation and redemption. Additionally, it has been seen that Calvin, when reflecting on God’s choices de potentia ordinata, interprets these choices as accommodated choices. Calvin, in other words, seems to believe that when God was ordaining the laws and decrees of the present providence, he was accommodating those laws and decrees to the capacities of humankind. This has been argued through the consideration of examples culled from Calvin’s corpus, in the two preceding sections. This finding, it may justifiably be inferred, says something about the significance of divine accommodation to Calvin. For, when laying out his conception of the fundamental basis upon which God relates with the world, Calvin finds accommodation there. That accommodation should be found to operate in a discernible way in the reformer’s thinking on this distinction, which was so integral to late-medieval and early modern perceptions of God’s engagement with the world, suggests that accommodation was important to him; that the concept was of value to him as a theological tool and (hence) influenced his theology to a discernible degree.

CHAPTER 7 THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION Up to this point, this study has examined the three elements which normally appear in Calvin’s discussions of accommodation and has begun to explore the penetration of the motif into his theology by looking at his thinking on accommodation in relation to the potentia ordinata/absoluta distinction. The present chapter will continue the theme of penetration. It will do so by considering the problem of the unpredictability, or volatility, of accommodation—an idea which was briefly raised in chapter two. Two aspects of this volatility will be examined in this chapter, both having to do with accommodation’s ability to undermine the authority of the scriptures. First, divine accommodation and its relation to the doctrine of scripture found in Calvin will be considered. Here the question that will be asked has to do with whether accommodation, in Calvin, threatens the truthfulness and authority of the scriptures. Following this, the reformer’s exegetical practice in relation to the law will be examined. Here the question to be posed focuses on whether accommodation, in Calvin, threatens God’s authority by allowing New Testament Christians to extricate themselves from divine commands on the (suspect) grounds that since these commands are deemed to be concessions made to Jewish hardheartedness, they no longer apply to Christians. In treating both these issues, the aim will be to query the reformer’s thinking on, and usage of, accommodation with an eye towards exploring further its impact upon his theology. 1. SCRIPTURE, MEANING AND TRUTH Divine accommodation, it has been argued, can erode the authority of the sacred scriptures.1 It does this by calling into question their truthfulness, usually in relation to a given subject area or issue. Consider, for instance, the well-known text from Joshua 10: 12-13: Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘O Sun, stand still at Gibeon; and O Moon in the valley of Ajalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jashar? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 1

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromily (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 1: 34-36.

163

164

CHAPTER 7

For centuries this passage fit neatly into the prevailing cosmology, which held that the sun revolved around the earth; the earth being at the center of the solar system. Accommodation was, however, made use of by thinkers like Johann Kepler and Galileo in order to defend the new discovers in science, initiated primarily by Nicolai Copernicus, against the common interpretation of Joshua 10: 12-13. Because prima facie their views conflicted with the passage as it was generally understood, Kepler, Galileo and others argued that this passage must be understood differently; that it must be understood as an accommodation to human ways of seeing and to human experience and perceptions. The passage, in other words, is not really declaring that the sun and moon actually ‘stood still’ (Josh 10: 13). Rather, it is declaring that they appeared to the people who were present that day to stand still. The passage is not expressing scientific fact but is speaking phenomenologically. Understood in this way, Galileo and others were able to say that their science was true and that it did not conflict with the biblical record.2 But does this call into question the truthfulness of Joshua 10: 12-13 and, more broadly, of the scriptures? There were certainly scholars alive around this time who thought so. Accommodation was, it should be noted, making in-roads into theologians’ thinking on the Bible, specifically the relationship between the Bible and the natural sciences, at this time. This was true not only in the thought of people like Kepler and Galileo, but also others as well. Christoph Wittich, for example, was one who sought to apply accommodation to the scriptures in a comprehensive manner in order to ‘bring the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture into harmony with new findings in natural science.’ His view essentially entailed arguing that the Scriptures were useful and valid for the realms of theological rather than those of the scientific.3 But not everyone concurred with such thinking.4 Some believed that as a result of it the notion of the infallibility of the Bible was endangered. Melchior Leydekker, for instance, attacked these new ideas, arguing that Wittich, Spinoza and others who embraced and employed them were implicitly maintaining that God spoke what was, in fact, not true and, hence, required people to believe error. Indeed, Leydekker, Pannenberg argues, expresses the concern that the same arguments which were used by Galileo and others to defend their view that passages like Joshua 10: 12-13 should be understood as figures of speech dependent upon experience and therefore not scientifically accurate, could be used to argue that the articles of faith upon which Christian religion rests were, in fact, not historically 2

3

4

This section will rely heavily on the work of Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1: 34-48. See also the previously noted article by Irving Kelter, ‘The Refusal to Accommodate: Jesuit Exegetes and the Copernican System,’ 273-83 as well as the literature cited below. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 34. Contemporary arguments over this issue continue. So Robert Godfrey writes: ‘As argued above in reference to Luther, the principle of accommodation does not entail error’ (W. Robert Godfrey, ‘Biblical Authority in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: a Question of Transition’ in Scripture and Truth, D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge eds (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), 232). Richard Muller also mentions the dissenting views which appeared amongst theologians of this era as regards scientific questions and the new interpretations of passages such as Joshua 10: 13, and notes that some actually dissented from the opinions of Galileo and others on scientific, and not only biblical, grounds; PRRD 2: 126-27.

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION

165

accurate but were false. Such debates continued, with the outcome (according to Pannenberg) that: The theory of accommodation was … successful in loosening the older Protestant doctrine of the authority of scripture because it made it possible for changes in physical, geographical, and historical knowledge, and especially the new historical chronology, to be used to integrate the biblical data with the new worldview of the age.5 Thus, at least in the view of some, accommodation did erode the authority of the sacred scriptures. But would one want to ascribe such a result to Calvin’s use of the motif ? In the judgement of this author, it would be extremely difficult to do so. First, Calvin declares the divinity and authority of the scriptures unambiguously. One finds the reformer’s position on the scriptures as stated in the Institutes to be replete with references to its majesty, brilliance and authority. More powerful, moreover, than any of these individual references is the fact that the argument which Calvin develops in Institutes 1 is such that it places supreme weight on Scripture which it judges to be the only source for attaining knowledge of God, given that the sense of deity and the creation can no longer inculcate to a satisfactory degree humankind with that knowledge, due to the effects of the fall. In the words of Hilary, ‘He alone is a fit witness to himself who is known only by himself.’ This knowledge, then, if we would leave to God, we must conceive of him as he has made himself known, and in our inquiries make application to no other quarter than his word.6 ‘No other quarter than his word.’ It would, it seems, be puzzling in the extreme if Calvin were to develop such an argument knowing that the Scriptures possessed errors. To be sure, we may note, Calvin does point to discrepancies in the manuscripts he had at his disposal.7 But looking reasonably at this fact, no one could argue from it that he viewed the scriptures as less than absolutely truthful and authoritative. He notes, for instance, in comments on Numbers 28: 16-31, that in Leviticus 23, ‘one bullock is mentioned instead of two, and, on the contrary, two rams instead of one.’8 After running through some of the explanations offered by others to this problem, Calvin puts it down to the carelessness of a scribe. ‘Nor,’ he 5 6 7

8

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 35. OS 3: 149; Inst. 1.13.22. This seems clearly to be part of the larger interest Calvin had in textual matters arising from his humanist background. This included interest in how the prophetic books were gathered together and summarized from the discourses delivered by the prophets (see especially his preface to his Isaiah commentary CO 36: 19-24) and also in how the gospel writers put together their material—a question in regards to which he vehemently disagreed with Osiander. It also included concerns over authorship (see his argumentum on 2 Peter) and textual variants found in the manuscript evidence. CO 24: 495; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 304.

166

CHAPTER 7

declares, ‘does any reverence prevent us from saying that, as sometimes happens in minor matters, a wrong number may have crept in …’9 The fact that he is determined to deal with the question, that he attributes the error to a scribal mistake, and that he mentions that such a thing only happens in minor matters says an enormous amount about his own position regarding errors in the sacred scriptures. The same attitude also appears in his treatment of the different accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, where Calvin is at pains to demonstrate that they do not conflict with one another.10 But more to the point, Calvin’s use of accommodation, while it often results in an interpretation which differs from a prima facie reading of the text, rarely, if ever, suggests a conception of the Bible which understands its truth as being historicallyrelative, as seems to have been the case with these later proponents of accommodation such as Christoph Wittich. Along these lines it is interesting to note that Calvin does not set out a view of Joshua 10: 12-13 that is sympathetic to the Copernican system. Rather, one coming away from Calvin’s commentary on the passage would feel fully justified in thinking that the reformer believed that the sun and moon actually stopped and, further, that he held a geocentric view of the solar system. The fact that he did, and that he condemned copernicanism has been established by Richard Stauffer.11 Accordingly, there is no difficulty presented to the authority of Scripture from his exposition of that passage. Other passages which one might think of, such as Job 26: 7 (‘He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing’), Psalm 19: 4-6 (‘In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun …’), Psalm 75: 3 (‘When the earth totters … it is I who keep its pillars steady’), Psalm 93: 1 (‘He has established the world’ it shall never be moved’), Psalm 104: 5 (‘You set the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never be shaken’), Psalm 119: 90 (‘You have established the earth, and it stands fast’), Psalm 136: 7 (‘who made the great lights, for his love endures forever’) and Jeremiah 10: 12 (‘It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom’) are discussed in an article by Edward Rosen and, again, we find that Calvin’s expositions of them offers, for all intents and purposes, nothing to suggest 9

10 11

The phrase Calvin employs is ‘in rebus leviculis’ (CO 24: 495; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 304) . Likewise, see CO 45: 60-61 (Matt 1: 1-17). Other scholars have mentioned Calvin’s treatment of Acts 7: 14, 16 and Matthew 27: 9 as containing similar observations. CO 45: 791-800 (on Matt 28: 1-10; Mark 16: 1-11; Luke 24: 1-12); CO 47: 426-432 (John 20: 1-15). CO 25: 499-500; CTS Joshua, 152-154. The fact that reformers such as Luther and Melanchthon condemned Copernicus has been well-established for some time. But a debate arose in the 1960s as to Calvin’s attitude towards Copernicus, and hence, heliocentrism; see Edward Rosen, ‘Calvin’s Attitude towards Copernicus,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 21 (1960), 431-441; Joseph Ratner, ‘Some Comments on Rosen’s “Calvin’s Attitude towards Copernicus”,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 21 (1961), 382-85. The dispute was solved by Stauffer, who unearthed a citation (previously unknown to the disputants) from Calvin’s sermon on 1 Corinthians 10: 19-24 (CO 49: 677) which roundly condemns heliocentrism, though without mentioning Copernicus by name; see Richard Stauffer, ‘Calvin et Copernic’ Revue de l’histoire des Religions 179 (1971), 31-40, with subsequent response and counter-response between Rosen and Stauffer, Rosen, ‘Calvin n’a pas lu Copernic,’ Revue de l'Histoire des Religions 182 (1972), 183-185; Stauffer, ‘La reponse de M. Edward Rosen a notre article “Calvin et Copernic”’ Revue de l’histoire des Religions 182 (1972), 185-86; see also Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence, 55, 187-88; more recently, Bouwsma, John Calvin, 72.

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION

167

that he conceived of biblical truth related to science as being historically-relative because of its accommodated character.12 And yet it is still true that Calvin believed, as he asserts in his treatment of Psalm 136: 7, that ‘[t]he Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy.’13 This, while not flatly contradicting what has been said heretofore, is nonetheless worth pondering for a moment, for it would seem to suggest a difference between Calvin and some of his contemporaries on the question of the Bible and science and, thus, to cause the question of his views on the truthfulness of Scripture to persist. It may also be noted, in this regard, that Calvin’s acceptance of geocentricism seems to have been based less on a conviction that Scripture explicitly taught such a view and more on the fact that it was ‘the established astronomical [view] of his day.’14 If we are to consider his thinking further, Calvin’s treatment of the creation narrative (Gen 1) is really the only portion of his corpus the present author can think of which offers us material substantial enough to be worth our time. For in it, as has been seen in chapter four, Calvin argues that Moses did not aim to write science but to instruct common people in the knowledge of God. Accordingly, he makes assertions to this effect, the most provocative of which is probably the following on, ‘God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day …’ (Gen 1: 16). I have said, that Moses does not here subtly descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in 12

13 14

Rosen, ‘Calvin’s Attitude towards Copernicus,’ 438-441. In the above paragraph, the biblical citations are from NRSVB, 484 (Job 26: 7), 510 (Ps 19: 4-6), 547 (Ps 75: 3), 560 (Ps 93: 1), 566 (Ps 104: 5), 580 (Ps 119: 90), 587 (Ps 136: 7), 722 (Jer 10: 12) and are consistent with the text Calvin was working with. CO 32: 364; CTS Psalms, 5, 184.

Brian Gerrish, ‘The Reformation the Rise of Modern Science’ in The Impact of the Church upon its Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1968), 261. Gerrish offers good evidence for this conclusion while also explaining his conviction that Calvin would probably not have found convincing evidence for heliocentrism difficult to accept, had he been presented with it.

168

CHAPTER 7

omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage.15 Calvin’s thinking here is fascinating. But if this is the most provocative assertion he makes on the issue, then we are probably still wisest to stay with our previouslystated position. Could his sentiments here be considered to come close to those which upset Melchior Leydekker and provoked him to attack the new ideas on the relationship of science and the Bible. Yes, they could. Could one conclude from them that Calvin was convinced both that truth on the nature of the universe could be learned from scientific investigation and that the purpose of the divinelyaccommodated scriptures was not to teach astronomy? Yes. But could one conclude from these remarks that Calvin’s understanding of accommodation eroded the truthfulness and authority of the Scripture? In the opinion of this author: almost certainly not. The question is most pointedly raised by his comments here. But they do not say enough to bring one to this conclusion. And his thinking elsewhere militates strongly against it. 2. SCRIPTURE, MEANING AND APPLICATION16 Accommodation can also be accused of undermining the authority of the scriptures in another way. It can do so by being used to justify the non-application of divine injunctions to humankind—justify, that is, in a manner which is ultimately found to be suspect and, thus, to empty these injunctions of their force, thereby calling into question God’s authority. We, specifically, have in mind here the idea that a command which is issued by God can be found to be accommodated to the hardness of the Jews and therefore no longer binding on Christians. This issue is, at least as it relates to Calvin, more complex than the matter examined in the earlier section. Partially for that reason, in investigating it, this section will not, as was done in the previous section, consider the development of thinking on accommodation after the death of Calvin, but will turn simply to Calvin himself. The section will consider some examples from Calvin’s exegetical corpus, specifically his exegesis of divine precepts, and look at how he responds to different 15 16

CO 23: 22-23; CTS Genesis, 86-87. My thinking in this section was stimulated by a discussion with William Naphy of the University of Aberdeen.

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION

169

precepts. It will ask how it is that he comes to his conclusions on which precepts are accommodated, and abrogated, which are not. It will also, to a limited extent, probe the consistency of his conclusions here. As Calvin’s treatment of the political, or judicial, laws found in the Pentateuch offers particularly rich material for consideration, this section will focus upon it. It will examine his exegesis of this material, with particular attention being paid to the concerns voiced in the previous paragraph. 2.1 Examples of Calvin’s Treating of Divine Injunctions 2.1.1 Deuteronomy 21: 10-13 When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands, and you take them captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house; and she shall shave her head, and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and shall mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. In treating this passage, Calvin first summarizes it: This, then, is the sum, that the Israelites should not defile themselves by profane marriages, but in this point also should keep themselves pure and uncorrupt, because they were separated from other people, to be the peculiar people of God.17 Having done so, Calvin then explains the divine concession offered by God in the passage. Although, the reformer says, ‘it was better’ that they should abstain entirely from all such marriages, yet ‘it was difficult so to restrain their lust as that they should not decline from chastity in the least, degree.’ Thus, God tempers his indulgence in such a way that even when the Israelites were not entirely in control of their lustful passions, they might still retain some kind of pious feelings. Calvin, then, declares Nor was it needless that God should require the Israelites diligently to beware lest they should take wives who were aliens from the study of true religion, since experience most abundantly shows how fatal a snare it is. But although we are not now bound to this observance, yet the rule still holds good that men should not rashly ally themselves with women still devoted to wicked superstitions.18

17 18

CO 24: 353; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 70-71. CO 24: 353; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 2, 70-71.

170

CHAPTER 7

Here the abrogation of this observance, in the sense of it being a political command applicable to Christians, is clearly stated by Calvin. Yet he does feel that a general principle may be culled from this law that is pertinent to believers for directing their behavior. 2.1.2 Deuteronomy 20: 12-15 And if the city will not make peace with you, but will make war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God has delivered it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. But the women, the little ones, the cattle, and all that is in the city, all its spoils, you shall take for yourself; and you shall eat the plunder of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. Though abrogation of these stipulations from Deuteronomy 20: 12-15 are not explicitly indicated in Calvin’s treatment of them, it is clearly implied in his comments. Calvin commences his remarks on Deuteronomy 20: 10, ‘and when you go to war against a city, proclaim an offer of peace to it,’ by declaring that God ‘now teaches that even in lawful wars, cruelty is to be repressed and bloodshed to be abstained from as much as possible.’ Such, he indicates, was in keeping with the ‘equity (aequitas)’ which was naturally implanted in all nations.19 Taking up Deuteronomy 20: 12, which guides Israel on how to handle a refusal of their offer of peace, Calvin voices a complaint against the divine instructions. ‘The concession,’ he protests, seems to confer ‘too great a license.’ Producing a comparison, he asks how God, the Father of mercies, could be less merciful than heathen writers, who did not sanction such indiscriminate bloodshed, and explains: It has already been stated, that more was conceded to the Jews on account of their hardness of heart, than was justly lawful for them. Unquestionably, by the law of charity, even armed men should be spared, if, casting away the sword, they crave for mercy; at any rate it was not lawful to kill any but those who were taken in arms, and sword in hand. This permission, therefore, to slaughter, which is extended to all the males, is far distant from perfection.20 Though it is far from perfection, Calvin tries to explain that God endeavored through the command to restrain the Jew’s excessive violence, by at least insisting that they not kill women or children.

19 20

CO 24: 632; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 53. CO 24: 632; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 53.

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION

171

2.1.3 Deuteronomy 20: 16-18 Yet the very restrictions which were, to Calvin, the saving grace of Deuteronomy 20: 12-15 are removed by God in his instructions on dealing with the ‘the Canaanitish nations’ (Deut 20: 16-18), whom the Jews were to utterly destroy. ‘Let nothing that breaths remain alive’ (Deut 20: 16). Curiously, however, Calvin’s remarks on this passage are devoid of protest. He simply notes that an exception was made here to the common laws of war (communi belli iure) in order that these nations could be exterminated as God willed.21 2.1.4 Exodus 21: 12, 18 He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. … If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. As was found in respect of the last passage (Deut 20), so here also the fact of the abrogation of this stipulation is left implied, though its accommodated character is clearly stated. Calvin notes accommodation on this occasion because of what he determines to be an undue leniency apparent in the precept, which he elucidates by reference to the Law of the Twelve Tables (which stood at the foundation of Roman law). If a person who had beaten another so that he did not die but was only confined to his bed for a few days is only required to pay the small amount that was incurred by the loss of time suffered by the injured party, then what, Calvin asks, would keep someone from taking advantage of this to his own perverse benefit?22 In commenting further, Calvin recalls the fact that according to Jesus (in Matt 19: 8) many things were allowed to the Jews because of their hardness of heart and indicates that this stipulation falls into that category. Continuing, he suggests that in being so lenient God wished to reprove the people for their perverseness, since they were unable to obey even such a mild law. 2.1.5 Matthew 19: 7-8 They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ [Jesus] said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.’

21

22

CO 24: 632-33; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 53-54. The present author was reminded of the juxtaposition of these two passages from Deuteronomy 20 by rereading David Wright’s, ‘Accommodation and Barbarity,’ 413-427. CO 24: 623-24; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 39-40.

172

CHAPTER 7

Here Jesus declares divorce an accommodation to ‘your hardness of heart,’ speaking to the Jews. How does Calvin handle such a law? In summarizing the whole passage near the beginning of his comments, Calvin declares that Jesus, being questioned craftily by the Jews, handles their query under two heads: that the order of creation ought to serve for a law, that the husband should maintain conjugal fidelity during the whole of life; and that divorces were permitted, not because they were lawful, but because Moses had to deal with a rebellious and intractable nation.23 As Calvin begins to examine the text more closely, he speaks to the institution of marriage itself, arguing vigorously for its sanctity. He declares, in this regard, that ‘he who divorces his wife tears from him, as it were, the half of himself. But nature does not allow any man to tear in pieces his own body.’24 Pressing his views on the sanctity of marriage by means of a number of arguments, including assertions against polygamy and on the bond of marriage being stronger than that between parent and child, Calvin again repeats the same point, stating that Christ insists that ‘whoever divorces his wife tears himself in pieces, because such is the force of holy marriage, that the husband and wife become one man.’25 His position having been elucidated, Calvin then comments on Christ’s answer to the Jews’ question, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ (Matt 19: 7) Christ disarms the falsehood and slander by the appropriate reply, that Moses permitted it on account of their obstinacy, and not because he approved of it as lawful.26 It was, then, Jewish obstinacy (eorum pervicaciae) that moved God to make a concession for divorce. Calvin is at pains to show that this concession ought not to be understood to suggest that God was pleased with divorce. This he had already made patently clear in his comments up to this point, but he reinforces here by asserting that the sense of the word indicates that God permitted ‘what he did not severely forbid.’ for he did not lay down a law about divorces, so as to give them the seal of his approbation, but as the wickedness of men could not be restrained in any other way, he applied what was the most admissible remedy, that the husband should, at least, attest the chastity of his wife.27 23 24 25 26 27

CO 45: 528; CTS Gospels, 2, 378. CO 45: 528; CTS Gospels, 2, 379. CO 45: 528; CTS Gospels, 2, 379-80. CO 45: 529; CTS Gospels, 2, 381. CO 45: 529; CTS Gospels, 2, 381.

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION

173

Calvin goes on to answer several questions and potential objections to Christ’s reply, but the character of his thinking does not change. Divorce was a concession made to the Jews because of their hardness of heart.28 Yet here the question must be asked: does Calvin believe that divorce is still permitted in the Christian era, or does he argue, as he had with the examples examined earlier, that what is accommodated is therefore no longer part of the Christian dispensation? The answer, of course, is that Calvin believed divorce to be permitted even in the New Testament period. In fact, the reformers were generally more lenient on divorce than were their Roman Catholic counterparts.29 Thus, for Calvin, although divorce was an accommodation, it was one which was not abrogated with the advent of Christ. 2.1.6 Deuteronomy 22: 22-27 If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you. But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. Calvin does not seem to consider this law to be accommodated.30 Nor does he consider it to be abrogated but applicable to himself and his contemporaries. These facts are made clear in his exposition of the passage. Calvin commences his discussion of this text (which he treats along with Leviticus 20: 10, which asserts the same injunction) by declaring that this is a political supplement, ‘whereby it appears how greatly God abominates adultery, since he denounces capital punishment against it.’31 This remark is followed by a brief discussion of the heinousness of the crime of adultery and an adjudication of

28 29

30

31

See also CO 24: 657-58; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 93-94, where Calvin treats the provision for divorce from Deuteronomy 24: 1-4. See Robert Kingdon, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1995); H. J. Herman Selderhuis, Marriage and Divorce in the thought of Martin Bucer (Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press at Truman State University, 1999). Calvin does acknowledge that the terms employed when trying to distinguish (with respect to the woman) between force and consent are accommodated to a rude people. CO 24: 649; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 79. CO 24: 648; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 78.

174

CHAPTER 7

the various circumstances treated by the passage in which he raises the fact that ‘by the universal law of the Gentiles (communi iure gentium), the punishment of death was always awarded to adultery’ and that adultery is punished ‘no less severely by the Julian law than by that of God.’ On the back of such remarks, Calvin remonstrates against shameful Christians who do not imitate ‘at least the heathen.’ All of this, however, raises the interesting case of Jesus, who in John 8 seems to act contrary to this law when he dismisses the woman caught in adultery. Calvin argues that consideration of the special office held by Jesus suggests that he was simply not in a position to ‘discharge the duties of a judge.’ Not leaving the topic, Calvin rails against the fact that in his day there are some who have been invested with the power of the sword but who absurdly (praepostere) imitated the example of Jesus, arguing that their relaxation of the penalty of death for adultery flows out of gross ignorance.32 2.1.7 Leviticus 18: 22-30 and Exodus 22: 19 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God. Whosoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death. As in the last case, Calvin’s treatment of these passages gives no indication that he viewed them as accommodated. He begins his exposition of them by declaring: We learn from these passages that the people were not only prohibited from adultery, but also from all sins which are repugnant to the modesty of nature itself (cum ipsa naturae verecundia).33

32 33

CO 24: 649; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 78. CO 24: 645; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 73.

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION

175

Calvin continues his comments by comparing animals with human beings, the former being content with the natural practice but not the latter. He expands further on the irrationality of human sinfulness in this area, concluding that Paul (Rom 1: 28) is surely right to indicate that those who defile themselves in these ways are blind in a horrible manner. Taking up verse 24, he suggests that these practices would have been concealed and never mentioned had it not been for the practices of the Canaanites, who presented a powerful temptation to God’s people in that their wickedness in the area of sexual sins had progressed to the point that they engaged in monstrous practices. Accordingly, Calvin says, God warned his people that they must not follow the bad example set by others. As he continues with his exposition, Calvin argues that while it was no surprise that gentiles acted wickedly as children of darkness, it ought to be that believers do not walk like them (referring to Eph 4: 17). On this account, he says, God commends his precepts, statutes and ordinances to them, ‘because he has omitted nothing from the law which would be useful for the direction of human life.’34 2.1.8 Exodus 21: 1-1135 No such general principle is found by Calvin in his remarks on Exodus 21: 1-6 (regarding the selling of a male into slavery) or 21: 7-11 (the selling of a daughter); two passages which have already received some attention in this study. Rather, Calvin reserves some of his harshest language for these precepts relating to slavery, even calling ‘monstrous (prodigio)’ the notion that a male slave may only gain his freedom if he leaves the wife and children who had been given to him by his master. Such, Calvin insists, was contrary to nature and an accommodation to horrendous barbarity. His comments on a father selling his daughter into slavery are equally condemning. 2.1.9 Summarizing Calvin’s Practice In several of the instances examined above, Calvin calls the law he is exegeting accommodated and also indicates, in some way, that Christians are no longer bound by that particular injunction. Stated more fully, we find: Calvin asserts that the laws he is treating are accommodated—which involves a lessening of the perfection which God would like to require from his people and simultaneously an attempt, on the part of God, to restrain and bring under some kind of control Israel’s rawness and barbarity. And Calvin asserts or implies, with varying degrees of clarity, that 34 35

CO 24: 646; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 74. Calvin introduces his treatment of the political supplements to the Eighth Commandment by declaring: ‘Thus far God has proclaimed Himself the avenger of iniquities, and, citing thieves before His tribunal, has threatened them with eternal death. Now follow the civil laws, the principle of which is not so exact and perfect; since in their enactment God has relaxed His just severity in consideration of the people’s hardness of heart’ (CO 24: 688; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 140). Accordingly, relatively few of the texts he treats under this heading specifically mention accommodation or abrogation. Exodus 21: 1-11 is an exception to this general rule.

176

CHAPTER 7

these stipulations are no longer applicable to those who live in the New Testament era. This is most plainly asserted in his exegesis of Exodus 15: 20, but is made fairly plain in the other examples (Deut 21: 10-13, Deut 20: 12-15, and 16-18, Exod 21: 18 and 1-11). In one instance, Calvin asserts accommodation but does not believe the injunction to have been abrogated. This can be seen in his exposition of Matthew 19. In expounding the text, and its Old Testament counterpart (Deut 24: 1-4), Calvin at once stresses the sanctity of the marriage union and the obduracy of the Jews with whom God had to deal. And yet Calvin does not assert, nor does he hold, that divorce was solely an Old Testament concession; rather he allows it to function in a New Testament context as well, as Robert Kingdon has shown.36 Finally regarding other examples, Calvin asserts neither accommodation nor abrogation. This can be seen in his treatment of the divine injunction to put adulterers to death (Deut 22: 22-27), which he applies to the New Testament era, albeit as a duty appropriate to the magistrate? It also appears in his exposition of Leviticus 18: 22-30 and Exodus 22: 19, both of which relate to the matter of sexual sins, and specifically homosexuality. In neither the case of adulterers nor that of homosexuals does Calvin suggest either that these commands were given in consideration of the hard-heartedness of the Jews or that they are no longer applicable in the New Testament era. Indeed, in regards to both adultery and sodomy, the crime was punishable in Geneva by death.37 2.2 Assessing Calvin’s Treatment of the Law 2.2.1 Gauging Calvin’s Reception of the Law It is quite apparent, then, that Calvin responds in different ways to the different commands found in the biblical record. In no way does their divinity move him to treat them in exactly the same manner. Rather, he distinguishes between them. A particular aspect of this distinguishing work may also be noticed. For it may be seen that Calvin responds to the stipulations which he considers to be both 36

37

Kingdon notes that Calvin supported divorce petitions—in one case involving his own brother, Antoine—emphatically, and that this was in opposition to provisions in Catholic canon law which made divorce impossible; see Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva, 177. This is actually only true, it would appear, of the period from approximately 1560 onwards, prior to which time the punishments meted out for these sins involved various things like imprisonment and whipping. Kingdon writes: ‘… there was substantial support in Geneva for the use of the death penalty against people convicted of adultery. That support came in part from ministers such as John Calvin, who kept reminding the local populations of the biblical condemnation of adultery and of the Old Testament prescription of death by stoning for anyone found guilty of this crime. … Only in a law adopted in 1566, two years after Calvin’s death, do we find explicit evidence of a provision for a death penalty for adultery. That law [was] intended to cover in a general way all cases of fornication and prostitution, … An examination of Genevan criminal records reveals that the death penalty was in fact inflicted in adultery cases for a number of years before the adoption of this law. … The ordinances in this as in other fields thus codified existing practice rather than creating new prescriptions’ (Adultery and Divorce, 116-118).

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION

177

accommodated and no longer binding with expressions which range from puzzlement to shock and, on one or two occasions, unmitigated disapproval. So he finds the requirement that a male slave leave behind his wife and children, ‘monstrous.’ Likewise, he queries with astonishment the divine injunction to kill all, even those who throw down their weapons and beg for mercy. Through such responses, Calvin expresses plainly the fact that he perceives these accommodated stipulations to be far from appropriate for those living in the Christian dispensation. Moving to the other extreme, Calvin expresses full approval of some stipulations, such as, for instance, that which requires the adulterer to be put to death. It is a stipulation, ‘whereby it appears how greatly God abominates adultery, since He denounces capital punishment against it.’ Likewise he applauds the precepts which condemn sexual sins. One finds none of the shock and abhorrence in his exposition of these texts that appears in his treatment of the accommodated abrogated precepts. 2.2.2 Questioning Calvin’s Practice But such varied responses—and perhaps especially Calvin’s expressions of disapprobation and approval—surely prompt questions. Why, to begin with, does Calvin not simply respond by saying that all of this material appears in the inspired word of the living God and must, therefore, be accepted and obeyed with cheerfulness and alacrity? Or, conversely, why does he not declare that the law has been abolished in its entirety by the coming of Christ such that the Christian is ‘dead to the law’ (Gal 2: 19)? Why does he distinguish between some commands and others, calling some accommodated and others not, and so forth? To descend to more particular queries: why, for example, does Calvin express such strong feelings of abhorrence towards God’s commands concerning the killing of all indiscriminately, save for women and children? Why does he then approve, with little hesitation, the complete extermination of the Canaanite nations? Why does he abhor the divinely appointment treatment of male slaves, in relation to their gaining their freedom? Why, on the other hand, does Calvin allow for divorce in the New Testament church? Why does he not consider it to be abrogated entirely, as he had done with these other commands? It is clear that he believes divorce to be contrary to nature. It is also clear that Jesus, and Calvin, consider God’s permission to divorce to be an accommodation to Jewish hardness. So why does a difference appear in his treatment of it? And why, conversely, does Calvin insist upon applying the injunction to put adulterers to death to the New Testament era, albeit as a duty appropriate to the magistrate? Why does he not consider it to be an accommodation to the Jews? Why does he not perceive it to be a concession to their barbarity which was, at the time, too strong to eradicate as God would have wished? The question is a particularly interesting one given the example of Christ himself (from John 8), which Calvin dismisses in a less-than-convincing fashion. But why did he endeavor to dismiss Christ’s example? Why did he not use it to argue for the concessive character of the command of Deuteronomy 22: 22-27? Similarly, why does Calvin wholly approve of the condemnation of the sexual sins listed in Leviticus 18: 22-30

178

CHAPTER 7

and Exodus 22: 19? Why are they not treated by him as accommodated precepts, which had in mind Jewish obduracy rather than New Testament maturity?38 Of course a comprehensive answer to such questions cannot be produced in this chapter, but thoughts will be offered here on the matters on which this chapter is focused. 2.2.3 Examining Calvin’s Method So why does Calvin distinguish between commands as he does? Particularly, why are some accommodated and others not? The answer is that Calvin is assessing these commands by means of an objective standard which these commands—a number of them, at least (Deut 21: 10-13, Exod 21: 18, etc)—fall short of. And because they fall short, he discerns ‘in their enactment [that] God has relaxed His just severity in consideration of the people’s hardness of heart.’39 This also explains the reformer’s expressions of disapprobation at times, when it is deemed that according to this standard the commands appear barbaric and contrary to nature. This standard Calvin often refers to as equity (aequitas). Equity has been defined, in relation to Calvin’s use of it, in various ways by scholars. To Guenther Haas, for instance, equity appears in Calvin’s thought in three ways, either as natural law, as an interpretive principle of law or as law tempered by mercy.40 David Wright defines equity in Calvin as ‘a compound of natural law, the law engraved on the human conscience and the law of the nations (lex gentium). The Decalogue is its perfect expression’.41 And Irena Backus argues that Calvin employs the term ‘equity’ in several senses, ‘not always very clearly distinguished, ranging from “consensus” through “fairness,” “justice,” “consideration of extenuating circumstances,” and so forth to “natural law.”’42 Calvin himself, while not defining it, does declare that ‘equity alone ought to be the goal and rule and limit of all laws.’43 We find him employing the term in his analysis of Deuteronomy 20: 12-15, concerning the treatment of others in relation to war—an example which nicely illustrates his use of equity in relation to divine accommodation.

38

39 40 41 42

43

Similarly, it might be asked why Calvin did not, as John of Damascus had before him (as was noted in chapter two), conceive of the making of images as permissible to Christians, its prohibition being applied to Israel because of their childishness (according to Galatians 4: 1-7)? That he did not take such a view of images is well-known (OS 3: 359-363; Inst 2.8.17-21). But why did he not? This section, however, because it is focusing mainly on precepts related to the second table of the law, will not investigate this particular question. CO 24: 688; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 140 (on Exodus 22: 1-4). Guenther Haas, The Concept of Equity in Calvin’s Ethics (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), 123. Much of the material presented in this section can be found in Haas, though put to a different use. Wright, ‘Accommodation and Barbarity,’ 421. Irena Backus, ‘Calvin’s Concept of Natural and Roman Law,’ 7-26, see 16. Schreiner does not define Calvin’s use of equity, but does discuss it, The Theatre of His Glory, 78, 79, et passim. For general consideration of these topics, see Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination, 231-43. OS 5: 487-89; Inst 4.20.16.

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION

179

But although in their ferocity the Jews would have hardly suffered the perfection of equity (aequissimum) to be prescribed to them, still God would at least restrain their excessive violence from proceeding to the extremity of cruelty.44 Thus, because the Jew could not submit to the demands of equity, the law drafted by God, on this occasion, followed suit. Calvin also employs the notion of equity in a range of different contexts, such as with respect to the treatment of strangers (see comments on Lev 19: 33, 34), in relation to usury (see Exod 22: 25) and making restitution (see comments on Exod 22: 1-4), and with respect to the work of judges (see comments on Deut 16: 19, 20), and in numerous other ways as well. Related to or expressive of this equity is the notion of the law of the nations (lex or ius gentium), which Calvin refers to primarily in the analyzing of questions having to do with just war, where Calvin uses it to assess whether, or not, the commands given by God for war are accommodated to Jewish barbarity. Additionally, Calvin also makes regular reference to the principles, or dictates or laws, of nature (see comments on Lev 20: 9), to ‘natural law (ingenitam … legem)’ (see comments on Lev 19: 32) and simply to natura, the last of these being a term he employs in a variety of ways. It appears in his treatments of slavery (see comments on Exod 21: 1-6) and divorce (see comments on Matthew 19: 7-8). It also appears in his exposition of passages which deal with sexual sins such as homosexuality (see comments on Lev 18: 22-30 and Exod 22: 19), and is clearly a notion used by Calvin to judge the wickedness of a given act or piece of divine legislation. One of the more common meanings which he ascribes to the idea of nature is revealed in his comments on the just-mentioned passage, Leviticus 19: 32. In regards to the notion of honoring the elderly, Calvin tells a story about an old man who entered a theatre in Athens and was unable to find a seat until the Spartan ambassador gave him a seat, who, being applauded for his gesture, exclaimed that ‘the Athenians knew what was right, but would not do it.’ According, Calvin concludes: ‘It was surely manifested by this universal consent of the people that it is a natural law in the hearts of all to reverence and honor old men.’45 Indeed, he had declared at the beginning of his treatment of the passage that he would not cite many quotations from ancient authors on this subject, but ‘let it suffice that what God here commands is dictated by nature.’46 It may, of course, be asked whether such a method presents problems. Ought Calvin to distinguish between commands in this way? Do notions like equity and natural law, which have their origins in ancient, and particularly Stoic, thought, represent an intrusion of human wisdom into the Church’s thinking about the word of God? Ought such concepts to be employed in appraising the decrees of the Almighty, particularly when it (apparently) leads to expressions of disapproval concerning some of these decrees? These and similar questions certainly are asked by some, and it is perhaps understandable that this is so. 44 45 46

CO 24: 632; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 53. CO 24: 610; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 19. CO 24: 610; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 18.

180

CHAPTER 7

How, then, does Calvin defend, or at least explain, his use of these notions? He does so, in a word, by arguing that natural law and equity are from God. They are what Paul refers to in Romans 2: 14-15 when he declares: for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them. Thus, the standard employed by Calvin in assessing the divine precepts found in the Pentateuch is the very internal law which he, and his predecessors and contemporaries, held all humankind have imprinted in their minds and which is most perfectly expressed in the Decalogue itself. It is also that source from which all laws ought to spring and which is the cause of the laws which are produced even by godless nations. Thus, the reason that Calvin can refer so often to the ‘law of the nations’ and use it to assess the Mosaic legislation is because, since all humankind have implanted in their hearts this equity or morality or natural law, they are moved to produce laws and laws, in fact, which in many ways reflect it.47 Thus, Calvin can declare, for instance, that the command forbidding the returning of runaway slaves to their masters (Deut 23: 15, 16) violates the ius gentium and defrauds the owners of these slaves of their just right and, therefore, ‘does not appear to be altogether just.’ Of course the nations often stray from the law of nature and produces laws which are far from equitable. But that fact does not negate the other—that all humankind have the natural law implanted in them. Thus, Calvin’s conviction is that this objective standard is itself given by God and therefore presents no conflict such as the above-stated questions suggested. The relationship, in Calvin’s thinking, between this collection of different issues—equity and the law of nature, the law of God (that is, the Decalogue), the Mosaic legislation and the question of its relevance to Christians, and the law codes of other nations—is nicely handled and expanded upon in two quotes which might be added here. The first comes from Institutes 4.20.16 and deal with the unity and diversity of different laws. Having declared that equity must be the same for all, no matter what differences appear in particular legislations, then continues: Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraved on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence this equity alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws. Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and bound to this limit, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves. God’s law forbids to steal. The punishment meted out to thieves in the Jews state may be seen in Exodus [Ex. 22:1-4]. The very ancient laws of other nations punished 47

This is argued in Calvin’s Romans commentary (Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, 45-46).

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION

181

theft by double restitution, while subsequent laws made a distinction between theft manifest and not manifest. Other laws went the length of punishing with exile, or with branding, while others employed capital punishment. … All codes equally avenge murder with blood, but the kinds of death are different. In some countries, adultery was punished more severely, in others more leniently. Yet we see that amidst this diversity they all tend to the same end. For, together with one voice, they pronounce punishment against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law of God, namely, murder, theft, adultery, and false witness. But they do not agree on the mode of punishment. Nor is this either necessary or expedient. There are countries which, if murder were not visited with fearful punishments, would instantly become a prey to robbery and slaughter. There are ages that demand increasingly harsh penalties. If the state is in a troubled condition, those things from which disturbances usually arise must be corrected by new edicts. In time of war, civilisation would disappear amid the noise of arms unless some uncommon fear of punishment were introduced. In drought, in pestilence, unless greater severity is used, all things would grow worse. One nation might be more prone to a particular vice, were it not most severely repressed. How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity, which is admirably adapted to retain the observance of God’s law. For the allegation that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, when it is abrogated and other new laws are preferred to it, is utterly absurd. For others are not preferred to it when they are more approved, not by a simple comparison, but with regard to the condition of times, places and nation; or when those things are abrogated which were never enacted for us. For the Lord did not deliver it by the hand of Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and to be everywhere enforced; but having taken the Jewish nation under his special care, patronage, and guardianship, he was pleased to be specially its legislator, and as became a wise legislator, he had special regard to it in enacting laws.48 The second appears in Calvin’s treatment of Leviticus 18: 1-4, 6-18 which deals with unlawful sexual relations, specifically incestuous relationships. We must remember, what I have already hinted, that not only are incestuous connections out of wedlock condemned, but that the degrees are pointed out, within which marriages are unlawful. It is true, indeed, that this was a part of the political constitution which God established for His ancient people; still, it must be borne in mind, that whatever is prescribed here is deduced from the source of rectitude itself, and from the natural feelings implanted in us by Him. Absurd is the cleverness which some persons but little versed in Scripture pretend to, who assert that the Law being abrogated, the obligations under which Moses laid his countrymen are now dissolved; for it is to be inferred from the preface above expounded, that the instruction here given is not, nor ought to be accounted, 48

OS 5: 487-89; Inst 4.20.16; slightly altered.

182

CHAPTER 7

merely political. For, since their lusts had led astray all the neighboring nations into incest, God, in order to inculcate chastity amongst his people, says; “I am the Lord your God, ye shall therefore keep my statutes; walk not after the doings of the land of Egypt and of Canaan;” and then He adds what are the degrees of consanguinity and affinity within which the marriage of men and women is forbidden. If any again object that what has been disobeyed in many countries is not to be accounted the law of the Gentiles, the reply is easy, viz., that the barbarism, which prevailed in the East, does not nullify that chastity which is opposed to the abominations of the Gentiles; since what is natural cannot be abrogated by any consent or custom. In short, the prohibition of incests here set forth, is by no means of the number of those laws which are commonly abrogated according to the circumstances of time and place, since it flows from the fountain of nature itself, and is founded on the general principle of all laws, which is perpetual and inviolable. Certainly God declares that the custom which had prevailed amongst the heathen was displeasing to Him; and why is this, but because nature itself repudiates and abhors filthiness, although approved of by the consent (suffragiis) of men? Wherefore, when God would by this distinction separate His chosen people from heathen nations, we may assuredly conclude that the incests which He commands them to avoid are absolute pollutions. Paul, on a very trifling point, sets before our eyes the law of nature; for, when he teaches that it is shameful and indecorous for women to appear in public without veils, he desires them to consider, whether it would be decent for them to present themselves publicly with their heads shorn; and finally adds, that nature itself does not permit it. (1 Corinthians 11:14.) Wherefore, I do not see, that, under the pretext of its being a political Law, the purity of nature is to be abolished, from whence arises the distinction between the statutes of God, and the abuses of the Gentiles. If this discipline were founded on the utility of a single people, or on the custom of a particular time, or on present necessity, or on any other circumstances, the laws deduced from it might be abrogated for new reasons, or their observance might be dispensed with in regard to particular persons, by special privilege; but since, in their enactment, the perpetual decency of nature was alone regarded, not even a dispensation of them would be permissible.49 Whatever one may think of Calvin’s conclusions as stated above, there is no doubt that he has thought through a number of the questions raised above in relation to the proper handling of the Mosaic law. It is from this base that he draws conclusion on the accommodated nature of some of these laws. Thus, what Calvin is doing when he declares some laws to be accommodated is essentially concluding that these laws (be it those concerning slavery, the indiscriminate killing of all in war, etc) depart from the goal of equity expressed in the natural law and most perfectly in the Decalogue and, therefore, must have been drafted by way of concession to the hardness of the Jewish nation for this is the only way to explain their presence in God’s law. It is then, at least in principle, not 49

CO 24: 661-62; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 99-101.

THE VOLATILITY OF ACCOMMODATION

183

Calvin’s own private judgement concerning these laws that determines their character but the judgment of the God-given law of nature embodied in the concept of equity that determines whether or not they are accommodated precepts, and also, contributes to thinking on their present applicability. Additional questions clearly remain. We have endeavored above to show that as a result of three examples—(1) his treatment of Deuteronomy 20: 12-15 compared with that of 20: 16-18, (2) his decision to acknowledge divorce as an accommodation to Jewish hard-heartedness but to retain it as a option available to New Testament Christians and (3) his treatment of Deuteronomy 22: 22-27 in light of John 8—Calvin’s consistency is at least open to question. Thus one may wish to question in a more detailed and particular manner the reformer’s wielding of the standard of equity in his exposition of the Pentateuchal harmony as a criterion for identifying examples of accommodation. One may, also, wish to raise more far reaching questions about the very foundations of Calvin’s (and Western Christendom’s) thinking on matters having to do with biblical law and morality— asking, for example, whether the notion of a natural law implanted in all humankind can be retained in a post-modern Twenty-first century or how one can be so certain, with respect to the content of this natura to which Calvin refers, that a particular practice or institution is, in fact, opposed to natura. But for the purposes of the present study, the above treatment will suffice. 3. CONCLUSION This chapter, following up on an idea raised in chapter two concerning the unpredictability of divine accommodation, has explored two problems associated with it. First, it considered Calvin’s use of accommodation and whether it ever functioned in his thought in such a way that it eroded the authority of Scripture by undermining its truthfulness. Here we looked specifically at the relationship of Scripture to science. And secondly, it examined whether the reformer’s use of accommodation, specifically in his exegesis of the Old Testament law, undermined God’s authority by wrongly justifying the non-application of divine injunctions to the New Testament church on the grounds that these injunctions had been drafted in accommodation to the obduracy of the Jews and were, therefore, no longer applicable. In treating both these issues, the aim was to query the reformer’s thinking on, and usage of, accommodation with an eye towards exploring further its impact upon his theology. We have seen that issues are present in Calvin’s thinking, both in relation to Scripture and science and in relation to the Old Testament law, which prompt questions as to the role of accommodation in his theology and specifically whether accommodation plays, at times, a less-than-wholesome role in his theology. While other questions follow on from these findings, they must remain as topics to be considered in a latter study.

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS 1. SUMMARY Numerous theologians and exegetes, from Justin Martyr to Peter Martyr Vermigli, employed divine accommodation in the pre-critical era. Standard uses of the motif developed, particularly in apologetic contexts. What is more, accommodation became part of the exegetical histories of a range of biblical texts, and was, throughout this period, a tool to which both those within and without the church turned. In many ways, Calvin was not unlike these other theologians and exegetes. And yet the preceding chapters have shown that Calvin distinguished himself as one who not infrequently deviated from traditional readings of biblical texts and employed accommodation in a number of non-standard ways. Of course, he learned from traditional exegesis and thinking on accommodation; such was surely the case.1 And yet with respect to many of the biblical passages considered in this study, Calvin’s exposition included discussion of accommodation whereas the earlier tradition did not. Furthermore, the range and sophistication of his treatment of the idea outstripped that of many of his predecessors and contemporaries (the exception here may well be Chrysostom). Calvin discussed accommodation frequently. On a large number of topics he raised it: divine expressions of wrath, sorrow and love, God’s use of dreams and theophanies, his revealing of himself as Triune, his inflicting of chastisement, instituting and renewing of his covenant, drafting of the moral law, his sending of his son to die for sins, his swearing of oaths, hearing of prayer and many others issues, as was seen in chapter four. We have not found an author, save perhaps (again) for Chrysostom, who discusses the motif as often as Calvin. In these discussions Calvin emphasized the hardness, dullness and debilitating nature of human captus. Mention of it by him is extremely common throughout his writings, and it clearly influenced not only his anthropology but also his understanding of God’s ways with humankind. It is to this capacity that Calvin’s accommodating God responds and devotes almost uninterrupted attention and concern. 1

The author wishes to acknowledge that the assertion he made in his article, ‘“The Accommodating Act Par Excellence?” an Inquiry into the Incarnation and Calvin’s Understanding of Accommodation,’ 379394 (see 394), to the effect that Calvin’s thinking had essentially no relationship to the earlier tradition as regards accommodation was an unwarranted overstatement.

185

186

CHAPTER 8

Calvin employed accommodation in a diverse and wide-ranging manner, for which reason this study has suggested that it is probably best to think of it as a collection of closely-linked practices or concerns touching on a range of disciplines. In Calvin’s corpus one finds (to give just a few examples) accommodation being discussed in regards to God’s simplifying of the knowledge of himself in a passage like, ‘God remembered Noah’ (Gen 8: 1), God’s conceding to Israel the right to marry a captive woman captured in war (Deut 21: 10-13), God’s creating of the heavens and earth (Gen 1: 15), his giving of his own holy name to his people to be used in the making of vows (Psalm 116:14), his use of signs and sacraments (Psalm 132: 7-8), his employing of angels (Matt 28: 1-6), his becoming incarnate (1 Pet 1: 21), and his rewarding of believers’ works (Luke 17: 10). While these examples are not so disparate that they should be considered as separate and entirely unrelated, they are clearly diverse enough to suggest that they probably arise from and are influenced by Calvin’s thinking on a number of different areas: from theological issues involving God’s nature to legal concerns about the character of lex politica and its relation to natural law, to philosophical topics such as the nature of causation, to humanist learning and sensitivity to language and figures of speech. It is this diversity that moves us to suggest what we do. Such diversity would also, it may be noted, seem to militate against a simple solution to the question of the origins of accommodation in Calvin such as the rhetorical solution proposed by Willis and others, though additional work is needed on this question before firm conclusions can be set out—on which more will be said in the third section of this chapter. Calvin exhibited a fascination with the big picture of God’s engagement with his creatures. This habit of stepping back from a text to consider God’s ways appeared often in Calvin’s writings and could arise in his treatment of any subject. For instance, it even appeared in his consideration of a person’s use of language in prayer.2 Few topics were untouched by it. During such undertakings, Calvin was not averse to censuring God for his actions and decisions, and could at times exhibit surprising boldness, though such occasions were, on the whole, relatively rare. More often, Calvin’s thinking moved in the direction of simple speculation, as he probed God’s reasons and motives in his dealings with his creatures. This combination of traits suggests that accommodation does not merely rest on the surface of Calvin’s theology but penetrates it. That is to say, there are some thinkers for whom accommodation is merely a notion to which they have recourse when they come upon one of the standard problems for which it is the answer (such as a text which ascribes emotions to God, like Gen 6: 5-6). But for Calvin accommodation seems to represent a notion which he associates in a basic way with what God is like; how he acts and why he behaves as he does. Of course Calvin can still employ accommodation as a useful polemic device, but it is clearly much more than that to him. This penetration resulted in different images of God being found in Calvin’s thought. This was seen particularly clearly in chapter five. The more peculiar of these images include those in which, for example, Calvin’s God seems holy but 2

CO 50: 592 (on Galatians 4: 4-7). Since God (Calvin observes) knows the heart, language in prayer is superfluous. Thus, he deems it a concession to human frailty that God allowed its use.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

187

weak and unable to combat the wickedness which resides in his ancient people, being satisfied simply with endeavouring to contain that wickedness from achieving its potential. Another such image can be witnessed on those occasions when Calvin’s God seems so powerful and majestic that Calvin alludes, in his description of affairs, to the nominalist slogan ‘finiti et infiniti nulla proportio’3; on these occasions, even God’s utilizing of the angels to do his bidding (Psalm 91) seems to Calvin to diminish his infinite glory, since God stands in need of nothing. Again on other occasions, Calvin’s God seems to be involved in morally-dubious behaviour, employing means to achieve his aims which appear less than divine and, in fact, surprisingly crude and pragmatic. While these various portraits may seem to be at odds one with another and with the more traditional images of God one finds in Calvin’s thought, they nonetheless sit side by side in Calvin’s corpus. The seven points just reviewed—the exposition of which was the primary purpose of the body of this study—summarize the basic issues we find associated with Calvin’s handling of accommodation. 2. SOME THOUGHTS ON ACCOMMODATION AND CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF GOD A number of these points could be profitably investigated further. Yet the notion of diverse portraits of God in Calvin’s writings is the one which surely has the most, directly, to say about Calvin’s doctrine of God. Thus it will receive a moment’s more attention here. The appearance of different images of God in Calvin’s thought on accommodation is, undoubtedly, peculiar. As noted a moment ago, Calvin’s accommodating God seems to possess qualities which, it may at least be said, stand in curious relationship to one another and to other of his attributes. How (if we may revisit two particular instances) can Calvin speak of a God who must endure—clearly against his will—the stubbornness and lusts of his own people, conceding to them what he plainly disapproves of, and also speak of a God who is so supremely powerful that his employing of angels requires explanation? Are not such images perilously close to being contradictory? Given this peculiarity, it is an intriguing question to ask if these images can be explained. Specifically is there a way to understand them so that one can make a coherent whole out of them? One of the most natural places to look for help in tackling these queries is the various distinctions one finds in Calvin’s thought. Could, for instance, a distinction such as this one help: We therefore see that God is described to us in two ways (dupliciter), namely, in his word, and in his hidden counsel. With regard to his secret counsel, I have already said that God is always like himself and is not subject to any of our 3

CO 33: 726 (on Job 15: 11-16).

188

CHAPTER 8

feelings. But with regard to the teaching of his word, which is accommodated to our capacities, God is now angry with us, and then, as though he were pacified, he offers pardon and is propitious to us. Such is the repentance of God.4 Here Calvin asserts, in relation to Jonah 3: 10, what is essentially the distinction he makes in the Institutes between God in se (quid sit Deus) and God erga nos (qualis sit Deus). It is, to him, clearly a basic distinction. Could it, perhaps, help to explain these portraits? Or maybe his distinction between the twofold will of God (also known as the voluntas arcana and the voluntas revelata 5) could be of assistance: Let us now see how God commands what is wrongly done by humankind. Surely he does not command the ungodly to do what is wicked, for he would thus render them excusable; for where God’s authority interposes, there no blame can be. But God is said to command whatever he has decreed, according to his hidden counsel. There are, then, two kinds of commands (Duplex … est praecipiendi genus); one refers to doctrine, and the other to the hidden judgments of God.6 Does this distinction help? To begin with, it would seem that both these distinctions carry us some degree towards a better understanding of these divine portraits for the simple reason that they carry us towards a better understanding of Calvin’s theology generally. Developing this point, it may be noted that these distinctions testify in at least a general way to the contrasting quality seen in Calvin’s thought. As scholars such as Ganoczy have argued,7 Calvin’s thought is one of contrasts, of extremes, of tensions and dichotomies; a theology which is difficult to assimilate whole. This is at least hinted at by both of these distinctions—particularly when one considers the basic role they play in his thought. And such contrast and tension is also what one finds in Calvin’s descriptions of the accommodating God. Thus, the above-mentioned distinctions help in this way, namely, by helping us to place these portraits into the broader context of Calvin’s theology. And yet as matters are considered further it would appear that these distinctions do not seem—not immediately, at least—to help with the basic problem raised in the question; that is, they do nothing to resolve the apparently-conflicting character of these divergent portraits. They do not help someone to understand how these portraits can co-exist in the reformer’s theology; how they cohere in his thought. It may be considered here, however, that these distinctions, at least the first one, also might help in a more specific manner. For one could suggest that the first distinction represents a division which one actually finds in Calvin’s thought just as, 4 5 6 7

CO 43: 261; CTS Minor Prophets, 3, 116; altered (Jonah 3: 10). Other terms were employed as well, see Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 331-32. CO 39: 588; CTS Jeremiah and Lamentations, 5, 427; slightly altered (Lamentations 3: 37-38). Alexandre Ganoczy, The Young Calvin, trans. David Foxgrover and Wade Provo (Philadelphia: the Westminster Press, 1987), 178, 185-88.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

189

Calvin says, it is found in the Bible. Thus, the examples cited in the body of this study simply represent occasions when Calvin spoke of God as God ‘in his word’ rather than God ‘in his secret counsels.’ Yet, while there may be some truth to this, it does not carry us far enough. It fails to explain, among other things, the various individual qualities (God’s stooping, conceding, and the like) and different expressions (God as teacher, God as legislator, etc) one finds in Calvin’s thinking on the accommodation motif. Thus, its usefulness is extremely limited. We might ask at this point whether the different divine portraits found in Calvin are, in fact, as problematic as we are making them out to be. Is it actually the case that they present a dilemma for, or threaten the coherence of, Calvin’s doctrine of God? Here one might consider, for example, that the God found in Calvin’s treatment of accommodation in relation to the angels is being viewed, by Calvin, as the omnipotent God who has all power, majesty and authority. By contrast, the God described in Calvin’s examination of the Old Testament case laws is a God who must draft legislation to fit a variety of circumstances and must, therefore, temper that legislation to the people and circumstances in which it will have to operate. This drafting of laws is not about God accomplishing his sovereign will, it is about him making known his will of precept (to make use of the second distinction). He may, or may not, be omnipotent; such a question really does not come into play here, as he is simply drafting legislation. Considered in this way—that is, recalling Calvin’s love of brevity and tendency to leave loose ends in his discourse (which will be expanded upon in a moment)—some of the difficulty would seem to be resolved. There is less conflict between these two images than had previously been suggested. The same exercise can, we would suggest, be performed on other of the contrasting portraits. Thus, the different divine images may not be irreconcilable. But this observation, though helpful, does not take away the sense of tension which arises from Calvin’s portraits of the accommodating God. As this fact is considered further it is hard not to conclude that this tension appears in the reformer’s thought by design (as it were)—that is, the tension is the result (at least in part) of Calvin’s method of exposition. So, for instance, in his treatment of Old Testament case laws, Calvin often stresses God’s inability and the frustrating of the divine will by the Jews even though it is not by any means essential to the interpreting of the text that he do so. It will be recalled, for example, that in commenting upon Exodus 21: 1-6, Calvin made the statement that ‘this defect [the fact that the sanctity of marriage had to give way to the rights of the slave-owner over his property, namely, the male slave’s wife] is to be reckoned amongst the others which God tolerated on account of the people’s hardness of heart, because it could hardly be remedied.8 Here a tension barely implicit in the passage is made explicit by Calvin, helping to produce a picture of God which appears peculiar and would seem to contradict the portrait of the Almighty Being which one finds set out elsewhere in Calvin’s writings. Thus, Calvin is not only inclined to leave loose ends (as stated earlier) but also to emphasize points in such a way that there is a resulting tension present in his theology. Other similar examples may be sought above.

8 CO 24: 650; CTS Pentateuchal Harmony, 3, 80-1.

190

CHAPTER 8

So then is this tension merely stylistic or rhetorical? This is oneof the numerous questions that remain. But for now, having considered matters briefly, we will close this discussion with a summary—considering these disparate images of Calvin’s accommodating God, we can say that (1) these images are probably not ireconcilable; (2) they are consistent with the general character of Calvin’s theology; and (3) the tension present in them is often the product, not so much of the biblical text, but of his own mind and method. Such thoughts offer the beginnings of an explanation of these images, though as was said, many questions still remain. Naturally, the question of of the different images of Calvin’s accommodating God is only one of those which scholarship might ponder further. Let us now turn briefly, then, to a consideration of some of the others. 3. FUTURE TOPICS FOR RESEARCH These remarks on the future of the study of accommodation in Calvin will be brief. That future may be profitably pursued in a number of different ways. Work must be done on the vexed question of how Calvin learned of divine accommodation. Of course the study of the sources of Calvin’s thinking involves taking a road that is littered with failed attempts and errant judgments; thus one must proceed with caution. Nonetheless, such matters are extremely important and worthy of investigation. The present work has suggested that a simple solution to the question of the origins of accommodation in Calvin is unlikely and that a complex solution which finds its origins coming from a number of different sources more probable. We can, in that vein, offer provisional thoughts on a few different areas. First, Calvin’s extensive knowledge of the church fathers—not only John Chrysostom (who has been the subject of consideration attention by Millet) but many others as well—seems to this author to be an avenue for inquiry that has not been thoroughly exhausted.9 Here the suggestion being proposed is not that accommodatio as an element of rhetorical theory was transmitted via the fathers to Calvin, but rather simply that the use made of accommodation by one, or some, of the fathers was appealing to Calvin and therefore adopted by him. A second proposal looks to patristic, but especially medieval, exegesis. As has been seen, aspects of accommodation—here we are thinking particularly of that associated with Old Testament case laws—were already firmly in place in medieval exegesis and thinking prior to Calvin’s appearance on the scene. This was noted earlier with regards to the work of Denis the Carthusian, who mentioned Rabanus Maurus and Peter Comestor as proponents of a form of divine concession in relation to the practice of men having concubines. Could Calvin have learned of accommodation through the works of these medieval writers? The possibility must be considered,

9 Augustine is an obvious choice, for which see Luchesius Smits, Saint Augustin dans l’oeuvre de Jean Calvin (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1956-1958) along with concerns expressed in Wright, ‘Calvin’s “Accommodation” Revisited,’ 171-190.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

191

and to date has not been (so far as we are aware).10 In relation to all aspects of Old Testament law, a third topic can also be suggested, namely, that of Calvin’s legal training. To this author’s knowledge little, if any, work has been done on the relation of Calvin’s legal training to his thinking and exegesis.11 Yet this is clearly an area worthy of serious consideration. Fourthly, the thought of Calvin’s contemporaries— Luther, Stapulensis, Pellican, Vermigli etc—on accommodation ought surely to be investigated in the search for influences. And finally a fifth proposal may be mooted. We have seen that Calvin discusses divine concession in relation to the notion of human merit and reward—a notion which immediately brings to mind medieval theology and the work of thinkers such as Duns Scotus. Calvin has, of course, been associated with Scotist thinking by a number of scholars, including Heiko Oberman.12 Thus, the present author cannot help but wonder whether Calvin’s knowledge of medieval theology might have either influenced him directly in regards to accommodation or influenced the shape of his theology in such a way that it became more receptive to aspects of the accommodation motif. These proposals are, we should stress, not being offered as competing alternatives, but as options all of which could have played a part in the development of Calvin’s thinking on accommodation. Additionally the work done by Hedtke on the relationship between the preaching of the prophets and apostles and the ministers of Geneva deserves further attention and expansion.13 Likewise, profitable work could be done on the character of the Genevan worship service.14 Does accommodation figure in it and, if so, how? It is known, for instance, that Calvin could speak of ceremonies as serving pro modo ruditatis nostrae referring to himself and his contemporaries.15 This obviously suggests that it does have its part to play in Genevan worship, but exactly what Calvin meant here by ceremonies is not clear. Was he merely referring to the Lord’s supper and baptism, or did he have more in mind? Also, how conscious was he of the accommodated character of Genevan worship? The question of whether the laws in Geneva were influenced by Calvin’s thinking on accommodation seems a fascinating topic, and one which would both benefit from, and helpfully contribute to, the present resurgence of interest in life in Geneva and the early modern world.

10 In addition to the previously mentioned work of Tony Lane, some preliminary work on sources of Calvin’s Genesis commentary has been done by Richard Gamble, ‘The Sources of Calvin’s Genesis Commentary: A Preliminary Report’ Archive for Reformation History 84 (1993), 206-21. These works (of Lane and Gamble) focus on Calvin’s sources generally and not on accommodation. 11 Mention is made of this by Willis, ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility,’ 53-5. 12 Among other works, see, The Two Reformations; the Journey from the Last Days to the New World, ed. Donald Weinstein (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), 116-68, 220-25. 13 Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin, 106-114. Cf. Epistola Secunda. De Christiani Hominis Officio in sacerdotiis Papalis ecclesiae vel administrandis vel abiiciendis (CO 5: 293). 14 See Witvliet, ‘Images and Themes in Calvin’s Theology of Liturgy,’ 130. 15 Consilium admodum Paterum Pauli III Pontificis Romani … et Eusebii Pamphili eiusdem consilii pia et salutaris explicatio (CO 5: 504).

192

CHAPTER 8

A careful study of Calvin’s letters with particular respect being given to accommodation also seems interesting. The present author has read many of the reformer’s letters, but did not read them with this specific topic in mind. Thus, there may well be fruitful lines of thought waiting to be found there, which may shed light on his thinking on the motif. Finally, questions concerning the relationship of accommodation to various aspects of Calviniana could profitably be taken up. Why, for instance, does Calvin’s thinking on accommodation as that thinking appears in his commentaries and sermons seem so robust while his handling of accommodation in the Institutes is so relatively meager? A second topic that might be raised has to do with Nicodemism and Calvin’s comments on it, which occasionally feature accommodation—not in relation to the accommodating of God but rather the behavior of those who accommodate themselves to Roman Catholic ceremonies. Study of Calvin’s comments on such things may, it seems likely, provide useful information about how he employed important words and phrases.16 Thirdly, accommodation’s role in Calvin’s general exegesis of Scripture must be taken up, for scholarship is still unclear as to how the two relate with one another. All these topics, and no doubt many others, could be profitably investigated. Of course, one may question the merit of such undertakings. Yet to this author the merit of such work is, in fact, clear. For divine accommodation is expressive of some of the deepest concerns found in Calvin’s theology. Thus, to study it is to open a valuable—and as yet largely neglected—window into his thought and his God.

16 Of the many places, see, On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly, … A Letter by John Calvin … [to] … N.S. (CO 6: 558; Tracts and Letters, 3, 402-403); Petit Traicté monstrant que c’est que doit faire un homme fidele congnoissant la verité de l’evangile, quand il est entre les papistes. avec une epistre du mesme argument (CO 6: 563-64, 569, 574-76).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. ABBREVIATIONS Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, ed. Richard Gamble Ante-Nicene Christian Library, eds Robert and Donaldson Corpus Christianorum Series Latina Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos, ed. Wilhelm Neuser Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition; A History of the Development of Doctrine CO Ioannis Calvini Opera [Corpus Reformatorum] CSRV Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, eds Wilhelm Neuser and Brian Armstrong CSSP Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, ed. Wilhelm Neuser CTS Calvin Translation Society FC The Fathers of the Church, 84 vols. (Washington, 1947-). Hebrew Bible Old Testament: the history of its interpretation, ed. Magne Sæbø Inst. Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. F.L. Battles, ed J.T. McNeill Inst. (1536) Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536 ed.), trans. F.L. Battles LW Luther’s Works NPNF A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, eds Schaff and Wace NRSVB New Revised Standard Version Bible OS Ioannis Calvini Opera Selecta, eds Barth and Niesel PG Patrologia cursus completus … series graeca, ed. J.P. Migne PL Patrologia cursus completus … series latina ed. J.P. Migne PRRD Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics SC Supplementa Calviniana WA D. Martin Luthers Werke ACC ANCL CCSL CEGC Chris. Trad.

2. BIBLIOGRAPHY 2.1 Calvin’s Works Johannis Calvini Opera Selecta. Eds. Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niesel. 5 vols. Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1926-36. 193

194

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia. Eds. Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss. 59 vols. Corpus Reformatorum 29-87. Brunsvigae: C. A. Schwetschke et filium, 1863-1900. Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Ed. T.H.L. Parker. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981. Supplementa Calviniana. Sermons inédits. Eds. Erwin Mühlhaupt et al. 8 vols. to date. Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 1936-. 2.2

Translations of Calvin’s Works

The Bondage and Liberation of the Will; A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice Against Pighius. Trans. G. Davies. Ed. A.N.S. Lane. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia. Trans. and eds. Ford Lewis Battles and Andre Malan Hugo. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969. Calvin: Theological Treatises. Trans. J.K.S. Reid. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1944. Commentaries of Calvin. Various Trans. 22 vols. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1843-56; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979. Concerning Scandals. Trans. John W. Fraser. Edinburgh: St Andrew Press, 1978. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. Trans. J.K.S. Reid. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1961. Institutes of the Christian Religion Embracing almost the Whole Sum of Piety, & Whatever is Necessary to Know the Doctrine of Salvation: A Work Most Worthy to be Read by all Persons Zealous for Piety, and Recently Published (1536). Trans. and annot. Ford Lewis Battles. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Ed. John T. McNeill. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics, no. 20-21. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960. Instruction in Faith (1537). Trans. Paul Fuhrmann. Louisville, KY: Westminster Press, 1992. Selected Works of John Calvin; Tracts and Letters. Trans. Henry Beveridge.Eds. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet. 7 vols. Edinburgh, 1844-51; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983. Sermons on Jeremiah by Jean Calvin. Trans. Blair Reynolds. Lampeter, Wales: Edwin Mellen Press, 1993. Sermons on Galatians. Trans. Kathy Childress. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1997. Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Trans. Arthur Golding. 1579; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1973. Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ. Trans. and Ed. T. H. L. Parker; London: James Clarke & Co., 1956. Sermons on 2 Samuel, Chapters 1-13. Trans. Douglas Kelly. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines. Trans. and Ed. Benjamin Wirt Farley. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982. 2.3

Patristic, Medieval and Reformation Works

Aquinas, Thomas. Sancti Thomae Aquinatis … Expositionem in Genesim. Parisiis: Apud Dionysium Moreau …, 1640. Augustine. Earlier Writings. Trans. John Burleigh. London: SCM Press, 1953. ———. Enarrationes in Psalmos in CCSL 39. ———. Quaestiones et Locutiones in Heptateuchum in CCSL 33. ———. Augustine: Reply to Faustus the Manichæn, in NPNF 4. Beda, Commentarius in Genesim in CCSL 118A. Brenz, Johannes. In Exodum Commentarii Mosi. Halae Sueuorum: ex officina Petri Brubachii, 1544. Bruno of Asti. In Psalmos Expositio in PL165. Bucer, Martin. Psalmorum libri … Eiusdem commentarii … in Sophoniam prophetam … Geneva: Oliva Roberti Stephani, 1554. Tommaso de Vio Cajetan. Thomae de Vio Caietani tituli SS. Sixti … Opera omnia quotquot in Sacrae Scripturae expositionem reperiuntur … Lugduni: Sumpt. Iacobi & Petri Prost, 1639. Capito, Wolfgang. In Hoseam Prophetam V. F. Capitonis Commentarius. Ex quo peculiaria prophetis, et hactenus fortassis nusquam sic tractata, si uersam pagellam et indicem percurris, cognoscere potes. Argentorati: apud Ioannem Hervagium, 1528. Cassian, John. John Cassian: the Institutes. Trans. Boniface Ramsey, O.P. New York: The Newman Press, 2000. Cassiodorus, M. Aurelii Cassiodori in Psalterium Expositio in PL 70. Castellio, Sebastian. Biblia Interprete Sebastiano Castalione. una cum eiusdem annotationibus … Basileae, per Ioannem Oporinum, 1551. Chrysostom, John. On the Incomprehensible Nature of God in FC 72. ———. In Genesim in PG 53; Homilies on Genesis 1-17 in FC 74. ———. Homilies on St Matthew in NPNF 10. Denis the Carthusian. D. Dionysii Carthusiani enarrationes piae ac eruditae in XII. prophetas minores … Coloniae, 1539. ———. D.Dionysius Carthusienus enarrationes piae ac eruditae in quinque Mosaicae legis libros … Coloniae, 1548. ———. D. Dionysii Carthusiani insigne commentariorum opus, in Psalmos omnes Dauidicos … Parisiis: ex officina Roberti Masselin …, 1553. Drusius, Joannes. Ad loca difficiliora Pentateuchi, id est, quinque librorum Mosis commentarius ... Opus posthumum. Franekerae Frisiorum, 1617. ———. Joh. Drusii SS. Literarum in Acad. Franekerana, dum vixit, interpretis celeberrimi Commentarius in Prophetas Minores XII : quorum VIII. antea editi, nunc auctiores; reliqui IV. jam primùm prodeunt. Eiusdem in Græcam editionem LXX. Conjectanea. Amstelredami : Sumtibus Hendrici Laurentii.: Typis Frederici Heynsii, 1627.

196

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Duns Scotus, Johannes. Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality. Selected and trans. Allan Wolter. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1986. Francis Lambert of Avignon. In Iohelem Prophetam, qui e duodecim secundus est, Francisci Lamberti Auenionensis Commentarii. Straussburg, 1525. Gerhoh of Reichersberg. Expositio in Psalmos in PL 194. Gregory the Great. Moralia in Job in CCSL 143, 143A, 143B. Hilary of Poitier. On the Trinity in NPNF 2nd ser. 9. Hugh of St Cher. Ugonis de S. Charo... Opera omnia in universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum. Venetiis : apud Sessas, 1600. Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses in PG 7. Jerome. Commentariorum in Joelem Prophetam in PL 25. ———. Commentariorum in Osee Prophetam in PL 25. ———. Homilies on the Psalms in FC 48. John of Damascus. ‘First Apology of St. John of Damascus Against Those Who Attack The Divine Images’ in St. John of Damascus on the Divine Images. Trans. David Anderson. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980. Justin Martyr. The First Apology, the Second Apology; Dialogue with Trypho … in FC 6. Leo the Great. Selected Letters and Sermons in NPNF 2nd ser., 12. Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kristische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar, 1883ff. ———. Luthers Works. Eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann. 55 vols. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House and Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955-1986. Musculus, Wolfgang. In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium commentarii … Basileae: per Ioannem Heruagium, 1551. ———. In Mosis Genesim … commentarii. Basileae: Ioannes Heruagios, 1554. Nicholas of Lyra. Biblia Latina cum expositione Nicolai de Lyra. Basle: J. Froben, J. Amerbach & J. Petri, 1502. ———. Biblia Sacra cum glossis, interlineari & Ordinaria, Nicolai Lyrani Postilla & Moralitatibus, Burgensis Additionibus, & Thoringi Replicis. Lugduni: ex officina G. Trechsel, 1545. Origen. Contra Celsum in PG 11. Oecolampadius, Johannes. Annotationes Piissimae doctissimae que in Ioseam, Ioelem, Amos, Abdiam, … Basileae, 1535. Peder Palladius. Librorum Moisi … explicatio brevis. Vitebergae, 1559. Pellican, Konrad. Commentaria Bibliorum. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1532-35. Peter Lombard. Petri Lombardi in Psalmos Dividicos Commentarii in PL 191. Spangenberg, Cyriacus. Pentateuchus : sive Mosis libri quincque Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri et Deuteronomium. Aristorfii, 1612. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr. Eds. J.C. McLelland and G.E. Duffield. Sutton Courtenay Press, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2.4

197

Secondary Works [selected]

Ashley, C.M. ‘John Calvin’s Utilization of the Principle of Accommodation and Its Continuing Significance for an Understanding of Biblical Language.’ Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. Fort Worth, TX: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1972. Backus, Irena. ‘Calvin’s Conception of Natural and Roman Law,’ Calvin Theological Journal 38 (2003), 7-26. ———. The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: from the Carolingians to the Maurists. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Jon Balserak, ‘The God of Love and Weakness; Calvin’s Understanding of God’s Accommodating Relationship with his People,’ Westminster Theological Journal 62 (2000), 177-95. ———. ‘“The Accommodating Act Par Excellence?” an Inquiry into the Incarnation and Calvin’s Understanding of Accommodation,’ The Scottish Journal of Theology 55 (2002), 379-394. ———. ‘Luther, Calvin and Musculus on Abraham’s Trial; Exegetical History and he Transformation of Genesis 22,’ Reformation and Renaissance Review 6.3 (2004), 360-372. Barth, Karl and Emil Brunner. Natural Theology. Trans. Peter Fraenkel. London: Centenary Press, 1946. Battles, Ford Lewis. ‘God was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity,’ Interpretation 31 (1977), 19-38. ———. ‘The future of Calviniana,’ in Renaissance, Reformation, and Resurgence, Ed. Peter De Klerk. Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary, 1976. 133-37. Baxter, A.G. ‘What Did Calvin Teach about Accommodation?’ Evangel 6:1 (1988), 20-22. ———. ‘John Calvin’s Use and Hermeneutics of the Old Testament.’ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1987. Benin, Stephen, ‘Thou Shalt Have No Other God before Me: Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Thought.’ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, 1980. ———. ‘Sacrifice as Education in Augustine and Chrysostom.’ Church History 52 (1983), 7-20. ———. ‘The “Cunning of God” and Divine Accommodation,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 45 (1984), 179-91. ———. The Footprints of God; Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. Bouwsma, William. John Calvin; A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ———. ‘Calvin and the Renaissance Crisis of Knowing,’ Calvin Theological Journal 17 (Nov 1982), 190-211, reprint Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, vol. VII, The Organizational Structure of Calvin’s Theology. Ed. Richard Gamble. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992, 226-247.

198

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. ‘Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica’ in Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica, ed. Wilhelm Wuellner. Berkley, CA: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1986, 1-21, reprint Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, vol. VII, The Organizational Structure of Calvin’s Theology. Ed. Richard Gamble. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992, 85-105. ———. ‘Calvinism as Renaissance Artifact’ in John Calvin & the Church: A Prism of Reform. Ed. Timothy George. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990, 28-41. Bru, Vincent. ‘La Notion d’Accommodation Divine chez Calvin; Ses implications théologiques et exégétiques,’ La revue réformée 49: 5 (1998), 79-91. Butin, Philip Walker. Revelation, Redemption and Response: Calvin’s Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship. New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 1995. Chadwick, Henry. Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. Chomarat, Jacques. Grammaire et rhétorique chez Erasme. 2 vols. Paris: Belles lettres, 1981. Cochrane, Arthur. ‘Natural Law in Calvin.’ Church-State Relations in Ecumenical Perspective. Ed. Elwyn Allen Smith. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1966. Cottret, Bernard. Calvin: a Biography. Trans. M. Wallace McDonald. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 2000. Courtenay, William. ‘The Dialectic of Divine Omnipotence’ in Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought; Studies in Philosophy, Theology and Economic Practice. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984, article IV, 1-37. Davis, Thomas. The Clearest Promises of God: the development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching. New York: AMS Press, 1995. de Boer, E.A.. John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel; Historical and Hermeneutical Studies in John Calvin’s ‘sermons inédits,’ especially on Ezek 36-48. Leiden: Brill, 2004. de Jong, J. Accommodatio Dei; a Theme in K. Schilder’s Theology of Revelation. Kampen: Dissertatie-Uitgeverij Mondiss., 1990. de Greef, E. The Writings of John Calvin: an Introductory Guide. Trans. Lyle Bierma. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. de Lubac, Henri. Exégèse médiévale: les quatre sens de l’écriture, 2 pts. In 4 vols. Paris, 1959-64; Medieval Exegesis, vol. I: the Four Senses of Scripture. Trans. Mark Sebanc. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Dillenberger, John. Protestant Thought and Natural Science: A Historical Interpretation. Garden City, NJ: Double Day, 1960. Douglass, Jane Dempsey. ‘Calvin’s Use of Metaphorical Language for God: God as Enemy and God as Mother,’ Archive for Reformation History 77 (1986), 126-140. ———. Women, Freedom, and Calvin. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. Dowey, Edward. The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

———. ‘The Structure of Calvin’s Theological Thought as Influenced by the TwoFold Knowledge of God.’ Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos. Ed. W. Neuser. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984, 135-48. ———. ‘Law in Luther and Calvin,’ Theology Today 41 (1984), 146-53. Duchatelez, K. ‘La notion d’économie et ses richesses théologiques,’ Nouvelle revue théologique 92 (1970), 267-92. ———. ‘La ‘condescendance’ divine et l’histoire du salut,’ Nouvelle revue théologique 95 (1973), 594-621. Eire, Carlos. War Against the Idols: The Change in Worship from Erasmus to Calvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Engels, Mary Potter. John Calvin’s Perspectival Anthropology. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Evans, G.R. The Language and Logic of the Bible; the Early Middle Ages Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Fabbi, Fabio. ‘La ‘Condiscendenza’ Divina nell’Inspirazione Biblica secondo S. Giovanni Crisostomo,’ Biblica 14 (1933), 330-47. Forstman, H. Jackson. Word and Spirit: Calvin’s Doctrine of Biblical Authority. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962. ———. ‘Coherence and Incoherence in the Theology of John Calvin: Reflections on Word and Spirit after 25 Years,’ Calvin Studies III, Ed. John Leith. Richmond: Union Theological Seminary, 1986, 47-62. Frye, Roland M. ‘Calvin’s Theological Use of Figurative Language’ in John Calvin & the Church; A Prism of Reform. Ed. Timothy George. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990, 172-194. Funkenstein, Amos. Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. Gamble, Richard. ‘Exposition and Method in Calvin.’ Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987), 153-65. ———. ‘Calvin’s Theological Method: Word and Spirit, A Case Study’ in Calviniana: Ideas and Influences of Jean Calvin. Ed. R.V. Schnucker. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Publ., 1988, 63-75. ———. ‘The Sources of Calvin’s Genesis Commentary: A Preliminary Report,’ Archive for Reformation History 84 (1993), 206-21. Ganoczy, Alexandre. The Young Calvin. Trans. David Foxgrover and Wade Provo. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. Gerrish, Brian A. Grace and Gratitude; The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. ———. The Old Protestantism and the New; Essays on the Reformation Heritage. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982. ———. ‘The Reformation the Rise of Modern Science’ in The Impact of the Church upon its Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1968, 231-65. Hanson, R.P.C. Allegory and Event. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1959. Haas, Guenther. The Concept of Equity in Calvin’s Ethics. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997. Hedtke, Reinhold. Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1969.

200

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Heim, S. Mark. ‘The Powers of God: Calvin and Late Medieval Thought’ Andover Newton Quarterly 19 (1979), 156-66; reprint Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, vol. IV, Influences Upon Calvin and Discussion of the 1559 Institutes. Ed. Richard Gamble, New York: Garland Publishing, 1992, 3-12. Helm, Paul. ‘Calvin and Natural Law.’ Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (1984), 5-21. ———. ‘God in Dialogue’ in Interpreting the Bible; Historical and Theological Studies in Honour of David F. Wright. Ed. A.N.S. Lane. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1997. ———. ‘John Calvin: The Sensus Divinitatis, and the Noetic Effects of Sin,’ International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (1998), 87-107. ———. ‘Maimonides and Calvin on Accommodation’ in Referring to God; Jewish and Christian Philosophical and Theological Perspectives. Ed. Paul Helm. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 2000, 149-169. ———. John Calvin’s Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Hesselink, I. John. Calvin’s Concept of the Law. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1992. Hidal, Sten. ‘Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Antiochene School with its Prevalent Literal and Historical Method’ in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: the history of its interpretation, vol. I/1, Ed. Magne Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1996, 543-68. Hill, R.C. ‘St. John Chrysostom and the Incarnation of the Word in Scripture,’ Compass Theology Review (1980), 34-8. ———. ‘On Looking Again at SUNKATABASIS.’ Prudentia 13 (1981), 3-11. Hoffmann, Manfred. Rhetoric and Theology: The Hermeneutics of Erasmus. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 1994. Hoitenga, Dewey J., Jr. John Calvin and the Will. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. ———. ‘The Noetic Effects of Sin: a Review Article,’ Calvin Theological Journal 38 (2003), 68-102. Hunsinger, George. ‘A Tale of Two Simultaneities: Justification and Sanctification in Calvin and Barth’ in Zeitschrift fur Dialektische Theologie (2002), 31638. Hunter, A. Mitchell. The Teaching of Calvin; A Modern Interpretation. Glascow: maclehose, Jackson and Co., 1920. Jellema, Dirk. ‘God’s ‘Baby Talk’: Calvin and the ‘Errors’ of the Bible,’ Reformed Journal 30 (1980), 25-47. Jones, Serene. Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995. Kayayan, E. ‘Accommodation, Incarnation et Sacrament dans l’Institution de la Religion Chrétienne de Jean Calvin: L’utilisation de métaphores et de Similitudes,’ Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 75 (1995), 273-86. Keefer, Michael. ‘Accommodation and Synecdoche: Calvin’s God in King Lear,’ Shakespeare Studies (New York) 20 (1988), 147-68.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

Kelter, Irving. ‘The Refusal to Accommodate: Jesuit Exegetes and the Copernican System,’ Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995), 273-83. Kingdon, Robert M. Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Kinlaw, C.J. ‘Determinism and the Hiddenness of God in Calvin’s Theology,’ Religious Studies 24 (1988), 497-510. Klauber, Martin. ‘Francis Turretin on Biblical Accommodation: Loyal Calvinist or Reformed Scholastic?’ Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993), 73-86. Kok, Joel. ‘The Influence of Martin Bucer on John Calvin’s Interpretation of Romans: a Comparative Case Study.’ Unpublished Ph.D dissertation. North Carolina: Duke University, 1993. Lane, A.N.S. ‘Did Calvin Believe in Free Will?’ Vox Evangelica 12 (1981), 72-90. ———. John Calvin; Student of the Church Fathers. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999. ———. ‘Bondage and Liberation in Calvin’s Treatise against Pighius’ in Calvin Studies IX; Papers Presented at the ninth Colloquium on Calvin Studies, January 30-31, 1998. Ed. John Leith and Robert Johnson, 16-45. ———. ‘The Role of Scripture in Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification by Faith.’ Unpublished paper read at Calvin Studies Colloquium in Columbia Theological Seminary, Atlanta, GA in 2002. ———. Justification by faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: an Evangelical Assessment. London: T&T Clark, 2002. Lausberg, Heinrich. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. 2 vols. Münich: Max Hueber, 1960, 1973. ET: Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. Trans. Matthew Bliss, Annemiek Jansen and David Orton, Ed. David Orton and R. Dean Anderson. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Lillback, Peter. The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Lobstein, Paul. ‘La Connaissance religieuse d’après Calvin. Étude d’Histoire et de Dogmatique,’ Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 42 (1909), 53-110. ———. Études sur la pensée et l’oeuvre de Calvin, ed. Lobstein. Neuilly: Éditions de ‘La Cause,’ 1927. McDonnell, Kilian. John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. McKee, Elsie Anne. ‘Context, Contours, Contents: Towards a Description of Calvin’s Understanding of Worship’ in Calvin Studies Society Papers, 1995, 1997. Ed. David Foxgrover, 66–92. Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, CRC Product Services, 1998. ———. ‘Exegesis, Theology, and Development in Calvin’s Institutio: A Methodological Suggestion’ in Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr. Eds. Elsie Anne McKee and Brian Armstrong. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989, 154-72. McKim, Donald and Rogers, Jack. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979.

202

BIBLIOGRAPHY

McLelland, Joseph C., ‘Renaissance in Theology: Calvin’s 1536 Institutio—Fresh Start or False?’ in In Honour of John Calvin, 1509—1559: Papers from the 1986 International Calvin Symposium, McGill University, ARC Supplement. Ed. Furcha, E.J. Montreal: Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University, 1987, 154-74. McNeill, John T. ‘Natural Law in the teaching of the Reformers,’ Journal of Religion 26 (1946), 168-82. Millet Olivier. Calvin et la dynamique de la parole. Etude de rhetorique reformée, Bibliotheque litteraire de la Renaissance, ser. 3:28. Geneva: Slatkine, 1992. ———. ‘Docere/Movere: Les categories rhetoriques et leurs sources humanistes dans la doctrine calvinienne de la foi’ in CSRV, 35-52. Muller, Richard. ‘The Foundation of Calvin’s Theology: Scripture as Revealing God’s Word,’ Duke Divinity School Review 44 (1979), 14-23. ———. Christ and the Decree; Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Durham: Labyrinth Press, 1986. ———. A Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. ———. ‘Fides and Cognitio in Relation to the Problem of Intellect and Will in the Theology of John Calvin,’ Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990), 207-224. ———. ‘The Hermeneutics of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom’ in The Bible in the Sixteenth Century. Ed. David Steinmetz. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990, 67-82. ———. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987-2004. ———. ‘Scholasticism in Calvin: A Question of Relation and Disjunction’ in Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex. Edits. Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997, 247-65. ———. ‘Directions in Current Calvin Research’ in Calvin Studies IX; Papers Presented at the ninth Colloquium on Calvin Studies, January 30-31, 1998. Eds. John Leith and Robert Johnson, 70-80. ———. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Niesel, Wilhelm. The Theology of Calvin. trans. H. Knight. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956. Oakley, Francis. ‘The Absolute and Ordained Power of God in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Theology,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 59 (1998), 444-446. Oberman, Heiko. The Dawn of the Reformation. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. ———. Forerunners of the Reformation; the Shape of Late Medieval Thought Illustrated by Key Documents. Trans. Paul Nyhus. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. ———. ‘The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of John Calvin,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21 (1970), 43-64.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

———. ‘Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin’s Reformation’ in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor. Ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994, 91-154. ———. The Two Reformations; the Journey from the Last Days to the New World. Edit. Donald Weinstein. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003. Parker, T.H.L. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1971. ———. John Calvin: A Biography. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975. ———. Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. ———. Calvin’s Preaching. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. ———. Calvin: An Introduction to His Thought. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995. Pinard, Henry. ‘Les Infiltrations paiennes dans l’ancienne loi d’après les Pères de l’église,’ Recherches de Science Religieuse 9 (1919), 197-221. Pitkin, Barbara. ‘Nothing but Concupiscence: Calvin’s Understanding of Sin and the Via Augustini,’ Calvin Theological Journal 34 (1999), 347-69. Postema, Gerald J. ‘Calvin’s Alleged Rejection of Natural Theology,’ Scottish Journal of Theology 24 (1970), 423-34. Preus, James. From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther. Cambridge: Belknap, 1969. Preus, Robert. The Inspiration of Scripture; A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century Lutheran Dogmaticians. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd Ltd., 1955. Prestige, G.L. God in Patristic Thought. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. Puckett, David L. John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Ratner, Joseph. ‘Some Comments on Rosen’s “Calvin’s Attitude towards Copernicus”,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 21 (1961), 382-85. Rehman, Sebastian. ‘Theistic metaphysics and biblical exegesis: Francis Turretin on the concept of God,’ Religious Studies 38 (2001), 167-186. Reumann, John. ‘The Use of oikonomia and Related Terms in Greek Sources to about A.D. 100 as a Background for Patristic Applications.’ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1957. ———. ‘Oikonomia as ‘Ethical Accommodation’ in the Fathers, and its Pagan Backgrounds’ in Studia Patristica 3, I (1961), 370-79. Rosen, Edward. ‘Calvin’s Attitude towards Copernicus,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 21 (1960), 431-441. ———. ‘Calvin n’a pas lu Copernic,’ Revue de l'Histoire des Religions 182 (1972), 183-185. Schreiner, Susan. ‘“Through a Mirror Dimly”: Calvin’s Sermons on Job,’ Calvin Theological Journal 21 (1986), 175-93. ———. ‘Exegesis and Double Justice in Calvin’s Sermons on Job.’ Church History 58 (1989), 322-38.

204

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin. Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1991. ———. Where Shall Wisdom be Found? Calvin’s Exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Selderhuis, Hermann. ‘Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms’ in Calvin Studies IX; Papers Presented at the Ninth Colloquium on Calvin Studies, January 30-31, 1998. Ed. John Leith and Robert Johnson, 1-15. Selinger, Suzanne. Calvin Against Himself: An Inquiry in Intellectual History. Hamden: Archon Books, 1984. Siegert, Folker. ‘Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style’ in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: the history of its interpretation, vol. I/1, Ed. Magne Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1996, 130-98. Skarsaune, Oskar. ‘The Development of Scripture Interpretation in the Second and Third Centures – except Clement and Origen’ in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: the history of its interpretation, vol. I/1, Ed. Magne Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1996, 373-441. Smalley, Beryl. The Study of The Bible in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1941; reprinted 1952. Smits, Luchesius. Saint Augustin dans l’oeuvre de Jean Calvin. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1956-1958. Stauffer, Richard. Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans le prédication de Calvin. Bern: Peter Lang, 1978. ———. ‘Calvin et Copernic,’ Revue de l’histoire des Religions 179 (1971), 31-40. ———. ‘La reponse de M. Edward Rosen a notre article “Calvin et Copernic”,’ Revue de l’histoire des Religions 182 (1972), 185-86. Steinmetz, David. Calvin in Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Stroup, George. ‘Narrative in Calvin’s Hermeneutic.’ John Calvin & the Church: A Prism of Reform. Ed. Timothy George. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990, 158-71. Sunshine, Glenn and Klauber, Martin. ‘Jean-Alphonse Turrettini on Biblical Accommodation: Calvinist or Socinian?’ Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990), 9-12. Tierney, Brian. The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law, 1150-1625. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Thomas, Derek. ‘Incomprehensibilitas Dei: Calvin’s Pastoral Theology in the Sermons on Job.’ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wales, 2000. Torrance, Thomas F. The Hermeneutics of John Calvin. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988. Charles Trinkaus, ‘Renaissance Problems in Calvin’s Theology’ in Studies in the Renaissance 1 (1954), 66-67. Van den Brink, Gijsbert. Almighty God: a Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence. Kampen: Kok, 1993.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

Walchenbach, John R. ‘John Calvin as Biblical Commentator: An Investigation into Calvin’s Use of John Chrysostom as an exegetical Tutor.’ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1974. Warfield, Benjamin B.. ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God’ in Calvin and Calvinism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1931, 29-130. Weber, Otto. The Foundations of Dogmatics, Trans. Darrell Guder. vols. I, II. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. Wendel, François. Calvin: Origins and Developments of His Religious Thought. New York: Harper and Row, 1963; Durham: Labyrinth Press, 1987. Wever, John. ‘The Interpretative Character and Significance of the Septuagint Version’ in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: the history of its interpretation, vol. I/1, Ed. Magne Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1996, 84-107. Williams, Arnold. The Common Expositor; an Account of the Commentaries on Genesis, 1527-1633. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1948. Willis, E. David. ‘Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin’s Theology.’ in The Context of Contemporary Theology: Essays in Honor of Paul Lehmann, Eds.A.J. McKelway and E. David Willis. Atlanta: John Knox, 1974, 43-63. ———. ‘Calvin’s Theology of Pastoral Care.’ Calvin Studies VI; Papers Presented at a Colloquium on Calvin Studies at Davidson College and Davidson College Presbyterian Church, January, 1992. Ed. John Leith, 137-46. Wilterdink, Garret. ‘The Fatherhood of God in Calvin’s Thought,’ Reformed Review 30 (1976-1977), 9-22, reprint Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, vol. IX, Theology, Theology Proper, Eschatology. Ed. Richard Gamble. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992, 175-188. Witvliet, John. ‘Images and Themes in Calvin’s Theology of Liturgy: One Dimension of Calvin’s Liturgical Legacy’ in The Legacy of John Calvin; Papers Presented at the 12th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society April 22-24, 1999. Ed. David Foxgrover. Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 2000, 130-152. Wright, David F. ‘The Ethical Use of the Old Testament in Luther and Calvin: A Comparison,’ Scottish Journal of Theology 36 (1983), 463-85. ———. ‘Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism: Equity, Hardness of Heart, and Divine Accommodation in the Mosaic Harmony Commentary,’ Calvin Theological Journal 21 (1986), 33-50. ———. ‘Accommodation and Barbarity in John Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries’ in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson. JSOT Suppl. 152. Ed. A. G. Auld. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993, 413-27. ———. ‘Calvin’s Accommodation Revisited.’ in Calvin as Exegete: Papers and Responses Presented at the Ninth Colloquium on Calvin and Calvin Studies, May 20, 21 and 22, 1993. Ed. Peter De Klerk. Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1995, 171-90.

206

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. ‘Calvin’s Accommodating God’ in Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex. Eds. Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publ., 1997, 3-19. ———. ‘Was John Calvin a ‘Rhetorical Theologian’?’ Calvin Studies IX; Papers Presented at the ninth Colloquium on Calvin Studies, January 30-31, 1998. Ed. John Leith and Robert Johnson, 46-69. Zachman, Randall. ‘Calvin as Analogical Theologian,’ Scottish Journal of Theology 51 (1998), 162-187. Zagorin, Perez. Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1990.

INDEX OF CALVIN’S WORKS

Calvin’s corpus Commentaries, Lectures and Sermons

6—87, 114 8—62, 88 10—147 12—125 13—101, 111, 112, 158 14—147 15—79, 84 17—49 19—64, 88, 95 20—73, 117, 126-27, 133 21—29-32, 53, 71, 134-35, 171, 175, 179, 189 22—53, 174-75, 178-79 23—108, 127 25—22-23, 77, 79, 80, 87, 160 28—71 29—77 32—110, 161

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis Arg—60 1—45, 55, 61, 62, 152, 168 3—63, 86, 145 6—62 7—57, 73, 74, 125 8—80, 146 9—62 12—45, 55, 87 13—49, 61 15—48, 50, 82, 117, 131 16—86 17—64 22—19-20, 117 26—50, 74, 77, 114, 117, 122 27—74, 94 28—95, 125 32—82, 109 35—61, 66, 82 46—46, 55 50—66

Leviticus 2—127, 129 7—118 11—70 12—113 16—126 17—127 18—112, 158, 174-75, 179, 182-83 19—90, 179 20—174, 179 21—71, 103, 126, 132 22—126 23—75 24—23-24, 70, 77, 96, 127

Exodus 1—75, 85 2—87 3—50 4—74

207

208

26—51, 88, 109, 111, 154 27—125-26 Numbers 6—77 15—77, 127 16—132 17—132 28—114, 166 35—134 Deuteronomy 1—62, 84, 94, 108, 125 3—48 4—48, 50, 61, 62, 73, 87, 94, 107, 117 5—61, 68, 73, 81, 82, 88, 95, 107, 109, 111, 118, 121, 132, 133 6—73, 107, 118 7—40, 88, 94, 117, 126-27 8—87, 147-48, 152-53 9—62, 80, 121 10—94 11—110, 111, 117, 126 12—78, 80, 87, 103 16—108, 125 18—108, 126 20—170, 171, 179, 183 21—71, 134, 135, 169, 183 22—173-74 23—180 24—71, 117, 131, 173 26—73 27—73, 126-27 28—111, 153-54 30—74 32—62, 108 Joshua 1—85, 95 2—49, 74 4—126 5—85, 110, 149 7—71, 126, 130-31

I NDEX 8—72, 85, 127 9—84, 110 10—71, 72, 163-66 11—52, 85 13—125 1 Samuel 18—79 23—62, 159 2 Samuel 6—78, 79, 107 7—90, 109, 122 12—122 Job 1—107, 122 2—44-45, 55, 90 4—69 5—90, 123, 147 7—109 8—90, 124 9—60, 69, 70, 76 10—50, 57, 69, 70, 74, 117, 131, 157 11—63 12—62, 88, 89, 122 13—69, 82, 123 15—69, 187 21—88 22—123 23—69, 73, 117 24—116, 124 27—69, 157 30—90 33—61 34—124 35—122 36—123-24 42—88 Psalms 5—82 8—84 9—131 10—130

I NDEX Psalms (continued) 12—63 13—82 17—62 18—52, 56, 61 19—45, 63 20—62, 63, 102 22—52 23—84 24—114 26—82 29—52n97 30—80 31—84 33—84 34—85, 156 36—85 39—109 42—131 44—48, 90, 130 45—77 49—61, 62 50—52n97 55—82, 85, 155 58—48 59—82 60—155 62—73, 74, 75 65—94 68—63, 79, 86 69—82 72—63 73—88 74—62 78—43, 62, 84, 85, 107, 109, 115 83—130 89—82 90—63 91—25-27, 86 99—66, 91 102—81 103—94 112—90 113—85, 101

116—81 119—38-39, 46, 51, 94 125—126 132—64 136—167 144—84, 94 145—132 150—79 Isaiah Arg—165 1—77, 87 6—47, 95 13—51 19—77 24—52, 56 25—65 28—112 37—86, 130 40—43, 61, 83-84 44—102 51—87 53—61, 92, 93, 110, 161 55—62, 95 56—50 57—109 Jeremiah 8—63 10—75 12—88 13—94 14—82 15—62 16—113 17—39 20—90 24—117 31—62, 79, 116 32—107 Lamentations 1—82 2—115 3—188

209

210

Ezekiel 1—47, 112 2—114 3—62, 114 5—114 7—114 9—132 11—114 12—114 14—115 16—114, 116, 132 18—73, 74 20—74 App—2 Daniel 1—146 2—64, 87, 102, 110 3—49, 80, 86 4—89, 122 5—109, 158, 160 8—86, 108 9—88, 89 10—86, 87, 113, 132 Hosea 1—121 2—27-29, 118, 122 11—62 12—158, 160 Joel 2—15, 119 3—21-22, 84, 115 Amos 2—61 4—50 6—50 9—89 Jonah 1—36 3—89, 188

I NDEX Micah 6—82, 132 Habakkuk 1—50, 52, 87 3—95 4—77 Zephaniah 1—48, 81, 82, 88, 130 2—109 3—24-25, 115, 121 Haggai 1—51, 61 2—119-20 Zechariah 3—66 11—84 14—61 Malachi 1—15 NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1—166 9—77 12—92 14—51, 92 19—172-73, 179 21—48 22—133 26—161 27—114 28—49, 86, 112, 117, 166 Mark 16—156, 166 Luke 2—44, 86, 91

I NDEX 7—45, 55, 92 17—73 24—166 John 3—63 6—92 8—44, 55, 91, 92, 174 14—92, 103 15—161 20—86, 166 Acts 7—48, 60, 64 10—64 12—60, 110 Romans 2—180 15—61 1 Corinthians 2—63 9—166 13—83

211

Hebrews 4—44-45 6—95 7—77 1 Peter 1—66 4—88 2 Peter Arg—165 1 John 3—66, 67

Calvin’s corpus Tracts and Treatises (alphabetical order) Anabaptists and Libertines—46, 47, 62, 110 Bondage and Liberation of the will—73 Calvin’s Reply to Sadolet—78

Galatians 1—93, 161 3—94, 102, 145 4—186 Ephesians 4—61 Colossians 1—69 2—77 1 Timothy 1—63, 65 2—44, 92 Titus 3—48

Catechism of the Church of Geneva—64 Clear Explanation of … True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ … [against] … Tileman Heshusius—64 Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God—62 Concerning the Secret Providence of God—69, 142, 151 Consilium admodum Paterum Pauli III Pontificis Romani … et Eusebii Pamphili eiusdem consilii pia et salutaris explication—191

212

I NDEX

Epistola Secunda. De Christiani Hominis Officio in sacerdotiis Papalis ecclesiae vel administrandis vel abiiciendis—191

Interim adultero-germanum, cui adiecta est Vera Christianae pacificationis et ecclesiae reformandae ratio—15

Institutes (1536)—63, 64, 113, 114

On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly, … A Letter by John Calvin … [to] … N.S.—192

Institutes (1559) book 1—40, 46, 49, 60, 62, 63, 86, 89, 113, 151, 165

Psychopannychia—100 Institutes (1559) book 2—36, 36, 38, 45 48, 63, 73, 76, 78, 93, 112, 161, 178 Institutes (1559) book 3—56, 63, 69, 75, 82, 131 Institutes (1559) book 4—63, 67, 71, 75, 181 Instruction in Faith (1537)—48

Articuli a facultate sacrae theologiae Parisiensi determinati super materiis fidei nostrae hodie controversis. Cum antidote—64 Petit Traicté monstrant que c’est que doit faire un homme fidele congnoissant la verité de l’evangile, quand il est entre les papistes. avec une epistre du mesme argument—192

INDEX OF PERSONS

Eire, C, 105n23 Engel, M.P., 37

Andrew of St Victor, 30 Aquinas, 16, 19-20, 104 Augustine, 16, 19, 25, 29-31, 35-36

Francis Lambert of Avignon, 21-22 Funkenstein, A, 16n14, 179n42

Backus, I, 60n6, 178-79 Barth, K, 36-37 Battles, F.L., 3n15, 4, 8-9, 14n3, 15n11, 15n13, 40, 105 Bede, 15 Benin, S, 6n28, 16n17 Bouwsma, W, 37 Brenz, J, 23, 31, 104, 128-29, 134 Bru, 4n20 Brunner, E, 36-37 Bruno of Asti, 25 Bucer, M, 24, 25

Gamble, R, 191n8 Ganoczy, A, 188 Gerhoh of Reichersberg, 25 Gerrish, B, 167 Glossa Ordinaria, 27-28, 30, 104, 121, 127 Goudriaan, A, 63n34 Hanson, R.P.C., 5-6 Hass, G, 178 Hayden-Roy, P, 62n18 Hedtke, R, 2-3, 191-92 Helm, P, 7n34, 143-44 Hesselink, I.J., 68n73 Higman, F, 37n9 Hoitenga, D, 36n5, 37 Hugh of St Cher, 21, 25, 27-28, 30, 121, 128 Hunsinger, G, 56n112

Cajetan, T, 30, 31n76, 100, 104, 128, 134 Capito, W, 28 Cassiodorus, 25 Chrysostom, 13, 15, 19-20 Chomarat, J, 5 n22 Courtney, W, 138 Davis, T, 64n52 De Boer, E.A., 32n81, 64n48 De Jong, J, 7 Denis the Carthusian, 25, 27, 28, 30-1, 104 Dowey, E, 1-2, 40-42, 56 Drusius, J, 121

213

Irenaeus, 16 Isidore of Seville, 127 Jerome, 21-22, 25, 27-28 John Cassian, 17n20

214

I NDEX

John Duns Scotus, 16, 191 John of Damascus, 18-19 Jones, S, 105 Justin Martyr, 16

Pellican, C, 21, 24, 25-26, 28, 101, 104, 121 Peter Comestor, 30-31 Philo, 14 Pinard, H, 13n1

Kingdon, R, 176n36-n37 Lausberg, H, 5 Lane, T, 19n26-n27, 20n31, 56n112 Lillback, P, 94n269 Lombard, P, 25, 35-36 Luther, M, 17-18, 19-20, 21-22, 25, 28, 100, 121, 141 Major, J, 19n26 McKee, E.A., 76n131 Millet, O, 5, 105 Muller, R, 37, 93n269, 164n4 Musculus, W, 19-20, 25 Nicholas of Lyra, 21, 25, 30, 100, 104, 121, 128, 134 Oakley, F, 140n9 Oberman, H, 75n127, 141, 144, 191n9 Oecolampadius, J, 28 Origen, 15 Osborn, E, 14n6 Pannenberg, W, 165 Parker, T.H.L., 8n35, 67n73, 94n278 Peder Palladius, 30n75

Rabanus Maurus, 30-31 Ratner, J, 166n11 Reumann, J, 6, 14 Rosen, E, 166n11 Schreiner, S, 60n1, 69n82, 89n237 Stauffer, R, 2n4, 4-5, 16, 166 Steinmetz, D, 137, 142-43 Thomas, D, 68n79 Thompson, J, 32n81 Trinkaus, C, 3n15 Van den Brink, G, 144 Vermigli, P, 64 Wallace, R, 64n52, 79n156 Warfield, B.B., 8n35 Wawrykow, J, 75n127 Witvliet, J, 76n131 Willis, E.D., 3-4, 41, 61n10, 105-106 Wright, D.F., 6-7, 41-42, 56, 62n17, 76, 106, 178 Zachman, R, 60n1 Zagorin, P, 74n125 Zwingli, U, 19-20