|
___ Article ______________________________________________________________________________________ The Balloon and the Book: On Calvin and the Bible An article by Roland Boer
About the Author Abstract: This article explores a basic tension in John Calvin’s doctrine of Scripture. Arguing that the key lies in Calvin’s “high” view of the Bible, it explores the tension between conservative and radical possibilities of his thought. The argument has three steps. To begin with, Calvin asserts that the Bible is beholden to no earthly authority, especially the Church. In order to achieve this move he attempts to raise the Bible above grasping human hands. When it has achieved such a dizzying height, Calvin explores a number of overlapping features of this elevated Bible: it is self-sufficient, but then it also comes from God’s mouth, and the way we know that it is God’s word is by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, this high position leads in two directions, one conservative and the other far more radical. Conservatively, one must never question the Bible since it comes from God (he spends a good deal of time countering criticism of the Bible). More radically, it means that one’s faith and hopes rest with no earthly person. If that text exhorts one to pursue or provides examples of radical action, then one had better do so.
My argument has three points. To begin with, Calvin asserts that the Bible is beholden to no earthly authority, especially the Church. In order to achieve this move he attempts to raise the Bible above grasping human hands. When it has achieved such a dizzying height, Calvin explores a number of overlapping features of this elevated Bible: it is self-sufficient, but then it also comes from God’s mouth, and the way we know that it is God’s word is by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Finally, this high position leads in two directions, one conservative and the other far more radical. Conservatively, one must never question the Bible since it comes from God (he spends a good deal of time countering criticism of the Bible). More radically, it means that one’s faith and hopes rest with no earthly person. If that text exhorts one to pursue or provides examples of radical politics, then you had better do so. A word on the nature of my argument: it is a direct engagement with Calvin’s own text and it is designed to challenge and provoke. I have of course benefited greatly from a range of contributions from the small (and somewhat strange) circle of Calvin scholars. [2] Unfortunately, much of it is rather reverential towards the received wisdom on Calvin, so I have no doubt that my argument will not sit well with such scholars. That argument seeks not so much to discover what Calvin intended to say, to find out what he truly meant (an approach that still bedevils too much theology and biblical scholarship). Instead, it explores the text in detail, seeking out the breaks, tensions and contradictions in the way Calvin expresses himself. 2. Out of the reach of human hands But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men [hominem arbitrio niteretur]! For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our very day? Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters? What reverence is due Scripture and what books ought to be reckoned within its canon depend, they say, upon the determination of the church. [5] If it weren’t for the Church, so the argument went and still goes, the Bible would not exist. After all, did not the Church in its early days decide on the ins and the outs – what was to be included within and excluded from the canon. Even more, does not the Church guarantee that the Bible has passed down safely and without error until now? And is it not the Church who can assure us that the Bible does in fact come from God? By the end of this quoted text, these three arguments become two: the reverence due to Scripture and the nature of the canon, both of which depend on the Church. For Calvin all of this is anathema, or, as he puts it, a most pernicious error and an insult to the Holy Spirit. The point at issue is that this whole position assumed that “the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men.” I will come back to this point in a moment, but first let me pick up one feature of this text. Calvin challenges the argument that the Church determined which books are to be included in the canon. He conjures up an image of the Church sitting down before a vast pile of books, placing one carefully in a box with “canon” emblazoned on its outside and tossing another into a large bin called “rejects.” Such an image leads to outrage that anyone should determine what the word of God might be. Unfortunately, the vast majority of opinion concerning the formation of the canon would place Calvin in a distinct minority. [6] The long slow process of canonical formation, the debates over books such as Esther, the Song of Songs, The Shepherd of Hermas and Hebrews, the political struggles, influence of Constantine and later Roman Emperors, late closure (in the 4th century if it is indeed closed today) – all of these point to a very human process. In light of this data, the Roman Catholics were wrong as well, for it was not merely the Church in its divine wisdom who decided on the canon. All manner of extra-ecclesial factors played their roles as well, not least the “Christian” emperors on ideological cohesion among their religious backers. In the end it seems that Calvin was wrong on this point, but then so were his opponents in the Roman Catholic Church. And for those who would insist that it is wrong to impose judgments from the 21st century on the 16th, it is worth remembering that there are a good many who hold to Calvin’s position as I write. At this point his position on Scripture locks into his theological system as a whole. No human being – sinful, fallen and depraved as we are – can or should be able to tell God to do anything. Salvation depends purely on God’s grace through Christ; no one can deny or accept God through his or her own power, even faith is a gift from God and not a human capacity or faculty. So also with the Bible: since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, it is hands off. At this point Calvin betrays his deep knowledge of classical philosophy, [7] even though he tries to align himself with Paul and distance himself from the wisdom of this world. In particular he draws on Augustine who in turn draws on Plato’s still useful distinction between opinion and truth (doxa and alēthē). [8] Opinion is all too easy and cheap, argues Plato, but truth is very difficult to find. When I occasionally peruse the “opinion pages” of the newspaper, or sit at a table full of people, I soon find that opinion is indeed cheap. Anyone can spout it forth to the great enlightenment of those around. But truth, a genuine gem, is a difficult business indeed. Here Calvin uses the distinction in regard to the Bible: the mere opinion of human beings concerning the Bible is not something to which we should pay too much attention. Rather, what we seek is the truth.
Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. [10] Maneat ergo hoc fixum, quos Spiritus sanctus intus docuit, solide acquiescere in Scriptura, et hanc quidem esse autopiston, neque demonstrationi et rationibus subiici eam fas esse: quam tamen meretur apud nos certitudinem, Spiritus testimonio consequi. Etsi enim reverentiam sua sibi ultro maiestate conciliat, tunc tamen demum serio nos afficit quum per Spiritum obsignata est cordibus nostrisIllius ergo virtute illuminati, iam nos aut nostro, aut aliorum iudicio credimus, a Deo esse Scripturam: sed supra humanum iudicium, certo certius constituimus (non secus acsi ipsius Dei numen illic intueremur) hominem ministerio, ab ipsissimo Dei ore ad nos fluxisse. [11] This is an extraordinarily good statement of Calvin’s position on the Bible, so let us examine it closely. The key word is “self-authenticated”, or as Beveridge’s translation from 1845 puts it, “carrying its own evidence along with it.” These are actually gallant efforts to translate one of the occasional Greek words that turn in Calvin’s text: autopiston. We are familiar with auto, for it is a common prefix that means “by itself” or “on its own.” An automobile is a vehicle able to move on its own, without a horse, dog, human being or other vehicle such as a locomotive. Automatic means that an appliance can operate according to its own devices and does not rely on my intervention at each step of the way – automatic gears on a bicycle, an automatic washing machine and so on. In Greek, of course, autos is the reflexive pronoun, the one that folds back on oneself – or himself, herself, themselves and the rest. Piston is another form of the word pistis, meaning faith or belief. So autopiston means something like “having its belief within itself” (we are talking about the Bible), or “believable on its own” or even “self-sufficient in terms of faith.” I prefer the simple “auto-faith”: the Bible is an auto-faith document. What does that mean? To begin with, this auto-faith document is not to be subjected to “proofs and arguments [demonstrationi et rationibus].” It should not require any external demonstrations or explanations, nor should one need to make any arguments concerning it. It simply bears witness to itself and silences any such debates. . At this point Calvin adds an explanation from the 1539 edition (the original edition was from 1536), since he obviously felt his point was not clear enough: “For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit.” Here we find that “auto-faith” gains an explanation: the Bible has “its own majesty [sibi ultro maiestate]”. No one needs to act as its publicity agent, for it does well enough on its own. Further, the Bible is self-sufficient because it mirrors God: in the same way that God is self-sufficient, so also is the Bible. If God has no need of external support or verification, neither does the Bible. One is autotelic (has its own ends within itself) and the other is auto-faith. Or as Calvin puts it, “The highest proof of Scripture derives in general from the fact that God in person speaks in it”. [12] Here is Calvin: “it is clear that the teaching of God is from heaven”. [13] Let me ad to this the text I quoted earlier: “The highest proof of Scripture derives in general from the fact that God in person speaks in it”. [14] It is a point he will repeat again and again: the Bible is full of heavenly teaching and thereby reflects the character of God.Why is the Bible so much like God? Why is it self-sufficient, auto-faith and autotelic? It is not that the Bible is like God and threatens to replace God, but that Scripture has been spoken by God and therefore contains his own ideas, thoughts and doctrine. This text is important for another reason: it throws a line out of a circular argument. The circular argument looks like this: how do we know that the Bible is the word of God? It says so and therefore we should believe it. That argument is about as persuasive as arguing that I am trustworthy because I say I am. How do you know that I am to be trusted? I have told you so. Most worldly-wise people would take such a circular argument cum grano salis. Calvin squeezes out of that problem with what is really a grappling iron. The image I have in mind is of Calvin stuck in an alcove, a cul-de-sac from which the known escape routes have been closed. He twirls a rope with a grappling iron on the end, hurls it upward and it grips a ledge high above. So also with the Bible, at least in Calvin’s assessment: the grappling iron thrown out from the self-sufficiency and auto-faith of the Bible latches onto God. In fact, the Bible turns out not to be a self-sufficient, autonomous and self-verifying text. It is actually dependent on God: it contains the heavenly doctrine, comes from the “very mouth of God,” so much so that it is as though “we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself [ipsius Dei numen illic intueremur]”. [15] This is an even higher view of Scripture. Firmly gripping the rope attached to the grappling hook, Calvin has hauled the Bible upwards so that it is out of human reach. People may have written it, but they were mere instruments—“by the ministry of men “hominem ministerio]”. [16] However, Calvin has created another problem for himself. With such a lofty view of the Bible, the question then becomes: how do we really know that it is God’s word? It may claim to be so and we may state that it comes from the mouth of God, but how do we – or rather, how does Calvin – know?
But let us step back a moment and consider the wider context of this clause. It is actually part of an important sentence structure at the beginning of the quotation. The passage actually begins with a main clause: “Let this point therefore stand [Maneat ergo hoc fixum]”. From there we get two subordinate clauses, one focusing on the teaching and witness of the Holy Spirit and the other on the self-sufficiency of the Bible – both of which are established (fixum). It is firmly established, Calvin argues, (1) that those who are inwardly taught (intus docuit) by the Holy Spirit acknowledge the authority and power of Scripture, and (2) that the Bible is a self-sufficient and auto-faith document and does not need external proofs or evidence. I have explored the second of these items already so I focus on the first here. [19] Add to this text another one and the picture starts to clear: “And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit [quam tamen meretur apud nos certitudinem, Spiritus testimonio consequi]”. [20] The Holy Spirit provides certainty or full conviction (certitudo) to those who are taught inwardly (intus docuit) that the Bible comes from the very mouth of God. Calvin may have been using the Holy Spirit to back up his own position, especially in this ingenious way (and who hasn’t fallen back on a similar use of a higher authority from time to time to give their own position a much needed boost?). Yet the main reason he draws upon the Holy Spirit is that he needs to get away from even the faintest whiff of human authority. As he puts it: “Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God [Illius ergo virtute illuminati, iam nos aut nostro, aut aliorum iudicio credimus, a Deo esse Scripturam]”. [21] The key phrase is italicized in the English translation: either on our own judgment (iudicio) or that of others. It is easy to say that the judgment of others is suspect but that my own is rock solid. Calvin will have none of it: your judgment and mine are not to be trusted. Why? It is “human judgment (humanum iudicium)” and he is after something superior to (supra)that all too fallible type of judgment, Calvin’s own included. [22] 4. The bible model The image that keeps coming to mind is of a balloon: the basket or compartment for passengers is the Bible, which the balloon itself tries to lift off the ground and out of human reach. Preventing God and the Bible from disappearing into the clouds is a rope that ties the whole contraption to a stake in the ground. This line is of course the Holy Spirit, which provides that vital link between the passenger compartment (Bible) and people on the ground. 5. Conservatives and radicals on the high ground At least two paths lead from this high view of the Bible. [23] One is distinctly conservative and the other more radical. One is well-trodden, so much so that over the years it has become a distinct track through the forest. [24] Eventually picks and shovels were brought in, trees felled, passes and culverts and bridges constructed, stone and bitumen laid. Still the traffic increased, so the road was widened from one lane to two and then to four. Food and fuel outlets became established along the road so that travelers could stop, fuel up their vehicles and bodies with equally fast forms of energy and get under way as quickly as possible. This path is of course the conservative one. A great pile of statements seem to stack up on the side of such a conservative direction: “Scripture is from God [a Deo esse Scripturam],” writes Calvin [25]; the Bible “flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men [hominem ministerio, ab ipsissimo Dei ore ad nos fluxisse]” [26]; since “there are manifest signs of God speaking in Scripture” it is thus “clear that the teaching of God is from heaven”. [27] From God, from the very mouth of God, spoken by God – the statements couldn’t be more direct or clearer. I could go on, listing such statements endlessly, although I will allow myself a couple more where Calvin lets his literary imagination run loose. So we find that in the Bible we gaze “upon the majesty of God himself [ipsius Dei numen].” [28] Or in this wonderful if somewhat pagan evocation of the Minotaur’s labyrinth in Jason and the Argonauts the Bible becomes Ariadne’s thread: “For we should so reason that the splendor of the divine countenance, which even the apostle calls “unapproachable” [1 Tim. 6: 16], is for us like an inexplicable labyrinth unless we are conducted into it by the thread of the Word.” [29] All of these statements about the Bible proceeding from the hand or mouth of God, providing true doctrine and clear teaching may well give the impression that Calvin is a deeply conservative theologian. Without a doubt, one part of him is. We need only take all of the preceding statements and link them in with a comment like the following to land in the lap of the fundamentalists (or conservative evangelicals as some like to call themselves): “it is not right to subject it to proofs and reasonings [neque demonstrationi et rationibus subiici eam fas esse].” The Bible does not submit to proofs and reasonings (demonstrationi et rationibus), or, to fill out the semantic field of the Latin, to descriptions, expositions, and judgments. I would like to stay with this comment for a few moments. To begin with, its target is the Roman Catholic claim that the Church is the arbiter of the canon, its interpretation and the faithful transmission of the Bible. I have already covered Calvin’s challenge to the Church at the beginning of this essay, as well as the more comprehensive step in which no human judgment, proof or argument whatsoever is needed to verify the Bible as the word of God. But there are also other targets. Calvin never misses the opportunity to take swipes at critics of the Bible both inside and outside the Church. These may be the Donatists, Pelagians or Manicheans who populate Augustine’s texts (Calvin sometimes seems to think of himself as Augustine redivivus), or the Anabaptists and other radical interpreters of his own day, or the scholars who question the authenticity of biblical books, [30] especially Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch or even that Moses existed at all. [31] And where do all these critics get their ammunition? From Satan, of course. [32]. For many who call themselves Calvinists, historical-criticism was and is highly problematic. The problems were and are many: the removal of God as a factor in biblical criticism; the challenges to traditional views of authorship and provenance; and the use of reason (“proofs and reasonings”) as the prime criterion for biblical criticism. All of these go against the basic theological assumption that sinful and fallen human beings should not dare to criticize the Bible. To offer human arguments, human constructs and human criticisms of the Bible was the ultimate hubris. If the Bible gives us the thread through the mind of God, if it is the utterance from the very mouth of God and spouts forth divine doctrines, then human beings should accept it as it is and not question or criticize. I know this conservative reading of Calvin all too well. Apart from buttressing it with the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, all manner of twisting and turning goes on to justify that Moses did indeed write the Pentateuch; that Luke did write the third Gospel and Acts; that Paul wrote Colossians, Ephesians and the letters to Timothy; that Isaiah was written by one person who predicted many things; that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, that the narratives we find in the Bible are historically accurate … On and on it goes, using the defense that one should not criticize the word of God and that these positions have the weight of 2000 years behind them. [36] This conservative reading is one path that may lead on from Calvin’s high doctrine of Scripture. But there is another path that is far less traveled. It reminds me of a long 25 km walk I undertook some thirty years ago in Lamington National Park in the Great Dividing Range of eastern Australia. After plunging deep into the rainforest and fending off enough leeches to suck an elephant dry, I found that the trail joined an old bullock team track. Often it disappeared at river crossings and I struggled to find it again, or it would be buried under a massive fallen tree and its attendant vines and branches. It had been quite a while since anyone had been on this track, for in many places the undergrowth had established itself again and the leaves made it appear like any other part of the bush. Only the faintest suggestion of a gradient or a cutting kept me on the path. And then that tree root over which I was about to step would move and a carpet snake would slowly rise to see who was disturbing its quiet sun-bathing. As a smallish constrictor they are relatively harmless but in a country that has the nine most deadly snakes in the world, one is always cautious. Eventually I found my way back to the campsite on this unbeaten track. The radical possibilities of Calvin’s high view of Scripture are like this path: less well traveled, often concealed, disappearing at crucial moments and full of deterrents. Yet the track is there; it just takes a little more work to follow it. Calvin’s position that the Bible is God’s word alone, coming from the mouth of God and not due to any human decision or control, is a risky line to take. Even the point of contact between human beings and the Bible is very much a one-way affair: the Holy Spirit witnesses to us that it is God’s word; we do not twist the Holy Spirit’s arm, mutter a threat and try to get it to persuade God of our opinion. If we take Calvin at his word and assume (as most do) that he is in deadly earnest, this position is risky on at least three counts: (1) it gives God free reign to say what he will; (2) it means that we are utterly dependant on the Bible for direction; (3) the Bible may well upset and overturn any human efforts. I suspect Calvin sensed the radical possibility of these assumptions – there is enough in his work to suggest that he did. So, while we find him saying often enough that people should be able to read to plain sense of Scripture, he says even more often that the ordinary reader needs a guide for the Bible. It is not difficult to guess what that guide is. For example, he writes of those who spend their whole lives tangling up the “simplicity of Scripture” [37] with all manner of subtleties, dialectical twists, endless disputes and speculation. I must confess that I always think of a biblical studies conference when I read these words or of those professional biblical scholars who are my colleagues and friends. None of that, says Calvin: let us keep the simplicity of the Bible. If the Bible speaks the mind of God, uttered through his mouth to those who wrote it, then we must take what God says without applying some test of reason or correct doctrine or church interpretation, for these are all the acts of human beings. So when the Bible offers a stinging rebuke of economic injustice and oppression, then we and Calvin should take notice. The words of an Isaiah or Micah or Amos are well known for their condemnations of economic exploitation and the oppression of the poor by the powerful rich. I give but one example among many: There are quite a few other places in the Bible where we find similar themes. For example, Moses calls on Pharaoh to “let my people go” (Exodus 5:1 (Calvin 1852, 112-13)). And then in the New Testament Jesus condemns the rich and powerful and says to the disciples, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25). Jesus propagates an anti-establishment and anti-clerical position, identifies with the poor and oppressed, and loves a communal life with the disciples who gave up all to join the group. If we take the high view of Scripture touted by Calvin, then we can’t avoid these outright condemnations of grinding the poor and needy into the dust. Above all, we must keep the economic and social focus of these texts, for they expose and decry economic and social exploitation. Or when the Bible offers visions of collective living in places such as the Acts of the Apostles or the Gospels, where everyone has all things in common then we should pay attention. Quite simply, according to Calvin’s high view of Scripture, if God says communist living is desirable, then it must be so. Despite murmurings about celestial pies and futile schemes for improvement, we cannot escape the enduring power of the image of communal living that appears in the Acts of the Apostles: “And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44-5). An inspiration for generations of Christian communists and socialists, this text from Acts is expanded in Acts 4:32-5 with its talk of having everything in common and the distribution to any who had need: Now the company of all those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. In the face of explicit Christian communism in these texts, it is interesting to see what a range of scholars do with this text? They argue that such communal activity was voluntary and only for a short time (during a festival) and by no means the “imposition” of a communist system. Or we find that such common living is applied to that new invention of the last couple of centuries, the nuclear family (which, by the way, cannot be found in the Bible). Not only is this a very popular argument today, but it was also one that both Luther and Calvin put forward, [39] who were desperate to avoid the communal interpretations of the Anabaptists and the abuses of Roman Catholic monasteries. Or, as Calvin and later neo-orthodox readings suggested, the qualities of unity, love and generosity are abstracted from the passage and the actual practice pushed into the background. In the last century the resistance to communism and the effect of the Cold War lies heavily on the interpretation of these texts. In reaction to claims by communist scholars such as Friedrich Engels, Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg [40] that these texts speak of an early Christian communism that has much in common with the communism we know, a wide range of scholars resisted such interpretations in the name of the private individual. So the historical possibility was undermined, the text spiritualised or its sense diverted into acceptable forms of cooperation such as the family or one’s local church. In short, a wide range of interpreters sought to negate the text. If we take Calvin’s high view of Scripture, then that is the last thing we should do. No matter how visionary or even mythical such pictures may be, they have given and continue to give political traction to religious and not so religious radicals. Much more could be said, but it is clear that the Bible has a distinctly radical line to it. But what we have with Calvin’s high view of Scripture is a radical political view, condemning oppression, offering images of a communist life and speaking of a radical judgment that will destroy the oppressors. Let me reiterate what that high view entails: it comes metaphorically from the mouth of God, it is the sole source for direction and it upsets any human endeavor. The first two are relatively obvious, but what about the third? These sorts of texts create all sorts of problems for anyone who is politically or economically conservative. And Calvin is precisely one of these people. He too will need to be prepared to be surprised by his own doctrine of Scripture. Notes 2. Although I disagree with some of the angles taken, I have benefited from consulting McKim, Donald K., ed. Calvin and the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Holder, R. Ward. John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation: Calvin's First Commentaries (Leiden: Brill, 2006); Armstrong, Brian. “Report on the Seminar: An Investigation of Calvin's Principles of Biblical Interpretation.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 54.1-2 (1998): 133-42; Forstman, H. Jackson, Word and Spirit: Calvin's Doctrine of Biblical Authority (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971); Thompson, John L. “Calvin as a Biblical Interpreter.” The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin. Ed. D. K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Rogers, Jack B., and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979); Bousma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); du Cros, Rémi Tessier. Jean Calvin, de la réforme à la revolution (Paris: L'Harmattan, 1999); McGrath, Alistair E. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990); Steinmetz, David Curtis Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Fowl, Stephen E. The Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997); Parker, T.H.L. John Calvin: A Biography (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007); Neuser, Wilhelm H., ed. Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Yu, Carver T. “Hermeneutical Discussions Today and the Relevance of Calvin.” Reformed Theology: Identity and Ecumenicity II: Biblical Interpretation in the Reformed Tradition. Eds. W. M. Alston and M. Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); Spijker, Willem van 't. Calvin: A Brief Guide to His Life and Thought. Trans. L. D. Bierma (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009); Dommen, Edward, and James B. Bratt, eds. John Calvin Rediscovered: The Impact of His Social and Economic Thought (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007); Graham, W. Fred. The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin and HIs Socio-Economic Impact (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978); Höpfl, Harro. The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Kingdon, Robert. “Was the Protestant Reformation a Revolution? The Case of Geneva.” Church, Society and Politics. Ed. D. Baker (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975); Stevenson, William R. Sovereign Grace: The Place and Significance of Christian Freedom in John Calvin's Political Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); Tawney, R. H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (London: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1926). 3. Inst. 1.7.2; translation modified. I have generally followed the most recent authoritative translation of the Institutes by Ford Lewis Battles (2006 [1559]). However, Battles tends at times to flatten Calvin’s text and miss its freshness and sharpness. The translation by Beveridge is also worth a look (they seem to do about one per century). 4. OS 3:66.27–29. Following convention, Inst refers to the Institutes of the Christian Religion, and references are given in terms of book, chapter and paragraph numbers. As for the Latin original, I have made use of the critical edition in Opera Selecta, a five volume selection of Calvin’s work in Latin. The third, fourth and fifth volumes contain the 1559 Latin edition of Institutiones Christianae Religionis, edited by P. Barth and G. Niesel and published in 1957. The format for references is to cite OS, followed by volume, page and line numbers. 5. Inst. 1.7.1; OS 3:65.19–66.4. 6. As a small sample of key texts on canonisation, see Sundberg, Albert. The Old Testament of the Early Church (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964); Brettler, Marc. “How the Books of the Hebrew Bible Were Chosen.” Approaches to the Bible: The Best of Bible Review, Vol 1: Composition, Transmission and Language. Ed. H. Minkoff. (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994); Carr, David M. “Canonization in the Context of Community.” A Gift of God in Due Season. Ed. R. D. Weis and D. M. Carr (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); Davies, Philip R. Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1998): Aichele, George. The Control of Biblical Meaning: Canon as a Semiotic Mechanism (Lewisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001). The status of the debate and all the key positions are covered in McDonald, Lee, and James A. Sanders. The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002). With a bird’s eye view, these debates oscillate within three oppositions: diversity versus unity, conflict versus consensus, and rupture versus organic or evolutionary development. If you begin from the side of unity and consensus, then the problems arise with diversity and conflict, and vice versa. Often such reconstructions come up with ingenious and overlapping combinations of these three oppositions, with, for instance, an organic development broken by a rupture or two, or a consensus as the resolution of conflict, or a final unity out of diversity that is yet plagued by diversity. The dates vary between the supposed time of Ezra and Nehemiah (6th century BCE), through the era of the Hasmoneans (3rd to 2nd century BCE) to the rabbinic efforts in the first centuries of the Common Era. As any historian worth his or her salt knows, dates in scholarship are like the fashion in skirts: they go either up or down. 7. This is the starting assumption of Paul Helm’s useful study, John’s Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004): for all Calvin’s championing of anti-philosophy in the name of divine “foolishness,” he makes use of philosophical arguments and assumptions where necessary. 8. Inst. 1.7.3; OS 3:68.26–27. 9. Inst. 1.7.2; OS 3:66.16–20. 10. Inst. 1.7.5. 11. OS 3:70.16–27. 12. Inst. 1.7.4; OS 3:68.30–69.1. 13. Inst. 1.7.4; OS 69:19–20. 14. Inst. 1.7.4; OS 3:68.30–69.1. 15. Inst. 1.7.5; OS 3:70.25–6. 16. Inst. 1.7.5; OS 3:70.26–27. 17. Inst. 1.7.5; OS 3:70.16–17. 18. At this point a contradiction emerges from Calvin’s treatment of the Bible: despite asserting the Holy Spirit is the sole and sufficient verification of the Bible, he also devotes a long chapter to “proving” its age, reliability and pedigree (see Inst. 1.8). It reminds one all too much of the old problem of the genealogies of Jesus: if he is born of the Holy Spirit, then why produce a genealogy at all? 19. Someone may object that I have artificially separated two points that appear side by side in Calvin’s text, so I would emphasize that we need to distinguish between logical distinctions and the rhetorical effect of this text. Here we have two distinct ways of dealing with the Bible which Calvin tries to bring into touch with one another. 20. Inst. 1.7.5; OS 3:70.20–21. 21. Inst. 1.7.5; OS 3:70.24–25. 22. Calvin is not always consistent. For one who deprecated his own judgment, he seems to have had a high opinion of his own work. For example, in the “Subject of the Present Work” prefixed to the French edition of the Institutes in 1560, he puts down his own abilities and the book “for fear of seeming to appraise my work too highly [de peur qu’il ne semble que ie prise trop mon ouvrage]” (OS 3:8.3–4; my translation), but then he goes on to claim that it provides the key to understanding the Bible. Warming to his theme he lays his cards on the table: the Institutes are really “God’s more than mine” (OS 3:8.15). When I first read these words I laughed. What presumption, claiming that what one has written is actually God’s work and therefore everyone should read it and memorize it (a task and half that) as a sure guide to Scripture. But it is actually a rather clever move. The secret to it is his belief that the Institutes contain truth and sound doctrine, and the only way they can do so is through the Holy Spirit. If that is the case, then the book must be the work of God. While we may point out that this is a rather convenient way of avoiding saying, “because I said so,” I suspect Calvin actually believed that God spoke through him. 23. In this day and age it should really not be necessary to point out that there is no one true interpretation of a text. Or, as Ed Greenstein put it at a session of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1998: when his students ask him if there is one correct reading of a text, he answers, ‘If there is, we haven’t found it yet’. 24. Some of the travellers on that track include Barth 1995. Kim, Donald K., ed. Calvin and the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Armstrong, Brian. “Report on the Seminar: An Investigation of Calvin’s Principles of Biblical Interpretation.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 54.1-2 (1998): 133-42; Forstman, H. Jackson, Word and Spirit: Calvin's Doctrine of Biblical Authority (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971); Thompson, John L. “Calvin as a Biblical Interpreter.” The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin. Ed. D. K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Rogers, Jack B., and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979); Neuser, Wilhelm H., ed. Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Yu, Carver T. “Hermeneutical Discussions Today and the Relevance of Calvin.” Reformed Theology: Identity and Ecumenicity II: Biblical Interpretation in the Reformed Tradition. Eds. W. M. Alston and M. Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); Holder, R. Ward. John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation: Calvin's First Commentaries (Leiden: Brill, 2006); Barth, Karl. The Theology of John Calvin. Trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 25. Inst. 1.7.5; OS 3:70.26. 26. Inst. 1.7.5; OS 3:70.26–7. 27. Inst. 1.7.4; OS 69:18–20. 28. Inst. 1.7.5; OS 3:70.25. 29. Inst. 1.6.3; OS 3:63.31–64.2. And then there is this great text: “Just as old or bleary-eyed men and those with weak vision, if you thrust before them a most beautiful volume, even if they recognize it to be some sort of writing, yet can scarcely construe two words, but with the aid of spectacles will begin to read distinctly; so Scripture, gathering up the otherwise confused knowledge of God in our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God. This, therefore, is a special gift, where God, to instruct the church, not merely uses mute teachers but also opens his own most hallowed lips. Not only does he teach the elect to look upon a god, but also shows himself as the God upon whom they are to look” (Inst. 1.6.1; OS 3:60.25–61.4). I have quoted this text because it is a little close to home. What Calvin describes as being scarcely able to “construe two words” is now known as presbyopia—old person’s blindness, or more strictly, the inability of the eyes to focus at close range as one gets a little older. Less than a year ago I found that I too had presbyopia and am now, “with the aid of spectacles,” able “to read distinctly.” 30. Inst. 1.8.10; OS 3:78.16–33. 31. See Inst. 1.8.9; OS 3:77.26–35. Calvin’s suggested treatment of such scholars is a practice we have lost: “Yet if anyone were to call in doubt whether there ever was a Plato, an Aristotle, or a Cicero, who would not say that such folly ought to be chastised with the fist of the lash?” (Inst. 1.8.9; OS 3:77.31–33). Conferences would certainly be much livelier if we introduced that practice! 32. Inst. 1.8.12; OS 3:80.20–26. 33. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commenwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil (New York: Collier Books, 1962 [1651]). 34. Spinoza, Benedict de. A Theologico-Political Treatise. Trans. R. H. M. Elwes (New York: Dover, 1951 [1670]). 35. Atruc, Jean. Conjectures sur la Genèse. Ed. P. Fibert )Paris: Agnès Viénot Editions, 1999). 36. This odd claim, very common when historical criticism was first making inroads, has come back into vogue. 37. OS 3:22.6. 38. While his commentary on the Amos passages (Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets: Joel, Amos Obadiah. Trans. J. Owen. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1846 [179-83, 361-7]) Calvin struggles to come to terms with the explicit socio-economic nature of the condemnations and wonders why Amos doesn’t target the ‘superstitions’ and why he doesn’t mention the common people, in his commentary on Isaiah (Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Trans. W. Pringle. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1850 [141-3]) he gives his full assent to the criticisms. However, with Isaiah 61:1-2 he spiritualises the text (Calvin 1853: 304-6). 39. Luther, Martin. Luther's Works: Word and Sacrament II (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959) [363]; Calvin, John. Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles. Trans. C. Fetherstone and H. Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844) [130-1, 190-3]. 40. Engels, Frederick. “On the History of Early Christianity.” Marx and Engels Collected Works. Volume 27. (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990 [1894-5]); Kautsky, Karl. Foundations of Christianity. Trans. H. F. Mins (London: Russell and Russell, 1953; available at www.marxists.org); Luxemburg, Rosa. Socialism and the Churches. Trans. J. Punto (London: Merlin, 1972; available at www.marxists.org).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
