IV.

Calvin as a Commentator by Philip Schaff

The Presbyterian and Reformed Review Vol. 3 No. 11 (1892)
lV.
CALVI N AS A COMMENTATOR.
C
ALVI N WM an exegetical geniua of the first order. Hi s COIn-
ml)utaries are unsurpassed for originality, depth, peZ'8pi(luity,
soundness, and permanent value. The Reformation period
fruitful beyond any other in transl ations and expositions or the
Scripture. If Lutber was the king of translators, Calvin WM the
king of commentators. Poole, in the l' reface to his SYJlop.i" apolo.
gizes for 1I0t referring more frequently to Calviu, because others
had so largely borrowed from him that to quote them was quoting
him. Reuss, the chief editor of his works alld himself an eminent
Biblical &:holar, says that Calviu WM "beyond all question the
greatestexcgete of the sixteenth centu.ry." Arobdeacou Farrar Iiter
ally echoes thi! judgment. Diestel, the oo.,t histori an of Old Teata
ment exegesis, calls him "the creator of genuine exegesis." Few
exegetical works their generation; thoae of Cal vin are not
likely to be superseded, any more than Chry908tom's Homiliu for
patristic eloquence, or Bengel'8 Ol1<lmon for pregnant and ftimulat-
ing hints, or Matthew Expwition for devotional purpose!!
and epigrammatic suggestions to preachll1"5.
Calvin oogan his reries of Commentaries at Strasburg with the
Epistle to the Romans, on which his system of theology is chiefly
built. I n the dedication to his friend and E1ehrew teacher Grynrou.,
at Baael (Oct. 18, 1589), Le already laya down his vieWl! of the
method of interpre18tion, namely, comprehensive brevity, trans
pal"(lnt clearness, and strict adherence to the spi rit and letter of the
author. IIe gradunlly explained the moot important books of the
Old Testament, t he Pen18tcuch, the and the Prophets, and
all the books of the New Tes18ment with the exception of the
Apocalypse, which he wisely left alone. Some of his expositions,
aa the Commentary on the Minor P rophets, were published from
note/! of bis free, a;t&npore lectures and sermons. n is lllSt literary
work was a Commentary ouJosbua, which he began in great bodily
infirmity and finishlld shortly before his death and entrance into the
promised land.
It was I,is deli ght to expound the Word of God from tbe chair
aud fTOm the pulpit. nenoo hi$ theology Biblical rather thsn
IV. Calvin as a Commentator by Philip Schaff
The Presbyterian and Reformed Review Vol. 3 No. 11 (1892)
O.1LV1N A8.1 OQJlHENT.11QU. 463
l!(lhoill!Jlic. The Commentaries on the PMlms and the Epistles of
Paul are rcgarded 118 his best. He \l"a8 iu profound sympathy with
David and Paul, and read iD their history his own spiritual biog.
raphy. He calls the PSlilms <in tho Preface), "an anatomy of all tho
parts of the !lOul; for thcre is not an emotion of which anyone can
be conscious that is not here represented asin a mirror. Or, ruher,
the Roly Spirit hat! l'eN drawn to the lifp the griefs, the !lOITowS,
i he fears, the doubts, the hopes, the carOl!, the' perplexitie!!, in short,
all the distracting emotions with which the minds of men are wont
to be agitated.'" He adds that his own trials and conflicts helped
him much to a olcarer undcrstanding of these divine compositions.
ae combined in a very rare degree all the el!Sential qualifica.
tiona of an exegete_grammatical knowledge, spiritual insight, acute
perception, !lOund judgment, and practical tact. He thoroughly
sympathi?Cd with thll spirit of the Biblll; he put himeelf into the
situation of the writers, and reproduced and adapted their thoughts
for the benefit of his age.
Tholnck mentions as the most prnmincDt qualitics of Calvin's
commentaries these four: doctrinal impartiality, exegetical tact,
various learning, and dcep Christian piety. \Viner praises his
"trul y wonderfulsagaoity in perceiving, and penpilluity in expound-
ing, the meaning of the apostle."
1. LeL nslook first nt his philological outfit.
Mclanethon well says : "The Scripture cannot be understood
theologically \lnles:! it be first undenltood grammatically." He had
passed through the school of thll Henai!!Ol8nce j he had a Tare knowl.
edgo ofGrook; he thought in Greek, and could not help inserting
rare Greek words into bia letters to learned frienoh. He WIL!! an
invaluable help to Luther in his translation of the Bible, but his
Comment-aries are dogmatical rather than grammatical, and very
meagre, o.a comparod with Cnh-in's.
Luther surpas;ied all other RefoTlnerA in originality, fret!lmese,
.spi rit nal insight, bold conjectures, aud oceasioual flashes of genius.
His Commentary on the Epistle to the Galati ans, which he tailed
"his wi fe," is a mastcrpiece of 5ympathetic exposition and forceful
application of the leading idea of evangelical freedom to the ques
tion of his age. 13ut he \\"118 no exegete in the proper sense of the
term. He had no method and dillCipline. He condemned allegor.
izing as a merc "monkey.game" and yet he often
resorted to it in Job, the Psalms, and the Canticles. He wo.a emi .
nently spiritual, and yel, ag against ZlVingli, slavishly literal in his
interpretation. De seldom sticks to tho text, but UIlllS it only as a
for popular sermons, or polemical excursions against
and sectarians. He cared nothing for the COllSeDBIlS of the
IV. Calvin as a Commentator by Philip Schaff
The Presbyterian and Reformed Review Vol. 3 No. 11 (1892)
464 TlllI PRflSBYTERIA,N AND RllFORJlED REVIl>W.
fathers. He 3ppJied private judgment to the interpretation with
the utmost freedom, and j\ldged the c.anonicity and a\lthority of the
!!everal books of the Bible by a dogmatic and s\lbjective rule-his
favorite doctri ne of solifidi an justification; and u he could not find
it in Jamcs, he irreverently called that epistle" an epistle of straw."
He anticipated modern eritioism, but his critioism proceeded from
f3ith in Christ and God' s Word, and not from skept.icism. I1is best
book is a trsoslstion, snd next to it, hi8little catechism for children.
Zwingli studied the Greek at GlsNs and F;insiedelo, tht he
might be able" to draw 1he teaahing of Christ from the fountain."
He Jeamed Hebrew after he was oalled to ZUrich. He also st\ldied
the fathers, and, like Erumus, took more to Jerome than to
Augustine. His expositions of Scripture are clear, easy and natural,
but somewhat artifici al. 'l' he other SwiS'l Reformel'l! and exegctes
-<Eoolampadiu.s, GrynreU!!, BulJinger, Pellican and Dihliander-had
a good philologioal preparatioo. Pellican, a sclf.taught scholar
(d. 16(6), who was called to Zurich by ZwingU in 1525, wrote a
little Hebrew grammar evcn before Reuahlin, and publisbed at
ZUrieh comments on the whole Bible. Bibliander (d. 1564) was
likewilJ6 professor of Hebrew in ZUrich, and bad some acquaintance
with other Semitic languagcs; hc wlIlI, however, an Erasmian rather
than a Calvinist,.and opposed the doctrine of the abrol\lte dooree.
For the Hebrew Bible these scholars used tbe editions of Daniel
Bomberg (Venice, 1618---1645); the Complutensian Polyglot, whioh
gives, besides the Hebrew te",t, slso the Septuagint snd Vulgate
and a Hebrew voca.bulary (Alcala, printed 1514-1517, published
1620 'qq.); all!O the editions of Sabastia.n MUUf!tcr (Basel, 1536),
aDd of Rcbert Stepbeos (li:tienne, Paris, 1539-15(6). For the Greek:
Testament they had the editions of Eraamus (Basel, live 00., 1516-
1535), the Complutcnsian Polyp:lot (1520), ColinreW! ( P a r i ~ 1534),
Stephens (Psris and Genevs, 1546-1551). A year after Calvin's
death, Be;z;a began to publish his popular editions of the Greek
Testament, wi th a Latin version (Geneva, 1565-160!).
'1'e",tual criticiBm WM not yet bor n, and could not begin its opera.
tiona before a collection of the textual material from manuscripts,
ancient veuions, sn<'l patristie quotatiOUf!. In this respect, therefore,
all the Commentaries or the Reformation period are barren and
useleSl!. Literary criticism wfIIIlltimulated by the Pro\.e!;tant spirit
of ioquiry with regard to the Jewish Apocrypbs and some Antila.
gomena of the New Testament, but Wll..'! soon repressed by dogma.
tism.
Calvin, besides being a master of Latin and Freuch, had a very
good knowledge of the languages of t he Bible. He had lesrned
the Greek from Volmar at Bourges, the Hebrew from Grymeus
IV. Calvin as a Commentator by Philip Schaff
The Presbyterian and Reformed Review Vol. 3 No. 11 (1892)
OA.LVllY AS A (JOJIJlENT.A1'OR. 4.65
during his I'Qjourn at Barel, and he industriously continued the
study of both. Be was at homo in cla$ieal antiquity j his first
book was a Commenta.ry on Seneca De Olem<mlia, and he refers
OOOll.l!iona.lly to Pla.to, Aristotle, Plutarch, Polyhius, Cicero, Sencea,
Virgil, Iloraee, Ovid, Terenoo, Livy, Pliny, Quiutilian, DiogenCII
Laertiua, Aulus Gelliua, etc. lIe inferred from Panl's quota.tion of
Epimenidcs, Tit. i. 12, "That thO!!e are superstitious who ne,cr ven_
t ure to quote anything from profane authors. Since all truth ia
from God, if anything hM boon said aptly and truly even by impi ous
men it ought not to be rejected, because it proooodcd from God.
And since all things are of God, why is it not lawful to turn to his
glory whatever mlly be aptly IIpplied to this use?" 011 1 Cor. viii.
1, he obeerv6ll: "Seience is no mOTe to be blamed when it pum. up
than a sword when it falls into the hands of a mooma.n." But he
never makes a display oflesrDing, and u.ses it only liS a means to get
at the !!CUBe of the Seripture. lIe wrote for udueated laymeu as well
a$ $<lholare, and abstaillll from minute investigations and criticisms,
hut he encouraged Bel.a to publish his Commentaryon the New
Testament, in which philologicalllCholarship ia more oonspicuoUl!.
Calv;n was also familiar patristic commentator!!, aod
had much more respect for them than Luther. He fully appreci.
ated the philological knowledge and tset of J erome, the spiritua.l
depth of AugUlStine, and the homiletic wealth of ChrySO&toID; but
he used them with independent judgment and critical diserimi
nation.
2. Calvin kept const.antly in view the primary and fundamcnt!lol
aim of the interpreter, namely, to bring to light the true meaning
of the Biblical authOr!! according to the law8 of thought and speech.
He tr!lonsferrod himself into their mental st.atc and environment so as
to become identified with them, and let them explain what they
actually did say, and not they mi ght or !hould have said,
according to our notioWl or wisheB. I n this genuine exegetical
method he has admirably $ueeeeded, except in a few cases where his
judgment was biased by his favorite dogma of a double predeBti.
nation, or bis antagonism to Rome; though even there he is more
moderate and fair than bis contemporaries, who indulge in diffuse
!Iond irrelevant declamations against popery and monkery. Thua he
correctly refer!! the" Rock" in Matt. xvi. 18, to the person of Pcter,
as the representative of all believers. He to the text. He
detested irrelevant twoodle and diffuseness. He Will! free from ped.
antry. He never evadea difficultiea, bnt frankly meeta aud triea
to rolve them. He carefully the counection. Hia judgment
is al ways clear, strong and round. Commentaries are usually dry,
broken, and indifferently written. Hi s exposition is an eBBy, oon
SO
IV. Calvin as a Commentator by Philip Schaff
The Presbyterian and Reformed Review Vol. 3 No. 11 (1892)
466 HlE PRKSBYTRl.:1N AND REI<'ORJlED REVI&II";
tinuous flow of snd sdaptation in elegant Erasmian
Latinity. Ere could truly assert on his deathbed that he never
knowingly twisted or misinterpreted a p!lSSllge of the Scrip.
tures; that he always aimed lit simplicity, and restrained the temp.
tatioll to display acutenesl and ingenuity.
He made no complete trsoslation of the Bible, but gave a Latin
and a French version of those parts on which he oommented in
either or both and he reviE!Cd the ]i'rench version of his
oousin, Pierre Rober! Olivetan, whi ch appeared first in 1535, for
the editions of 15"'5 and 1551.
S. Cah'in ia the founder of modem grammlltico:historical el:e
gesis. I [e affirmed and carried out the sound and hermeneutical
principle that the Biblical author$, like allsenrible writeI'!!, wished
to convey to their readers one definite thought in words which they
could understand. A paS&lge may r'Bve a literal or a figurative
sense, but ClInnot have two senses at onoo. The '''OM of God is
inexhaustible aud applicable to all times; but there is a difference
hetwoon explanation and application, and application must be oon
!liatent with explanation.
Calviu departed from the allegorical metbod of the Middle Ages,
which dillCOvered no less tban four senses in the Bible, turned it into
a nose of W&X and substituted pioW! imposition for bouest. eXpoBi
tion. He SpeSk3 of "puerilo" and "far.fetched" allegories, and
says tllat he abstaios from them because there is nothing" solid and
ftrm" in tbem. It is an almOl!t saerilegious audacity to twil;t t be
Scriptures tbiB way and that way, to 5uit our fancy. I n comment
ing on tbe allegory ofSarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 22-26), he censures
Origen for his arbitrary a!legorj:;;ing, as if th", plain historieal sell.5C
of the Bible were too mean and too poor. " I acknowledge," he
says, "that Scripture is a moot rich and inoxhauatible fountain of
all wisdom, but I deny tbat its fertility consists in the various mean
ingtl whieh any mall at hia pleasure may put into it. Let us know
thcn that tho true meaning of Seripture ia the natural.and obvious
meaning, and let us embraoo a.nd abide by it l'6$Olutcly. Let U.'I not
only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside lI!I deadly corruptioDll,
those pretended which lead away from the natural
meaning." He quotes approvingly, who say!! that the
word " allegory " in this pB88Bge is ured in an "improper" oonse. He
Wll!l averse to all forced attempts to harmonire difficulties. He con
strueted his harmony of the gospels from the three Synoptists alone,
and explained John separately.
4. Calvin cmanci pated exegeais from the bondage of dogmatics.
lIe WlI!I remarkably frce from traditional orthodox preposaeasiona
and prejudices, being oon.viuood tbat tbe trutb! of Christianity do
IV. Calvin as a Commentator by Philip Schaff
The Presbyterian and Reformed Review Vol. 3 No. 11 (1892)
OAL VJN AS A COHMENTA TOR.
not depend upon the number of dicta probantia. Re could see no
proof of the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural Ewhim, nor in the
three angel visitonl of A braham (Gen. xviii . 2), nor in the Trisagion
{Ps. vi. 3), nor of the divinity of the Holy Spirit in Ps. xxxiii. 6.
5. Re prepared the way for a proper historical underl!tanding of
prophecy. He fully believed ill the Messiallia propheaies, whi ch
are the very soul of the faith aDd hope of Israel; but he first per
ooivcd that they had a primary bearing aDd praatiaal appliaatiou to
.their owo t imes, aud nn ul terior fulflll meut in Chriat., thus serviug a
present a8 well 1\8 a future use. He thua expJained Psalms i i, viii, xvi,
xltii, xl, xl v, lxviii, ax:, 1\8 typiaal and indi rectly 011 the
-other hand, he made eltoessive use of'typology, especially in hi$
sermons, and saw not only in David hut in every king of J erUB9.lem
a "figllre of Christ." I n his ellplanation of t he protevangeli um
(Gen. iiL Ui) he corrootly underl!tands the "seed of the woman,"
oollootively of the human race, in iU! perpetual eonfiiat with Sa(ao,
whioh will elllminate ultimately ill the victory of Christ, the Head
of the tl106. He widens the !lense of the formula" that it migbt be
fulfilled" (i ... "''1p .. ao llI! to express !IOmetimes simply an analogy
or correspondence between aD Old Testament and a New Testament
-cveut. The prophecy (Hos. xi . 1) quoted by Matthew 9.8 roferring
to the return of the Christ ehild from Egypt, must, accordingly,
"not be teIItricted to Chnst," but i8 "s\tillfully adapted to the preeent
occasion." I n like manner, l'aul, in Rom. x. 6, gi vea only an embel
liBhment and adaptation of a word of Mooes to the a9.86 in hand.
6. He had t he profoundest reverence for the Scriptures, 9.8 oon
taining the Word of the li ving God and 1\8 tbe only infallible and
.suffici ent rule of fai th aDd duty j but he W9.l! not 8wayed by a par.
tieular theory of inspiration. It i8 true, he never would have
approved tbe IInguarded judgments of Luther on J ames, Jude,
Hebrews and the Apocalypae j but he had 00 hesitauey in admit.
ting incidentalerrora whieb do not touch the vi\.(J.ls of faith. He
rem"rh on Matt. xxvii. 9, " How the name of Jeremiah erept in,
I coofcaa I know not., 1Ior am 1 troubW about if. That
the nam(l of Jeremiah b9.l! been put for Zoohariah hy an error, tbe
fact itl!eli shows, because there ia no such atBtemeut in Jeremiah."
Concerning the diacrepanaiea between the speech of Stepben, in
Aets vii, and the' account of Genesis, he 8UggesU! t hat Stephen or
Luke drew upon aneient traditions rather than upon MOI!68, and
made" a mistake i n the oame of Abraham. "
He Wall far from the peda. ntry of the Puri$U! in the seventeenth
century, who asserted the cl88.'lical purity of the New Teatament
Greek on t he ground that the Holy Spi rit could not be guilty of
a ny 8OIooism or barbarism, or the slightest vlol atiol1 of grllmmar;
IV. Calvin as a Commentator by Philip Schaff
The Presbyterian and Reformed Review Vol. 3 No. 11 (1892)
468 THE PRESBY7ERLlN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
not remembering that the apo!!tles and evangeliSts carried the heav.
enly trOBl:!UTe of truth i n earthen ve.-ls, that the power and grace
of God might become more manifest, IInd that Paul himself con
fe&<leS his rudencsa "in @peech," though not "jn knowledge."
Calvin justly rcmarks, with special reference to Paul, that hy a
singular providence of God the higbest mysteries were committed
to uS "8uboontt mptibili verborum humililo/t ," that our faith may not
reat on the power of human eloquence, but solely on the effiC&Cy of
the divinc Spirit; and yet he fully recognized tbe forre and the
fire, the majesty and weight of Paul's style, which he compa.res to
fiuhes of lightning.
The seholaatic Calvinists, like the oohollll;tic Lntherana of the
!eventeenth century, departed from the liberal views of the
nefonnel'll, and adopted a me<lhanical theory which confounds inspi-
ration with dictation, ignol'(!ll the human element in the Bible, and
reduces the sacred writers to mere penmen of the noly Spirit. This
theory is destructive of scientific exegesis. It found symbolical
expression, but ooly for a brief period, in the n elvetie Consensus
Formula of 1675, which, in defiance of historical facta, aaserts even
the inspiration of the Masoretic vowel points. But notwithstanding
this restraint, the Calvinistic cxegetell adhered more closely to the
grammatical and historical sense of the Scripture/! than their
Lutheran and Roman Catholic contemporaries.
7. Calvin aooepted the traditional canon of the New Testament,
r but exercised the freedom of the anteNioone Church concerning
the origin of some of the books. Be denied tbe Pauline authoTllhip
of the Epistle to the lIebrewa on account of the differences of style
and mode of teaching (ratio clocmdl), but admitted its apo!!tolic
spirit and value. lIe doubted thegenuinenes80f the Second Epistle
of Peter, and was disposed to &SCribe it to a pupil of the apo!!tle, hut
he saw nothing in it unworthy of Peter. lIe prepared the way for
a distinction between authorship and editor!lhipBl:! to the Pentateuch
and the Psalter.
R e departed from the traditional view that the Scripture resUl on
the authority of the Church. lIe ba.sOO it on internal rather than
e"terna] evidence, on the authority of God rather than the authority
of men. He diseuasea the subje<:t in his I""titulu and states thl>
C8EO as followa: "There has very generally prevailed a most perni o
cious error that the Scriptures have only so mUllh weight as is
conceded to tbem by the of the Church, as though the
eternal and inviolable t ruth of God depended on the arbitrary will
of men. . .. For, as God alone is a sufficient witnCSl! of Himself
ill nis own 'Yord, so also the \Vord will never gain credit in the
hearts of men till it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the
IV. Calvin as a Commentator by Philip Schaff
The Presbyterian and Reformed Review Vol. 3 No. 11 (1892)
CALYIN AS A OOMMENTATOR. 469
Spirit. I t is neCllssary, therefore, that the same Spirit, who spake
by the mouths of the prophets, should penetrate into our hearts to
convince us that they faithfully delivered the oracles which wcre
divinely intrusted to them. . .. ut it be considered then as an
undeuiable truth that they who have been inwardly taught by the
Spirit feel an entireaoquiescenCll in the Scripture, and that it is Btllf-
authenticated, carrying with i t its own evidence, and ought not to
be made the subjoot of demonstrations and argumenta from reru;on;
but it obtains the eredit which i t descrl'cswith us by the testimony
of the Spirit. For though it commands our reverence by ita internal
majcsty, it never eerioWlly affects us till it is confirmed by the Spirit
in our beartl!. Therefore, being illuminated by Him, we now believe
the divine original of the Scri pture, not from onr own judgment or
thlLt of others, but we .esteem the certainty that we have reooivoo it
from God'a own mouth, by the ministry of men, to be 8uperior to
that of any humau judgment, and equal to that of an i ntuitive per.
ception of God Ilimaelf in it .. _ _ Without this certainty, better
and !!tronger than any human judgment, in vain will the authority
of the Scripture be either defended by arguments or establil!hed by
the authority of the Church, or confirmed by aOy other eupport,
unlC$! the foundation be laid, it remains in
Thia doctrine of th03 intrinsic merit and self-evidencing character
of the Scripture, to all who are enlightened by tIle Holy Spirit,
passed into the Gallican, Belgic, Second Belvetic, W cstminster and
other Reformed confessioDl!. They preseut a fuller stae"ment of the
objectivo or formal principle of Protestantillm, namely, the abllolute
IlUprema.ey of the \Voro of God u the infallible rule of faith and
practioo, than the Lutheran symbols which give prominenoo to the
IlUbjective or material principle of justification by faith.
At the same time the ecclcsiutical traditiou is of great va.lue as
a. witness to the hUDllln authorahip and canonicity of the several
books, and ill more fully recognized by modern Biblical
in ita conflict with delrtructivc criticism, than it Will! in the day" of
controveny with Romanism. The internal testimony of the Boly
Spirit and the external testimony of the Chureh join in establi8hing
the divine authority of the Scripture3.
Nz,.. YOR". PalL!\, Scn'\'fl".