I spake not unto your fathers. . . concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice. Jer. 7:22-23.
We know that from the beginning God desired spiritual worship, and that he has not changed his nature. Today he approves nothing but spiritual worship, for he is Spirit. But equally under the law, he wished to be worshiped with a sincere heart. . . . That is why the prophets speak harshly of sacrifice. This clear statement removes all ambiguity: God sets obedience against sacrifice (even though sacrifice was a part of obedience).
Now we can continue with the content of the teaching, holding firmly to the principle that true religion is founded upon obedience. Unless God sheds light for us from his Word, there is among us not true religion, but mere sham and superstition. This is how we can distinguish true religion from superstition: when the Word of God directs us, there is true religion; but when each man follows his own opinion, or when men join together to follow an opinion they hold in common, the result is always concocted superstition.
After we grasp the principle that God cannot be worshiped unless we listen to his voice, we must consider, as I said, what God's voice prescribes to us. Since he is Spirit, he demands the sincere love of the heart. And we know also how he has revealed to us that he desires us to put our confidence in his free kindness; that he wishes us to depend wholly on his Fatherly compassion; that he wishes us to call upon him for help, and to offer to him the sacrifice of praise.
But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. Ps. 1:2.
The law only is mentioned here: but we are not to suppose that the rest of
Scripture is ignored, since all of it is really an interpretation of the law
and so is included under that title. The prophet is commending the law with its
supplement. Indeed, as I just said, the faithful are here urged to read The
Psalms.
But the first thing required of the faithful is delight in the law of the
Lord. These words show us that compulsory or slavish worship is not at all
acceptable to God. Only those who come happily to the study of the law, who
enjoy its teaching, who think nothing more worthwhile or pleasanter than to
make progress in it, are qualified students of the law.
From this love of the law comes constant meditation on it, as the prophet
immediately adds. Only those inspired by this love can devote themselves to its
constant study.
He will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. Micah
4:2.
Here in a few words the prophet defines true worship of God. For it would not
be enough for the nations to come together to one place to confess that they
are worshipers of one God if they did not also show real obedience. True
obedience depends on faith, as faith depends on the Word. It is, therefore,
especially worthy of note that the prophet here sets God's Word in the center
to show us that religion is founded on obedience in faith, and that God can be
worshiped only when he himself teaches his people and tells them what they
ought to do. When God's will is revealed to us, we can truly adore him. When
the Word is taken away, some form of worship of God remains, but there is no
real religion which could please God.
Hence we conclude that the church of God can be established only where the Word
of God rules, where God shows by his voice the way of salvation. Therefore,
until true doctrine sheds its light, men cannot be gathered in one place to
constitute the true body of the church. Clearly, then, where the teaching is
corrupt or is despised, there is no religion approved by God.
Men can, indeed, take God's name boastfully on their lips;
He twill teach us of his ways. Here we have a third point. God is robbed
of his right and honor when men usurp the power of teaching. For it belongs to
God alone to teach his people. There were at that time priests and prophets.
But Micah here reduces both to their proper place and shows that the right and
the office of teaching belong to God alone. It is clear that God claims this
work for himself, to prevent us from wavering and from being pulled around by
different teachers; to keep us in simple obedience to his Word, so that he
alone may rule over us. In a word, God is not God and head of the church, if he
is not the chief and only teacher.
Now when the prophet says that God will teach us his ways, this
must mean that he will show the nature of his ways; he means, "The perfect
wisdom of the people is to know what pleases God and what his will is." This is
all I need to say.
There follows: Let us walk in his ways. By this clause we are warned
that God's teaching is not theoretical, as they say, but full of energizing
power. When God speaks, he does not only intend men to know that what is
announced by him is true; he also requires their obedience. We shall be truly
taught by God only if we walk in his ways.
For it is silly for us to wag our ears like assess and confess God with mouth
and lips only. Men truly progress in God's school when they form their lives by
his teaching, when they have their feet ready to walk, to follow wherever he
calls.
If ye will not hearken to me to walk in my law, which I have set before you,
to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets whom I sent unto you.
Jer. 26:4-5.
The prophet here sums up briefly the teaching which he was commanded to bring
to the people. There is no doubt that he used many words whenever it was
necessary; but here he holds a few words to be enough to state what he has been
told. He declares that unless the Jews begin to listen and to follow the law,
and unless they obey the prophets, the final destruction of the Temple and the
city is at hand. This is the sum of what he teaches here. But we should note
the details.
By the words unless you hear and walk in my law, God shows that
But what follows should also be noted: that you walk in my law. For here
God testifies that his will is not ambiguous, for in his law he has stated what
is right. If God should descend from heaven a hundred times, he would reveal
nothing we need to know in addition to what he has said. His law is perfect
wisdom. If he had said only hear me, men could evade by declaring
themselves ready to be taught by him. God checks these hypocrites by saying
that there will be no word from him other than that they should follow his law.
And for the same purpose he adds which I have set before your eyes. This
phrase means that there is nothing obscure or uncertain about the teaching of
the law. As Moses said (Deut. 30:19), I call to witness today heaven and
earth that I have set before your eyes life and death; and in another place
(Deut. 30:14), The word is in your heart and your mouth -- that is, God
takes every excuse away from you. There is no reason for uncertainty after he
has spoken plainly to you and explained fully what is necessary.
Here is the refutation of that impious popish blasphemy which prattles that not
only the law but even the gospel is obscure. But Paul claims that the gospel is
plain except to those who are perishing (2 Cor. 4:3); over them a veil
is thrown because they deserve to be blind (2 Cor. 3:14-15). But, as we see,
Jeremiah here affirms that the law, even though it is less clear than the
gospel, is set plainly before the eyes of all, and that all may learn from it
exactly what pleases God and what is right.
Now we must consider carefully the statement which follows in the next verse;
for it unquestionably belongs with the previous one. God demands nothing except
that men obey his laws, and yet he wishes his servants, the prophets, to be
heard: That you may hear the words of my prophets whom I send to you (he
uses the second person, you). Here there seems to be a kind of inconsistency.
For if the law of God is sufficient, why is hearing the prophets added to it?
But the two commands are really in perfect agreement. The law alone must be
heard, and with it the prophets who continually interpret it. For God did not
send his prophets to correct the law, to change something in it, to add to it
or subtract from it. There was an inviolable decree neither to add nor take
away (Deut. 12:32). What then was the purpose
So this passage teaches that all those who reject the daily exercise of
learning the Scriptures are godless men and quench, so far as it is within
their power, the grace of the Spirit. In our day there are many of the
Anabaptists[68] who act in this way, rejecting
all teaching. They say this [Scripture] is "the letter," and they dream that
the Holy Spirit is injured when men attend to "the letter." And some dare to
utter uglier blasphemies. They say that all the Scripture we need is the two
commands, "Fear God" and "Love your neighbor."
But as I have already said, we must consider how it is that God has spoken
through the law, and whether [it is not true that] our way to him would have
been blocked had he not explained his will more clearly through the prophets;
for it is through the prophets that God adapts to our need whatever might seem
to us remote and of no concern to us. Surely since God gave his law and then
added to it his prophets, it is obvious that anyone who rejects God's prophets
puts no real confidence in God's law. So today those who scorn to go to school
to Christ and to train themselves in listening to the Word, really mock God
himself and judge both the law and the prophets -- and even the gospel itself
-- as without value.
Therefore, this passage is of the highest importance. God wishes his law to be
our guide and rule, and he binds it to his prophets.
But the word of the Lord endured forever. And this is the word which by the
gospel is preached unto you. 1 Peter 1:25.
The prophet teaches us, not what the Word of God is in itself, but how we are
to think of it. Since man has emptied himself of life, he must look for it
outside of himself. And Peter tells us on
And this is the word declared to you. Peter first warns us that when the
Word of God is mentioned, we do wrong to imagine something far away, up in the
air or in heaven beyond; for the Lord himself has shown it to us. What then is
the Word of God which gives us life; what but the law, the prophets, and the
gospel? Anyone who wanders away from this revelation will find, instead of
God's Word, nothing but Satan's impostures and madness. Therefore, we must keep
carefully in mind that godless and devilish men have a crafty way of pretending
to honor God's Word, when they turn us away from the Scriptures; like that
dirty dog Agrippa,[69] who praised the
eternity of God's Word to high heaven, and at the same time heaped mockery on
the prophets and the apostles; in his deceitful way, he covered the Word of God
with derision.
In short, as I have already told you, nothing is said here of a Word shut up in
God's bosom. We have to do with the Word which came forth from God's mouth and
was given to us. So once again, we are to acknowledge that God's will is to
speak to us by the mouths of the apostles and prophets, and that their mouths
are to us as the mouth of the only true God.
Therefore, when Peter says, the word which has been declared to you, he
means that we must not look for the Word of God anywhere except in the
preaching of the gospel; and that we cannot know the power of its eternity
except by faith. But we do not believe unless we know that the Word was
destined for us.
And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham
thy father and the God of Isaac. Gen. 28:13.
Here is the third point which I said must be noted. Silent visions are cold,
and the Word of God is the breath which gives them life. The symbol of the
ladder is a less important adjunct, with which the Word of God illustrates and
embellishes itself
We should note, therefore, that whenever God showed himself to the patriarchs,
he spoke; for a silent vision would have left them dangling in
uncertainty.
By the name YHWH, Jehovah, God proclaims that he alone is the maker of
the world, and that Jacob must seek for himself no other gods. But because in
itself God's majesty is incomprehensible, he adds immediately, adapting himself
to the capacity of his servant, that he is the God of Abraham and Isaac. It is
necessary to believe that the God whom we worship is he who alone is God; but
when our minds seek to attain his height, they faint at the very start. We need
to cultivate moderation and sobriety, and we should not attempt to know more of
him than he reveals to us. He himself, in his great kindness, accommodates
himself to our little mold, and he leaves out nothing which helps toward our
salvation.
When he says that he had made a special covenant with Abraham and Isaac, and
proclaims himself as their God, he calls his servant Jacob back to the real
beginning of faith and keeps him within the eternal covenant. This is the holy
bond of faithfulness by which all the sons of God are bound together. They hear
the same promise of salvation, from the first to the last, and they agree
together in one hope.
All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that
the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2
Tim. 3:16-17.
All Scripture, or the whole of it; both phrases mean the same. He now
continues with his praise of Scripture which had been much too brief. He
commends first its authority, and then the usefulness which proceeds from it.
He asserts its authority by teaching that it is inspired by God. If this is the
case, men should receive it reverently and without further argument. Our
religion is distinguished from all others in that the prophets have spoken not
of themselves, but as instruments of the Holy Spirit; and what they have
brought to us, they received by heavenly commission. Any man then who would
profit by the Scriptures, must hold first of all and firmly that the teaching
of the law and the prophets came to us not by the will of man, but as dictated
by the Holy Spirit.
And is profitable. The second part of this praise of Scripture follows
from the first; that it contains the perfect rule of a good and happy life. He
means that Scripture is useful because it is free from the kind of corruption
which comes with the abuse of God's Word by sinful men. Thus he indirectly
rebukes those woolly-headed men who feed the people with empty speculations as
with wind. For this reason, today, we ought to condemn all those who make it
their business not to build up the people but to arouse them with questions
which are as childish as they are clever. Whenever men come to us with such
clever trifles, we must repel them with the principle that the Scripture is for
upbuilding. Consequently, it is unlawful to handle it as a useless thing. God
gave us Scripture for our good, and not to satisfy our curiosity, or to indulge
our desire for showing off, or to give us material for babble and fable.
Therefore, to use Scripture rightly is at all times to profit by it. . . .
That the man of God may be whole. Whole means perfect, in the
sense of unmutilated. He asserts simply that Scripture is adequate and
sufficient for our perfecting. Therefore, anyone who is not satisfied with
Scripture, hopes to know more than he needs or than is good for him. But now
comes a serious objection. Since Paul means by Scripture the Old Testament, how
are we to believe that it makes us perfect? If the Old Testament makes us
perfect, then the apostolic additions are superfluous. I answer that, as to
substance, the apostles added nothing. The writings of the apostles contain
nothing that is not simply a natural explanation of the law and the prophets,
together with
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try spirits whether they are of God;
because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1.
Many, as I said before, are so troubled by the discords and wranglings in the
church that, in their dismay, they run away from the gospel. But the Spirit
prescribes an altogether different way: that believers be watchful not to
accept any doctrine lightly and without judgment. We should be careful not to
be offended by the variety of opinion in the church; we should rather
discriminate between teachers, with the Word of God as our only norm. It is
enough to make it our rule not to listen indiscriminately to everyone that
comes along.
I take the word spirit as a metaphor, as meaning a man who claims the
gift of the Spirit, so that he may assume the office of a prophet. Since nobody
ought to speak in his own name, we must not trust those who do not speak as
instruments of the Spirit. The prophets spoke with authority because God
himself honored them with this title, and in so doing, set them apart from all
other men. These men were called spirit because they gave utterance to the
oracles of the Spirit, and by their ministry represented God's own person. They
offered nothing out of their own heads, neither did they come forth among the
people in their own names. They were given this high title, in order that their
own insignificance might not take away from the reverence that is due to the
Word of God. God has willed it that we always receive his Word from the lips of
men, as though he himself had appeared from heaven.
But now Satan interferes. He not only places false teachers among the people,
so as to corrupt the Word of God, but he also calls them prophets, so that the
people fall [into error] all the more easily. These arrogant pseudoprophetic
windbags are in the habit of snatching an honor which God bestowed upon his own
servants. The apostle uses the word spirits purposely, to keep us from
being deceived by those who pretend falsely to speak in God's name; for in our
own day we see many who are
It should be noticed that the apostle did not deny outright the claim of these
men to be prophets. He might have said simply that they ought not to be
believed. When these false teachers lyingly claimed that they had the Spirit,
he let them have their way; only he warned that their claim was both fictitious
and foolish unless they could come forth with the reality of prophecy. It is
silly to be so taken in by a high-sounding title that one does not even dare to
see if there be anything behind it.
Try the spirits. Since not everyone who calls himself a prophet is one,
the apostle says here that he should be put to a test; not only by the church
at large, but also by individual believers. But the question arises, Where do
we get our discernment? When some say that we should judge men's words by the
Word of God, they are right so far; but that does not settle the matter. I
admit readily that men's teachings should be tested by the Word of God. But the
truth is that without the good sense we receive from the Spirit, it helps us
little or nothing to have the Word of God in our hands; for its meaning is
bound to escape us. For instance, gold is tested with fire or touchstone; but
only by those who know how to do it. What use is fire or touchstone to the
ignorant? In the same way, we are fit to judge only when we receive discretion
from the Spirit and are guided by him. Since we could not follow the apostle's
precept, unless the power of judging were added to it, certainly the godly
shall not be left without the Spirit of sound judgment, provided they seek him
from the Lord. But it is also true that the Spirit will lead us to true
discretion only when we bring all our thoughts under subjection to the Word of
God; for, as we said above, it is, so to speak, our touchstone, which should be
most precious to us, since it is the only source of sound teaching.
But here comes a difficult question. If everyone has a right to be a judge and
arbiter in this matter, nothing can be set down as certain; and our whole
religion will be full of uncertainty. I reply that we must test doctrines in a
twofold way: private and public. By private testing, each one establishes his
own faith, and accepts only the teaching which he knows to be from God. For our
conscience cannot find security and peace except in God. Public testing of
doctrine has to do with the common consent and polity of the church. Since
there is a
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private
interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20.
Here Peter begins to teach how our minds must be prepared if we would make
proper progress in Scripture. There is in this verse a word which may mean one
of two things. If you read it
This explanation contains a true, godly, and useful doctrine. The only way to
read the prophets to advantage is to set aside the mind of the flesh and to
submit to the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is godless profanity to set up
our own acumen as capable of understanding Scripture, which contains mysteries
of God hidden to our flesh and sublime treasures of life which are far beyond
our powers. This is why we say that the light which shines in it comes only to
the lowly.
But the papists are foolish when they conclude that no private interpretation
by an individual is valid. They abuse Peter's testimony, in order to give their
councils alone the right to interpret Scripture. But this is childish. When
Peter speaks of private interpretation, he does not refer to individuals;
neither does he forbid them to interpret Scripture. He means that it is not
godly for them to come out with something out of their own heads. Even if all
men in the world were to agree and be of one mind, the outcome would still be
private, of their own. The word private is here set against
divine revelation; for the believers, illumined inwardly by the Holy Spirit,
know as truth only what God says by his Word.
However, I think the simpler meaning of Peter's statement is that Scripture is
not of men, or by the initiative of men. You will never come to it well
prepared to read it, unless you bring reverence, obedience, and teachableness
with you. But reverence comes from the knowledge that it is God who speaks to
What comes next means the same thing. The holy men spoke as they were moved by
the Spirit of God; that is, they did not babble out fables, moved by their own
impulse and as they willed. In short, the first step in right understanding is
that we believe the holy prophets of God as we do him. The apostle calls them
holy men of God because they performed faithfully the task which was
laid upon them; and in this service, they were surrogates for the person of
God. Peter says they were moved, not because they were bereft of their
own minds (as the Gentiles imagined their prophets to have been during their
"enthusiasm"), but because they did not dare to say anything of their own. They
followed the Spirit as their guide and obeyed him to such an extent that their
mouths became his temple, and he ruled in them.
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,
because he made himself the Son of God. John 19:7.
The Jews explain that they are pursuing Christ out of regard for the law, and
not from passion or hatred. For they realize that they are being indirectly
held in check by Pilate. Knowing that Pilate is ignorant of the law, they as
much as say to him: "We have a right to live according to our customs. Our
religion does not suffer a man to give himself airs as the Son of God."
Besides, this accusation was not groundless; but they were altogether wrong in
the deduction they made [from the law]. The general thesis was, of course,
correct. It was not right for any man to assume divine honor; and anyone who
took for himself what is God's alone, was worthy of death. Their error was that
they applied the law to Christ; for they did not consider with what praise
Scripture itself had predicted the Messiah. If they had done so, they would
have inferred readily that he was the Son of God. Thus it is evident that
having started with a true principle, they were led by bad reasoning to a false
conclusion.
Let us be warned by this example to distinguish carefully between general
doctrine and the particular inferences we make from it. This we should do for
the sake of inexperienced and simple people who, when deceived by some
pretended truth, reject even the fundamental doctrines of Scripture; and
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe,
if I tell you of heavenly things? John 3:12.
Christ concludes that if Nicodemus and his like do not make progress in the
knowledge of the gospel, it is their fault. He shows that since he has come
down to earth itself, he is not to be blamed if not everybody learns his
doctrine properly. It is too common a vice among men that they want to be
taught in a subtle and ingenious way: hence most of them are very happy with
deep and abstruse speculations; for the same reason, many do not think much of
the gospel: in it they do not find the kind of pompous discourse with which
they like to fill their ears. They do not care to sink so low as to waste their
time with the rude and lowly teaching of the gospel. But, it is most stupid not
to honor the Word of God, because he has lowered himself to the level of our
ignorance. When we find God prattling to us in the Bible in an uncultivated and
vulgar style, let us remember that he does it for our sake. Anyone who presumes
or pretends to be offended by the condescension of God so that he will not
submit to God's Word, is a liar. Anyone who cannot bear to lay hold of God as
he comes down to him will still less soar up to him beyond the clouds.
Some explain earthly things as the ABC of spiritual truth, and speak of
self-denial as the first step in godliness. But I prefer the view of those who
think this phrase has to do with Christ's way of teaching. For even though
Christ's discourse as a whole was heavenly, he spoke plainly, as it were in an
earthly way. Furthermore, this is not true of one discourse only. In
this verse, Christ's habitually simple and popular way of teaching is
contrasted with ambitious men's addiction to speech that is full of pomp and
splendor.
And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the
princes of Juda; for out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule my
people Israel. Matt. 2:6.
There is no doubt that the scribes quoted the words of this passage (Micah 5:2)
in their own tongue, faithfully, as found in the prophet. But Matthew was
satisfied to refer to it. Because he wrote in Greek, he followed the commonly
accepted reading
Now all these things happened unto them in examples: and they are
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1
Cor. 10:11.
Now he repeats that all these things happened to the Israelites to serve us as
types, examples by which God sets his judgments before our eyes. I am aware
that others philosophize more subtly over these words; but I think I have
understood the mind of the apostle when I say that by these examples, as by
painted pictures, we are taught what judgment is waiting for idolaters,
fornicators, and others who treat God with contempt; they are living images
which present God to us as angry with such sins. This explanation, besides
being simple and valid, has the advantage of shutting the mouth of those madmen
who twist this passage to prove that the people in old times were given nothing
but [empty] shadows. First they assume that the people of Israel were only a
figure [form without content] of the church: and from this they conclude that
everything God promised and did among them, every good, every punishment, was a
mere figure of that which was to become actual after the coming of Christ. This
is but a pestilential madness, an atrocious injury to the holy fathers, and a
more atrocious injury to God. The people [of Israel] was a
They were written for our admonition. This second phrase clarifies the
former. It was not for the sake of the Israelites, but for ours, that these
things were kept in remembrance. It does not follow that punishments they
suffered were not real warnings from God and valid for their own correction;
and yet when God exercised his judgments at that time, he intended that there
should be a perpetual remembrance of them for our instruction. What use is
history for those who are dead? And what good is it to the living, except as
they are warned by the example of others, and come to their senses? And now,
the apostle confesses the principle with which all believers should agree: that
there is nothing put forth in Scripture which it is not profitable to know.
Upon whom the ends of the world are come.
But this statement of Paul contradicts the popular opinion that God, under the
Old Testament, was more rigid, always armed and ready to punish wickedness;
that now he has begun to be lenient, and ignores [evil] much more readily. Our
living under the law of grace is interpreted to mean that we have a God who is
much more easy to please than the God of the ancients. But what does Paul say
about all this? If God punished them, he will not spare us any more than he did
them. Away
Of which salvation the prophets inquired and searched diligently, who
prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or in what
time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify. 1 Peter
1:10-11.
Peter sets high the value of salvation, by referring to the prophets who had
been intent upon it with all their zeal; since the prophets sought for it with
burning hearts, he regards it as a thing of great and singular excellence. And
the goodness of God toward us is all the greater and shines all the more
brightly, because much more has been revealed to us than was sought after by
the prophets so long and so eagerly.
At the same time, Peter establishes the certainty of salvation from its very
antiquity, because from the very beginning of the world it has received the
true witness of the Holy Spirit.
These two things must be kept clearly in mind. He affirms that more is given to
us than to the ancient fathers; and by this comparison, he magnifies the grace
of the gospel. Further, what is preached to us concerning our salvation cannot
be suspected of novelty, because the Spirit, by the prophets, has borne witness
to it through the ages. Therefore, when he says that the prophets sought and
searched ceaselessly, he refers not to their teachings or writings, but to the
inner yearning which agitated them. He deals with their public activity in what
follows.
If we would understand the particulars of the verse more clearly, we need to
break it down into several parts. First, when the prophets prophesied of the
grace which Christ exhibited to us by his coming, they were anxious to know the
time of full
Of which salvation. But did not the fathers have the same salvation in
common with us? Why then does he say that the fathers inquired, as though they
did not have what is now offered to us? The answer is easy; in my view,
salvation means the clear and visible manifestation of it which we have in the
coming of Christ. These words of Peter mean nothing else than those spoken by
Christ: Many kings and prophets have desired to see the things which you
see, and have not seen them. Blessed therefore are your eyes, etc. (Matt.
13:17). Since the prophets had only a small taste of the grace which Christ
brought to us, their desire turned rightly toward a different manner of
revelation. When Simeon saw Christ, he made ready for death with a calm and
peaceful spirit; which shows that he was previously anxious and disquieted.
Such was the state of all believers [before Christ].
He indicates how [the fathers] searched, when he adds the phrase, in
what, or in what manner of time. The difference between the law and
the gospel is that, under the former, there is a veil interposed, which kept
the fathers from seeing the nearness of the things which are set before the
eyes of us [who live under the gospel]. Nor was it indeed proper that when
Christ, the Son of Righteousness, was yet absent, the fullness of light should
have
Also we have a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take
heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the
day-star rise in your hearts. 2 Peter 1:19.
Also we have. Here he teaches that the truth of the gospel is certain
because it is founded upon the oracles of the prophets; and he does this so
that those who embrace the gospel may be free of doubt and subject themselves
totally to Christ. For anyone who wavers in this matter cannot but be lax in
his spirit.
We have may refer to himself and other teachers, as well as to their
disciples. The apostles regarded the prophets as surety of their own teaching;
the believers also found the confirmation of the gospel in the prophets. So, I
am inclined to the view that the apostle is speaking of the whole church, and
including himself in it. Still, he is speaking particularly of the Jews, who
were familiar with the doctrine of the prophets. In my opinion, this is why he
says that the gospel is more sure. Those who understand this comparison as
establishing the superiority of the gospel to the prophets do not pay enough
attention to its context. It is tortuous to make this phrase mean more sure
than the words of the prophets, because the gospel is in fact the fulfillment
of the promises which God made to them concerning his Son. It is enough to
establish the truth of the gospel in two ways: by God's own high and solemn
praise and approval of Christ, and by the fact that all the prophecies of the
prophets were made with regard to Christ.
On the other hand, anyone can see immediately how absurd it is that the word of
the prophets should be more sure than any other word spoken by the mouth of our
Holy God! First, the authority of God's Word is from the beginning and always
the same. Secondly, the coming of Christ established it more firmly than ever,
as The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us at length. But it is not hard to untie
this knot. The apostle is speaking to his own people, who were passionately
attached to the prophets, so that the teaching of the latter was beyond
controversy among them. Since there was no doubt among the Jews that whatever
the prophets taught was from the Lord, we should not be
In short, Peter warns that so long as we walk in this world, we need the
teaching of the prophets for a directing light; because without this light we
can do nothing but live in darkness and go astray. He is not, therefore,
separating the prophets from the gospel; he tells us that they shine for us to
show us the way. His point is that throughout the whole course of our life we
ought to be directed by the Word of God, because otherwise we shall be
enveloped on all sides with the darkness of ignorance. The Lord does not shine
upon us unless we see by his Word as our light.
This passage is significant in that it tells us how God directs us. The papists
have it always on their tongue that the church cannot err. They forget the Word
and pretend to be guided by the Spirit. Peter, on the contrary, claims that all
those who disregard the light of the Word are buried in darkness. Therefore, if
you do not want, of your own will, to lose yourself in a labyrinth, do your
very best to avoid rejecting the guidance of the Word even in the smallest
matter. The church cannot follow God as its guide, unless it observes this
rule. With this statement
It is worth noting that here he speaks of the clarity of the Scripture. For his
eulogy would be false, unless Scripture were apt and able to show us the way
clearly and certainly. Anyone, therefore, who opens his eyes with the obedience
of faith shall know by experience that Scripture has not been called
light in vain. It is indeed obscure to the unbelievers; but those who
are given up to destruction blind themselves. The blasphemy of the papists is
damnable, when they pretend that the light of Scripture merely dazzles the eye.
This is their way of keeping the simple people from reading it. But, of course,
we need not wonder that the proud, inflated with the wind of a perverse
self-confidence, cannot see the light with which the Lord favours only those
who are humble as a child (Matt. 11:25). David praises the law of God in a
similar vein (Ps. 19 and 119).
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the
Father in spirit and in truth. . . . John 4:23.
Now there follows the second part, which has to do with the annulling of the
cultic laws. When Christ says, the hour is coming, or is come, he
teaches that the Mosaic order is in no way permanent. When he says, the hour
now is, he puts an end to the ceremonies, and in this way declares that the
time of training is now over. Still, he puts his approval on the Temple, the
priesthood, and all the rites that went with them, in so far as these were
useful in the past (Heb. 9:10). Besides, in order to show that God does not
wish to be worshiped [exclusively] either in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim, he
appeals to a higher principle: namely, that a true worship of God must be done
in the spirit; from which it follows that men may call upon him in all
places.
But we must first ask why and in what sense the worship of God is called
spiritual. If we are to understand this, we must know the difference between
the spirit and external forms as the difference between shadow and reality. The
worship of God is said to be in the spirit, because nothing can take the place
of the inward faith of the heart, which makes us call on God, or of purity of
conscience and self-denial, by which we may give ourselves to the obedience of
God as holy sacrifice.
From this arises another question: Did not the fathers, while
However, even though the worship of God under the law was spiritual, since it
was hidden under a multitude of external ceremonies it had the taste of
something carnal and worldly. This is why Paul speaks of ceremonies as
flesh and beggarly elements of the world (Gal. 4:9). In the same
way, the writer of The Epistle to the Hebrews says that the ancient sanctuary,
with its appendages, was earthly (Heb. 9:1). Thus we say properly that
the cult of the law was spiritual in substance, but with respect to its form
somewhat carnal and earthly. Therefore, the whole apparatus of the cult, the
reality of which is now manifest, was a thing of shadows.
Now we see what the Jews had in common with us, and how they differed from us.
In every age, God desired to be worshiped by faith, prayer, acts of
thanksgiving, purity of heart, and innocence of life; and at no time was he
pleased with other sacrifices; but under the law there were various additions
made, and the Spirit and truth were covered over and hidden. Now that the veil
of the Temple is torn, nothing is hidden or obscure. We also today have some
external exercises of piety, which we need because of our inaptitude: but they
are characterized by sobriety, and do not obscure the naked truth of Christ. In
short, what was shadowy to the fathers, we now have openly and clearly.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats. . . sanctifieth to the purifying of
the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge our conscience from dead
works, to serve the living God? Heb. 9:13-14.
This passage has led many people astray, because they have forgotten that it
has to do with sacraments, which have a
Through the eternal Spirit. Now he shows clearly that the death of
Christ is to be understood not in terms of outward act, but of the power of the
Spirit. Christ suffered as a man. If his death has the power to save us, it is
by the efficacy of the Spirit; for the sacrifice which brought us eternal
expiation was more than a human act. And the apostle calls the Spirit eternal,
to teach us that the reconciliation which He works is itself eternal. . . .
By the works of death we may understand either works which produce
death, or works which are the fruit of death. Since the life of the soul is
bound to God, those who are by sin alienated from him are to be regarded as
dead.
But let us consider the end of our purification, which is the service of the
living God. We are washed by Christ, not immediately to bury ourselves once
again in filth, but so that our purity may serve the glory of God. Besides, the
apostle teaches us that nothing from us will please God, unless we are purged
by the blood of Christ. Since before we are reconciled with God we all are
enemies to him, all our works are worthless before him. Therefore, the
beginning of the true worship of God is reconciliation. Besides, since no act
of ours is pure, free from all spot, it cannot please God; it must, therefore,
be purified by the blood of Christ which blots out all our spots. And, of
course, the contrast between dead works and the living God is beautiful.
Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when
Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took
the blood of calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop,
and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of
the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Heb. 9:18-20.
The apostle wants us to attend not to words but to the substance of what is
being said. He has found the word testament in the Greek language in
which he is writing. Since the [Hebrew] word for covenant often becomes
testimony in Greek, he takes advantage of this fact, and turns it to his
own use. He eulogizes God's covenant as a testimony, which is one way of
speaking of it; and why not, since angels from heaven and so many gifted men on
earth, that is, all the holy prophets, apostles, and a multitude of martyrs,
have been witness to it, and at the last, the Son of God himself has sponsored
it? Hence there is nothing absurd in the apostle's use of the word
testament. It is true that the Hebrew word toude does not in fact
mean covenant; but since nothing which the apostle says is inconsistent with
it, we must not be tied down to the exact meaning of the word.
The apostle says that the Old Testament was dedicated with blood; this he takes
as a warning to the people that it was effective and stable only by the
interposition of death. But he denies that the blood of beasts was a valid
confirmation of the eternal covenant. This becomes clearer when we consider the
rite of sprinkling enjoined by Moses, as described in our text. The apostle
tells us, in the first place, that the covenant was sanctified, not because it
was in itself profane, but because nothing is so sacred that the people would
not profane it by their own impurities, unless it were restored by God himself.
Therefore, the dedication was on men's account, and only because they were
unclean.
He then adds that the tabernacle with all its vessels, and also the Book of the
Law itself, were sprinkled. By this rite the people were taught that God cannot
be sought, or found, for salvation, and neither can he be worshiped truly,
unless faith at all times uses the requisite blood. It is only right that we
should find the majesty of God dreadful, and the way to it a hopeless
labyrinth, unless we know that he turns to us with favor through the blood of
Christ, and that through this same blood we have an easy access to him.
Therefore, all worship is unclean and wicked unless purified by the sprinkling
of the blood of Christ.
The tabernacle stood for a visible image of God. The vessels of the ministry
set aside for the service of God were symbols of true worship. But since they
were without blood useless for salvation, it is evident that unless Christ
himself appears with his blood, we have no part in God. Even doctrine itself,
in spite of God's constant will [to save us], is without power or benefit,
unless sanctified with blood. Our verse makes this perfectly clear.
I know that others understand this passage differently. They say that the
tabernacle is the body of the church; and the vessels, the faithful whom God
uses in his service. But my view of the matter is far more suitable. Whenever
the people called on God, they turned to the sanctuary; and it was a common
saying that when they appeared in the Temple, they stood before the face of the
Lord.
This is the blood of the testament. . . . This means that the testament
is not ratified without blood, and that the blood works no expiation without
the testament. Therefore, the two must go together. We see that the symbol was
added after the law was explained: for what is a sacrament unless the Word come
before it? Therefore, the symbol is an accessory to the Word. And mark you, the
Word was not murmured as a magical incantation, but spoken with a loud and
clear voice, because it was meant for the people, so that the words of the
covenant, which God has commanded you, might ring out. Therefore, it is
a perverse misuse of the sacrament, and an ungodly corruption of it, when no
one hears the exposition of God's commandment, which is, as it were, the very
soul of the sacrament. Therefore, the papists who separate the sign from a true
understanding of its substance have nothing left but the dead letter.
Moreover, this passage warns us that we receive God's promises only when they
are confirmed by the blood of Christ. All God's promises are Yea and Amen, as
Paul testifies in 2 Cor. 1:20, only when by the blood of Christ they are
inscribed on our hearts as a seal; for, we hear God speaking to us only when we
see Christ offering himself as a pledge in what is said to us. If we could only
get it into our heads that the Word of God we read is written not so much with
ink as with the blood of the Son of God; or that when the gospel is preached,
his own blood is poured with the voice we hear -- we would pay far more
attention and that with far greater reverence. The sprinkling spoken of by
Moses was a symbol for the reality which we have just explained.
Of course, all this (which the apostle tells us) is not contained in the words
of Moses. Moses does not tell us that either the Book or the people were
sprinkled. He does not tell us that the sprinkling included the goats, or the
scarlet wool, or the hyssop. We cannot even be sure that he sprinkled the Book,
even though we may guess that he probably did so, since he brought it out
before the people after the sacrifice, when he bound them to God by a solemn
compact. As for the rest (the goats, the scarlet wool, the hyssop), it seems to
me that the apostle has thrown them together as several kinds of offering
having the same expiatory purpose. And after all, there is nothing absurd in
this, since he was dealing with the general question of purification under the
old covenant. What matters is that the whole thing was done with blood. As to
the sprinkling with hyssop, and scarlet wool, it doubtless represented the
mystical sprinkling by the Spirit. We know that hyssop has a singular power to
purify and make clean. Therefore, Christ in turn sprinkles us with his Spirit,
to wash us with his blood; to convert our minds to true repentance; to make us
clean of the lusts of our depraved flesh; and to make us beautiful with the
hues of his own wonderful righteousness. Indeed, it was not for nothing that
God commanded this practice of sprinkling. Let us remember the words of David
in Ps. 51:7, Sprinkle me, O Lord, with hyssop, and I shall be clean.
That is enough for anyone who is minded to philosophize soberly.
Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that
accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. John 5:45.
It is a mistake to think that this verse sets the office of Moses against that
of Christ; even though it is the peculiar function of the law to convict
unbelievers of sin. This was not the intention of Christ; it was rather to
disarm the hypocrites who gloried in Moses with a false reverence. It is like
telling the papists today that the holy doctors of the church, behind whom they
hide, are their worst opponents. Besides, this verse teaches us that our
boasting in Scripture does us no good unless we worship the Son with the true
obedience of faith; for, in the last day, all those whom God shall raise as
witnesses to Christ shall come forth to accuse us. When Christ says that his
hearers hope in Moses, he does not accuse them of superstition, or of thinking
that Moses was their Savior. He is rather pointing out the folly of
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with an angel which
spake to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively
oracles to give unto us. Acts 7:38.
Who received living oracles. Erasmus translates this as "the living
word"! But those who know their Greek must agree that I have given a better
rendition of what Stephen said; for oracles have more majesty than words. What
I say is words, but what comes out of the mouth of the Lord is an oracle.
Besides, these words of Stephen are intended to establish the authority of
Moses' teaching, and to impress upon the people that Moses spoke only what was
from God; from which it followed that in rebelling against Moses, they had
rebelled not against him but against God; hence, their effrontery was obviously
all the more brazen. (And, in general, the right way to establish [true]
doctrine is for men to teach nothing they have not been commanded from God.)
For, how could any man have dared to look down on Moses, who, as the Spirit
says, had a right to be believed because he explained to the people faithfully
the doctrine which he had received from God!
But someone may ask, Why does he call the law a "living word"? Such praise may
seem to fit poorly with Paul's statement that the law is minister of death and
works wrath, and that it makes us to sin (2 Cor. 3:7). If anyone understands
"the living word" to mean a word that is valid and effective in spite of men's
contempt for it, I will not contradict him, but on my part, I interpret
"living" as that which is active. Since the law is the perfect rule of a godly
and holy life, and sets forth the righteousness of God, it is rightly thought
of as the doctrine of life and salvation; and it is to this that Moses bears
witness, as he swears by heaven and earth, when he presents the law to the
people as the way of life and death. In the same way, in Ezekiel, chapter 20,
God complains that the people have violated his law which is good, and his
precepts concerning which he had said, Any one who does them, shall live in
them. The law, therefore, contains life in itself. If anyone prefers to
interpret "living" as efficacious and full of power, I shall not object too
strenuously.
When Paul calls the law the minister of death, he speaks of a characteristic
which it has contingently, because of the corrupt nature of man. The law itself
does not produce sin; it finds sin in us. It offers life to us; but we, being
evil, derive nothing but
And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye
believe not. John 5:38.
We profit from the Word of God only when it takes root in us, and is so fixed
in our hearts that it remains there. Christ denied that the Jews possessed the
heavenly doctrine, because they did not receive the Son of God who is
proclaimed everywhere in it. And he rejected them with good reason. God did not
speak through Moses and the prophets for nothing. His only purpose in speaking
to Moses was that he might call everyone to Christ. Therefore, it is clear that
those who repudiate Christ are no disciples of Moses. After all, how can the
Word of life be and remain in anyone who pushes aside life itself? How does any
man hold to the teaching of the law when he does his best to extinguish the
Spirit of the law? For the law without Christ has nothing solid about it, and
in fact avails us nothing. Therefore, progress in the Word of God goes with a
right knowledge of Christ.
Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they
are they which testify of me. John 5:39.
As we have pointed out, Christ's previous statement that the Father is his
witness in heaven, applies also to Moses and the prophets. Now Christ explains
the matter more clearly by saying that the Scripture itself is his witness. He
again attacks the stupidity of those who declared loudly that the Scriptures
gave them life, while they treated them as dead letter. He does not judge them
because they sought life in the Scriptures; the Scriptures were given to be
used for this purpose. But the Jews thought the Scriptures gave them life when
they had no sense of their true meaning, and had even put out the light of life
in them. How can the law make alive, when Christ alone gives it life?
Moreover, this passage teaches us that if we would know Christ, we must seek
him in the Scriptures. Anyone who imagines Christ as he will, gets nothing but
a mere blur (umbratile spectrum). So, we must first hold that Christ is
known
But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Matt. 19:17.
Some ancients, and the papists after them, have misinterpreted this verse so as
to make Christ promise that if we observe the law we shall have eternal life.
Christ was not talking about what man can do; he was answering a question as to
right conduct or what the law defines as righteous. Certainly, God gave his law
as the way of a right and holy life, which includes righteousness. It is not
for nothing that Moses made the statement, Anyone who does these things,
shall live by them; again, I call heaven and earth to witness that today
I have put before you life. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the keeping
of the law is righteousness, and that anyone who keeps it perfectly, obtains
life. But, since we all are destitute of the glory of God [righteousness], in
the law we find nothing but a curse; there is nothing left for us to do but to
fly to a righteousness which shall be given us freely. Therefore, Paul presents
us with two kinds of righteousness: of the law and of faith; the former he
makes to consist in works, and the latter in the mere grace of Christ.
From this we gather that the reply of Christ was correct. He had first to
answer the young man who asked about the right thing to do; for no man is
righteous before God unless he satisfies the law (which is impossible). He did
this in order that the
This passage abolishes all the fictions which the papists have invented in
order to obtain salvation. Their error is not merely that by their good works
they want to bind God, and make him grant them salvation as a matter of debt;
but also that when they gird themselves to do good, they set aside the teaching
of the law, and become intent upon fictions which they call their "devotions."
In this way, they not only repudiate the law of God, but also far prefer their
human traditions. But what else does Christ say, except that God approves only
of that worship which he himself has prescribed? For, obedience is better to
him than all slaughtered sacrifice. So then, let the papists be occupied with
their silly traditions; if anyone would be serious about ordering his life so
as to live in obedience to Christ, let him devote his whole attention to
obeying the commandments of the law.
Who hath also made us able ministers of the new testament, not of the
letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious,
. . . which glory was to be done away, how shall not the ministration of the
spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory,
much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that
which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory
that excelleth.. 2 Cor. 3:6-10.
Paul had before touched upon the comparison between the law and the gospel; now
he pursues the matter further. However, the occasion for this argument is not
certain; was it that he saw some Corinthians make a perverse use of the law, or
was
However, there is no doubt that by the letter he meant the Old Testament, as by
the word Spirit he means the gospel; for, when he calls himself a minister of
the new covenant, he also adds immediately that he is a minister of the Spirit;
and it is in this connection that he contrasts the letter with the
Spirit.
We must now look into the reason for his use of these words. Origen's invention
in this matter has become well established as truth: that the letter means the
grammatical and genuine meaning of Scripture, or as they say, the literal; and
that Spirit means the allegorical meaning, which is commonly called the
spiritual. Thus, through the centuries, it has been commonly accepted and
passed around that here Paul has provided us with a key for the allegorical
interpretation of Scripture. But nothing was further from his mind. By the word
letter Paul means preaching which is external and does not reach the
heart; by Spirit he means teaching which is alive, which works mightily
in the souls of men by the grace of the Spirit. Letter, therefore, means
literal, that is, dead and ineffective preaching, which is heard only by the
ear. Spirit, on the other hand, means spiritual teaching, which is not
merely a matter of mouthing words, but rather has the power to penetrate the
soul and bring it to life. Paul had in mind the verse from Jeremiah which I
cited before, there the Lord says that his law had been given by word of mouth,
and that it had neither lasted long, nor had it been received by the people
with their hearts; therefore, he promises the Spirit of regeneration in the
reign of Christ, who will write the gospel, that is the new covenant, in their
hearts (Jer. 31:31). Now, it is Paul's boast that this prophecy has been
fulfilled in his preaching. He would have the Corinthians know that the bombast
of the loud mouths amounts to nothing, because it lacks the power of the
Spirit.
Now let us consider if, under the Old Testament, God spoke merely with an
outward voice, or if he did not speak inwardly by his Spirit to the hearts of
the godly. I answer, in the first
Secondly, I answer that Paul is speaking of the law and the gospel not in
general, but in so far as they are opposed one to the other. Even the gospel
itself is not always Spirit. Still, when it comes to a comparison
between the two, one must say truly and properly that the nature of the law is
such that it teaches the letter, without penetrating beyond the ear; on
the other hand, it is the nature of the gospel to teach spiritually, because it
is the instrument of the grace of Christ. God has ordained it so, for it has
pleased him to reveal the power of the Spirit more through the gospel than
through the law; and it is the Spirit alone that can teach the spirits of men.
. . .
For the letter kills. First Origen, and then others, distorted this
phrase badly, to give it a corrupted meaning; and so arose the most pernicious
error that Scripture is not only useless but even harmful unless it is turned
into elaborate allegories. This error became a source of much evil. It not only
gave license for corrupting the true meaning of Scripture, but also led to the
notion that the more unprincipled the allegorizer, the more expert he was as
interpreter of Scripture. So, many of the ancients threw the sacred Word of God
around as though it were a tennis ball. In this way, the heretics too were
unbridled and found occasion to trouble the church. Now, anybody could do
anything, and many did; there was no madness so absurd or so great but it could
be practiced in the name of some allegory. Even good people were caught, and
invented many false notions, because they were deceived by their fondness for
allegory. . . .
But if the ministration of death. He now magnifies the dignity of the
gospel so much the more, by insisting that God has conferred great honor upon
the law, which is as nothing in comparison with the gospel. The prestige of the
law was established by many miracles. But Paul touches upon one: namely, that
Moses' face was bright with such splendor as to dazzle the eyes of all those
around him -- a splendor which was a symbol of the
To make the antithesis complete, he should have used the same number of points
on the opposite side with regard to the gospel; but he calls the latter simply
the ministry of the Spirit, and of righteousness, which is to remain valid at
all times. In terms of words, the comparison is not carried through; but as to
the substance of the matter, what he says is adequate, for he has already said
that the Spirit gives life; and further, he has pointed out that now men's
hearts take the place of stones and inner disposition takes the place of ink.
Let us now examine briefly the characteristics of the law and the gospel. But
let us remember that the point at issue is neither the whole of the teaching we
find in the Law and the Prophets, nor the experience of the fathers under the
Old Testament; but rather the peculiar function of the ministry of Moses [or
the law]. The law was chiseled upon stones; therefore, its teaching was one of
the letter. This defect of the law had to be corrected by the gospel, since,
the law having been consigned to tablets of stone, it could not but be
breakable. The gospel, therefore, is a holy and inviolable covenant because
under God it was hewed out by the Spirit. It follows that the law was the
ministry of condemnation and death; for when men were told their duty, they
also heard that anyone who does not satisfy God's justice is cursed, and ends
in sin and death. Therefore, men get nothing from the law but condemnation, for
in the law God demands his due, but does not confer the power to pay it
properly. The gospel, on the other hand, which regenerates us and reconciles us
with God through the free forgiveness of sins, is the ministry of
righteousness, and consequently, of life itself.
But now arises the question: If the gospel be to some a deadly odor of death,
and if Christ be the rock of offense and the stone of stumbling set for the
ruin of many, why is it that the law alone is blamed for what it has in common
with the gospel (2 Cor. 2:16, Luke 2:34, 1 Peter 2:8)? If one answers that the
gospel does not work death in itself, or that it is the occasion rather
My answer is that, in spite of all this, there is a great difference between
the law and the gospel. Even though the gospel is an occasion for condemnation
to many, it is rightly regarded as the doctrine of life, because it is the
means of regeneration and offers us free reconciliation with God. The law, on
the other hand, even though it prescribes the rule of a good life, does not
change the heart for a righteous obedience; and in declaring eternal death to
sinners, it can do nothing but condemn them. To put it another way, it is the
function of the law to uncover the disease; it gives us no hope of its cure. It
is the function of the gospel to bring healing to those who are without hope.
The law, in so far as it leads men to put their confidence in it, consigns them
necessarily to death. The gospel, on the other hand, leads us to Christ and
thus opens the gate to life. Thus, in one word, the property of the law by
which it kills, even though not essential to it, is permanent and inseparable
from it; for, as the apostle says elsewhere, all those who remain under the law
are subject to the curse (Gal. 3:10). On the other hand, it is not true of the
gospel that it kills always, because in it the righteousness of God is revealed
from faith to faith; and, therefore, it is the saving power of God to all those
who believe (Rom. 1:16-17).
It remains to consider the last contrast made by the apostle when he says that
the law was for a time, and to be abolished, whereas the gospel is for
perpetuity. There are many reasons why the ministry of Moses was for a season.
Shadows had to cease with the coming of Christ. But the statement applies
beyond the shadows, to the Law and the Prophets until John (Matt. 11:13). It
means that Christ put an end to the ministry of Moses, in all that was peculiar
to it and apart from the gospel. Finally, in Jer. 31:31-32, the Lord bears
witness to the weakness of the old covenant because it was not inscribed upon
the hearts of men. I interpret the abolition of the law mentioned in this place
as referring to the whole of the old covenant in so far as it was opposed to
the gospel; and that includes the Law
This is no denial of what is said above, but rather a confirmation of it; for
Paul means that where the gospel appears, the glory of the law is extinguished.
As the moon and the stars, which have light enough to illumine the whole earth,
disappear before the splendor of the sun, so also the law, whatever glory it
might have in itself, is as nothing before the refulgence of the gospel. Hence,
it follows that we cannot magnify enough, or treat with too much reverence, the
glory of Christ which shines in the gospel, as the brightness of the sun shines
in its rays. It is in bad taste, and a foolish profanation of the gospel, when
the power and majesty of the Spirit, which draw the minds and hearts of men to
heaven, are withheld from the people.
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil
untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in
Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their
heart; nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken
away. Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
is liberty. 2 Cor. 3:14-17.
He puts the whole blame upon them [the Jews]; for it was because of their
blindness that they were unable to benefit from the teaching of the law. . .
.
He now gives the reason for their continued blindness in the midst of light.
The law in itself is a source of light: but we enjoy its brightness only when
Christ appears to us in it. The Jews do all they can to turn their eyes away
from Christ: it is therefore not surprising that they see nothing, since they
will not turn to the Sun. This blindness on the part of God's chosen people,
especially since it has lasted so long, should warn us that we ought to rely
upon God's favors toward us, and not be lifted up with pride. (On this, see
Rom. 11:20.) And let the reason for blindness given in this passage keep us
from a contempt of Christ, which exposes us to the awful vengeance of God. In
the meantime, we should learn that there is no light in the law, or even in the
whole Word of God, without Christ who is the Sun of Righteousness.
But when it shall have turned to the Lord. So far, this passage has been
seriously misunderstood; both the Greek and the Latin
The Lord is the Spirit. This passage also has been interpreted badly, so
as to make Paul mean that Christ is of a spiritual essence; people do this by
tying it up with John 4:24, where we read God is a Spirit. As a matter
of fact, this statement has nothing to do with Christ's essence; it simply
points out his office. It goes with what Paul said above: namely, that the
teaching of the law is literal, not only dead but also a source of death.
Conversely, he now calls Christ the Spirit of the law, which means that the law
is living and life-giving only in so far as it receives the breath of Christ.
When the soul is united with the body, there is a living man, endowed with
intelligence and perception, competent for living behavior; take the soul away
from the body, and what do you have but a useless corpse, empty of all
sensibility?
This verse is of particular value; for it tells us how we are to reconcile the
praises with which David commends the law to us (in Ps. 19:7-8: "the law of the
Lord converts the soul, enlightens the eyes, and imparts wisdom to babes," and
other statements like it) with Paul's statements which apparently contradict
them: that the law is the ministry of sin and death, which only kills (2 Cor.
3:7). When Christ gives life to the law,
Where the Spirit of the Lord. Now Paul describes the way Christ gives
life to the law, which is, by giving it his Spirit. The meaning of the word
Spirit here is not the same as it is in the previous verse. There it means
soul, and is used as a metaphor for Christ; here, it refers to the Holy Spirit
himself, who is the gift of Christ to us. In regenerating us, Christ brings the
law itself to life, and reveals himself as the fountain of life. He acts like
the human soul, which is the source of all human vitality. Therefore, Christ is
(so to speak) the soul of all beings; not as their essence, but by the action
of his grace. Or, if you prefer it, Christ is the Spirit because he makes us
alive by the vivifying power of his Spirit.
And of his fullness have we all received, grace for grace; for the law was
given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1:16-17.
Now John embarks upon the mission of Christ, which contains the abundance of
all blessings, for there is not a thing belonging to our salvation which we
need seek elsewhere. God indeed is the fountain of life, and righteousness, and
power, and wisdom; but he is a fountain hidden and inaccessible to us. All
these blessings are presented to us in Jesus Christ in all fullness, so that we
may look for them in him. And he is ready to make them flow upon us, if by
faith we build the proper pipeline. In short, in every part of this sentence
John makes but one point, namely, that we must not look for any good outside of
Christ. First, he makes it clear that we are utterly destitute and empty of all
spiritual good. For if Christ himself abounds, it is to fill our emptiness, to
relieve our poverty, and to satisfy us who are hungry and thirsty. Secondly,
the writer warns us that no sooner do we turn away from Christ than we look in
vain for a single drop of good; because it was God's will that every good
should reside in him. Therefore, we find men and angels dry, the heaven empty
and the earth sterile, when we try to have a part in God's gifts by any means
but Christ. In the third place, he assures us that we shall want nothing
whatsoever if we draw upon the fullness of Christ, which is in every respect so
rich that we shall never be able to drain it off. John includes himself with
all men, not because of modesty, but to make it clear that no one is excepted.
There is some doubt as to whether John speaks of mankind in general or only of
those who, after Christ's coming in the flesh, have shared more fully in his
blessings. It is certain that those who lived under the law drew from the
fullness of Christ. But since John distinguishes between the time before the
Advent and the time after, he is more probably speaking of the new abundance of
good which Christ at his coming brought with him. We know that when Christ
appeared in the flesh, the benefits which were enjoyed in a limited way under
the law were, so to speak, scattered abroad with a full hand; so that we have
more than enough. This does not mean that each and every one of us is superior
to Abraham in the grace of the Spirit. I am speaking of the greater extent to
which God now distributes his gifts, and of the way and manner in which he does
it. John's purpose in emphasizing all men's poverty with regard to the good
offered us richly in Christ, was to invite his disciples to him the more
persuasively. At the same time, it would not be absurd to extend the meaning of
this statement further. In fact, the context itself justifies us in adding that
all the fathers, since the beginning of the world, have drawn every good they
have enjoyed from Christ. Since Moses gave them the law, they received grace
from another hand. But I have already stated the interpretation I prefer: which
is that John compares us with the fathers, in order to impress upon us the
riches of the gift we have in Christ Jesus.
And grace for grace. Augustine's exposition of this verse is well
known.[72] He says that the continued
blessings of God, and finally life eternal itself, are not rewards due us
because of our merits, but acts of divine generosity with which by grace God
rewards what we do and crowns his own gifts to us. All this is intelligently
said; but it has nothing to do with this verse. We would get its simple meaning
if we took
For the law came by Moses. Here he anticipates a likely objection. The
Jews had such a high regard for Moses that they would admit nothing as true if
it differed from his teaching. The Evangelist, therefore, shows how inferior
the ministry of Moses was to the power of Christ. At the same time, this
comparison sheds no little light on the authority of Christ. Since there was no
deference the Jews did not pay Moses, the Evangelist points out that what he
brought was little when compared with the grace of Christ.
Another difficulty was that the Jews thought they received from the law what is
not given us except in Christ. Therefore, the Evangelist contrasts the law with
grace and truth, and implies that both were lacking in the law. Truth,
in my judgment, indicates a fixed and firm stability in things. By grace
I understand the spiritual fulfillment of the things which the law contains as
mere letter. And these two words may be said to be figures of speech with the
same meaning: namely, that the truth of the law consists in the grace which was
exhibited in Christ. It does not much matter whether these two words are put
together or separated one from the other, for either way the sense of the
statement is the same. This much is certain: according to John, the law
contained the shadowy image of the spiritual goods which we find in Christ;
from which it follows that when the law is separated from Christ, nothing is
left but empty forms. This is why Paul said that the law is shadows, Christ the
substance (Col. 2:17). But we must not imagine that the law gives us only
falsehood; because even though the law in itself is dead, Christ himself is the
soul of the law and makes it alive. Still the question here has to do with the
power of the law apart from Christ; and the Evangelist asserts that without
Christ the law is nothing but a shadow, without substance and without power.
This truth consists in the fact that through Christ we obtain a grace
which is not available through the law. By grace in general, I
understand the free forgiveness of sins and the renewal of the heart. With this
word John states briefly the distinction between the Old and the New Testaments
(which was done more fully in Jer. 31:31), and includes in it all that has to
do with spiritual righteousness. But this righteousness consists of two parts:
namely, that God is reconciled to us freely,
When was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying, In Rama there was a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great
mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because
they are not. Matt. 2:17-18.
It is certain that the prophet was describing the destruction of the tribe of
Benjamin as it occurred in his time (Jer. 31:15). He had already predicted the
destruction of Judah, to which had been attached half the tribe of Benjamin. He
put this mourning in dead Rachel's mouth by way of personification
(prosopopoeia), which is very effective in rousing the feelings. Jeremiah did
not use rhetoric merely to embellish his speech. He did it because there was no
way to correct the stupidity and hard-heartedness of the living, except by
calling the dead out of their graves, to weep over the chastisements of God
which most people laughed at.
Since the prediction of the prophet had already been fulfilled, Matthew did not
take it as a prophecy of what Herod was going to do; rather he meant that with
the coming of Christ there was to be a recurrence of the affliction which the
Benjamites suffered many centuries before. He wanted to meet an objection which
might have troubled and shaken the believers' minds: for how could one hope to
be saved by a man because of whom, and at whose very birth, there had been a
massacre of infants? It was surely a dark and dreadful omen that the birth of
Christ kindled a flaming fire of such fury as we do not meet even in wars of
greatest cruelty! But as Jeremiah promises a restoration after the slaughter of
the people down to the infants, so Matthew argues that in spite of Herod's
wholesale murder, Christ would surely come forth as the Redeemer of the nation.
We know that in the same chapter of Jeremiah (31), mourning is followed by
tender words of comfort. For immediately after the mournful complaint come the
words: "Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work
shall be rewarded, and there is hope at the end," etc. Such then was the
likeness between the former calamity suffered by the tribe of Benjamin and this
latter one [which occurred under Herod]; and they both
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Matt.
2:23.
Matthew does not derive "Nazarene" from "Nazareth," as though there were a real
and certain and etymological connection between the two words. What we have
here is a mere allusion. Nazir means holy and devoted to God, and is
otherwise derived from nazar, which means to separate. It is true that
the Hebrews called a certain flower (or rather, the insignia of the royal
diadem) a nazar. But there is no doubt that Matthew used the word as
meaning holy. We read nowhere of the Nazarenes as flourishing; but we do
read, as in Num. 6:4, that they were consecrated to God as prescribed by law.
We are, therefore, to understand Matthew's statement as follows: Although it
was fear that drove Joseph to a corner of Galilee, God had a higher purpose;
for Nazareth was ordained to be Christ's home, so that he might bear the name
of Nazarene which was rightly his.
But it might be asked what prophet gave this name to Christ; for there is in
fact no such testimony in Scripture. Some think it is enough to answer that
Scripture often calls him holy; but this is a poor solution of the problem.
Matthew, as we have seen, emphasizes the word Nazarene, and by it refers to the
ancient Nazarenes, who were considered especially holy. He as much as says that
the holiness foreshadowed in the Nazarenes, as selected firstfruits before God,
was perfected in the person of Christ.
But we must still face the question as to where the prophets gave this name to
Christ. Chrysostom,73 who was unable to unravel the knot, settled
the matter by saying that many books of the prophets have perished. But this is
a careless answer. For even though the Lord punished his ancient people by
depriving them of a part of Scripture, or suppressed those parts which were of
lesser importance, nothing has been lost since the coming of Christ. People
have been misled on this point by a passage in
I think Bucer's judgment with regard to this matter is the best. He thinks we
find the reference we need in Judg. 13:5.[75]
This verse has to do with Samson, who is called deliverer in so far as he
prefigured Christ; and the salvation which came by his hand and ministry was a
shadowy prelude to the fullness of salvation which was exhibited to the world
in the Son of God. Anything good said about Samson in Scripture must by right
be transferred to Christ. If anyone prefers it that way, Christ is the original
exemplar, and Samson is the inferior copy (antitype). We must understand that
when Samson was invested with the honors due to the person of the Savior, the
titles which adorn that high and truly divine office were intended not for him
but for Christ. The fathers had only a taste of that grace of redemption which
we who are in Christ have received in full.
It is easy to see why Matthew spoke of prophets in the plural: The Book
of Judges was composed by a number of prophets. But I think that the reference
to the prophets in this place has a wider significance. For, the
patriarch Joseph, who was called a Nazarene by his brothers, was a temporal
savior of the church; he was in many respects a type of Christ, and even his
living image (Gen. 49:26, Deut. 33:16). God, therefore, intended that the high
dignity conferred upon Joseph should have reappeared in the person of Samson,
who therefore received the title Nazarene. In all this, it was God's purpose to
provide for the training of the faithful: to fix their hearts upon the Redeemer
to come, who was set apart from all men, to be the firstborn among many
brothers.
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among
them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. Matt. 27:35.
It is quite certain that it was the custom of the soldiers to divide the spoils
of a condemned man among themselves; even though it was perhaps unusual to cast
lots for a seamless coat. So, nothing happened to Christ that did not happen to
all condemned men. And yet this story deserves utmost attention. The
Evangelists present us with a Christ stripped naked of his clothes, to impress
upon us that by his nakedness we are covered with riches which adorn us before
God. The Son was stripped by God's will, to clothe us with his righteousness
and an abundance of all wealth. So it is that whereas before our rags and filth
made us unfit for heaven, now we all can appear with God's angels, in his
presence, boldly and without fear. Christ himself let the soldiers tear his
seamless coat in pieces, like beasts at their prey to enrich us with the riches
of his victory.
Moreover, as Matthew says, this happened in fulfillment of David's prophecy,
They divided my garments among them (Ps. 22:18). This bitter complaint
is a metaphor, and its language is figurative. But as applied to Christ, its
meaning is, as we say, literal; for it states a matter of fact. By
garments, David means his wealth and honor; he means that he had been a
prey to his enemies, who had in his own lifetime and under his very eyes
despoiled his house of everything he possessed, and gone so far as to ravish
his wife. When he writes that his garments were divided by lot, he is using a
metaphor to express the cruelty of his enemies.
Since David was an image and foreshadowing of Christ, he was endowed with the
Spirit of prophecy, and predicted the sufferings of Christ. We must not forget
that when the soldiers robbed Christ of his garment, they did this outrage
according to signs and tokens indicated a long time before. When we see this,
we are no longer troubled by the scandal Christ's nakedness causes to the
carnal mind. We now understand that he suffered everything rightly and properly
as the Redeemer, and as prophesied and declared by the Spirit.
. The Knowledge of God; II. The Knowledge of God
[68]Anabaptists is a loose and derogatory term
applied to radical sects of the Reformation era. Calvin was especially opposed
to them; not so much because they opposed infant baptism as because they
claimed revelation beyond Scripture and because they advocated a complete
separation of church and state.
[69]Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim
of Cologne (1486-1535). A man in the stereotype Renaissance style. He was a
Neoplatonist and worked at "occult philosophy." His unorthodoxy and skepticism
aroused the ire of the Catholics, and the Protestant Reformers regarded him as
a heretic and a charlatan.
70Bk. II, ch. ii, par. 3.
[71]When Calvin speaks roundly of Greek and
Latin interpreters, he means primarily Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, whose
works were continually before him. But he knew many of the other fathers of the
ancient church (see Introduction, p. 22).
[72]The anti-Pelagian writings, De gratia
et libero arbitrio, ch. 21, and De correptione et gratia, ch. 41.
See also his Tractates on the Gospel of John, No. 3, Sec. 9.
73John Chrysostom (347-407), the bishop of Constantinople, was a man
much after Calvin's heart. He was a powerful preacher who aimed at reform. He
practiced "lucidity and brevity" in his voluminous Biblical homilies and
commentaries. He was a brave critic of the mighty both in the church and in the
state. He made many enemies and ended in exile.
74Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-95?), Jewish antiquarian and historian,
has put all subsequent historians of the Bible in his debt. His two books,
On the Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, have been "primary
sources" for our knowledge of events, places, parties, etc., having to do with
the New Testament. Calvin seems to have had his works before him as he dictated
his New Testament Commentaries at home.
[75]Bucer's In sacra quatuor evangelia,
enarrationes perpetua, 1536, on Matt. 2:23.
2. THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS
3. THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL
4. EXAMPLES OF EXEGESIS