Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:25:20.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seeing and Believing in the Commentaries on John by Martin Bucer and John Calvin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Barbara Pitkin
Barbara Pitkin
Affiliation:
Barbara Pitkin is visiting assistant professor of religious studies at Stanford University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

John Eck's allegation that those advancing justification by faith alone were themselves finding it necessary to distinguish different types of faith describes accurately the reality in the evangelical movement in the 1530s–1550s. The Reformers' initial clarity and optimism about saving faith is seen, for example, in Article 20 of the Augsburg Confession (1530), which describes the scriptural view of faith as a confidence in God and a certain assurance of God's grace. Moreover, the Confession carefully distinguishes this true faith from both mere knowledge of historical events concerning Christ and from virtuous actions that spring from faith, and does not deign to designate these latter legitimate types of faith. However, subsequent dissension within the Protestant camp over the Law (Johann Agricola, for example), justification (Andreas Osiander, for example), and the sacraments, combined with the continued criticism of those Catholic opponents designated by Eck as “the faithful,” forced the magisterial Reformers to defend and, in some cases, refine their understandings of faith. Missing from Eck's assessment, however, is an indication of how exegetical activity in addition to polemical exchanges might attest and even contribute to this reevaluation. In this regard, the Gospel of John constitutes an especially important area for investigation. Protestant understandings of faith were drawn from and bolstered by Pauline texts, especially Rom. 1:17, 3:28, 4:3–9, and 10:17; Gal. 4:6; and Heb.

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 865 - 885
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Eck, John, Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae (1525–1543), ed. Fraenkel, P., vol. 34 of Corpus Catholicorum (Münster: Aschendorff, 1979);Google ScholarEnglish trans. Enchiridion of Commonplaces: Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church, trans. Battles, Ford Lewis (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1970), 61. Eck is speaking specifically about the fact that Lutherans allow for a faith that is rich in love and good works, even if they reject the traditional term “formed faith.”Google Scholar

2. For more details about this “school,” see Bernard Roussel, “De Strasbourg à Bâle et Zurich: Une 'École rhénané d'exégèse (ca. 1525–ca. 1540),” Revue d'Histoire et Philosophie Réligieuses 68 (1988): 19–39. The exegetical treatment of the Samaritan woman from John 4 by several members of this school of interpretation, including Bucer and Calvin, is discussed by Farmer, Craig S., “Changing Images of the Samaritan Woman in Early Reformed Commentaries on John,” Church History 65 (1996): 365–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSee also Backus, Irena, “The Chronology of John 5–7: Martin Bucer's Commentary (1528–36) and the Exegetical Tradition,” in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Muller, Richard A. and Thompson, John L. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 141–55; and eadem,Google Scholar“Polemic, Exegetical Tradition, and Ontology: Bucer's Interpretation of John 6:52, 53, and 64 before and after the Wittenberg Concord,” in The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Steinmetz, David (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990), 167–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Melanchthon, Philip, Annotationes in Evangelium Ioannis, vol. 14 of Philippi Melanchthonis opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Bretschneider, C. G and Bindsell, H. E., vol. 14 of Corpus Reformatorum (Halle: Schwetschke and Sons, 1847), 1060; hereafter abbreviated CR. On Melanchthon's commentary see Timothy J. Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to its Predecessors and Contemporaries, Travaux d'Humanisme et Renaissance 220 (Geneva: Droz, 1987).Google Scholar

4. Bucer, Martin, Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528, 1530, 1536), ed. Backus, Irena, vol. 2 of Martin Buceri Opera Latina, Martin Buceri Opera omnia, series II (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 36;Google Scholar John Calvin, In Evangelium secundum lohannem (1553), vol. 47 of Iohannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Wilhelm Baum, Edward Cunitz, and Edward Reuss, vol. 75 of Corpus Reformatorum (Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke and Son [M. Bruhn], 1892; hereafter abbreviated CO), 12. In English, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, in Calvin's Commentaries, vols. 17–18 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1989).

5. Biblical citations are taken from the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, New Revised Standard Version, ed. Metzger, Bruce M and Murphy, Roland E. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

6. Aquinas, Thomas, Commentum in Matthaeum et Joannem Evangelistas, vol. 10 of Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici Ordinis Praedicatorum opera omnia (1861; reprint, New York: Musurgia Publishers, 1949), 350,Google Scholar 409; in English, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, part 1, trans. J. A. Weisheipl with F. R. Larcher, vol. 4 of Aquinas Scripture Series (Albany, N.Y.: Magi, 1980), 203, 360. Denis the Carthusian, Enarratio in Evangelium secundum Joannem, vol. 12 of Opera omnia (Monstrolii: S. M. De Pratis, 1901), 316, 321, 331, 419. Furthermore, both Thomas and Denis relate the faith mentioned in John 1:12 to faith formed by love. Patristic exegetes also distinguished different types or degrees of faith in their interpretations of John; see Maurice Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 50, 87–91.

7. For a concise summary of the connections between medieval and early modern biblical exegesis, see Richard Muller, “Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from the Middle Ages,” in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, ed. Muller and Thompson, 3–22. On Bucer's use of traditional exegesis of John, see the introduction to the critical edition and the notes to the commentary.Google Scholar

8. Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes, 187. Most traditional interpreters understood John 6 to refer to the sacrament of the Eucharist. However, as noted by Wengert, Thomas Aquinas had offered both a sacramental and a nonsacramental interpretation of John 6:51–58. His interpretation was taken up in the sixteenth century by Thomaso de Vio (Cardinal Cajetan), which “caused some consternation at the Council of Trent.” For Thomas's explanation, see Commentutn in Johannem, 419. In his 1520 treatise, Babylonian Captivity, Martin Luther denied that John 6 referred to the sacramental eating.Google Scholar

9. For an overview of these issues, see Farmer, Craig S., The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 11–28; cf. the literature cited in Farmer's notes and bibliography.Google Scholar

10. On Musculus, see Farmer, Musculus, 24–26.Google Scholar

11. Calvin, CO 47:42; cf. Bucer, Enarratio, 114; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3a q. 43, a. 3; Denis the Carthusian, Enarratio, 316, 321.Google Scholar

12. Chrysostom remarks in passing that the disciples believed upon seeing the miracle, when before they had merely admired him. He stresses that the disciples had a “right disposition” and their minds were “well-affected” toward Jesus (Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist, The Fathers of the Church, vols. 33, 41 [New York: Fathers of the Church, 1957, 1960], 33:224).Google Scholar Other interpreters, however, acknowledge that the disciples believed in some way even prior to the miracle. Cyril of Alexandria states simply that the disciples were confirmed in faith by the miracle (Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, [Oxford: James Parker, 1874], 1:157). Thomas says that the sign was to strengthen the disciples and lead the people to believe, commenting later that either the disciples were not yet disciples prior to the working of the sign, or that before they had believed in Jesus as a good man, but afterwards believed in him as the Son of God (Commentum in Johannem, 330, 334; Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:149, 159). Denis suggests that the disciples believed, but not as perfectly as they did after seeing the miracle, when they believed firmly that Jesus had been sent by God, taught true and saving doctrine, and acted out of divine power. However, Denis is not ready to say for sure whether they believed explicitly that he was true God, only-begotten of the Father (Enarratio, 316). Erasmus says that the faith of the disciples concerning Jesus was strengthened, but offers no further explanation of the status of their faith (Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrase on John [1523, 1524, 1534, 1535], trans, and arm. Phillips, Jane E., vol. 46 of Collected Works of Erasmus [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991], 40).Google Scholar

13. Calvin is part of a general sixteenth-century trend claiming to transcend traditional medieval distinctions and classifications with respect to faith. On these developments, see Schreiner, Susan E., “Faith,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hillerbrand, Hans (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 2:89–93. Calvin appears to have qualified this early position somewhat with the admission of a kind of implicit faith and the idea of temporary faith in the 1559 edition of the Institutes;Google Scholarsee Pitkin, Barbara, What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvin's Doctrine of Faith in Its Exegetical Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 134–39.Google ScholarFurther details on Calvin's relationship to medieval understandings of faith can be found in Muller, Richard A., “Fides and Cognitio in Relation to the Problem of Intellect and Will in the Theology of John Calvin,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 207–24; cf.Google ScholarSchutzeichel, Heribert, Die Glaubenstheologie Calvins, ed. Fries, Heinrich Beiträge zur Oekumenischen Theologie 9 (Munich: Max Hueber Verlag, 1972), 85–88.Google Scholar

14. CO 47:42.Google Scholar

15. Bucer, Enarratio, 112, 114.Google Scholar

16. Augustine, , Tractates on the Gospel of John, 11–27, trans. Rettig, John W., vol. 79 of Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1988), 9–12, 30. This position was also advanced by Cyril of Alexandria; see Commentary on John, 1:165.Google Scholar

17. Chrysostom, Commentary on John, 33:232.Google Scholar

18. Calvin, CO 47:49.Google Scholar

19. On Calvin's idea of a temporary faith, see Foxgrover, David, “‘Temporary Faith’ and the Certainty of Salvation,” Calvin Theological Journal 15 (1980): 227;Google ScholarZachman, Randall A., The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 182;Google ScholarKrusche, Werner, Das Wirken des heiligen Geistes nach Calvin (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1957), 249–50;Google ScholarWillis, E. David, “The Influence of Laelius Socinus on Calvin's Doctrines of the Merits of Christ and the Assurance of Faith” (1965), rpt. in Gamble, Richard C., ed., Articles on Calvin and Calvinism (Hamden, Conn.: Garland, 1992), 5:59–67.Google Scholar

20. Calvin, CO 47:50.Google Scholar

21. Bucer, Enarratio, 123.Google Scholar

22. Discussing John 2:23, Thomas says that John “sets forth the fruit that resulted from the signs, namely, the conversion of certain believers” (Commentum in Joannem, 340; Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:175). Some believed because of the miracles they saw and some because of the revelation. The latter were more commendable since they, like the disciples, believed on account of the doctrine. Aquinas holds that the belief of the crowds was genuine, if also imperfect: “Jesus did not entrust himself” means that he did not reveal his heavenly doctrine, with the result that they believed imperfectly (Commentum in Joannem, 341; Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:176). Erasmus argues in his paraphrase at the beginning of chapter 2 that Jesus was performing miracles “to prepare the way for faith in his spiritual teaching by physical signs in an unbelieving nation” (Paraphrase on John, 38). Ultimately, he has an exceedingly charitable view of the pedagogical value of miracles; see his observations in his paraphrase on John 6:23–26 (Paraphrase on John, 80). Hence he has a positive reading of the faith of the masses in John 2:23–25; see Paraphrase on John, 44.

23. Commentary on John, 33:232.Google Scholar

24. Tractates on the Gospel of John 11–27, 11–12, 30.Google Scholar

25. Enarratio, 321.Google Scholar

26. Paraphrase on John, 44.Google Scholar

27. On Luther and Melanchthon, see Wengert, Melanchthon's Annotationes, 160; cf. Melanchthon, Annotationes in Evangelium loannis, CR 14:1079–82.Google Scholar

28. A footnote in the Backus edition gives references to the similar point made in the exegesis of this passage by Bede, Thomas, and Lyra (Bucer, Enarratio, 126 n. 5–5). Compare also the high estimates of Denis the Carthusian (Enarratio, 324) and Erasmus, who sees Nicodemus as weak and fearful but not evil and perverse, “promptly revealing how much he had gained from seeing Jesus' miracles” in appealing “to his listener's goodwill” in his opening remark (Paraphrase on John, 45).

29. Bucer, Enarratio, 135; cf. Chrysostom: “But the mercy of God, even so, did not reject him, or censure him, or deprive him of His teaching, but even discoursed with him very kindly and revealed to him the most sublime teachings, obscurely, to be sure, but nevertheless revealed” (Commentary on John, 33:234). See also Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:184, and Erasmus, Paraphrase on John, 44–50. Later in his comments Thomas does note that Jesus rebukes Nicodemus (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:195).

30. Bucer, Enarratio, 306; cf. Chrysostom, Commentary on John, 41:46–48. Thomas argues that Nicodemus believed, but with an imperfect faith. Moreover, “Nicodemus said what he did because he believed in Christ and wanted to convert them to Christ,” though he did not speak candidly, because he was afraid (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:441).Google Scholar

31. Augustine, , Tractates on the Gospel of John 28–54, trans. Rettig, John W., vol. 88 of Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 52; Chrysostom, Commentary on John, 41:45–48; Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:440–41; Denis, Enarratio, 422.Google Scholar

32. Apparently it was Calvin who coined the term “Nicodemites” for adherents of the evangelical faith in France who, because of the fear of persecution, hid their religious loyalties through pretended conformity to the Roman church and justified such actions by appealing to the example of Nicodemus. Perez Zagorin argues that Calvin's neologism, which he employed for the first time in 1544, was not widely used in the sixteenth century. For a discussion of Calvin's polemics against dissimulators in matters of evangelical faith, which occurred largely in the 1540s, see Droz, Eugénie, “Calvin et les Nicodémites,” in Chemins de I'heresie (Geneva: Slatkine, 1970), 1:131–71; andGoogle ScholarZagorin, Perez, Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Calvin, CO 47:51.Google Scholar

34. Calvin, CO 47:54. In discussing how the miracles had prepared Nicodemus, Calvin repeats his stance on the twofold advantage of miracles, namely, to prepare for and confirm faith (CO 47:53); he repeats this information in his comments on John 11:45.Google Scholar

35. Calvin, CO 47:60; cf. Calvin's comments on 6:12, 13.Google Scholar

36. Augustine, Tractates en the Gospel of John 11–27, 33–34; cf. the similar judgment in Denis the Carthusian, Enarratio, 328.Google Scholar

37. Here again we see Calvin choosing similar words to those used by Bucer; cf. “Evangelista Nicodemum nobis describit quasi hominem medium, qui neque serio piae doctrinae patrocinium suscipere audeat, nee tamen sustineat veritatem opprimi” (Calvin, CO 47:186), and “Non volebat hie Christo palam adhaerere, apud hostes eius sedebat, neque patrocinari ipsi aperte audebat, attamen in totum eum deserere non potuit” (Bucer, Enarratio, 306).Google Scholar

38. Augustine, too, designates Nicodemus as timid in this instance, but also says that he was not unbelieving (Tractates on the Gospel of John, tractate 33); cf. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:440–41.Google Scholar

39. Erasmus had made the same observation, but not with such sarcasm (Paraphrase on John, 104).Google Scholar

40. Calvin, CO 47:187.Google Scholar

41. Commentary on John, 1:559.Google Scholar

42. On the sixteenth-century interpretation of various aspects of John 6, see Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes, 114; Farmer, Musculus, 48–108; Stephens, W. P., “Zwingli on John 6:63: ‘Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro nihil prodest,’;” in Biblical Interpretation in the Reformation, ed. Muller, and Thompson, , 156–85;Google ScholarCavallera, Ferdinand, “L'Interpretation du chapitre 6 de saint Jean: Une Controverse exégètique au Concile de Trente,” Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique 10 (1909): 687–709.Google Scholar

43. Bucer, Enarratio, 228.Google Scholar

44. For an overview of medieval solutions to this question, see Farmer, Musculus, 65–66.Google Scholar

45. Bucer, Enarratio, 230.Google Scholar

46. Bucer, Enarratio, 234; cl. 233. Earlier exegetes, such as Thomas Aquinas, Hugh of St. Cher, Lyra, Denis, and Erasmus, also distinguished various motives among the crowd. Like Bucer, Erasmus sees three groups: “some drawn by a desire for miracles because they had seen him take away people's diseases with his strange power; some, who were incurably ill, to be healed by him; some thirsting for his teaching” (Paraphrase on John, 75). However, he speaks as if all fell away from this initial enthusiasm by the following day (Paraphrase on John, 80) and argues that even the statement in John 6:14 was spoken from their full bellies (Paraphrase on John, 78). Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:341, 370. On this, see Farmer, Musculus, 55–56.Google Scholar

47. Bucer, Enarratio, 236.Google Scholar

48. Bucer, Enarratio, 238, cf. 286.Google Scholar

49. Bucer, Enarratio, 243.Google Scholar

50. Here Calvin is the more traditional exegete; cf. Chrysostom, Commentary on John, homilies 43–45.Google Scholar

51. Chrysostom, Commentary on John, 33:424; Cyril, Commentary on John, 1:318.Google Scholar

52. Bucer, too, mentions the “vast desert” (Enarratio, 667). Both exegetes also aver that Jesus roused the disciples' minds prior to the feeding, both refer to Budé's computation of the finances involved in verse 7, and both argue that the miracle of walking on and calming the water was intended to confirm the faith of the disciples and, indirectly, to be of advantage to the people.Google Scholar

53. Calvin, CO 47:134.Google Scholar

54. Aquinas, Thomas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:371, 391; Chrysostom, Commentary on John, 33:442.Google Scholar

55. Calvin, CO 47:138.Google Scholar

56. Calvin, CO 47:140. Erasmus also describes the crowd as ignorant, but nonetheless argues that Jesus is not offended by their questions but rather draws them gradually toward a fuller understanding (Paraphrase on John, 81).Google Scholar

57. Calvin, CO 47:142.Google Scholar

58. Calvin, CO 47:144.Google Scholar

59. Bucer,Enarratio, 286.Google Scholar

60. For more detailed exploration of the question of exegetical influence see Kok, Joel Edward, “The Influence of Martin Bucer on John Calvin's Interpretation of Romans: A Comparative Case Study” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1993).Google Scholar

61. For further discussion of these issues in Calvin's exegesis of John (especially his discussion of John 20:24–31), see Pitkin, What Pure Eyes Could See, 90–95.Google Scholar

62. See, for example, Calvin's comments on John 7:31 and 8:30; cf. his comments on 11:45.Google Scholar

63. Note that in the 1559 Institutes Calvin is more optimistic about the transition from a genuinely implicit faith to true faith (see 3.2.2–3.2.3), and to support this he uses examples from John 4.Google Scholar

64. “I wish that there were not many persons in the present day affected by the same disease; but nothing is more common than this saying, ‘Let them first perform miracles, and then we will led an ear to their doctrine.’ As if we ought to despise and disdain the truth of Christ, unless it derive support from some other quarter! But though God were to overwhelm them by a huge mass of miracles, still they speak falsely when they say that they would believe. Some outward astonishment would be produced, but they would not be a whit more attentive to doctrine” (CO 47:101).Google Scholar

65. Enarratio, 198.Google Scholar