2. Preliminary Considerations for Understanding Luther's and Calvin's Commentaries on Galatians This section is an attempt to create a general picture of influences and factors surrounding the writing of Luther's and Calvin's Galatians. This includes a consideration of the historical context, textual and stylistic issues, a brief discussion on Luther's and Calvin's interpretation of Galatians and a consideration of the relationship of preceding and contemporary commentators and theologians to Luther's and Calvin's Galatians. The aim is not to analyse these preliminary aspects in detail but to identify possible factors that could shed further light on theological ideas in the commentaries.
2.1. Historical Context of Luther's and Calvin's Commentaries on Galatians The purpose in this section is to attempt to outline some historical factors which appear to link with or are explicitly connected to Luther's and Calvin's Galatians.
The time and place of Luther's lectures on Galatians 1531 is well known – Luther lectured in Wittenberg University from July 3rd to December 12th in 1531, when Luther was forty-seven.57 Calvin wrote his commentary Galatians as one unit together with commentaries on Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians between 1546-47/48 in Geneva, having completed his commentaries on 1 and 2
Corinthians by 1546, when he was thirty-seven. Calvin's statements suggest that he completed his commentary on Galatians very rapidly, probably between September and November 1546.58
57At the end of the lecture series, however, Luther was forty-eight; his birthday was on the 10th of 58The position taken here is that Calvin's commentary on Paul's epistle to the Galatians was finished by the end of 1546. Parker makes the general statement that Calvin's commentary on the Galatians group
(the unit of the four epistles of Paul, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians) was finished by February 1st 1548, the date when the commentary on these four epistles was dedicated (Parker 1993: 2022). However, Calvin's explicit comments on his work on Galatians in his letters seem to give sufficient information to determine with relative certainty when his specific commentary on Galatians (not only the commentary on the unit of the four epistles of Paul), was completed. In September, 1546 Calvin complains that he had only finished half a chapter of Galatians. See C0 12.826.380-381, Calvinus
Farello, September 1546. (The reference CO 12.826.380-381, for instance, refers to the 12th volume of Calvini Opera in Corpus Reformatorum, letter 826, pages 380-381. The same mode of reference is used henceforth.) On October 6, 1546 he asserts that he was earnestly working on the commentary while already two weeks later, on October 19, he assures us that the finishing of Galatians was 'summary' (en brief). CO 12.401; CO 12.832.391, Calvinus Farello, October 6, 1546; CO 12.840.401 Calvin à Madame
De Falais, October 19, 1546. Parker, for some reason, does not account for the statement on the 19th of October, which may be part of the reason he does not give specific information on the completion of Galatians. A month later, on November 16, Calvin explains to Monsieur De Falais that he could already
2.1.1. Historical Context of Luther's Commentary on Galatians Preceding Luther's composition of Galatians, there had been at least five significant departures which Luther had taken within the religious sphere. By beginning of the 1520s, Luther's severance from the Roman church had become clear and in the mid1520s, he had indicated his rejection of Erasmian humanism, distanced himself from the Schwärmerei (spiritual enthusiasts, associated in Luther's mind with Anabaptists) and shown his strong disapproval of the religious revolutionary ideas favoured by the peasantry during the Peasant War. Additionally, at the Marburg
Colloquy of 1529 between the German and the Swiss Reformation, Luther had declined intercommunion with Zwingli and the other Swiss reformers.
Luther's Galatians includes allusions to all of these groups,59 of which the most numerous are in reference to the papists60 and to the sectarians
(Anabaptists),61 both of which he saw as a greater danger to the evangelical faith than the threat posed by the secular powers.62 Both the relationship to the papacy and to Anabaptism were very much current issues in 1531. The Diet of Augsburg with Catholics in 1530 was only a year away. Further, the date when the emperor had demanded Lutherans to yield their faith in favour of Catholicism (April 15,
1531) was merely one and a half months behind when Luther's lectures began on July 3rd. Similarly, Anabaptism continued spreading especially in areas under Catholic control in southern Germany and Luther had to take a position on the have sent his Galatians to be printed, but since the publisher had been slow in printing his earlier commentary (on Corinthians), he no longer needed to hurry. See CO 12.852.423, Calvin à Monsier De
Falais, November 16, 1546. The statement seems to suggest that Galatians had already been finished.
Parker's suggestion, that Calvin 'had slackened off' and no longer hurried its completion seems less likely (see Parker 1993: 22) taking into consideration Calvin's statement on October 19 that the completion of Galatians had been 'summary' (en brief).
Peter and Gilmont's review of the history of the writing of Calvin's Galatians also concurs with the position taken here, namely, that Calvin's commentary was completed by 16th
November 1546. They, however, as well as Parker, make no reference to the statement made by Calvin on the composing of the commentary on the 19th of October 1546. This statement of Calvin's on October
19 (which Peter and Gilmont ignore) lends further support to Peter and Gilmont's suggestion for the timing of the completion of Calvin's Galatians, which is also the position taken here. See Peter and Gilmont 1991: 268-269.
59Peasants are mentioned in Luther's Galatians twice, each in connection with the thought that their revolt was the result of the activities of fanatical teachers (Schwärmerei).
60The examination done for section 2.4.3.1 of this study on Luther's polemic against papists revealed 173 contexts where papal teaching or practice is referred to. Additionally, the study made in preparation for section 2.4.2 identified 163 contexts where Luther alludes to the teaching and practice of monks, scholastics (Scholastici) and sophists (Sophistae), some references of which, however, occur in the same context where papists are referred to.
61The examination done for section 2.4.3.2. on Luther's polemic against Anabaptists reveals 115 contexts where Anabaptist teaching or practice is referred to. It also needs to be borne in mind that one can hardly equate fanatics or sectarians with Anabaptists as they are now understood in the modern and more accurate sense of the term, but as Luther drew no clear distinction between these groups, and often discusses them together, it was seen that they ought not to be treated separately in this study.
62See WA 32.150-158 and Brecht 1986: 398. penalties deemed appropriate to stay the spread of their beliefs.63 As a result, the evangelical faith in Luther's Galatians is frequently presented in contrast to papal ideas on the one hand and Anabaptists influences on the other. 64 Luther regards that both, in their way, had rejected the pure doctrine of justification by faith.65
Both Erasmus and the Sacramentarians66 (the Swiss Reformation) including Zwingli are mentioned a number of times both in Luther's Galatians and in his other comments during 1531. In his commentary, Luther lists the Swiss
Reformers together with the Anabaptists and maintains that there cannot be any compromise with them on purity of doctrine.67 This cannot take place even in the name of Christian love despite the fact that the split with the Sacramentarians had been a most painful issue to him during the past years.68 Strikingly, in his
Tischreden in 1531, Luther maintains that Zwingli's death was God's way to stay the spread of the Swiss reformer's erroneous teaching.69 Luther's view on Erasmus, on the other hand, changed from the 'most eminent theologian' and 'excellent man', whom Luther often quoted in his commentary on Galatians of 1519,70 to one whose
63First Luther only recommended banishment, but in 1530 and 1531 accepted the death penalty in cases seen to constitute sedition or blasphemy. Although Luther was strongly against Anabaptist ideas, he had been reluctant to apply the death penalty to them, recommending banishment instead. This, however,
Anabaptists did not accept, because they felt state injunctions were invalid. In 1530 Luther recommended that while holding Anabaptist ideas were not punishable, sedition and blasphemy were. In 1531 Luther, together with Melanchthon, defined sedition as applicable to disintegration from the church and blasphemy as applicable to the rejection of the ministerial office, which often applied to the Anabaptists.
See e.g. Bainton 1950: 294-296.
64The same is true, Walker maintains, of all the later works of both Luther and Calvin. Walker 1985: 455
65For further comment on Luther's views on the papacy and the Anabaptists, see sections 2.4.3.1. and 2.4.3.2. For specific references to the teachings of the sophists, scholastics and monks, see section 2.4.2.
66By 'Sacramentarians' Luther refers to the Swiss Reformation, and more specifically to those Protestants who held a differing view from the Lutherans on the nature of Christ's presence during the Lord's Supper. Lutherans emphasised Christ's actual presence with the sacrament while the Swiss reformers generally viewed that Christ was only spiritually present.
67See section 4.7.4 for further discussion. When explicitly named, the Sacramentarians are often grouped together with the Anabaptists, in reference to their departing from pure doctrine. See e.g. Luther's comments in WA 40a.112.33-113.10, WA 40a.296.25-28, WA 40a.316.26-27, WA 40a.626.19-22, on Gal. 1.7, 2.20, 3.1, 4.12, respectively.
68See WA 40b.135.21-23, on Gal. 6.1. Interestingly, Luther had initially agreed to intercommunion with the Swiss Protestants despite the differing views between the Swiss and the German Protestants on the Lord's Supper during the Marburg colloquy. Melanchthon, however, persuaded Luther not to agree with the Swiss reformers. Melanchthon was still hoping for profitable discussions with the Catholics, and saw a settlement with the Swiss reformers as a hindrance to these negotiations. See Bainton 1950: 250.
69WA Tischreden 1.94.35-36, 1531. (The reference 1.94.35-36, 1531 means that this specific Tischreden of Luther's can be found in vol. 1 of WA Tischreden, letter 94, pages 35-36 and that it was recorded in the year 1531. The same mode of reference is used henceforth in each of the allusions of this study to Luther's Tischreden.) See also WA,Tischreden 2.1451.103, 1532.
70Luther refers to Erasmus' Annotations of Galatians 'Erasmi Theologicissimi annotationes' in his comment on Gal. 1.1 and calls him 'Erasmus optimus' in his exposition of Gal. 4.25. See WA 2.452.3, on Gal. 1.1 and WA 2.553.11, on Gal. 4.25. For other samples of Luther's references to Erasmus in his
1519 commentary on Galatians, see e.g. WA 2.449.21-24, Dedication, WA 2.502.20-22, on Gal. 2.20 and WA 2.549.11-12, on Gal. 4.20. position he saw as essentially the same as that of the papists,71 but exceedingly more dangerous due to his cunning nature.72
Luther continued to be faithful towards the secular authorities, including the emperor, however, despite emperor Charles V's attempts to stifle the Reformation in Germany. In 1531, after the Diet of Augsburg, his attitude started to change. He still maintained that secular authorities are instituted by God and must be respected, affirming this several times in his Galatians.73 The change that had started to take place was that Luther no longer rejected outright the idea of resisting the emperor with arms.74 Similarly, in the face of the emperor's edict of taking military action against those still holding to evangelical faith after April 15, 1531,
Luther declared that the impending war was unrighteous, as it would be a war against God.75
In the course of the events from 1529 to 1531, there was a marked shift for the evangelical movement from a highly critical situation to a position where their faith was becoming an established religion in the areas where the evangelical faith had become prevalent. The influential Schmalkaldic League of the German princes in favour of Protestantism was formed on February 27, 1531.
Furthermore, April 15, the date of the emperor's edict passed by without any definite action taken against Lutherans.
It is interesting to note that as Lutheranism was now becoming established, Luther's theology also became more established. Interestingly, as Bainton notes, the events preceding 1531 are recorded in detail in biographies of Luther, but from that point on the description of the remaining history of his life is frequently only cursory.76 For the purposes of this paper, however, this is significant
71See section 2.4. 3.3. for further discussion.
72Luther states, 'Eramus [sic] est anguilla. Niemand kan yhn ergreiffen denn Christus allein.' WA Tischreden 1.131.55, 1531. See also WA Tischreden 2.1319.41-42, 1532. Evidently, Luther's debate on the freedom of the will with Erasmus was a significant factor in his changed attitude toward Erasmus.
See e.g. the introduction to Luther's De servo arbitrio in WA 18.551-596 for further information.
73See e.g. Luther's comments in WA 40a.175.17-179.11, on Gal. 2.6, WA 40a.391.29-395.36, on Gal.
3.10 and WA 40a.673.14-673.24, on Gal. 4.27.
74See WA Briefe 6.1781.36-37, Luther an Lazarus Spengler in Nürnberg, 15 February, 1531. (WA Briefe 6.1781.36-37 refers to vol. 6 of WA Briefwechsel, letter 1781, pages 36-37. The same mode of reference is used henceforth in each of the allusions of this study to Luther's Briefe.) The idea had been advanced that the emperor had issued a law according to which he may be resisted if he clearly acted wrongly.
Luther still affirms that he does not approve of resisting the emperor with arms, but leaves the matter for the lawyers to examine. In case such a law would be found, Luther states that he would be ready to act accordingly. See Bainton 1950: 298-99. Later, in 1539, as an impending war threatened German evangelical believers, Luther, while affirming the duty to obey secular authorities, asserted the duty of resistance in case of a war where the secular authoties or the emperor were acting as the pope's aids. See
75See WA 30c.252-320 and Brecht 1986: 402.
76Bainton 1950: 292. Bainton also provides only a brief outline of a few significant events in Luther's life after 1530. See Bainton 1950: 292-302. More recently, Heiko A. Oberman provides only occasional and brief comments on Luther's life after 1530 even in the last section of his book on Luther's life. See
Oberman 1989b 254-330. Martin Brecht, in his three volume account of Luther's life, however, is an in that Luther's Galatians stands at a significant point in Luther's career, representing his more mature theology.
Considering Luther's literary work immediately preceding his Galatians, it seems that it was very appropriate for Luther to expound the epistle again at this point. Just previous, in 1529, he had completed his Kleine and Grosse
Katechismus, giving an outline of the main aspects of the German evangelical faith.
While the theme of justification by faith, standing at the core of the evangelical faith, was clearly delineated in Melanchthon's Augustana in 1530 and its Apologia in 1530-31, it had been only briefly defined by Luther himself in the Catechisms.
Therefore, the time seemed ripe for Luther, too, to expound the theme of righteousness by faith alone more fully.
In Luther's personal life, the years 1530-31 were challenging. He heard of his father Hans' death while in the Coburg castle during the Diet of Augsburg and heard of his mother's illness in the spring of 1531. Furthermore, he was in poor health, and having continually to carry out a vast number of duties, including troubles in the churches, which he had to attempt to resolve.77 Luther's responsibilities swelled due to the fact that Dr. Johannes Bugenhagen Pomer, the minister in Wittenberg, had been asked to plant the evangelical faith in Southern
Germany following the Diet of Augsburg, and therefore his workload during his absence fell on Luther's shoulders. Already towards the end of 1530, Luther feared for his life. Anxiously waiting for Pomer's return, Luther stated in December 1530,
'I cannot find time to write to everyone. No longer am I only Luther, but Pomeranus, too, an official, a Moses, a Jethro, and what not? All things to all men…. Pomeranus is getting along very well in Lübeck.'78
Finally, a month after the completion of his lectures on Galatians, in January 1532, Luther fell gravely ill with vertigo.79 exception devoting the last section of his second book on events between 1531 and 1532 and a full volume on Luther's life for the period 1532-46. See Brecht 1986: 396-441 and Brecht 1987.
77For more detail on the nature of the troubles with the churches, see Brecht 1986: 421-431.
78Saluta omnes nostros … nam scribere non vacabat omnibus, cum iam sim non Lutherus tantum, sed Pomeranus, sed Officialis, sed Moses, sed Iethro, et quid non? omnia in omnibus. Pluribus intentus minor est ad singula Luther. Pomeranus Lubecae prospere agit, sed Satan ei negotia multa facit cum puella obsessa. WA Briefe 5.1757.691-692, Luther an Wenzeslaus Link in Nürnberg, 1 December 1530.
Pomer only returned to Wittenberg in April 30, 1532. On November 24, 1531 Luther strongly urged Pomer to return as soon as he could after his wife's delivery. Luther asserted that enough had already been done for the people of Lübeck and explained that he was often ill and overburdened, adding in his letter, written in Latin, an exclamation in German in reference to his awaiting for Pomer's return, 'Ich kann's nicht warten!'. Exspectamus te, mi Pomerane, reducem, quam primum ab uxoris partu (quem felicem fore precor) commode poteris. Satis servitum est Lubecensibus praesertim tua absentia quae nobis tandem gravis esse incipit, quia ego obrutus sum et saepe aeger; deinde aerarium ecclesiasticum ego negligo, et requirit pastorem suum. Ich kann's nicht warten. WA Briefe 6.1886.231, Luther an Joh.
Bugenhagen in Lübeck, 24 November, 1531; emphasis in the original.
79For further detail on the above paragraph, see the introduction of vols. 21 and 23 of Luther's Works dealing with Luther's sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, 1530-32, and on John 6-8, 1530-32. Luther
Despite these personal challenges, Luther's letters and Tischreden from the period reveal that he was generally in good spirits. In his letter to his mother during her illness, for instance, Luther reminds his mother how now there is a loving Saviour to turn to, who is not an angry Judge as they thought during their earlier days under the control of the papal church.80 A similar tone seems reflected all through the period. He often dwells on subjects relating to justification, personal faith and God's comfort in troubles of conscience.81 Some other theological issues are referred to as well, including, for instance, those of original sin, the difference between faith and hope and Luther's position on the Eucharist.82
It seems that Luther's tone in his letters is one of the more significant observations when thinking about Luther's Galatians. Justification by faith was extremely important for Luther, not only theoretically, but as the central focus of his life. It was through insight into this doctrine that Luther had found a loving God.
2.1.2. Historical Context of Calvin's Commentary on Galatians Calvin's commentary on Galatians comes from a time well into his second period in Geneva. Having been exiled to Strasbourg from Geneva for a period of three years
(1538-1541), Calvin had been called back to the city which had officially stated that it would accept Calvin's form of ecclesiastical organisation.83 Calvin reluctantly returned, seeing he was called for the duty by God.84
After Calvin's return, his church ordonnances were passed into Genevan law. Despite the fact that these ordonnances became a part of Genevan law, it must be borne in mind, against the popular stereotype of Calvin as the moralist leader of Geneva, that Calvin's impact in Geneva was based solely on personal influence, and he never held a position of legislative authority in the city.
Moreover, there are several myths about Calvin's alleged cruelty, which have been shown to be false.85 had had a premonition of his grave illness, but already during the illness he stated with confidence that God would not allow him to die at this time, because the ranks of the papists had already been strengthened by the recent deaths of Zwingli and Oecolampadius. See WA Tischreden 1.157.74, 1532.
80WA Briefe 6.1820.103, Luther an seine Mutter Margaretha. Luther, May 20, 1531.
81See e.g. WA Tischreden 1.122.47-51, 1531, WA Tischreden 1.137.59-60, 1531, WA Tischreden 141.61-67 WA Tischreden 1.148.69-70, 1532.
82See WA Tischreden 1.138.60, 1531, WA Tischreden 1.145.69, 1532, and WA Tischreden 1.153.72-73, 83See Parker 1975: 79-81.
84See Parker 1975: 79-81.
85For further information about some of the myths about Calvin's cruelty and how they arose, see Irena Backus' forthcoming book, Life Writing in Reformation Europe, 2008, chs IV and V. For an example of one area of civil life in Geneva in the time of Calvin and Calvin's relationship to it, see Kingdon's interesting work, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin's Geneva, 1995. One fairly well known example of how Calvin was involved in matters pertaining to adultery and divorce is the case where Calvin's sisterin-law Anne Le Fert was accused in court of adultery. Calvin's involvement in this issue has also been a matter of interest. The aim of the case in court was that Calvin's brother Antoine could get a divorce,
Following the passing of the church ordonnances into Genevan law, Calvin proceeded to provide structure for worship services and developed church life in general, preaching four to five times a week.86 However, there was a gradually growing opposition to the right of excommunication held by the Consistoire87 of the church. By 1545-46, the opposition had become a party, commonly known as the Libertines.88
Meanwhile, Calvin continued to be active in the literary field. For instance, Catéchisme de Genève, which included a confession of faith, was published in 1542 and again in a Latin edition in 1545 while Latin revisions of Institutio appeared in 1543 and 1545.89
In 1546, when Calvin's Galatians was written, Parker names three social issues (apart from the confrontation with the Libertines discussed below), which came to the fore. First, the taverns were closed and replaced by abbayes where religious instruction could be given in addition to the serving of food and drink.90 Drama on biblical stories was for a while a matter of interest, but was soon stopped at the ministers' and the Council's request. Also, the Council asked Calvin to compose a list of prohibited Christian names.91
Calvin's letters together with Theodore Beza's description of 1546 give further illuminating information on Calvin's life in Geneva at the time. The themes of Calvin's letters range from general news to treatments of city and church first in 1548 and then in another case in 1557. Calvin was involved both times, presenting the accusations together with his brother Antoine against Anne Le Fert, who appeared to have committed adultery first with Jean Chautemps, a son of a prominent local businessman (1548), and later with a servant, a hunchback named Pierre Daguet (1557). When Anne Le Fert was accused the first time, however, the Small Council (see footnote 87 for further information on the Small Council) of the city decided there were not enough grounds for a divorce and after a public confession, Anne Le Fert was forgiven and received back into the family (including a public welcome of her back into the family by Antoine and John Calvin). When she was accused the second time in 1557, there appeared to be more convincing evidence. In the course of the court proceedings she was tortured twice and finally banished from the city. While John Calvin had a significant role in bringing the charges against Anne Le Fert, it must be borne in mind that it was not Calvin who decided on having her tortured or banished nor was he in a position to do so, despite the fact that his personal influence in Geneva had grown considerably by 1557.
See Kingdon 1995: 71-97 for further information.
86See Parker 1975: 82-91.
87The Consistoire was a council of the pastors and twelve lay members which precided over the church, and held the right of excommunication. The lay members of the Consistoire were chosen from the members of three councils, which held the reins of political authority in Geneva. The three councils were
1) the Council of Twenty-five (called the Small Council), the Council of Sixty and the Council of Two Hundred, the latter of which gradually replaced the Council of Sixty. See e.g. Walker 1986. 469-470 for more information.
88The Libertines were a group friendly to Reformation but fiercely opposed to Calvin's system of discipline in Geneva. See below on Ami Perrin, the leader of the Libertines. See also Parker 1975: 98.
89In addition to this, a French translation of the Institutio of 1543 appeared in 1545. The Latin edition of 1545 included only minor changes to that of 1543. See Parker 1975: 105.
90This reform proved short-lived, however, and the taverns were soon reopened. See Parker 1975: 100.
91See Parker 1975: 100-101. Parker does not specify in this instance which one of the three Genevan Councils took this decision. affairs in Geneva, and from spiritual exhortation and pastoral counsel to descriptions of personal and daily affairs.
There is an explicit mention of a major doctrinal issue in Calvin's letters in 1546, namely, on the Lord's Supper in hope of reconciliation on the issue with Lutherans. The preceding year, Calvin had sent a letter on the issue to Luther.92
This is no major theme in Galatians although Calvin alludes to it once mourning over the fact that many believers' faith was shaken when people were taking sides on this issue.93
Calvin's letters from the time mention two religious entities,94 the Libertines95 and the papacy. There are two groups, in addition to the papacy, which are referred to in Galatians, namely, 'the Epicureans'96 and 'some fanatics' (fanatici quidam)97, the latter reference to which also includes an allusion to Servetus.98 The significance of these groups will be briefly discussed below in this section in the context of the church and city affairs.
The papacy is referred to in Calvin's letters occasionally during this time. For instance, Calvin comments on his having heard that the Council of Trent will be convening, and alludes to papal persecution in reference to the death of Diaz, an acquaintance of Calvin.99 Beza points out that in 1546 there was an impending threat of further persecution instigated by the pope and Charles V, the emperor of Germany.100
Interestingly, in Calvin's Galatians, the papacy is alluded to over fifty times, which is more than in any of his other commentaries on the epistles of 92Calvin sent the letter to Luther through Melanchthon. Melanchthon, however, did not give it to Luther.
For a brief discussion on the issue, see section 2.4.3.4 of this paper.
93See COR 16.32, on Gal. 2.2.
94There is a third group mentioned, the Sacramentaries, but this was a term that had been utilised by Luther and Melanchthon's friend Theodore Vitus in reference to the Swiss Protestants. See CO
12.781.317, Calvinus Theodoro [Vito], 16 March 1546.
95Strictly speaking, Calvin does not use the term 'Libertine' for this group, a term which only came to be associated with the group opposing Calvin's form of ecclesiastical reform after Calvin's death. During Calvin's lifetime, Calvin used the term 'Libertine' in a different sense to how it is usually understood today, namely, in reference to a group representing Anabaptist teachings. See e.g. 'Libertines',
Available at: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/LEO_LOB/LIBERTINES.html. In this study, however, the term 'Libertines' is used in the modern sense of the term (as a reference to the group opposing Calvin's ecclesiastical reform).
96Calvin probably refers to the Libertines here. See below in this section for further discussion. Mihi certe plus moeroris hodie affert Epicureorum furor quam Papistarum. COR 16.113, on Gal. 4.29.
97Calvin refers here to a group of Anabaptists. See section 2.4.3.2 for further discussion.
98Non enim (quemadmodum somniant fanatici quidam, et inter alios Servetus) in hoc tamtum electos fuisse a Deo Paulus docet, ut nobis aliquem Dei populum figurarent, sed ut nobiscum essent filii Dei.
COR 16.90, on Gal. 4.1. See below in this section for further information on Servetus.
99Comme iavoys achepve ces presentes, iay eu de piteuses nouvelles de la mort du bon Diazius. Mais il fault que les malheureux papistes monstrent de plus en plus quilz sont menez de lesperit de leur pere, qui dez le commencement a este meurtrier. CO 12.790.333, Calvin à Monsier De Falais, 16 April 1546.
100See Beza, Vita Calvini, CO 21.138.
Paul.101 Whether these allusions might be connected with the threat of papal persecution or the convening of the Council of Trent, is difficult to ascertain.
Calvin's commentary does not seem to be a reaction to these events.102 Presumably Calvin saw that the issues that Galatians deals with linked intimately with the practices of the papacy at that time. In fact, it would be possible to portray a significant part of the theology of Calvin's Galatians simply by analysing his statements on the church of Rome. The issues include, for instance, a few treatments on the primacy of the papacy and on the sacraments. Not surprisingly, however, the most frequent theme is justification, and especially the perceived abuses dealing with human merit in relationship to justification.
Alister McGrath and William J. Bouwsma, in their treatments of Calvin's life, focus on the period immediately following Calvin's return to Geneva in 1541 and on the events at the beginning of the 1550s, and pass by the events surrounding the writing of Galatians.103 One is easily left with the impression that the year 1546 was generally calm and uneventful. Beza's brief description of the year provides a completely different perspective, however. He commences his description by exclaiming, 'the year 1546 was not less stormy than the past'.104 In addition to the threat of persecution, Ami Perrin,105 a leader of the Libertines
(termed by Beza 'the leader of the opposers of order' – generalis Capitaneus populi suffragiis crearetur),106 launched a campaign against Calvin. This resulted in a public accusation against Calvin of having held to false doctrine before a large assembly in the city. The underlying reason for the attack was the Libertines' dislike of Calvin's system of discipline. The group of Libertines may well have been in Calvin's mind when he wrote about 'the Epicureans' in his Galatians.
'For my own part, I am far more worried by the fury of the Epicureans than of the Papists. They do not attack us by open force; but the name of God is dearer to me than my own life and I cannot but be tortured and anxious
101Out of the six epistles of Paul that Calvin commented on during 1546-48, 1 Corinthians and Galatians are the ones in which the papacy is most often referred to. The other four (2 Corintians, Ephesians,
Philippians and Colossians), although also written during the period, do not refer to the papacy as often.
Calvin's later commentary on 1 Timothy (1556), however, includes nearly as many allusions to the papacy. See CO 49 - CO 54.
102Calvin wrote an antidote to the statements of the council of Trent the following year, 1547. See CO 7.429-473. The text of Calvin's antidote can also be found, side by side with a German translation, in Eberhard Busch, Alasdair Heron, Christian Link, Peter Opitz, Ernst Saxer, Hans Scholl (eds.) Calvin
Studienausgabe: Band 3 Reformatorische Kontroversen. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999, pp. 115-207.
103See Bouwsma 1988: 24-31 and McGrath 1990: 100-122. Parker, however, pays some attention to year 1546 and identifies it as a year of confrontation between Calvin and the Libertines. See Parker 1975: 98104Hunc annum alius nihilo mitior excepit. Beza, Vita Calvini, CO 21.138.
105Interestingly, Ami Perrin, who had now turned against Calvin, had been the man chosen to devise a method to get Calvin to return to Geneva from Strasbourg. Furthermore, he had been a member of the committee drawing up the Ordonnances, See Parker 1975: 79, 99.
106Beza, Vita Calvini, CO 21.138. when I see this diabolical conspiracy to extinguish all fear and worship of God, to root out the remembrance of Christ, or to expose it to the jeers of all the rabble. It is worse than if a whole country were on fire at once.'107
Servetus, whom Calvin also mentions in his Galatians,108 was seen as a heretic, connected to the fact that he rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and infant baptism.
Calvin had attempted to correct him, but Servetus apparently answered Calvin quite arrogantly, which led to the rupture of the relations between the two.109 Calvin refers to Servetus and 'some fanatics' (fanatici quidam) in his Galatians when discussing the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. 110 Calvin had just pointed out, commenting on Gal. 4.1 that the patriarchs in the Old Testament were sharers of Abraham's spiritual blessing and partakers of the same adoption as Christians. According to Servetus and 'some fanatics' (fanatici quidam), however, the fathers of the Old Testament only prefigured God's people.111 This, however, is his only explicit reference to him and 'the fanatics', and therefore they cannot be seen as of major importance in the commentary.
Calvin's Galatians also addresses the issue of church discipline.
Although this may not be directly linked to the events of the year, Calvin nonetheless affirms the biblical grounds for this practice, which he actively maintained in Geneva during 1546.112 Commenting on Paul's rebuke to Peter in Gal
2.14, Calvin asserts, 'This example teaches us that those who have sinned publicly must be chastised publicly, so far as it concerns the Church. The aim is that their sin may not, by remaining unpunished, do harm by its example.'113 Calvin then
107Mihi certe plus moeroris hodie affert Epicureorum furor quam Papistarum. Non grassantur vi et manu.
Sed quo pretiosius mihi est nomen Dei propria vita, fieri nequit, quin magis anxie torquear, quum diabolicam conspirationem fieri video ad extinguendum omnem Dei timorem et cultum, ad exterminandam Christi memoriam vel sannis omnium improborum prostituendam, quam si uno incendio tota una regio flagraret. COR 16.113, on Gal. 4.29.
108COR 16.90, on Gal. 4.1.
109Later, in 1553, Servetus was sentenced by the Geneva city council to be burned. Calvin then suggested a more humane method, beheading instead, but unsuccessfully. Servetus has become somewhat of a symbol of Calvin's disciplinary measures. For some reason, his sentencing has commonly been seen as the fault of Calvin, although his role was only indirect in the issue. The death sentence was approved by Calvin, but it was the city council who, independently of Calvin, gave the death sentence and decided its method. For a brief and easy-to-read treatment of the Servetus affair, see McGrath 1990: 114-120.
110See section 2.4.3.2. for further discussion.
111COR 16.90, on Gal. 4.1.
112One example of Calvin administering church discipline, even at the peril of his life, can be read in his letter to Farel in April 1546, where he openly announced to the Consistoire of Geneva that they must pay the penalty for perfidy, for having lied to God and to him. See CO 12.791.333-337, Calvinus Vireto et
Farello, 21 April 1546.
113Hoc exemplo admonemur palam castigandos esse, qui publico malo peccarunt, quatenus interest Ecclesiae. Finis enim est, ne si impunitum relinquatur eiusmodi delictum, exemplo noceat. COR 16.46, on Gal. 2.14. continues to point out how Paul's open rebuke was advantageous because it demonstrated that he will not shrink from the right.114
In Calvin's personal life, the death of his only child and the illness of his wife Idelette in the autumn and winter of 1545, were hard on him.115
However, it appears that Calvin was able to deal with all the difficulties pressing upon him with surprising calmness and integrity. Calvin accounts for this by referring to the mercy and good pleasure of God, which were assisting him.116 His letters during 1546 are not burdened with worry, although it is clear that there were many troubles. Instead, Calvin had energy to write numerous letters of personal encouragement and counsel. For instance, he wrote a number of letters to comfort
Viret (his wife died in early 1546) and then later in the year tried to help in finding a new, suitable wife for him. There are a number of other letters of encouragement addressed to others, too, for which space does not allow an account.117
The concern for edification and counsel in Calvin's Galatians is an important theme in Galatians, as Parker suggests, 118 although it did not emerge as the main burden of the commentary in the present study. This theme corresponds to a general concern of his letters and shows Calvin's heart of a pastor.
If there is a main theme that runs through Calvin's letters during 1546, it would appear to be Calvin's trust in the providence and goodwill of God.
He exhorts Monsieur De Falais, his friend, Let us pray, therefore, and seeing that it pleases God to make trial of our patience for our good, let us be content with what he sends us, never growing weary of serving him, on any account whatsoever. … For I have no doubt that he looks rather upon his own work in us, than upon our sins and shortcomings, that he may have pity on us.119
Calvin's work on the commentaries was a welcome break and a source of strength for him amidst the pressures and complications of life in Geneva. Calvin summarises the purpose of reading his commentaries in 1548 in his dedicatory
114COR 16.46, on Gal. 2.14.
115Calvin's wife Idelette fell ill again in 1547, and died in March, 1549, leaving two children, whom Calvin promised to treat as his own. Calvin never married again. See Parker 1975: 102.
116See e.g. CO 12.781.317, Calvinus Theodoro [Vito], 16 March 1546; and CO 12.861.443, Calvin à Monsieur De Falais, 8 December 1546.
117See CO 12.855.425-426, Calvinus Vireto, 20 November 1546; CO 12.861.442-443, Calvin à Monsieur De Falais, 8 December 1546; CO 12.863.444-445, Calvinus Vireto, 14 December 1546; and CO
12.864.445-446, Calvinus Vireto, 17 December 1546.
118Parker 1963: 68-70. It must be borne in mind that Parker partly applies the theme of edification to a range of issues such as law and gospel, and Christ as the object of faith (see Parker 1963: 68-69), thus including subjects which are treated as separate themes in this study.
119Prions doncq, et puis quil plaist mieulx, contentions nous de ce quil nous envoye, ne nous lassant pour rien de le server… Car ei ne doubte pas quil ne regarde plus tost son oevre en nous que noz vices et povretez, pour nous traicter en sa pitie. CO 12.861.442-443, Calvin à Monsieur De Falais, 8 December words to the four commentaries (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians), 'In these four epistles, my expositions on which I now present to you, noble Prince, you will find many matters of consolation very apt for these times'.120
2.2. General Remarks on the Style of Luther's and Calvin's Commentaries on It may be noted here that due to the chosen focus of this study, it seemed more appropriate to give some attention to the variant styles of Luther and Calvin rather than give primary attention to exegetical factors in their Galatians. A consideration of the variant styles of Luther's and Calvin's commentaries seems especially important for understanding their commentaries, because the evident difference in style of the two reformers is one of the first things that strikes the reader.
Luther's and Calvin's style in their Galatians is here discussed in reference to the Latin text of Galatians they utilise, the instances where comments are made on Greek or Hebrew and with regards to their style in general.
2.2.1. Similarities and Differences in the Latin Translation of Galatians Before proceeding into an analysis of the significance of these differences, it appears important to briefly account for a few preliminary considerations.
Luther had been involved in two major efforts related to the text of Galatians preceding his lectures on the epistle in 1531. In 1529, the Wittenberg theologians, probably under Luther's supervision, produced an updated edition of the Latin Vulgate, which included a number of changes in the text of Galatians.
Although the changes were not as radical as in Erasmus' Latin version of the New Testament, the Wittenberg edition significantly improved the readability of the commonly utilised Vulgate. The following year, 1530, Luther completed his most extensive revision of his German translation of the New Testament,121 which considerably improved both the accuracy and fluency of the translation of Galatians. The common denominator for both of these efforts was Luther's concern to have God's Word available for both readers of Latin and German in a form they could easily understand.
Heinz Bluhm's study on Luther's changes in the German text of Galatians in the 1530 edition of the New Testament reveals that Luther relied neither on the Vulgate nor on Erasmus' Latin translations of the Greek (though he utilised these as works of reference), but based his work on the Greek original.122
120Porro in his quatuor epistolis, quas meo labore explicates tibi offero, eximie Princeps, multa consolationis argumenta reperies his temporibus valde apta. COR 16.3, Christophoro Duci Wirt
121The first edition of Luther's German New Testament had been completed in 1522.
122This is indicated by the fact that in the few instances where the Greek original differs from Erasmus'
Latin translation, Luther follows the Greek original. See Bluhm 1984: 384-385. When referring to the Interestingly, the Latin text of Galatians in Luther's Galatians seems to follow the Wittenberg edition of the Vulgate fairly closely, but not so closely that Parker's postulate of Luther having utilised the Vulgate as his text would seem fully warranted.123
Calvin, for his part, has been shown to be a very careful exegete, a view which has been confirmed by the studies of Parker, Feld and Faber.124 Parker's and Feld's analysis indicates that in the composing of the Latin text of his
Galatians, Calvin utilised several Greek editions of the New Testament in establishing the Greek text, and a number of Latin translations as aids to choosing the best translation.125 Parker's study indicates that Calvin's preferred edition at that point was not Erasmus' Textus Receptus, as is often supposed, but Colinaeus' original Greek, Luther had Erasmus' first four Greek editions available to him (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527).
It appears, however, that the edition that had the most impact on him, was probably Erasmus' second Greek edition (1519) of the New Testament. Bluhm identifies no instances where Erasmus' 3rd (1522) and 4th (1527) editions would have had an impact on Luther's translation of the Greek while pinpointing
Erasmus' 2nd (1519) edition as the important one (see Bluhm 1984: 287-352, and esp. 326-327).
123See Parker 1962: 290. There are some readings in Luther's Galatians, which follow the Basel Vulgate (1509), and some others which occur in neither the Basel Vulgate nor the Wittenberg edition of the Vulgate. The Basel edition of the Vulgate is seen to have been the one utilised by Luther (see Bluhm
1984: 539). See Appendix 1 for a brief comparison of the Latin translation of Galatians 1 in the Basel Vulgate (1509), the Wittenberg edition of the Vulgate (1529) and the Latin of Galatians in WA40. (I am indebted to Bluhm for the text of the Basel Vulgate and the Wittenberg edition of the Vulgate for Galatians 1; see Bluhm 1984: 539-557). There is more resemblance between the Latin translations of the Greek original in Luther's Galatians to the Wittenberg Vulgate than to the Basel Vulgate. However, there are also a few independent spellings and renderings, which nonetheless do not appear to give sufficient evidence for a new translation. Also, in Gal. 1.1,15 and 16, the Latin translation of the Biblical text in Luther's phrase by phrase comments differs from the Latin of the full verse text in WA40, though not significantly. See Appendix 1 for further detail. Determining which Latin editions / translations of Galatians were utilised during Luther's lectures in 1531 and determining the sources for the Latin translation of the biblical text in the commentary of 1535 would require a more extensive study, and include, among other things, a comparison between Luther's text with Erasmus' four Latin translations
(1516, 1519, 1522, 1527). However, due to the focus of this study on the theology rather than the exegesis and translation of the commentaries, no more extensive study has been done.
124Faber refers to the fact that there are sixty occasions when there are no known sources for Calvin's Latin rendering of the Greek and concludes, 'This number shows that his translation is not derivative, but based on an autopsy of the Greek text' (Faber 2004: 272). See also Faber 2004: 276-280, Feld 1992: xxixxvi and Parker 1993: 123-191, esp. 153-157,190-191.
125Parker's analysis of Galatians 4 identified Calvin as having used at least three Greek editions of the New Testament, those of Colinaeus, the Aldine version of 1518 (a reprint of Erasmus' first Greek version of 1516 by the Aldine Press, founded by Manutius Aldus) and Erasmus' fourth Greek edition of the New
Testament of 1527. See e.g. Parker 1993: 147, (124). It must be borne in mind that for the chapter in question, Parker only collated readings from four possible editions, including the three mentioned above and Stephanus' Greek edition. Feld names two Greek editions which he believes Calvin used, that of Erasmus (Feld does not specify which Greek edition of Erasmus he has in mind) and that of Robert
Estienne (Stephanus). (Feld 1992: xxi). When it comes to Luther, he also appears to have utilised more than one Greek edition of the text of the New Testament in establishing his Greek text. Bluhm complains that according to his knowledge, apart from his own limited studies, there are no other studies made on the theme. See Bluhm 1983: 353. version,126 later shown to have been exceptionally accurate.127 Although Calvin worked directly with the original Greek for his Latin renderings of the New
Testament texts, including Galatians, he did not alter the translations of the Vulgate or Erasmus' Latin when he saw them to be in line with the original Greek.128 Faber remarks that there are sixty occasions in Calvin's Galatians where his Latin translation has no equivalent in other contemporary Latin translations of the text
(the Vulgate, Erasmus or Lefevre), which Calvin is known to have used, indicating Calvin's independence as a translator of the Greek text.129
There are some obvious differences in the Latin text of Paul's epistle to the Galatians in Luther's and Calvin's commentaries. Calvin has generally divided the text into passages of between four to ten verses. Each passage begins with his Latin translation of the original Greek, after which he comments on each verse.130 For each verse, he comments on one or more phrases, which are generally
126See Parker 1993: 153. Feld, for his part, argues that Calvin used Erasmus' Greek text, and possibly also that of Robert Estienne (Stephanus) (Feld 1992: xxi). However, as there is no further explanation in Feld's introduction why these are considered to be Calvin's basic texts against that of Colinaeus, it seems preferable to stay with Parker's conclusion, who specifically studied the text of Galatians 4 against four
Greek editions of the New Testament (Colinaeus, Erasmus's fourth edition of 1527, Stephanus and the Aldine version), and concluded that Colinaeus' version appeared to be the most important source of Calvin's Greek text for Galatians. See also the footnote above.
127See Parker 1993: 155. In his later commentaries, Calvin returned to using Erasmus' Textus Receptus (a general reference to Erasmus' editions of the Greek text of the New Testament) as his basic text. Parker sees in this 'retrogression' a possible indication of the 'hardening' of Calvin's theology. Generally,
Calvinism, in its systematised form, has been associated with Theodore Beza, whereas Calvin has been seen as the creative and dynamic precursor of the movement that came to carry his name. See Parker
128See Parker 1993: 135, 190-191. Benoit Girardin attempts to demonstrate against Parker's study (referring to Parker's first edition of New Testament Commentaries, 1971) that Calvin would have relied more on the Latin texts available to him than the original Greek, at least for his Latin text of Romans.
However, the table, which he utilises to enumerate the differences and similarities between Calvin's rendering and those of five Greek editions and four Latin editions of the New Testament, seems inconclusive. For instance, out of the 15 verses, of which a full comparison was made by Girardin, 3 indicate no Latin equivalent to Calvin's rendering. In each of the three cases, however, there is a Greek equivalent to Calvin's rendering. This could well be seen in line with Parker's study according to which Calvin referred directly to the Greek. For Girardin's argumentation, see Girardin 1979: 365-368. For Parker's position and for more information on the Greek and Latin versions including information on which version of the Vulgate Calvin utilised, see Parker 1993: 123-191, esp. 135, 190-191.
129See Faber 2004: 272.
130It needs to be remembered that Luther and Calvin did not have a Latin translation available which would have been divided into verses during the time of the composition of their Galatians. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to talk of verses in the discussion above to indicate the precise location of omitted passages / phrases in Luther's and Calvin's discussion. The present study has followed the division into passages and verses present in COR 16. Stephanus' (Robert Estienne) Bible edition, which for the first time introduced division into verses in the Bible, became available in 1551, which would have made it possible for Calvin to include division into verses in his last edition of his Galatians (1556). Whether the verses have been inserted in COR 16 (this is what may be assumed) or whether COR 16 follows Calvin's own insertion of verses in the last edition of his Galatians, I have not been able to determine as I have not been able to view the original prints of Calvin's commentary. very brief, from one to four words.131 Luther, for his part, has no division into passages. Luther comments on several verses, one verse, a phrase or a word at a time, depending on the text in question. At times he also repeats certain phrases of the Latin translation, when he deems it important to comment on a single aspect of a passage.132
Luther includes all the translated Latin text of Galatians in his comments, omitting only a part of Gal. 3.4,133 while Calvin omits eight verses, namely Gal. 1.14, 1.21, 1.23, 2.13, 3.9, 4.2, 4.28 and 5.20.134 Despite this, Calvin appears to be somewhat more conscientious in covering the text of Galatians in his discussion,135 briefly expounding also the omitted verses136 (apart from 1.21,
'Deinde veni in regiones Syriae et Ciliciae') in his preceding and succeeding comments on Gal. 1.13, 1.22, 2.14, 3.8, 4.1, 4.27 and 5.19.137
In Luther's Galatians, the length of comment varies more. While Luther discusses Gal. 2.16, 3.1, 3.10, 3.13 and 4.6 with thirty, twenty-one, twenty131For an example, see e.g. COR 16.21-24, on Gal. 1.10-13.
132For instance, between Gal. 1.17-24, where Paul discusses his visit to Peter in Jerusalem, Luther comments on a whole verse or several verses at a time while Gal. 2.16-3.1, which deals with the themes of justification and the Holy Spirit, is commented on by Luther phrase by phrase. Compare WA
40a.143.28-29, on Gal. 1.17; WA 40a.145.25-27, on Gal. 1.18-19; WA 40a.148.24, on Gal. 1.20; WA 40a.149.20, on Gal. 1.21; WA 40a.149.24-27, on Gal. 1.22-24 with WA 40a.217.26, 239.12-13, 242.15,
243.20, on Gal. 2.16; WA 40a.247.15-16, 256.16, 260.25, on Gal. 2.17; WA 40a.262.12-13, on Gal.
2.18; WA 40a.266.25, 279.30, 280.13, on Gal. 2.19; WA 40a.281.21, 282.15, 283.18, 288.22, 290.32, 295.25, on Gal. 2.20; WA 40a.300.23, 302.17, on Gal. 2.21; WA 40a.308.32, 313.24, 319.18, 322.22,
323.31, 324.23, on Gal. 3.1. Compare also Luther's Latin translation of the Greek text in Gal. 1.1-2 and Gal. 1.15-17 where there are subsequent phrase by phrase comments on the text quoted previously as a whole. WA 40a.52.8-10, 58.17, 64.13, 66.13,28, on Gal. 1.2; WA 40a.136.9-14, 139.12,23, 140.25,30,
142.13,23, 142.14,28-29, on Gal. 1.15-17.
133See WA 40a.350.24, on Gal. 3.4.
134In Calvin's Latin translation of the passages, all the omitted verses are included, however. In the separate verse by verse comments, on the other hand, Gal. 1.14, 1.21, 1,23, 2.13, 3.9, 4.2, 4.28 and 5.20 are not included. Compare COR 16.21 with COR 16.24 (Gal. 1.14); COR 16.24 with COR 16.29 (Gal.
1.21, 1.23); COR 16.42 with COR16.46 (Gal. 2.13); COR 16.63 with COR 16.67 (Gal. 3.9); COR 16.88 with COR 16.92 (Gal. 4.2); COR 16.111 with COR 16.111 (Gal. 4.28) and COR 16.122 with COR
135Compare Luther's and Calvin's comments on Gal. 1.17-24, for instance, esp. vv. 22-24. Compare WA 40a.143.28-150.22, on Gal. 1.17-24 (esp. WA 40a.149.24-150.22, on Gal. 1.22-24) with COR 16.27-29, on Gal. 1.17-24 (esp. COR 16.29, on Gal. 1.22-24).
136This is an important point also in view of the fact that Luther's and Calvin's Latin Bibles did not yet have a division into verses when they composed their Galatians. The fact that Calvin briefly comments on nearly all of the 'omitted' verses in the preceding or following explanation underlines Calvin's conscientiousness with regards to covering the text of Galatians. This, again, may connect to the fact that Calvin laid some more emphasis on careful exegesis than Luther in his Galatians.
137See COR 16.24, on Gal. 1.13 (1.14); COR 16.29, on Gal. 1.20, 22 (Gal. 1.21 missing also in exposition, Gal. 1.23 included in exposition of Gal. 1.22); COR 16.29, on Gal. 1.22 (1.23); COR 16.45, on Gal. 2.14 (2.13); COR 16.67, on Gal. 3.8 (3.9); COR 16.92, on Gal. 4.1 (4.2); COR 16.111, on Gal.
4.27 (4.28) and COR 16.131-132, on Gal. 5.19 (5.20). eight, twenty-one and twenty-two pages respectively, Calvin does not exceed four pages even in his lengthiest comments on Gal. 1.1, 2.6, 2.15, 3.6, 3.19 and 4.1.138
As for the Latin renderings of Galatians, one has to look for a while to find a verse that is rendered in the same way. With some work, one can find a few.139 On the other hand, even those verses that differ the most do not generally seem to necessitate a different interpretation.140
Despite the above outlined differences in the Latin text of Galatians in Luther's and Calvin's commentaries, both Luther and Calvin generally cover the same ground, commenting on the same verses. On occasion, Luther and Calvin have picked nearly the same phrases to expound a whole passage.141
By way of summary, the Latin text of Luther's Galatians seems to indicate that Luther's concern was not primarily exegetical. Calvin, however, paid considerable attention to a correct translation. Also, Calvin's comments on Paul's epistle to the Galatians are more structured and systematic than those of Luther.
Luther, for his part, being less rigid, places more stress on those themes which he sees as central.
138Compare WA 40a.217.26-246.28, on Gal. 2.16; WA 40a.308.31-328.21, on Gal. 3.1; WA 40a.391.28419.21, on Gal. 3.10; WA 40a.432.17-452.26, on Gal. 3.13 and WA 40a.571.26-593.14, on Gal. 4.6 with COR 16.11-13, on Gal. 1.1; COR 16.35-38, on Gal. 2.6; COR 16.47-50, on Gal. 2.15; COR 16.63-66, on Gal. 3.6; COR 16.77-81, on Gal. 3.19 and COR 16.88-92, on Gal. 4.1. To be more proportional (as the text on the pages in COR 16 of Calvin's Galatians is longer than that of Luther's Galatians in WA 40a40b), the length of pages for Luther's Galatians on Gal. 2.16, 2.20, 3.10 and 4.6 would be eighteen, twelve, fifteen and thirteen pages, respectively, compared to Calvin's lengthiest comments reaching to four pages on Gal. 1.1, 2.6, 2.15, 3.6, 3.19 and 4.1. The text of Luther's Galatians in WA 40a-40b is shorter due to Rörer's shorthand notes of Luther's lectures included on the top part of each page of Luther's 1531/35 commentary. In order to have the length of pages in COR 16 and WA 40a-40b proportionately about as long, one needs to substract a little more than a third (or two fifths to be more accurate) from the total number of pages in WA 40a-40b. Even taking this into account, however, it is evident that Luther's expositions of particular phrases or verses are at times much longer than those of 139Compare e.g. the Latin of Gal. 3.7, 3.10, 3.24 and 6.18 in Luther's and Calvin's Latin renderings of the Greek. To be exact, even in these examples of similarity in Luther and Calvin, only Gal. 6.18 is exactly the same. The other verses, Gal. 3.7, 3.10 and 3.24 include only very minor differences. For the Latin translation and references to the original, see Appendix 2.
140Compare e.g. the Latin of Gal. 3.1, 4.4, 4.15, 4.20 and 6.7 in Luther's and Calvin's Latin renderings of the Greek. For the Latin translation and references to the original, see Appendix 2. For an occasion, where Luther's and Calvin's different translation is connected with a different interpretation, compare
Luther's and Calvin's translation of Gal. 3.1. Luther translates the last phrase of the verse, 'Quod sit in vobis crucifixus' while Calvin renders it, 'Inter vos crucifixus'. Even here, however, Luther's and Calvin's general theological understanding is very similar, although their interpretation of this particular phrase differs. For further discussion on the theological implications, see a discussion of this issue in section 2.4.3.4.
141Compare e.g. Luther's and Calvin's comments on Gal. 6.14-18. WA 40b.169.32-WA 40b.183.21, on Gal. 6.14-18; COR 16.147-150, on Gal. 6.14-18.
2.2.2. References to Greek and Hebrew Luther and Calvin refer to Greek and Hebrew in their Galatians occasionally.
Luther utilises Greek twenty and Hebrew thirteen times while Calvin alludes to the Greek thirty-one and to Hebrew five times.142 This suggests an immediate observation – taking into account that Calvin's commentary is less than a third the length of Luther's, Calvin comments on the original languages143 considerably more frequently.
It is noteworthy that every comment Calvin makes on Greek and Hebrew is exegetical, dealing with proper renderings, variant translations, etymology and connotations of the words.144 Luther is also exegetical in each of his references to Hebrew, noting the Hebrew background of Greek expressions.145 This is not true of most of Luther's utilisation of the Greek, however. Thirteen of the instances where Luther uses Greek are homiletical and of the seven exegetical references, four are at the same time comments on Hebrew.146 Luther's allusions to the Greek are mostly insertions of Greek words within the discussion as if they were words of German. There is no discussion on their meaning, but they are included for a homiletical purpose, to add colour to the argumentation.147
142A count was made of the usage of Greek and Hebrew words, either transcribed or written in Greek or Hebrew, and of explicit references to Greek or Hebrew originals in Latin, such as Hebraisms. (One passage was counted as one, even if the same word was repeated several times within the same context.)
There are other instances, too, where the original languages are alluded to indirectly, such as in Calvin's comments on Gal. 3.19, 3.22, 3.24 and 6.16, but these were left out in the present discussion. See COR
16.78, on Gal. 3.19, COR 16.82, on Gal. 3.22, COR 16.84, on Gal. 3.24 and COR 16.149, on Gal. 6.16.
143Hebrew is also termed 'an original language' here, as Hebraisms often lie behind New Testament 144For instance, Calvin comments, Neque illis suffragatur particula kata< pro>swpon, quae significant
Petrum in os (ut aiunt) vel praesentem castigatum obmutuisse. Further, he states, Verum quum Graece sit ejn emoi, puto Hebraicam phrasim esse, pro 'mihi'. Nam apud Hebraeos b saepe est supervacuum. Quod satis constat peritis illius linguae. See COR 16.44, on Gal. 2.11 and COR 16..26-27 on Gal. 1.16.
145For instance, Luther comments on Gal. 2.16, '"Non omnis caro" Ebraismus est peccans in grammaticam.' WA40a.243.26. Similarly, commenting on the phrase 'Ergo Christus peccati Minister est' of Gal. 2.17, Luther states, 'Minister peccati: Iterum phrasis est Ebraica qua etiam utitur Paulus 2.
Cor. 3., Ubi magnifice et clarissime tractat de duobus his ministeriis, scilicet literae spiritus, legis gratiae, vel mortis et vitae, Et dicit Mosen, Ministrum legis, habere ministerium legis quod vocat peccati, irae, mortis et damnationis ministerium.' WA40a.256.17-20. It is interesting that Luther refers to Hebrew so frequently although the text of Galatians was in Greek. This is presumably connected to the fact that he was a professor of the Old Testament.
146There are three exegetical references to Greek in Luther's Galatians, which are not at the same time comments on Hebrew. Two of them are Luther's comments on the fruits of the Spirit, Μακροθυμία and Χρηστοτης. See WA40b.118.23-33, WA40b.119:15-20, on Gal. 5.22-23. The third is Luther's explanation of the σκόλοψ in Paul's flesh. See WA40a.637.10-22, on Gal. 4.14.
147For instance, Luther states on Gal. 5.16, 'Et sine hac ἐπιείκεια impossibile est pacem et concordiam consistere inter Christianos.' WA40b.83.18-19. Further, on Gal. 6.4, he affirms, 'Est autem hoc proprium eorum, qui κενοδοξία laborant, quod prorsus nihil curant, an opus, id est, ministerium suum, purum sit nec ne, sed id unicum spectant, ut plausum vulgi acquirant.' WA40b.148.18-20.
This is in line with what was suggested above. While Calvin expends considerable effort to achieve accuracy of exegesis in his commentary,
Luther's attention is on theological exposition.
2.2.3. Other Remarks on the Style of Luther and Calvin Both Luther and Calvin had studied law in their youth and been influenced by the writings of Erasmus. However, it seems that humanism and the concern for careful argumentation and accuracy had influenced Calvin more, whereas the freer and more polemical style of the monastic tradition had made its imprint on Luther.148
It is notable that Calvin specifically commented on Luther's style of writing. Calvin complained of the style of Luther, 'Luther is not so particular as to propriety of expression or the historical accuracy; he is satisfied when he can draw from it some fruitful doctrine.'149 Further, Calvin bemoans that while he was
'convinced of Luther's piety' (de eius pietate optime sim persuasus), he found that Luther was 'craving for victory' (victoriae famam) and even evidenced arrogance.150
Heiko A. Oberman, for his part, describes the variance between the German and Swiss reformer by identifying Calvin as 'stoic', and as a person who 'retreats into the background even in personal correspondence', while Luther is
'passionately present', and whose 'feelings force their way everywhere'.151 A reader of the two reformers' commentaries easily observes that Luther's composition is lengthy but colourful, and Calvin's brief and matter-of-fact. While Luther throws himself fervently into the discussion of the issues of Galatians, Calvin stays aloof from the text, arguing his points carefully. Where Calvin uses hardly any examples from life in Geneva or from the life of his acquintances in his commentary, Luther does not hesitate to make mention of several proverbs,152 calling Wittenberg a 'holy village'153 and to tell stories of saints from the Vitis Patrum to illustrate a point.154
148For instance, Theo Bell, in his study on Luther's and Calvin's usage of Bernard of Clairvaux, notes that in line with the monastic tradition, Luther often quotes from memory and is less concerned with exactness and accuracy than Calvin. For the 'humanistically influenced' Calvin, both accuracy in quotation and the elegance of Bernard's Latin were important. See Bell 1999: 381.
149Lutherus non adeo anxius de verborum proprietate aut historiae circumstantia satis habet fructiferam aliquam doctrinam elicere. CO 11.217.36, Calvinus Vireto, 19 May 1940.
150CO 10.87.139, Calvinus Bucero, 12 January 1538. See the whole letter in CO 10.87.137-144.
151Oberman 1989b 312-313. Marc Lienhard, for his part, sees Luther as stressing the soteriological and the existential and Calvin as focusing on the ethical and the ecclesiological in his analysis of the two reformers' comment on the Lord's prayer. Lienhard states, 'La perspective de Luther est plus sotériologique et plus existentielle. Davantage que Luther, Calvin est attentif aux conséquences éthiques et ecclésiologiques de la prière dominicale.' See Lienhard 1992: 73.
152For example, 'Nam istam regular servavit Paulus: Cum fueris Romae, romano vivito more.'
WA40a.146.20-21, 'Imo in omnibus rebus hoc accidere solet: "Quod aliquis habet, contemnit, quod non habet, amat."' WA40b.84.16.17 on Gal. 5,16 and 'Et notus est versiculus: Non me Doctorem, sed te deluseris ipsum.' WA40b.160:19-20 on Gal. 6.7. However, even at this point Luther's and Calvin's differences ought not to be polarised too much. Calvin also refers to at least three proverbs, for instance, in his Galatians. He alludes to 'the wallet that hangs behind our own back', 'Non videmus manticae quod in tergo est'; COR 16.138, on Gal. 6.1, to a saying 'starts from the egg, as they say', 'ab ovo (quod
A comparison of aspects from Luther's and Calvin's expositions of Gal. 2.6-7, 1.6 and 1.8 may serve to illustrate the difference in the styles of the German and Swiss reformer further. For instance, Calvin, having observed that Peter was the apostle to the Jews according to Gal. 2.7, then applies this to his contemporary context and asserts that if the pope wants to assert his primacy as Peter's successor, he should exercise his control over the Jews instead of Christians.155 Luther, for his part, in his application of Gal. 2.6, elucidates how papal doctrines ought to be borne with. He identifies the pope and the bishops as 'Behemoth and his scales' and announces that if the gospel of Christ was allowed, the believers ought to be willing not only to carry the pope aloft on their hands, 'but also to kiss his feet'.156 On a slightly different note, when Luther comments on Paul's writing about the false apostles in Gal. 1.6 and 1.8, Paul is 'extremely violent',
'erupts into fulminations' and 'is breathing fire',157 while Calvin merely affirms that Paul 'begins with a rebuke, though a somewhat gentler one than they deserved'158
(on Gal. 1.6) and 'rises with great boldness' to defend the authoritative nature of his doctrine and 'pronounces' (on Gal. 1.8) the truthfulness of the gospel he was preaching.159
It may be in place to note, in order to avoid undue polarisation of the style of the two reformers, that part of the difference in style is undoubtedly due to the fact that Luther was lecturing while Calvin was composing a written commentary, intended as a resource for pastors.160 Also, it is important to bear in mind that Luther also utilises perceptive and carefully formulated argumentation in aiunt) ordiri'; COR 16.8-9, Argumentum and 'to be loved, you must be lovable', 'Ut ameris, amabilis esto', COR 16.100, on Gal. 4.12.
153Luther refers to Wittenberg as holy because of God's works among them. Luther explains that purely administered sacraments and the preached Word are what makes them holy. See Luther's comments on Gal. 1.2. WA40a.69.29-WA40a.70.8-10. Luther also mentions Wittenberg in WA40a.53.21-27 on Gal.
1.1-2 and WA40a.103.11-14 on Gal 1.6.
154For examples of Luther's references to the Vitis Patrum, see his comments on Gal. 2.17, 3.1 and 5.3.
See WA40a.258.22-34, WA40a.315.19-35 and WA40b.16.29-17.15, on Gal. 2.17, 3.1 and 5.3, respectively.
155COR 16.40, on Gal. 2.7.
156Nos libenter faveremus Behemoth et squamis ipsius, Hoc est Papae et Episcopis, omnes personas et dignitates quas habent, modo nobis Christum relinquerent. ... Hoc impetrato, scilicet quod solus Deus ex mera gratia per Christum iustificet, non solum volumus Papam in manibus portare, imo etiam ei osculari pedes. WA 40a.178.17-19, 181.11-13, Luther on Gal. 2.6.
157Econtra vehementer ardet et indignatione plenus est contra Seductores illos in quos totam culpam transfert. WA 40a.100.22-23, on Gal. 1.6. Paulus meras flammas loquitur tamque vehementer ardet, ut incipiat etiam quasi Angelis maledicere. WA 40a.116.14-15, on Gal. 1.8.
158Incipit ab obiurgatione, quae tamen lenior est aliquanto, quam merebantur. See COR 16.17, on Gal.
159Hic magna confidential insurgit ad vindicandam doctrinae seae authoritatem. … Paulus… quid contineat, ac suam doctrinam pronuntiat verum esse Euangelium. See COR 16.18-19, on Gal. 1.8.
160See e.g. Zachman 2003: 482. Calvin's sermons, on the other hand, portray Calvin in a different role, where he frequently applies biblical ideas to current situations and uses more down-to-earth illustrations.
For a comprehensive treatment of Calvin's sermons, see e.g. Parker 1992. his commentary. On the other hand, when Calvin is brief and matter-of-fact, he is also practical, applying the deduced lessons to ecclesiology or to the current situation. Nevertheless, Luther emerges as the one generally more lively and colourful and Calvin as the more methodical and guarded writer in their commentaries on Galatians.
In the above outlined comments on Luther's and Calvin's variant styles, it becomes evident that if one wears the glasses of modern approaches to exegesis and commenting on the Bible, Calvin emerges as the more cautious and careful commentator. The difference between Luther and Calvin, however, ought to be seen as a variance in the style of commenting, and not as reflecting differing degrees of quality in the ensuing theology of the respective commentaries. It is clear that Luther's and Calvin's theologies both demonstrate depth and coherence of theological insight, as chapters 3 to 6 of this study display.
The study now proceeds from an examination of the style in Luther's and Calvin's Galatians to a brief consideration of interpretation in the two reformers' respective commentaries.e
2.3. Brief Consideration of the Method of Interpreting Scripture in Luther's and Calvin's Commentaries on Galatians Luther's and Calvin's doctrines of Scripture,161 hermeneutics, and their respective methods of interpretation have been discussed in various publications.162 Due to the complexity and scope of the issues involved, and due to the chosen focus here, it seemed appropriate to limit this section to a brief discussion on Thomas D. Parker's article, "The Interpretation of Scripture: A Comparison of Calvin and Luther on Galatians". Parker's article is one of the few publications, which directly address both Luther's and Calvin's Galatians and for this reason, too, it seems appropriate to deal with it in a section of its own.
161Calvin makes some references to interpretation of Scripture in his commentary on Galatians, especially with regards to the allegorical vs. literal method of interpretation. This is not a major theme in his commentary, but his statements are nevertheless briefly discussed in section 5.6.6. of this study. The question of how Luther and Calvin interpret Scripture (and Galatians) is much wider in scope than their limited and brief allusions to the theme in their Galatians. It is these wider issues that Parker addresses in his article comparing Luther's and Calvin's interpretations of Galatians. That is why it seemed more appropriate to discuss Parker's article in this section, and to briefly indicate Calvin's own statements on the issue in section 5.6.6. dealing with some of the minor themes of Calvin's Galatians. Some of Luther's references on interpretation of Scripture in his Galatians are briefly reviewed in footnote 1033 under section 5.6.6. No separate section is devoted here to interpretation of Scripture in Luther's
Galatians due to the brevity and limited scope of his statements on this theme.
162For two brief examples, which also compare the two reformers' hermeneutics and their use of the Bible, see Lehmann 1946 ('The Reformers' Use of the Bible') and Runia 1984 ('The Hermeneutics of the Reformers').
According to Parker, there are both significant similarities and dissimilarities in the methods of interpretation of Luther and Calvin. The similarities can be summarised as follows. First and foremost, both Luther's and Calvin's hermeneutical stances derive from the Reformation sola fide, solus
Christus and sola Scriptura. Also, neither Luther nor Calvin had much interest on the so-called 'critical' questions of modern exegesis. Instead, both interpret the Bible according to its plain or literal meaning, thus rejecting or radically modifying the fourfold sense of Scripture of the scholastics on the one hand and the contemporary humanistic Erasmian approach on the other.163 Further, both reformers share the concern to apply the content of the epistle to the needs of Christ's flock.164
At the same time, Parker sees several differences in Luther and Calvin. Calvin has more interest in exegetical questions than Luther and where he stays with the plain 'objective' or 'rational' meaning, Luther prefers a 'spiritual' interpretation geared towards answering subjective human needs such as alleviating one's spiritual Anfechtung. Also, Calvin is careful not to let his theological concerns impose on the interpretation whereas Luther's exegesis is largely influenced by them. Further, while Calvin prefers practical applications with a bearing to the common life of believers, Luther commonly favours universal applications such as justification.165
A reader of Luther's and Calvin's Galatians will probably understand why Parker takes this position. Calvin's writing is more meticulous and he spends proportionately more time reasoning with the text of Galatians before coming to a brief exhortative application. Luther, on the other hand, tends to be more colourful, and while he also reasons from the situation of Paul with Galatians, his Galatians includes more theological discourse.
This is exemplified in the introductions to Luther's and Calvin's commentaries, for instance. Both reformers start their commentary with a section on the 'argument' of the epistle and both begin by identifying the main theme of the epistle, justification.166 Calvin, however, quickly shifts to following the argument of 163Feld, pointing to Calvin's rejection of the fourfold and allegorical interpretation of Scripture of the mediaeval church, illustrates how Calvin, even when treating Paul's allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Gal.
4.22-24, stays with the view that it is the plain and literal meaning of Scripture, which ought to be preferred. In this case, seeing Abraham's family as an anagogical type of the church, is fully in accordance with the literal interpretation of Scripture. Feld summarises Calvin's position, 'Wenn also
Paulus in den beiden Frauen Abrahams die beiden Tstamente bildlich dargesteelt sieht, dann will er sich damit, nach Meinung Calvins, nicht vom Literalsinn entfernen' (Feld 1992: xxviii). At the same time,
Feld also points to Calvin's adherence to the humanist principle of going back to the genuine and pure sense of the original sources. See Feld 1992: xxvi.
164Parker 1963: 72-73.
165See Parker 1963: 74-75.
166See WA40a.40.15-29, Argumentum and COR 16.6, Argumentum. In the beginning of his commentary, Luther identifies the main themes of Galatians as the doctrines of faith, grace, remission of sins and Christian righteousness as differentiated from all other kinds of righteousness. He states, 'Paulus vult stabilire doctrinam illam fidei, Gratiae, Remissionis peccatorum seu Iustitiae Christianae, ut the epistle chapter by chapter (excluding chapter 6). Luther, on the other hand, does not comment on the separate chapters at all, but continues the discourse on justification, presenting the main theme of the epistle in a coherent form.
Moreover, Parker's observations seem further justified by Luther's explicit statement of purpose for the commentary, which was to expound the theme of justification.167 Calvin, for his part, states in the introduction of his Institutio
1539168 that his Institutio provides a detailed theological exposition of themes identified in a condensed form in the biblical commentaries.169
While there clearly is a difference in the method of interpretation the two reformers employ, they question remains as to whether Parker's comparison might not have become too polarised. For instance, there seems to be some truth to the general notion of seeing Calvin as the intellectual, as opposed to the relational
Luther, who saw faith as trust. As Forstman cautions, however, this difference ought not to be taken too far, since Calvin also saw faith as relational.170
Furthermore, there are at least three considerations specific to the composition of Luther's and Calvin's Galatians, which need to be borne in mind when comparing the methods of interpretation in the commentaries. First, the audiences of Luther's and Calvin's Galatians were different. Luther was not intending the write a commentary but lectured to his university students, which is probably part of the reason his commentary became so long and why he did not always stick so closely to textual detail in Galatians. Calvin, in contrast to this, had the opportunity to write a carefully composed commentary.171 habeamus perfectam cognitionem et differentiam inter iustitiam Christianum et omnes alius Iustitias.'
Most of Luther's Argumentum of the epistle deals with the difference between Christian or passive righteousness as opposed to human, active righteouness. Later, Luther notes that the main purpose of expounding the epistle was to deal with the theme of justification. See WA40.109.30-34 and 167WA40.109.30-34 and WA40.110.11-12. Luther here refers to a more detailed explanation (of the works of the flesh and fruits of the Spirit in Gal. 5.20-23) in the earlier commentary on Galatians of 168The same statement of Calvin is included also in the 1543/45 and 1550/54 editions of his Institutio.
169Calvin states, 'Siquidem religionis summam omnibus partibus sic mihi complexus esse videor, et eo quoque ordine digessisse, ut si quis eam recte tenuerit ei non sit difficile statuere, et quid potissimum quaerere in scriptura, et quem in scopum quidquid in ea continetur referre debeat. Itaque, hac veluti strata via, si quas posthac scripturae enarrationes edidero, quia non necesse habebo de dogmatibus longas disputationes instituere, et in locos communes evagari, eas compendio simper astringam.' CO 1, p. 253.
170According to Forstman, Calvin saw faith as relational, similarly to John in the Bible. See Forstman 171It is possible, but not likely, that Calvin dictated his Galatians. His own comments (see footnote 58 in the beginning of section 2.2. dealing with the time of the composition of Calvin's Galatians) seem to support the fact that he was writing it himself. Even if he dictated Galatians, however, it would have most likely happened in private, and not in a lecture to his students. Most of his later commentaries, however, were composed either during private dictation or on the basis of his lectures, after which Calvin reviewed the text. See Parker 1993: 15-31, esp. 27.
Second, Luther had done, as noted above, extensive exegetical work on Galatians prior to his lectures in 1531, including having composed three earlier commentaries on it.172 Thus, on Gal. 5.20-23 for instance, Luther referred to his earlier commentary of 1519 for further exegetical detail (on the meaning of the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit) – the purpose of the present lectures of 1531 was to expound the theme of justification more fully.173 Further, Luther had both conducted a major revision of his German translation of Galatians improving its exegetical accuracy and fluency (1529) and supervised improvements for the Wittenberg edition of the text of the Latin Vulgate (1530). Thus, having updated his translation of Galatians, it would have seemed natural for him to update his theological exposition of Galatians as well. In contrast to this, it is not known whether Calvin had done any extensive exegetical work on Galatians prior to 1546.
Third, Calvin could direct further theological enquiries to a consultation of his Institutio. Luther, for his part, had no such work to refer to.
All of the above three considerations would seem to explain at least partly why Calvin would have been inclined to spend considerable time on the exegesis of Galatians, while Luther would have preferred to lean more towards theological exposition. Furthermore, the difference in emphasis in Luther's and Calvin's Galatians is apparent in proportion rather than in length. There is approximately as much comment dealing with exegetical issues174 in Luther's and Calvin's Galatians. Luther's theological exposition, however, is almost always longer. These considerations would seem to undercut somewhat Parker's postulate of Luther, rather than Calvin, as letting his theological preferences impose on his exegesis.
Moreover, Parker's suggestion of Luther as having 'read into', and as having been guided by his own 'polemic situation' seems exaggerated.175 Some brief examples from the text of Luther's and Calvin's commentaries help to demonstrate this point.
172Namely, those based on Luther's lectures of 1516-17 and of 1518-19, and the commentary of 1523.
Additionally, a German translation of Luther's of his commentary on Galatians appeared in 1525.
173"Qui autem cupit nosse, quid singulae voces seorsim significent, ille legat, si volet, commentarium veterum, quem Anno 19. aedidimus. Illic satis copiose naturam et vim, pro virili nostra, singularum vocum totius catalogi operum carnis et fructuum spiritus indicavimus. Nunc consilium praecipue fuit, ut inter enarrandam Epistolam ad Galatas articulum iustificationis quam clarissime traderemus etc."
WA40.109.30-34 and WA40.110.11-12. On the other hand, Luther saw his commentary of 1519 as having been a testimony to his personal faith rather than a commentary, which suggests that the primary purpose of the commentary of 1519 was not exegetical exposition either. See WA 2.449.16-19,
Dedication. Nonetheless, the commentary of 1519 contains proportionately more exegetical comment than that of 1531/1535.
174'Exegetical issues' is here used of references to the Greek or in reference to a discussion of the issues dealt with in Galatians 'together' with Paul within the situation of Galatians.
175Parker 1963: 66-67.
Parker comments that on Gal. 1.1,3,4,7,16, for instance, Luther, in contrast to Calvin, comes to his preferred theme of faith where it is not exegetically warranted.176
Reviewing the actual comments of Luther and Calvin on these verses, it is interesting to note that, apart from Gal. 1.1 and 1.16, Calvin also treats the subject of faith for the verses in question, though his comments are briefer. For instance, where Luther sees God's grace and peace in Gal. 1.3 as a reference to the fact that grace 'releases from sin' (remittit peccatum) and peace 'quiets the conscience' (quietat conscientiam),177 Calvin proposes that both refer to 'friendship with God' (Deum propitium) and to 'the favour of God' (benevolentia Dei).178
Commenting on Gal. 1.4, on the other hand, Luther points out how great an encouragement Christ's sacrificial death is for timid consciences.179 Calvin, for his part, identifies a very important doctrine in this verse, namely, that salvation and satisfaction for sins, is only in Christ.180 In the next instance, on Gal. 1.7, Calvin notes how enormous a crime it is to subvert the gospel, namely, when one attempts to achieve justification apart from Christ.181 Luther, accentuating another issue, warns how easily we fall from faith and grace to grace and law, because where grace reigns, law cannot reign.182 Gal. 1.1, however, is interpreted clearly in a different way by Luther and Calvin. Luther asserts that the reference to God having raised Christ from the dead shows how Paul 'explodes' (erumpit) into the main theme of the epistle, Christ's resurrection for our justification.183 Calvin, however, sees that Christ's resurrection is an affirmation of the authority of Paul's calling, in that Paul's calling comes from the resurrected Christ himself.184 On Gal. 1.16, on the 176Parker 1963: 67. The phrases, which led Luther to discuss justification were 'qui suscitavit Illum ex mortuis' (Gal. 1. 1), 'gratia vobis et paix' (Gal. 1.3), 'qui dedit Semetipsum pro peccatis nostris ut eriperet nos de praesenti seculo nequam secundum voluntatem Dei et Patris nostri' (Gal. 1.4), 'qui vos perturbant et volunt pervertere Evangelium Christi' (Gal. 1.7) and 'ut revelaret Filium suum in me ut evangelizarem illum in gentibus' (Gal. 1.16).
177Et haec duo vocabula, Gratia et Pax, complectuntur universum Christianismum. Gratia remittit peccatum, Pax quietat conscientiam. WA 40a.72.28-73.11, on Gal. 1.3.
178Maneo in sententia Paulum Galatis optare Deum propitium et deinde omnia prospera. Quandoquidem ex benevolentia Dei nobis fluit rerum omnium foelix successus. COR 16.14, on Gal. 1.3.
179Sed: tradidit. Quid? Non aurum, non argentum, non pecudes, non agnos paschales, non Angelum, Sed Semetipsum. Pro quo? non pro corona, non pro Regno, non pro sanctitate aut iustitia nostra, Sed pro peccatis nostris. ... Ideo singula verba sunt diligentissime consideranda, non frigide inspicienda et percurrenda, Quia mirabiliter consolantur et confirmant pavida corda. WA 40a.83.16-19, 20-22, on Gal.
180Neque exigue res significatur his verbis: 'Qui semetipsum propeccatis nostris dedit'. Praemonere enim Galatas voluit peccatorum expiationem et hac ratione perfectam iustitiam non alibi quaerendam esse quam in Christo. COR 16.15, on Gal. 1.4.
181COR 16.18, on Gal. 1.7.
182WA 40a.114.12-21, on Gal. 1.7.
183Sic in prima statim voce erumpit ei tota causa, de qua in hac epistola agit. Agit autem de Resurrectione Christi qui propter nostram iustitiam. WA 40a.65.10-11, on Gal. 1.1.
184Ergo plus dignitatis habet Pauli vocatio, quam si a Christo adhuc mortali fuisset ordinatus. COR 16.13, on Gal. 1.1. other hand, Calvin is succinct, and having made brief exegetical comments states that Paul resolved to preach the Saviour, relying on the authority of God alone.185
Luther, for his part, interprets the reference in the verse to the revealing of God's Son ('ut revelaret Filium suum in me'), as an allusion to the gospel.186
Therefore, it becomes apparent that while Calvin perhaps might be seen as having stayed closer to the situation of the text of Galatians in Gal. 1.1 and 1.16, in case of the three other verses (Gal. 1.3-4, 1.7) both Luther and Calvin explicitly deal with the subject of faith, contrary to Parker's claim.
Further, Parker posits that in his comments on Gal. 2.16 and 21, Luther allows his own polemic situation to guide the interpretation in that Luther
'launches into an attack'187 against the scholastic idea of congruous and condign merit (meritum de congruo, meritum de condigno).188 Comparing Luther's comments on these verses with Calvin, it may be granted Luther's theological discussion on Gal. 2.16 is lengthy.189 Nevertheless, in the course of his comments on Gal. 2.16 and 21, Calvin also comes to an application of his own polemic situation with the papists three separate times. He impugns the notion of justification by faith plus works (v. 16),190 overthrows the papists' claim that Paul only discusses the ceremonial law (as against the whole law) (v. 21)191 and controverts the papists' idea of condign merit192 (on v. 21).
Some of Parker's comments on Luther seem warranted, however.
For instance on Gal. 2.6, commenting on Paul's reference to God's impartiality, 185COR 16.16-17, on Gal. 1.16. COR 16 erroneously starts Gal. 1.17 only at the biblical phrase Sed abii in Arabiam. The correct place to start Gal. 1.17 would be at the biblical phrase Neque redii Ierosolymam.
Compare COR 16.24 and COR 16.27, on Gal. 1.17.
186WA 40a.140.31-142.22, on Gal. 1.16.
188The scholastic theologians differentiated between meritum de congruo and meritum de condigno. The former refers to God's granting merit to good works done before the receiving of divine grace, outside the state of grace, while the latter refers to God's granting merit to good works done in cooperation with divine grace, in a state of grace. Good works done before the receiving of divine grace are regarded by God as worthy of merit in that God looks favourably upon the good intention of their performer while the latter, good works done in the state of grace, are meritorious in fact. For more information, see McGrath
1998: 397. See also chapters 7 and 10 of the same work.
189Luther devotes thirty pages for his comment on Gal. 2.16. See WA 40a.217.27-246.28, on Gal. 2.16.
Calvin, on the other hand, is significantly lengthier on Gal. 2.15, where he discusses justification by faith as against righteousness by works. See COR 16.47-50, on Gal. 2.15. It would be possible to find examples of particular phrases, too, where Calvin's theological comment also proportionately exceeds that of Luther, such as on 'qui me segregaverat ab utera matris meae', Gal. 1.15. Compare COR 16.2526, on Gal. 1.15 with WA 40a.139.24-140.24, on Gal. 1.15.
190COR 16.51-52, on Gal. 2.16.
191COR 16.57, on Gal. 2.21.
192Calvin does not explicitly mention the notion of meritum de condigno in the passage. It is clear that this is in view, however, as he addresses the issue of merit as the opportunity of meriting in response to Christ's first grace. In this instance, Calvin points out that the papists' idea of merit cannot be accepted because one ought not to add even one drop of righteousness deriving from one's own works to that of Christ's righteousness. See COR 16.58, on Gal. 2.21.
Luther does seem to exceed the meaning of the text in that he applies the text to the issue of larva Dei, the veils of God.193 In a number of other cases, however, it appears that Luther, as Bluhm might put it,194 has thought the thoughts of Paul creatively together with him, rather than just deduced the minimum scope of meaning covered in the verse. In many instances, therefore, it seems that Parker's polarization of the two reformers' interpretation ends up giving a somewhat exaggerated representation of their differences.
On the basis of the above discussion on the varying methods of interpretation of the reformers, it seems that three interrelated considerations ought to be borne in mind. 1) Both Luther and Calvin identify justification as the main theme of the epistle, and both expound additional important theological themes as well. As Calvin is so brief, however, (as if the commentary is providing the material for a fuller exposition, such as a sermon),195 there are a few occasions where it may be difficult to describe his presentation of certain minor concepts only on the basis of his Galatians. 2) Therefore, it is important to take Calvin's Institutes into consideration for a fuller exposition of his ideas on these instances.196 Luther, on the other hand, expounds his theological ideas at length. While Luther's other works are important for the correlation of the analysis of his theology, the theology of his
Galatians stands more on its own than that of Calvin's Galatians. 3) It would be inappropriate to leave one with the impression that Luther, being more 'subjective', ends up with 'digressions' from the themes of Galatians, as Parker suggests, whereas
193Luther sees the creation as a mask of God in that His person should be dissociated from it. Humans might easily think that their daily food, for instance, is what sustains them, but in reality the food, together with all creation, is God's mask, that is, something given by God for human keeping. Similarly, in society, positions are masks given by God. They should not be honoured as divine, but recognized as given by Him for human benefit. The connection Luther maintains with God's impartiality mentioned by Paul on Gal. 2.6 is that humans tend to pay attention to the outward positions (to God's masks – larva
Dei), whereas God does not, being impartial. Thus, there is a connection, but Luther takes it quite far, as Parker also argues. See WA 40a.173.24-179.19, on Gal. 2.6 and Parker 1963: 66.
194Bluhm comments on Luther's translation of the text of Galatians into German. In a number of places, where Luther does not stay strictly linguistically faithful to the Greek original, Bluhm nonetheless applauds Luther's rendering into idiomatic German as having conveyed the meaning intended by Paul better than a more linguistically accurate translation of the Greek original would have done. Thus Luther has become a 'co-author' with Paul, Bluhm argues. See e.g. Bluhm 1983: 467.
195This is connected to the fact that Calvin's commentaries were intended to be used by future pastors.
See e.g. Zachman 2003: 482.
196One illustration of this may be seen in the instance in Galatians where Calvin alludes to certain fanatics who held a view according to which the Old Testament patriarchs only prefigured God's people, an idea which is discussed in more detail in Calvin's Institutes 1543/45. Compare COR 16.90, on Gal.
4.1 with CO 1.11.1. See section 2.4.3.2. for further discussion. Calvin's sermons on Galatians from 1557-58 also give further helpful material for trying to determine the meaning of Calvin on aspects of theological concepts in his commentary on Galatians, although it must be borne in mind that the sermons were preached more than ten years after the writing of the commentary. Nevertheless, it became evident that the major themes of Calvin's Galatians were expounded in sufficient detail for the purposes of this study.
Calvin is 'firm' and stays with the 'true sense' of the text.197 There is a difference in emphasis, but not in the carefulness of analysis. The purpose of this paper, of course, is to analyse the ideas of Luther's and Calvin's Galatians, and not the validity of their exegesis. For the comparability of the two commentaries, however, it is important to bear in mind that both reformers' Galatians are the result of extensive grappling with Scripture and careful work on the themes of Galatians.
2.4. General Remarks on Preceding and Contemporary Theologians and Commentators on Galatians in Luther's and Calvin's Commentaries on The purpose of this section is briefly to make note of Luther's and Calvin's relationship to commentators of Galatians and theologians, who have either preceded them or were contemporaneous with them. This will serve to introduce succinctly introduce some aspects of how Luther and Calvin, in their Galatians, relate to the thought of preceding and contemporary theologians / commentators.
It appears important to outline a few aspects of the purpose and approach of this section. The study here is limited to examining those instances where Luther and Calvin explicitly mention a specific group, commentator or theologian. This approach has been chosen despite the fact that it is recognized that Luther and Calvin undoubtedly used some sources which they do not explicitly cite, especially when the writers were of a recent or contemporary period.198 Feld, for instance, points to Bullinger's influence on Calvin in his introduction to Calvin's commentaries on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, whom Calvin never names.199 The reason for limiting the study here to explicit citations is primarily brevity. It appeared better to create certain limits for the examination, since the main focus of this study is on the substantial concepts of Luther's and Calvin's Galatians, treated in chapters 4 to 6. Thus the focus here is on the use by Luther and Calvin of the various commentators and their views, not influence.200
While the question of how much Luther and Calvin had been influenced by their 197See Parker 1963: 68-69, 74.
198Thus indirect allusions to persons and groups, which are also present in the commentaries, are not here taken into account for purposes of brevity and focus. However, at the same time it is recognized that influence by other theologians / commentators is not limited only to those instances where Luther or Calvin explicitly mention a certain person or group by name.
199See Feld 1992: xxiv.
200Thus this study falls into the second category of the type of studies made regarding the relationship of Luther / Calvin to their contemporaries / predecessors. Lane summarises the three different types of studies regarding Calvin. 1) There are studies which compare two persons (e.g. Calvin and Aquinas) without any concern for the knowledge of the later person of the other, the type of studies which are usually made for ecumenical vs. polemical purposes. 2) Some studies focus on the use Calvin makes of his predecessors, while 3) others attempt to determine the influence of the earlier person on Calvin. See preceding and contemporary theologians for their Galatians is interesting, it is at the same time a many-faceted and complicated query, which would deserve an exhaustive study of its own. At the same time, as the question of Luther's and Calvin's use of their predecessors and contemporaries cannot always fully be separated from the question of influence, it seems in place to further highlight a caution made by A.N.S. Lane. Lane sees it advisable, even in a study investigating influence, to commence with an examination of direct citations because without some kind of objective framework it is all too easy for studies to 'degenerate to a subjective search for parallels'.201
In preparation for this section, all the references Luther and Calvin make to the examined groups were analysed. However, as the quotations are in some cases numerous, especially in Luther, only the more frequently discussed issues are addressed.
It is hoped that this section can on the one hand help in recognizing that Luther and Calvin were responding to other writers / theologians and on the other, to provide a kind of introduction to the substantial concepts of Luther's and Calvin's Galatians discussed in the central chapters of this study (chapters 4-6).
The most frequent polemic in both Luther's and Calvin's commentaries is against papal teachings and in Luther's Galatians against Anabaptist ideas as well. On a few occasions, Luther makes reference to Sacramentarians, a term under which Luther at a later stage came to include Calvin as well. The statements on Sacramentarians are not analysed in any more detail in this section. Luther's relationship to Sacramentarians and their teachings has been briefly addressed in the section on the historical background of the commentary
(section 2.1) and is again briefly discussed in reference to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper in section 4.7.4.202
It was interesting to note that, apart from his comments on the papacy, Calvin most often alludes to the patristic commentators of Galatians while
Luther more frequently relates his thought to mediaeval theologians and monks, presumably reflecting respectively, Calvin's humanist education and Luther's monastic background. Also, Luther's references most often relate to theological issues, while Calvin's comments are most often exegetical. The focus here, however, is on the theological aspects of the two reformers' comment.
There are comparatively few references made to contemporary theologians in Luther's and Calvin's commentaries - only Erasmus is specifically mentioned by each. The interesting question of Luther's possible influence on 201Lane 1999: 10. Even a direct quote does not necessarily prove influence, since Calvin and other reformers of the time often made their citations in order to refer to someone who had authority for their readers, rather than in trying to show whose works they had used as a source. It would not have made as much sense to quote Bucer (or Bullinger) when they would be rejected as readily by some readers as would Calvin. Augustine, for instance, was on the other hand respected by many at the time. See Lane
202See also footnote 280 under section 2.4.3.
Calvin is discussed in the part dealing with Luther's and Calvin's relationship to their contemporary theologians.
2.4.1. Luther and Calvin on Patristic Commentators on Galatians Both Luther and Calvin occasionally relate their discussion to patristic commentators of Galatians.203 Most often, including Calvin (whose comment often includes exegetical aspects), there is some bearing on theological issues in their comments. Luther refers most often to Jerome,204 with some additional allusions to 203The relationship of the theology of Luther's and Calvin's commentaries on Galatians to the thought of patristic commentators would deserve a full study of its own. Both Luther and Calvin had been influenced by various patristic commentators, and that is why further research would be needed to delineate the way in which their commentaries on Galatians reflect patristic thought. However, as the focus of this study is on a comparison of significant themes in Luther's and Calvin's Galatians, and as there are also other groups of theologians and individual commentators who are significant in Luther's and Calvin's commentaries (such as papists, monks, scholastics, Anabaptists, Erasmus), it seemed preferable to aim at brevity in this section. That is why it appeared best to focus only on those instances where Luther and Calvin explicitly mention patristic commentators despite the fact that the influence of patristic commentators on the two reformers is not to be seen as limited to the instances where they are explicitly named.
204It is known that Jerome relied largely upon Origen's commentary on Galatians. It would be an interesting study to examine how much Luther's and Calvin's comments relating to Jerome therefore rather reflects what Origen said. This is made difficult however by the fact that Origen's original expositions of the epistle are almost completely lost. See Margaret A. Schatkin's study, The Influence of Origen upon St. Jerome's Commentary on Galatians, (1970) pp. 49-58 for further information.
Another noteworthy issue relating to Jerome's commentary on Galatians is the fact that Pelagius' commentary on Galatians was sometimes falsely attributed to Jerome during the Reformation. It is also notable that it appears very likely that Pelagius had used Jerome's commentary on Galatians in preparation for his. See Souter 1927: 228. In order to verify whether Luther's and Calvin's references to Jerome relate to Jerome's or Pelagius' commentary, two references of Luther (on Gal. 1.17 and 1.18-19) and two references of Calvin (on Gal. 1.19 and 4.25) to Jerome's commentary were compared both to Pelagius' and Jerome's commentaries on Galatians. Luther's references are considered first. Luther's first reference alludes to Jerome's discussion of what Paul actually did in Arabia. Frustra igitur quaerit Hieronymus, quid in Arabia Paulus fecerit. WA 40a.144.13-14, on Gal. 1.17. Pelagius' comment on this verse, Gal. 1.17, is very brief (his whole commentary on Galatians is only eighteen pages long – see PLS 1.1271-1288). The whole of Pelagius' comment on Gal. 1.17 reads, [Quia non mihi necesse fuit] ut ab illis [aliquid] edocerer, sed Damasco in Arabiam protinus iui, ut docerem quod mihi [a deo] [fu]terat reuelatum. PLS 1.1273, on Gal. 1.17. Jerome, on the other hand, comments on the verse with an exposition of two pages, giving close attention to Paul's visit in Arabia. PL 26.352-354, on Gal.
1.17. Thus Luther's comment that it is unnecessary for Jerome to question what Paul did in Arabia, appears to refer really to Jerome. Again, there is nothing in Pelagius in his comment on Gal. 1.18 to warrant Luther's negative reference to Jerome's discussion of the allegorical meaning of the fifteen days referred to in Gal. 1.15. See WA 40a.148.16-17, on Gal. 1.18-19. See PLS 1.1273, on Gal. 1.18. Jerome, by way of contrast, discusses the allegorical meaning of the fifteen days, which makes Luther's reference to him understandable. Jerome states, for instance, 'Tamen non abs re arbitror quindecim dies, quibus apud Petrum Paulus habitavit, plenam significare scientiam, consummatamque doctrinam.' PL 26.354, on Gal. 1.18. Thus, it becomes clear that Luther refers, and correctly so, to Jerome, not Pelagius, in his
Two of Calvin's references to Jerome, on Gal. 1.19 and 4.25, are now considered in order to ascertain whether Calvin, as well as Luther, refers to Jerome rather than Pelagius. In his comment on Gal. 1.19, Calvin refers to Jerome's view on the meaning of the word apostle (apostolis).
Augustine and Origen, while Calvin mostly discusses the positions of Chrysostom, Jerome and Origen with two additional references to Augustin and Ambrose.205
Interestingly, Luther does not refer to Chrysostom or Ambrose' comments on Galatians at all in his commentary, although he had used them both evidenced by his references to them in his earlier commentary on Galatians (1519).206 This may be due to the fact that his focus was now different from his commentary of 1519, where he had devoted a significant proportion of the analysis to correct renderings of particular phrases and to exegesis, and where he had also referred to other commentators more frequently than in the commentary of 1531/35.
It may be in place to note that as the focus of this section is on Luther's and Calvin's theological use of the patristic commentators of Galatians, the teachings of these church fathers are delineated below based on how Luther and Calvin refer to their views, and therefore not on how these issues are actually presented in the original sources. While Luther's and Calvin's portrayals of the church fathers' views may be seen as good indicators of the latters' position, it is at the same time recognized that the views of the patristic commentators may be more
COR 16.28, on Gal. 1.19. Pelagius' exposition of two sentences on Gal. 1.19 gives no convincing grounds to assume Calvin is referring to him. Jerome's careful consideration of the scope of meaning of the term apostle (apostolis), by way of contrast, does seem to warrant Calvin's reference. Compare PLS
1.1273, on Gal. 1.19 (Pelagius) with PL 26.354-356, on Gal. 1.19 (Jerome). Further, Calvin's reference to two variant meanings for mount Sinai discussed by Jerome (COR 16.109, on Gal. 4.25) does not connect at all to the whole comment of Pelagius on Gal. 4.25, namely, 'De qualitatibus locorum uult intellegi diuersitatem testamentorum', while Jerome, by way of contrast, gives close attention to the meaning of the name 'mount Sinai' (monte Sina). Compare PLS 1.1282, on Gal. 4.25 (Pelagius) with PL
26.417, on Gal. 4.25 (Jerome). Thus it is evident that Calvin, too, refers to the real Jerome, not Pelagius.
205Luther refers to Jerome on 34 occasions, Augustine on 14, Origen on 4 and Ambrose on 3. Calvin alludes to Chrysostom and Jerome 8 times, Origen 5 and Augustine and Ambrose twice. The mention of a specific commentator in a certain context is counted as one, although the name would appear several times in the same context. See the table in Appendix 3 for further detail. It needs to be borne in mind that Ambrosiaster's work was thought to have been written by Ambrose (bishop of Milan) until the time of Erasmus and the Reformation. Ambrosiaster's exact identity is not known, although he wrote commentaries on all the epistles of Paul. See Wiles 1967: 11-12 for further detail. Ambrose did not write any commentary on Galatians (see Dekkers, Clavis Patrvm Latinorvm, 123-168 [pp. 21-27, see also pp.
407-408] for an exhaustive listing of Ambrose' works), which indicates that Calvin's references to Ambrose' commentary on Galatians were falsely attributed to the bishop of Milan and represent instead references to Ambrosiaster's commentary instead. The same is recognized in COR 16 by editor Helmut
Feld, who includes references to Ambrosiaster's commentary on Galatians in the apparatus of COR 16 in those instances where Calvin (mistakenly) alludes to Ambrose. For the references to Ambrosiaster's work, see COR 16.36 and COR 16.110. (Luther alludes to Ambrose thrice but all of his references describe his life, not Ambrose' commentary on Galatians). Steinmetz gives an example of Bucer having alluded to Ambrosiaster as Ambrose as well. See Steinmetz 1990: 113. Notably, Lane's exhaustive listing of patristic sources Calvin used in his 1559 Institutio also includes Ambrosiaster's Commentarius in epistolas Pauli. See Lane 1999: 55.
206Luther mentions Ambrose on three occasions in his commentary on Galatians of 1535. None of these references, however, alludes to Ambrose' comments on Galatians. In his commentary on Galatians of 1519, on the other hand, Luther refers to Chrysostom's commentary on Galatians once and to Ambrose' commentary over ten times. To be exact, Luther's references in his 1519 commentary relate in fact to Ambrosiaster's commentary on Galatians, not Ambrose'. See Wiles 1967: 11-12 and the footnote above. multi-faceted and nuanced than can be gathered from Luther's and Calvin's brief descriptions.207
Luther's and Calvin's references to patristic commentators on Galatians are treated together in this section, since both reformers often allude to the patristic commentators in a similar manner (for example, by coupling two of the commentators they refer to together regarding a certain issue) and because the issues dealt with are similar. Despite the relatively small number of references to the patristic commentators, it became evident that these allusions display important aspects of what Luther's and Calvin's positions were in relation to the thoughts of the church fathers. All the main subjects addressed in Luther's and Calvin's explicit comments on the patristic commentators are briefly outlined below, despite the fact that some of the issues these statements address (such as the ones on Paul's reproach of Peter and the interpretation of Scripture) were not seen as most central in the whole argumentation of the commentaries in chapters 4 to 6.
It is interesting to note that both Luther and Calvin highlight similar issues when addressing the views of the patristic commentators. There seem to be around five main subjects on which Luther and Calvin refer to the church fathers, three or four of which are shared by both. The five main subjects include the explanation of Paul's critique of Peter, the definition of the law in Galatians, justification, the interpretation of Scripture and issues dealing with good works and works of the flesh (Gal. 5.19-21) in Christian life. To avoid repetition the references are ordered thematically instead of dealing with each commentator individually to avoid repetition.
According to Jerome and Chrysostom, as Calvin pinpoints, Paul's critique of Peter (when he refused to eat with Gentiles) was a previously arranged debate. Jerome and Chrysostom could not square Peter's high position in the early
Christian church with the possibility of his having erred and could not accept the fact that Paul would have reproached Peter, the leader of the church, publicly.208
Augustine, by way of contrast, was of the opinion that Peter had sinned and was deserving of the rebuke Paul administered. Both Luther and Calvin take the side of Augustine and affirm that Peter's action (of refusing to eat with the Gentile
207Steinmetz, in his study of Calvin's comment on patristic commentators on Romans 8.1-11, gives an example of Calvin's reference to Origen regarding the relationship of the law and ceremonies to justification, where, while Calvin is truthful in general terms, he does not describe in sufficient detail the 'much more finely nuanced argument in Origen'. Steinmetz 1990: 112. Luther, for his part, has been shown to have been less precise than Calvin in his quotations of Bernard (of Clairvaux), probably applicable also to Luther's references to patristic authors. See Bell 1999: 381. However, this is not to be taken to indicate that Luther alludes to them haphazardly. Instead, Luther's, and at times Calvin's references do not always fulfil the requirements modern authors would place on accurate referencing.
The reformers did not always have the exact sources at hand and had to quote from memory, which explains many of the inaccuracies. Compare Bell 1999, Steinmetz 1990: 112-114 and Lane 1999: 52-54.
208Peter's position as the leader of the church and his being above the possibility of falling vs. his having erred, has implications for papal authority as the successor of Peter. See COR 16.43-44, on Gal. 2.11 and WA 40a.186.15-187.15, on Gal. 2.7-9. believers) was an imposed observance, which would endanger the purity of the doctrine of justification (Luther) and Christian liberty (Calvin).209 Luther further adds a comment specific to him, namely, that Peter's fall indicates that even the holiest persons such as Peter and David could fall into sin, which, in turn, is a comfort for believers in the present day.210
The definition of the law in Galatians is a prevalent consideration in Luther's and Calvin's comments on the views of the patristic commentators, especially as it relates to whether ceremonial observances of the Old Testament are free or necessary for Christians. Origen and Jerome both maintained that the law discussed in Galatians is the ceremonial law, an interpretation in which they were followed by the mediaeval Catholic church. Origen and Jerome further argued that ceremonial observances had been useful before Christ, but that after Christ's coming they had become fatal, while they at the same time asserted the continuing and binding character of the moral law, the Decalogue. Both Calvin and Luther sharply disagree with Origen and Jerome211 and affirm that Paul discusses the whole law including the moral law, not only ceremonies.212 Luther and Calvin maintain that ceremonial observances could not be considered alone, because they had been connected to the issue of justification, both in Galatia and in the contemporary papal church. Neither moral law nor ceremonial observances could assist in any way toward justification, which is received freely (Calvin) and by faith alone (Luther).213
There are a few further interesting comments of Luther and Calvin on patristic commentators in relation to the doctrine of justification. Luther affirms that while Augustine understood the important distinction between the law and the gospel to some extent, Jerome did not comprehend the distinction at all.214 Jerome did not understand the doctrine of justification either, which led to the fact that he could not distinguish between two kinds of doers of the law, the ones who 209See WA 40a.191.31-195.21 and COR 16.43-44, both on Gal. 2.11.
210See WA 40a.195.22-198.17, on 2.11.
211See WA 40a.216.18-217.25, on Gal. 2.15, WA 40a.302.18-26, on Gal. 2.21 and COR 16.49-50, on Gal. 2.15. See also WA 40a.430.19-26, on Gal. 3.12. Luther further maintains that in his failure to understand the nature of the relationship between ceremonies and justification on the one hand, and between the ceremonial law and the moral law on the other, Jerome loses the meaning of the whole epistle. See WA 40a.200.13-201.28, on Gal. 2.12.
212Luther adds on Augustine that while he did not have the correct understanding on ceremonies at first, later, because of the controversy with the Pelagians, he came to see clearly that ceremonial observances ought not to be used in order to attain justification. See WA 40a.623.16-29, on Gal. 4.10.
213Luther further affirms that if eating certain foods came to be regarded as connected to justification, which was implied by Peter's refusal to eat with the Gentiles, one would risk losing Christ and return to Judaism (WA 40a.200.18-201.13, on Gal. 2.12). Calvin, for his part, maintains that ceremonies are acceptable when they are used for edification only, and Christian liberty is left intact (COR 16.46-47, on Gal. 2.14). It may be in place to note here that Luther and Calvin both agree that justification is free and by faith alone. See sections 4.1. and 5.1. for further discussion and references.
214De hoc Legis et Evangelii discrimine nihil invenis in libris Monachorum, Canonistarum, Theologorum Recentium et Veterum. Augustinus aliqua ex parte illud tenuit ac ostendit. Hieronymus et similes prorsus ignorarunt. WA 40a.496.21-24, on Gal. 3.19. performed good works on the basis of faith from those performing them in order to attain justification.215 Calvin, for his part, alludes to Chrysostom's paraphrase of Gal. 2.17. Calvin does not outright disagree with Chrysostom and those who follow him in this instance (Chrysostom also argued against righteousness of the law here), but nevertheless sees a different point at issue. Calvin argues on the basis of this verse that the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, had the same disease of depravity and sinfulness as all others and needed grace and faith for salvation in the same way as all others did.216 In this instance Calvin demonstrates a less polemical approach to the church fathers than Luther does.
A further subject on which Luther and Calvin relate their thought to patristic commentators is that of the interpretation of Scripture. Luther and Calvin both criticize the allegorical interpretation of Origen and Jerome.217 Luther asserts that Origen and Jerome deserve critique because they had interpreted scriptural passages allegorically in a number of places where this was wholly uncalled for.218
215Luther believes that here Jerome had been deceived by 'his precious Origen'. Ne deliremus cum Hieronymo, qui deceptus per suum Origenem prorsus nihil in Paulo intellexit. Uterque inspexit eum quasi civilem legistam. Num omnes, inquit Hieronymus, Patriarchae sunt maledicti, qui circumcisi, sacrificaverunt et servarunt legem? Sic sine iudicio irruit in Paulum, non faciens discrimen inter factores legis veros, fide iustificatos, et inter operatores qui sunt ex operibus legis. WA 40a.430.21-26, on Gal.
3.12. See also WA 40a.392.19-393.20, 396.26-397.20, on Gal. 3.10.
216COR 16.52-53, on Gal. 2.17.
217WA 40a.653.14-20, on Gal. 4.21. Calvin does not name Jerome explicitly, but instead refers to Origen and other interpreters. See COR 16.106-107, on Gal. 4.22. Erikson also draws attention to Luther's view in his Galatians that Jerome and Origen had gone astray in their allegorical interpretations, 'Den som sysslar med den [allegoriska bibeltolkningen] måste enligt Luther ha en fullständig kännedom om den kristna läran för att det inte skall gå snett som det gjorde för både Origenes och Hieronymus.' Erikson
218WA 40a.653.14-20, on Gal. 4.21. One example of these is Jerome's interpretation of Paul's stay of fifteen days with Peter as an indication of the fact that Peter inducted Paul into the mysteries of the Ogdoad and the Hebdoad. See WA 40a.148.16-23, on Gal. 1.19. Luther also argues that Origen and Jerome teach about law and works with their allegories, while Paul, in contrast to them, teaches about faith and Christ, illustrated in his allegory about Hagar and Sarah. In the same passage, it becomes evident that Luther did not outright reject allegorical interpretation as Calvin did, although Luther, too, saw that generally speaking it is inadvisable to use allegorical interpretations on scriptural passages. Only those who are well established in pure gospel doctrine have the skill to use them appropriately. Fuit autem Paulus optimus artifex tractandi Allegorias, referre enim eas solet ad doctrinam fidei, ad gratiam et ad Christum, non ad legem et opera, ut Origenes et Hieronymus. Hi, quia simplicissimas sententias scripturae, in quibus Allegoriae locum non habent, verterunt in Allegorias inconcinnas et ineptas, iure reprehenduntur. Itaque imitatio tractandarum Allegoriarum infelix est et plerumque etiam periculosa.
Nam nisi quis perfectam cognitionem doctrinae Christianae habeat, non feliciter tractabit Allegorias. WA 40a.653.14-20, on Gal. 4.21. See also Maschke 1997: 25-29 for a study on the development of Luther's approach to allegory. Maschke states on Luther's view on allegory, 'Because St. Paul utilised allegory, it could not be forbidden. Yet Luther came to understand Paul's use of allegory in a new light as he studied
Paul himself. Paul did not create haphazardly any image that he deemed necessary to make his point. The allegories of Paul were always pointing in some way to Christ and the truth of the gospel. Pauline allegories were useful for the weak so that they could enjoy and appreciate the truth revealed in Scripture, especially the gospel of full and free forgiveness. Luther re-emphasized the necessity of Calvin, for his part, argues that a departure from the clear meaning of Scripture in the hypothetical allegories of Origen is Satan's strategy to deprive Scripture of its benefit and authority.219 Luther further wonders why Jerome makes such mighty efforts to give an orderly and precise account of the history of Paul's activities (such as what he did during the three years in Arabia) as if 'every single day' had to be outlined.220 It is the teaching that is important – the biblical writers only gave short examples of the historical events they referred to.221 There is also an instance where
Calvin agrees with Chrysostom on the interpretation of Scripture, namely, where Chrysostom remarks on Paul's allegory on Sarah and Hagar (Gal. 4.21-31) that Paul in this instance uses a figure of speech. Nevertheless, Calvin sees even this as grounded in the literal, plain meaning of Scripture.222
Another recurring theme concerning which Luther occasionally alludes to the patristic commentators is that of good works in general and the works of the flesh in Gal. 5.19-21 in particular. It is in this area that Luther's agreements with Jerome are found.223 For instance, Luther sees eye to eye with both Jerome and Augustine on the danger of pride and praise, approves of Jerome's recommendation of love instead of ceremonial observances and refers respectfully to Jerome's admission that despite his staying in the desert and fasting he was not freed from cautiously using allegory correctly and biblically as an illustrative resource for the Christian faith and life.' Maschke 1997: 29.
219Calvin further maintains it is a misfortune when allegories are preferred to solid doctrine - instead, one ought to remain with the riches found from the literal, plain meaning of Scripture. See COR 16.106-107, on Gal. 4.22. See section 5.6.6. for further discussion and references.
220Hieronymus hic sudat et dicit Lucam in Actis nihil scribere de profectione Pauli in Arabiam; Quasi necesse sit singularum dierum res gestas et opera scribere, cum hoc impossibile sit. Sufficiat nos habere particulas et summam aliquam historiarum ex quibus exempla et instructionem habere possumus. WA
40a.136.15-19, on Gal. 1.15-17.
221WA 40a.136.15-19, See also WA 40a.144.13-15 on Gal. 1.17. Luther affirms that the histories in Scripture are often 'concise and confused' (concisae et confusae) and explains that such is the case, for instance, in the accounts of Christ's passion and the denials of Peter. In the discussed instance (on Christ's revelation of the gospel to Paul, Gal. 1.11-12) Paul also does not account for the entire history since his attention is on another issue, namely, on the authority of the true gospel which he received from Christ, and that is why it is useless for Jerome to attempt to harmonize the historical chronology. See
WA 40a.126.15-32, on Gal. 1.11-12. Luther further comments on a perceived mistake in the grammar of Gal. 2.6 and, agreeing with Augustine, notes that even the greatest orators occasionally break the rules of grammar. This, however, is by no means a negation of the fact that the Spirit had inspired Paul in writing the epistle. He states, Condonandum est autem Spirituisancto in Paulo loquenti, si peccet aliquando in grammaticam. Ipse magno ardore loquitur; qui vero ardet, non potest adeo exacte in dicendo observare regulas grammaticas et praecepta rhetorica. WA 40a.170.25-28, on Gal. 2.6. See the whole passage in WA 40a.170.25-171.14, on Gal. 2.6.
222Calvin states, 'Et certe Chrysostomus in vocabulo allegoriae fatetur esse catachresin.' COR 16.107, on Gal. 4.22. See also the preceding discussion on Gal. 4.22 in COR 16.107, on Gal. 4.22.
223Luther disagrees with Jerome (and Origen) on those theological issues of Galatians, which Luther considers as central, namely the subjects of justification, the law and the correct definition of what constitutes human flesh. See this section, both above and below, for references. sexual desires and other desires of the flesh.224 However, he disagrees with Jerome's recommendation of what he (Luther) sees as belonging to 'unnatural saints'
(monstrosis illis Sanctis), of living in the desert as a sign of one's holiness. True holiness, Luther affirms, is passive, found in Christ, in faith, the Word and the sacraments.225 Thus Augustine and Ambrose, who chose to live among people instead, comforting them with God's Word, set the right kind of example.226
There are a number of additional references to specific patristic commentators. For instance, Calvin refers to Chrysostom's paraphrase on Gal. 5.12, according to which Paul wished that the false apostles were 'cut off entirely'
(prorsus abscindi) since they were destroying the church by insisting on circumcision. Calvin wonders how this can be consistent with the 'mildness of an apostle' (mansuetudini apostolicae), but nonetheless maintains that at times true believers ascend above the consideration of human benefit and think first of all of God's glory.227 Luther, for his part, affirms that the thorn in Paul's flesh
(tentationem meam in carne mea) refers to the persecutions he experienced, and not to sexual desire or a physical disease as Jerome maintains.228 Further, Luther disagrees with Jerome and the sophists who believed it necessary to defend Christ's holiness in order to tone down Paul's statement of Christ having become 'a curse for us' (pro nobis maledictum).229 Luther, by way of contrast, sees the fact that Christ has become 'a curse for us' as a great comfort and asserts that Christ, though holy in himself, serves humans in becoming their slave by taking their sin on himself.230 There is also a positive note on Jerome, however, which affirms that at the moment of his death Jerome trusted only in Christ's merits.231 In reference to Augustine, on the other hand, Luther applauds Augustine's affirmation of the fact that believers know when they truly have faith, a view which is in contrast with the position of the papal church requiring uncertainty regarding one's salvation.232
In their theological references to patristic commentators, there are many similarities between Luther and Calvin. It transpires that both Luther and Calvin most often refer to patristic commentators in places where they disagree with them, especially in relation to Origen and Jerome. Therefore, Lane's suggestion that 224See WA 40b.130.12-22, on Gal. 5.25, WA 40b.68.33-69.15, on Gal. 5.14 and WA 40b.86.27-87.23,
115.29-36 on Gal. 5.16, 21.
225WA 40b.103.12-28, on Gal. 5.19.
226See WA 40b.104.30-105.22, on Gal. 5.19.
227Calvin further maintains that true believers would rather have the whole world perish than that any part of God's glory would be removed. Ita fit, ut in gloriam Dei promovendam intenti fideles mundi et hominum obliviscantur, ideoque malint totum mundum interire quam decedere aliquid gloriae Dei. COR
16.124, on Gal. 5.12.
228WA 40a.634.13-635.11, on Gal. 4.13-14.
229WA 40a.432.20-433.13, on Gal. 3.13.
230WA 40a.433.14-434.22, on Gal. 3.13.
231WA 40b.107.18-21, on Gal. 5.19.
232WA 40a.575.24-27, on Gal. 4.6.
Calvin (applicable to some extent to Luther, too) primarily cites the church fathers as a polemical defence for his own position, does not appear to hold true for the majority of references in the commentary on Galatians.233 The rejected teachings of the church fathers include, as discussed above in more detail, justification (Luther in reference to Jerome), the definition of the law (Luther and Calvin in reference to Jerome and Origen), and allegorical interpretation (Luther and Calvin in reference to Jerome and Origen). While these particular issues could be seen as rejected for the sake of their having later become accepted by the mediaeval Catholic church, it nevertheless demonstrates that Luther's and Calvin's acceptance / rejection of patristic views depends largely also on the subjects at issue.
Augustine, not surprisingly, is the church father with whom both Luther and Calvin generally agree (though Calvin only refers to him once theologically).234 Nevertheless, Augustine is not the church father to whom Luther and Calvin refer to the most often. Chrysostom, (not mentioned by Luther at all), documented to have been of special importance to Calvin by Ganoczy and Müller,235 appears to be a preferred church father to comment on in Calvin's
Galatians, too. Jerome is by far the most often discussed patristic commentator for Luther, though Luther disagrees with him proportionately much more often236 than does Calvin with Chrysostom.237
It appears therefore that perhaps David Steinmetz' view that for Calvin (and applies undoubtedly for Luther, too), the church fathers were partners for conversation, rather than authorities to appeal to, emerges as the more fitting description of the way Calvin (and Luther) generally refer to them in their
233Lane states, 'His [Calvin's] concern was not to present a balanced and objective account of the fathers but to cite them in his support. This may distinguish Calvin from present-day scholarship; it did not distinguish him from his contemporaries. … He was not seeking to give a balanced detached assessment of the fathers, but was appealing to them for support.' See Lane 1999: 53. See also Lane 1999: 3, 53-54.
234For a study on the relationship of Calvin's exegetical works to Augustine, see e.g. Besse 1960.
235Ganoczy and Müller state, 'Unübersehbar steht also das exegetische Interesse im Vordergrund; Cavlin bewundert die Lauterkeit und Unverfälschtheit der Schriftauslegung des grossen Antiocheners. Nicht zuletzt zeigt sich das auch in der häufigen Chrysostomuszitation in seinen eigenen Kommentarwerken zu den Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments.' See Ganoczy and Müller 1981: 20. Ganoczy and Müller refer especially to Calvin's own recognition Chrysostom's value in his eyes in 'Praefatio in Chrysostomi
Homilias'. See CO 8.831-838.
236Luther agrees with Jerome six times on theological issues compared to twenty-four disagreements. See Appendix 3 for more detail.
237Calvin both agrees and disagrees with Chrysostom three times in the commentary on theological issues. See Appendix 3 for more detail.
238Steinmetz states, 'Calvin regarded the interpretation of Paul as a work carried on not only in association with his contemporaries but also in conversation with the greatest interpreters of Christian antiquity'. Steinmetz 1990: 118. This is not to deny that the kind of usage Lane describes, of using patristic commentators as authorities, is also present in Luther's and Calvin's Galatians. Augustine, for instance, appears to be referred to in this way on the issue of Peter having truly sinned, for instance. See above in this section for more detail on this issue. Furthermore, it may be, as Lane's study has focused on a larger sampling of texts, that Calvin uses the church fathers as authorities more often in his other
There is yet another difference which is not so apparent in the discussion above (due to its focus on theological references) but becomes evident with one glance at the table of Luther's and Calvin's references to the church fathers in Appendix 3. Much of Calvin's discussion with the church fathers is regarding matters of exegesis while Luther's references include allusions of a homiletical nature.239 The nature of this difference has been looked at in more detail in section 2.2 and is therefore not discussed in more detail here.
It is further significant that the subjects which Luther and Calvin address in their references to the church fathers are among those which have been identified as significant to their Galatians in this study.
Moreover, it emerges that the church fathers appear more significant for Calvin's discussion than do the mediaeval commentators.
Nevertheless, even Calvin does not refer to the fathers excessively, but only on a relatively few occasions, thus indicating that his authority really lies elsewhere, in Luther, on the other hand, discusses the mediaeval commentators and groups much more frequently than the patristic commentators, which is an interesting difference in relation to Calvin. Luther's and Calvin's comments on mediaeval theologians are now briefly examined.
2.4.2. Luther and Calvin on Mediaeval Theologians It is evident especially in Luther's comments about mediaeval theologians that he discussed much of his theology in reference to their concepts and practice (though primarily in a negative sense). Moreover, in their comments both Luther and Calvin address the central themes of their respective Galatians by referring to their works. For a recent attempt to place Calvin's commentaries on Paul in their context in the history of exegesis, see Holder 2006: 245-246. Erikson, in his consideration of the significance of the church fathers to Luther, recognizes their importance to Luther (especially of Augustine) but at the same time indicates that the real authority for Luther lies in Scripture, reflecting similar concerns to those Steinmetz has with regards to Calvin. In Luther's view, the truth of Scripture could be found in a purer form in the oldest church fathers than in the later ones, however, as they stood closer in time to the Scriptures.
Erikson states, 'För Luther är det ursprungliga också det sanna. Därför är de äldsta fäderna tillförlitligare än de yngre, eftersom de förstnämnda star närmare källan, d.v.s. Skriften. Därför har dessa också bevarat evangeliets sanning bättre.' Erikson 2005: 94. For the whole context and a brief consideration of Luther
(and Melanchthon's) relationship to church tradition, see Erikson 2005: 93-97.
239This difference reflects what is discussed above in section 2.2.
240A similar point is raised by Steinmetz and Ganoczy and Müller. Steinmetz states, 'Calvin kept his pages as uncluttered as possible because it was Paul himself, not his commentators, that Calvin wanted to interpret.' Steinmetz 1990: 118. Ganoczy and Müller state (regarding Calvin's references to Chrysostom), 'Allerdings darf daraus nicht der Schluss gezogen warden, dass Calvin kritiklos die
Meinung des Chrysostomus muss sich von Calvin nochmals an der Schrift als norma Normans messen lassen, die allein massgebendes hermeneutisches Prinzip ist.' Ganoczy and Müller 1981: 20. The primary authority of Scripture, over that of the church fathers, applies also to Luther. See e.g. Erikson 2005: 93mediaeval predecessors. That is why this section also serves as a background to parts 4 to 6 of this research.
It may further be appropriate to note here that mediaeval theology is undoubtedly more important as a background to the concepts Luther had, as he had himself been an Augustinian monk and because the theology of those he now ascribed to 'sophists' (sophistae) had once been very important for him.
There are various movements / groups of thought and a number of thinkers important for the understanding of Luther's mediaeval background (and to some extent, Calvin's), including, for instance, Thomas Aquinas, Gabriel Biel,
Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians, via antiqua (realists) and via moderna (nominalists).241 However, it would sidetrack this research from its aim if an attempt were made to examine which mediaeval thinker or school of thought had influenced
Luther or Calvin the most. The interrelationship between the two reformers' theology in their Galatians and the mediaeval schools and theologians would deserve an extensive study of its own.
It is significant for the approach taken here that Luther and Calvin do not generally make a distinction between various mediaeval schools of thought in their Galatians and they usually do not name specific individuals, but instead discuss them under general headings, such as scholastics, sophists (Luther and Calvin) and monks (Luther). For the sake of simplicity and due to the focus on Luther's and Calvin's explicit views, it is seen best to limit the attention to the way
Luther and Calvin explicitly discuss their mediaeval predecessors. Nevertheless, it may be assumed that Luther is generally referring to the teachings of late scholasticism or the via moderna with the terms 'scholastics' (scholastici) and 'sophists' (sophistae).242 Monks, on the other hand, probably most often refer to those of Luther's own time.243
Despite the focus here on the use Luther and Calvin make of mediaeval theologians, not influence, it appears in place to briefly highlight some considerations relating to Luther's (and Calvin's) relationship to mediaeval
241For further detail on these schools and thinkers, and also on their relationship to Luther and Calvin, see McGrath 1998: 155-179, Oberman 1965, and Oberman 1989a: 28-71. Oberman has written his work on Gabriel Biel and late mediaeval nominalism with the purpose of highlighting, among other things, the background for Luther's theology. However, he rarely refers to Luther in his work, since he is not attempting to determine exact influence but rather to depict the general theological context in which Luther's teaching arose. See Oberman 1965: 1-3. For the historical context of the Reformation, see also
Oberman 1989a. For an example of a specific doctrine in Luther as in relationship to Gabriel Biel, see e.g. Cleve 1968 on the doctrine of the Eucharist.
242See McGrath 1998: 197. For further detail on late mediaeval scholasticism, see Oberman 1965 and Oberman 1989a: 28-71.
243Luther's references to monks have nevertheless been treated here and not in the next section dealing with contemporaneous theologians, as the monastic teachings Luther addresses are frequently discussed in association with those of the scholastics, and also because of the rooting of the monastic orders and their teachings and practice in the mediaeval context. theology before proceeding to the examination of Luther's and Calvin's comments on mediaeval commentators.
Robert Kolb, in his insightful work on Luther's biblical interpretation in his commentaries on Galatians takes the view that Luther should be seen as continuing the patristic and monastic practice of expounding Scripture as sacra pagina in distinction from a theological approach, focusing on doctrine (sacra doctrina) represented by Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics.244 Otto Pesch, on the other hand, in his monumental comparison of Luther and Aquinas' doctrines of justification, concludes that Luther made the mistake of equating Aquinas' views with late scholasticism, at which Luther primarily directed his criticisms. Had he seen Aquinas for what he really represented, there may not have appeared any necessary disagreement between his position and that of the Catholic church.245
Thus, Kolb and Pesch see that in some sense Luther can be seen as standing in continuum with the Catholic mediaeval tradition, though not with scholasticism
(Kolb) or late scholasticism (Pesch).
There appears to be much truth in Kolb's view regarding the closeness of Luther's approach to Scriptures to the sacra pagina approach of the patristic and monastic theologians. It is also evident that Luther and Calvin had been influenced by and were reacting against mediaeval theology, distancing themselves especially from the teachings of late scholasticism.246 Nevertheless, it is appropriate in place to accentuate that there was something essentially new in the theological insights of Luther, and also of Calvin, where they stood clearly apart from the whole Catholic mediaeval tradition.247 McGrath, for instance, demonstrates
244See Kolb 1993: 35-38. Strictly speaking, Kolb's view relates only to Luther's view of Scripture but has nevertheless a direct bearing on his theology, too. Kolb states, 'The finding here is that Luther was influenced by the patristic and monastic approach to theology as the discipline of the sacred page.' Kolb
1993: 44. Kolb prefers to see Luther, not as writing a commentary on Galatians, but as presenting an enarratio of Paul's Galatians, applying the authoritative text of Paul to the contemporary situation. Kolb
1993: 57-58, 64. Kolb criticises the modern critical approaches which arose in the nineteenth century which have tended to interpret Luther (and Scripture) in terms of the critics' own presuppositions, thus creating a distance between themselves, the Scripture and Luther. Instead, Kolb proposes, one ought to present Luther in terms of his own approach, that of taking Scripture as God's immediate Word, and expounding it for the needs of the present day. Kolb states, 'The distinctive feature of the view of Scripture as sacra pagina is that it sees sacred matters as a pagina, a page that bears the imprint of God, not as doctrine and not as literature. … The relevance of Luther for me is not that he belonged to or anticipated Enlightenment methods of exegesis but that he was consistent in treating Scripture as the sacred page it is.' See Kolb 1993: 42, 46. For the larger context, see also Kolb 1993: 38-41, 57-68.
245Pesch states, 'Was den behandelten Fregenkreis betrifft, ist zwischen Luther und Thomas ein gegenseitiges Anathema weder nötig noch verantwortbar. … Nun glaubte aber Luther in der Theologie, die er angriff, die ganze Scholastik zu treffen, die er erwisenermassen nicht kannte, der er aber ebenso erwiesenermassen keine andere Theologie zutraute, als der via moderna'. Pesch 1967: 951, emphasis in the original. See also Pesch 1967: 949-956.
246See e.g. McGrath 1998: 172-179, 188-207, 213, 222-226.
247This is not to say that Luther and Calvin were the only ones to introduce distinctly new doctrinal views. Elements similar to their teachings were taught by others before them. There had been forerunners of the Reformation, as Oberman has shown. See Oberman 1981 and McGrath 1998: 180-187. Oberman how Luther and Calvin went further than the schola augustiniana moderna, which represented the type of thinking probably closest to them within the Catholic tradition.248 This appears to concur with the strikingly negative way in which Luther and Calvin express their theological positions toward mediaeval theology in their
Attention is now turned to Luther's and Calvin's theological comment on mediaeval theologians.
Luther discusses the views of mediaeval theologians frequently in his commentary,249 while Calvin briefly alludes to them on only six occasions, reflecting the greater significance of the patristic commentators for him,250 and mediavel theologians for Luther.
The groups of scholastics and sophists may be seen as approximately synonymous for the purposes of this section as the subjects addressed in Luther's and Calvin's comments on each are similar.
As may be expected, Luther's references to monks most often relate to their practice while the allusions to scholastics and sophists generally deal with theological subjects. It is not possible to cover every issue Luther addresses in his comments. Also, the subjects which are discussed are introduced only briefly due to the large number of references. Calvin's comments, however, as there are only six, have each been noted. The subjects, which are dealt with below, include the concepts of faith formed by love vs. faith formed by Christ (fides charitate formata vs. fides Christo formata), congruous / condign merit (meritum de congruo / meritum de condigno), righteousness by works vs. righteousness by faith, the role of points to both continuity and discontinuity between the mediaeval Catholic and Protestant traditions. He states, 'A definite and geographically extensive continuity exists between the Middle Ages and the sixteenth-century Reformation in the shape and context of the ongoing intellectual quest. … The uniqueness of Luther's discovery [regarding justification] is now generally admitted, but the degree of his uniqueness on this point can be measured only by a study of his context.' See Oberman 1981: 4, 39.
248See McGrath 1998: 190-207, esp. 202-205. McGrath sees these new insights as closely tied to an essentially forensic understanding of justification, which Luther laid the groundwork for, and which Calvin later defined against Osiander's views. McGrath states, 'The notional distinction necessitated by a forensic understanding of justification, between the external act of God in pronouncing sentence, and the internal process of regeneration, along with the associated insistence upon the alien and external nature of justifying righteousness, must be considered to be the most reliable historical characterisation of Protestant doctrines of justification.' See McGrath 1998: 190. McGrath argues that Luther laid the groundwork for iustitia imputata, which Melanchthon developed further. Calvin, for his part, showed how a forensic understanding of justification could be maintained in the context of the believer's union with Christ (against Osiander's critique of a forensic view of justification). See McGrath 1998: 201, 213.
249According to a count, which was made for this research, there are 163 contexts where Luther addresses mediaeval theologians and monks, 10 occasions when he refers to scholastics, 73 contexts where he alludes to sophists and 81 instances where he discusses the views of monks. The total number of references to these groups is higher because the count here excludes multiple mentions of a group in one context.
250Nevertheless, the general papal ideas are frequently addressed in Calvin. However, he does not often see it necessary to discuss the views of mediaeval theologians, scholastics and sophists.
Christ in justification, the law, assurance of salvation and the nature of the struggle between the Spirit and the flesh.
The ideas of scholastics, sophists and monks are all treated together, as the subjects are similar and the references to them often relate to two groups at the same time (sophists and monks / scholastics and monks, for instance).
There are four themes which deal directly with justification, 1) faith formed by love vs. faith formed by Christ (fides charitate formata vs. fides Christo formata), 2) congruous / condign merit (meritum de congruo / meritum de condigno) and 3) righteousness by works vs. righteousness by faith and 4) Christ's role in justification. The first three issues of the four were by far the most dominant in Luther's references to mediaeval theologians. Out of these, Calvin only alludes to the issue of congruous / condign merit.
Luther frequently attacks the scholastic / sophist notion that faith must be formed by love in order for faith to justify (fides charitate formata). Luther recognises that according to the mediaeval theologians there are different kinds of faith, only one of which is sufficient for justification, however. Neither an initial, infused faith (fides infusa), which God infuses nor a subsequent acquired faith
(fides acquisita), achieved by repeated acts performed on the grounds of faith, can justify unless faith becomes formed by love (fides charitate formata).251 According to Luther, such a notion makes faith dead and into nothing while love is made everything.252 Instead, Luther maintains, faith in Christ justifies alone, without love and without works. Thus true faith is not formed by love (fides charitate formata) but by Christ (fides Christo formata).253
The second issue dealing with justification, the one dealing with congruous and condign merit (meritum de congruo / meritum de condigno) is discussed by both Luther and Calvin. According to this notion, addressed to sophists and monks alike,254 Luther explains, it is possible by natural endowments
(ex naturalibus) and by doing what lies within oneself (facit quod in se est) to achieve congruous merit (meritum de congruo). On the basis of this merit God infuses love into the person, which makes the person formally righteous before 251Luther explains that according to scholastic understanding, infused faith (fides infusa) and acquired faith (fides acquisita) represent unformed faith (fides non formata), unless faith becomes formed by love
(fides charitate formata). Thus love becomes more important than faith, and Christ with all his blessings is lost. WA 40a.421.29-423.31, Gal. 3.11.
252Ita auferunt fidei omne suum officium et tradunt charitati, Ut fides prorsus nihil valeat, nisi accesserit forma, id est charitas. WA 40a.422. 27-28, on Gal. 3.11.
253Sicut Sophistae dicunt charitatem formare et imbuere fidem, Sic nos dicimus Christum formare et imbuere fidem vel formam esse fidei. Ergo fide apprehensus et in corde habitans Christus est iustitia
Christiana propter quam Deus nos reputat iustos et donat vitam aeternam. Ibi certe nullum est opus legis, nulla dilectio, sed longe alia iustitia et novus quidam mundus extra et supra legem; Christus enim vel fides non est Lex nec opus legis. WA 40a.229.27-32, on Gal. 2.16. See also e.g. WA 40a.231.30-232.20, on Gal. 2.16.
254See WA 40a.290.33-292.11, on Gal. 2.20.
God.255 Further, the person who now has love, is capable of meriting eternal life by further good works (meritum de condigno).256 Luther rejects both kinds of merit and affirms that they are opposed to the righteousness God gives, which is passive. Thus the giving of Christ of himself for human sin is set in contrast with those who attempt to acquire merit by their own works before God. Faith in Christ in the believer's heart, and not love granted in response to the congruous merit of human works, is the true formal righteousness genuine Christians have before God.257
Calvin's argumentation on congruous merit runs somewhat differently. Calvin elucidates that this kind of merit (meritum de congruo) is acceptable only on the grounds of God's acceptance of it and within God's covenant, even according to scholastic theologians.258 Therefore, outside of God's acceptance and God's covenant there is no merit available. Thus, God's acceptance is only available within the covenant, which is by grace and by Christ and is free.259
Further, Calvin describes the argumentation of the sophists – who argued that Christ merited the first grace (primam gratiam), which provides the opportunity for acquiring merit (occasionem merendi). Thus, merit gained by human works finds its legitimate role besides the merit of Christ's death. In contrast to this view, Calvin affirms that there is no middle way – righteousness is found exclusively through Christ – Paul does not allow 'one drop of righteousness' (nullam certe iustitiam guttam) to human works.260
255See WA 40a.225.15-226.27, on Gal. 2.16, and WA 40a. 290.33-292.11, on Gal. 2.20., and WA 40a.
290.33-292.11, on Gal. 2.20. In this passage Luther affirms that this is what the best of the sophists maintained. Those who were the worst theologians among them, such as Scotus and Occam, reasoned that as it was possible for humans to love a lower created being (such as a man loving a girl), it certainly was possible for them to love God the Creator, who is a higher being. Thus the giving of love by God was not seen as necessary since loving was possible by natural human powers, too.
256See WA 40a.225.15-226.27, on Gal. 2.16. Accordingly, meritum de congruo is not meritorious in a proper sense, but on the basis of God's evaluation of the good work performed by the person. Meritum de condigno, by way of contrast, is merit in the proper sense, and has eternal life as its reward. See also
WA 40a.220.4-29, on Gal. 2.16.
257See WA 40a.40.28-41.26, Argumentum and WA 40a.295.36-296.22, on Gal. 2.20. See also WA 40a.223.14-28, on Gal. 2.16.
258Calvin does not explicitly mention meritum de congruo. However, it seems implied in the context (since meritum de congruo is the kind of merit accepted only on the basis of God's evaluation of it).
Nihil affirmo, quod non concedant schoalastici theology. Neque enim opera docent intrinseca dignitate meritoria esse salutis, sed acceptatione Dei (ut loquuntur) et ratione pacti. Ergo ubi nullum Dei pactum, nullum acceptationis testimonium intercedit, nulla quoque opera ad iustitiam sufficient. See COR 16.75, on Gal. 3.17.
259See COR 16.75, on Gal. 3.17.
260Nam pulchra responsione sibi videntur instructi, quum afferent ex suis sophistis Christum meruisse nobis primam gratiam, hoc est occasionem merendi, et meritum mortis ipsius concurrere una cum operum satisfactionibus ad quotidianam remissionem peccatorum. … Adversus eos sic argumentatur: frustra mortuum esse Christum, si per Legem est iustitia. Sic agendo nullam certe iustitiae guttam operibus relinquit. See COR 16.58, on Gal. 2.21. In this instance, Calvin's reference to the concept of merit is more general, and not clearly associated specifically with either meritum de congruo or meritum de condigno.
The third theme, righteousness by works vs. righteousness by faith, is based primarily on Luther's references to monks. Luther clarifies that the monks believed that entering their order was a kind of new baptism and that they could perform so many good works after their vow that a surplus could be passed on to others.261 The order of the monks was considered so holy that if one died soon after one had given a vow, one would go directly to heaven.262 Luther, a former monk, now strongly condemned monasticism and asserted that the acts and afflictions of monasticism only end up recrucifying Christ (because his proper office, that of Saviour, is ascribed to one's own efforts).263 Interestingly, Luther's apparently only positive reference to the groups of scholastics, sophists and monks, is to Bernard (of Clairvaux), who confessed the sinfulness of his life and did not trust the works of his order at the moment of his death, but instead put his trust in Christ.264
A further notion, which Luther occasionally discusses in reference to mediaeval theologians, is the proper role of Christ in justification. Luther cannot accept the position held by sophists, monks and fanatics, which sees Christ merely as an example and a new lawgiver, thus making him a tyrant and a taskmaster.265
Instead, Luther affirms, Christ loves us, gave himself for us (pro nobis), and is a Redeemer of those oppressed by the law.266 Similarly, Luther rejects the view of the sophists who join Jerome in defending Christ's holiness when Paul affirms he became a curse for humans. Luther, by way of contrast, identifies greatest comfort in the fact that Christ has taken all our sin and curse on himself, and in exchange gave himself and his purity for us.267
Neither Luther nor Calvin can accept the notion, according to which the notion of the law in Galatians is defined as the ceremonial law only, thus perpetuating the error of Origen and Jerome. Instead, Luther affirms, the law in Galatians ought to be defined as everything opposed to grace, whether the law be moral, civil or ceremonial. There is no law, he maintains, which can justify a human being. Moreover, the law is abrogated for the believer.268 Calvin's position is
261See WA 40a.325.16-27, on Gal. 3.1. See also WA 40a.264.15-265.28, on Gal. 2.18, WA 40a.325.28.326.13, on Gal. 3.1 and WA 40b.107.22-33, on Gal. 5.19.
262Item is locus concludit sub peccato omnes Monachos, Eremitas, Carthusianos cum suis sanctissimis, ut somniant (Nugantur enim, si moriatur aliquis voto promissionis recens facto, subito subvolare eum in coelum), professionibus et religionibus, Quia hic audis clarissime Omnia simpliciter sub peccato conclusa esse. WA 40a.514.16-22, on Gal. 3.22.
263Luther adds that Christ is not recrucified in himself but in the monks and in others who believe they can gain righteousness by their own works. WA 40a.326.22-28, on Gal. 3.1.
264WA 40a.687.19-29, on Gal. 4.30.
265WA 40a.298.13-20, 40a.434.21-29, on Gal. 2.20 and Gal. 3.13 respectively.
266WA 40a.298.19-300.22, on Gal. 2.20.
267WA 40a.448.17-26, on Gal. 3.13.
268Ideo cum Sophista intelligit legem abrogari eamque ceremonialem, tu potius intellige Paulum et quemlibet Christianum universae legi abrogari et tamen legem manere. WA 40a.269.16-19, on Gal. 2.19.
See also WA 40a.217.27-218.23, on Gal. 2.16. See section 4.3. for further comment on Luther's concept of the law. similar. He notes that Christ and his benefits are contrasted by Paul with the law, human merit and excellence.269 Furthermore, Luther affirms, ceremonies are not fatal after Christ, as the sophists maintain. Instead, it would be only beneficial if the emperor chose to utilise some of the laws of Moses.270 Also, the 'sophists in the universities' (Sophistis in Universitatibus) do not understand the true, theological use of the law.271 They think that law can be fulfilled by a civic, outward adherence to its precepts. The law is used rightly, by way of contrast, when it destroys the beast of human reason and causes a terror of sin.272
A further issue, regarding which Luther and Calvin are in agreement, is that of the believer's assurance of one's salvation and of the danger and error of the mediaeval notion of the necessity of doubt regarding one's own salvation and acceptance with God. While this kind of doubt is natural for humans,
Calvin affirms that it is a sign of genuine Christians that they have the testimony of the Holy Spirit assuring the believers of God's love personally toward them.273
Luther, for his part, concurs in that the requirement for uncertainty by the mediaeval theologians spoils the doctrine of faith in that there is no knowledge of God's favour, salvation and forgiveness.274
The final theme treated here is that of the nature of the struggle between the Spirit and flesh. Both Luther and Calvin note how the mediaeval theologians identified the flesh with sexual desires and sensuality. Both assert instead that the flesh denotes much more than sexual desire referring to the whole nature of man including pride, greed and hatred (Luther) and ambition which leads to heresies (Calvin).275 Furthermore, Luther identifies the concept of sin of the mediaeval theologians as superficial and flawed. According to them, Luther affirms, one must keep on doing good until one feels no sin at all.276 Thus, saints come to be seen as blocks of wood or stone, who feel nothing and especially feel no sin.
Another flaw in their interpretation is that it is the outward form of one's works that is observed in distinguishing sins, and not how the person doing the work is like.277
269See COR 16.65, on Gal. 3.6.
270Nec peccaret Caesar, si quibusdam iudicialibus legibus Mosi uteretur, imo libere posset illis uti. Errant igitur Sophistae, qui nugantur iudicialia Mosi post Christum mortifera esse. WA 40a.673.22-24, on Gal.
271Iste usus legis [usus theologicus] plane incognitos est Hypocritis, Sophistis in Universitatibus et omnibus hominibus quotquot incedunt in opinione iustitiae legis vel propriae. WA 40a.481.16-18, on 272See WA 40a.480.32-481.25, on Gal. 3.19.
273Fateor quidem scholasticos, quum iubent perpetua dubitatione fluctuare conscientias, nihil aliud docere, quam quod dictat naturae sensus. Quo diligentius infigendum est animis nostris hoc Pauli dogma : neminem esse Christianum, nisi qui Spiritus sancti magisterio edoctus Deum Patrem invocat.
COR 16.95, on Gal. 4.6.
274WA 40a.575.13-23, on Gal. 4.6.
275See COR 16.129-130, on Gal. 5.17 and COR 16.132, on Gal. 5.20. See also WA 40a.244.14-18, on Gal. 2.16 and WA 40b. 83.34-84.26, on Gal.5.16.
276WA 40a.368.26-32, on Gal. 3.6.
277WA 40b.95.26-97.16, on Gal. 5.17.
Luther affirms, by way of contrast, that true believers do feel sin and have sin. They are righteous and sinners at the same time (simul iustus et peccator).278 At the same time however, they are able to fight against the sin within them by the Spirit.
Meanwhile, God imputes Christ's righteousness to acquit them of their sin. Thus, the same sin committed by the believer is not imputed, but is imputed when committed by an unbeliever, who is not covered by Christ's righteousness.279
Luther's and Calvin's comments on mediaeval theologians demonstrates that especially Luther discussed much of his theology in reference to them. Their themes which Luther alludes to include nearly all the primary concepts of his Galatians. It is also appears that Luther had grappled with the thought of mediaeval theologians more than Calvin for his Galatians. While Calvin's comment on them also includes issues which are central to his Galatians, his views are, on the whole, only rarely related to mediaeval thinkers and instead much more frequently related to patristic commentators and to 'papists' (papistae) of his own time.
It is also evident that both Luther and Calvin relate to the thought of mediaeval theologians almost exclusively in a negative way, which demonstrates a difference to their more nuanced relationship toward the church fathers.
Further, while Luther often discusses and critiques both monastic practice and teaching, Calvin does not refer to monks even once, highlighting the significance of Luther's monastic background.
2.4.3. Luther and Calvin on Contemporary Theologians and Groups This section focuses on Luther's and Calvin's comments on their contemporary theologians and groups including papists, Anabaptists and Erasmus. Further,
Luther's possible influence on Calvin is considered.280
The most frequent polemic in both Luther's and Calvin's commentaries is against the contemporary papal teachings, and in Luther's Galatians against Anabaptist ideas as well. Luther's and Calvin's discussion on papal and Anabaptist ideas is briefly addressed first.
Out of all their contemporary theologians, it is interesting that both Luther and Calvin refer only to Erasmus by name, and even to him, very infrequently. For 278WA 40a.368.19-27, 373.19-23, on Gal. 3.6.
279WA 40b.96.33-97.21, on Gal. 5.17. See also WA 40b.108.17-109.12, on Gal. 5.19.
280Luther's references to Sacramentarians (the Swiss reformers) could have been interesting to examine as well in this context, but as the essence of these references is treated in section 4.7.4 in Luther's comments on the issue of the Lord's Supper, they are not discussed any further at this point. When
Luther discusses Sacramentarians (the Swiss reformers) as a single group, the key concept can be summarised as outlined in section 4.7.4. However, it is noteworthy that Luther appears not to have thought this to be the only difference between his beliefs and those of the Swiss reformers. In two references where Luther classes the Sacramentarians in the same group with papists and Anabaptists, he sees them as having fallen from the true doctrine of Christian righteousness (on Gal. 2.20), and regards them as having confused the issue regarding the proper function of the law and the law and the gospel
(on Gal. 3.19). See WA 40a.296.23-297.14, on Gal. 2.20; WA 40a.484.32-485.22, on Gal. 3.19.
Luther, this represents a change as in his earlier commentary (1519) on Galatians Erasmus is often alluded to. Luther's possible influence on Calvin is also briefly addressed in this context.
2.4.3.1. Luther and Calvin on Papists281 It is recognized that the content of this section partly overlaps the themes of section
2.4.2. on mediaeval theologians of the Catholic faith. An attempt is therefore made not to be too repetitive although some of the same ground is inevitably covered as well. Compared to their references to mediaeval scholastic theology, Luther's and Calvin's comments on papists are somewhat more general. Further, while much of the same ground is covered, especially in Luther's and Calvin's references to papists relating to the issue of justification, at the same time their comments deal with a wider range of concepts than the section on mediaeval theology, including allusions to the notion of ministry, for instance.
The themes which Luther and Calvin discuss in reference to papal ideas deal primarily with those concepts which have been identified as being substantial in Luther's and Calvin's Galatians (see sections 4 to 6), and even more so in Luther, whose references are more numerous. Calvin primarily discusses justification in his polemics against papal teachings but has also a few references dealing with the other main concepts of his Galatians. Understandably, the subjects of papal supremacy and the concept of the church are highlighted slightly more in the polemics against the papacy than in the commentaries as a whole.
Justification is by far the most frequently treated issue in both Luther's and Calvin's polemics against the papacy. Both Luther and Calvin see the papal church as teaching righteousness by works.282 Luther sees the supposed holiness in rendering obedience to numerous papal laws and decrees as deceptive and wicked twice over, as it denies Christ and faith in him as the only true way of justification.283 Calvin, for his part, frequently discusses the theme of merit and indicates his rejection of any papal concept of 'half justification' (dimidia iustitia), namely, of justification by faith, which nevertheless also partly consists of human works or merit.284
281The negative connotation of the term 'papist' is recognized, but it is nevertheless used but because it is a term most frequently used by Luther and Calvin (papistae).
282For some of Luther's references to papal teachings as promoting righteousness by works, see e.g. WA 40a.48.28-49.23, Argumentum, WA 40b.10.15-23, 40b.21.27-29, on Gal. 5.2, 5.4, respectively. For some of Calvin's references to papal teachings as promoting righteousness of works, see e.g. COR 16.51,
16.58, 16.116, 16.119-121, on Gal. 2.16, 2.21, 5.2, 5.6 respectively.
283WA 40a.96.22-97.14, 40a.138.9-23, 40a.324.32-325.21, on Gal 1.5, 1.17 and 3.1, respectively. The same reliance on human worthiness and works can be identified also in other groups such as the Jews,
Anabaptists and Turks. That is why Luther is astonished that the pope wants to fight the Turks, who in essence teach the same principle of righteousness through human works. See WA 40a.604.14-605.26, on 284Sed Paulo scilicet theologia Papistarum ignota erat. Fide hominem iustificari dictitant, partem iustitiae locant in operibus. Talem dimidiam iustitiam nesciebat Paulus. Nam quum nos fide iustos esse docet,
Luther condemns both the doctrines of congruous and condign merit (meritum de congruo, meritum de condigno) and the concept of love as the form of faith (fides charitate formata).285 Instead, he points to faith alone (sola fide), Christ as the only right form of faith (fides Christo formata) and Christ's giving himself for humans and the importance of faith in Him, which the papal doctrines of human worthiness and works have replaced.286 Calvin also affirms belief in justification by faith alone and leaves no part at all to human merit. Calvin asserts that the believer's righteousness is through Christ as all their righteousness in contrast to the papacy, where the false doctrine regarding the necessity of good works in addition to faith in Christ has left them with a divided Christ.287 Luther further emphasizes that there is confusion in the papacy regarding the proper distinction between the law and the gospel. Against their view, Luther affirms that the gospel ought to be kept free from an imposed requirement of legal observances and draws attention to the fact that Christ ought not to be changed into a new lawgiver.288 Calvin, for his part, rejects a papal postulate according to which the people, being especially ignorant in the 16th century, needed papal laws. Instead, he affirms that Christian liberty ought to be maintained with regard to all outward observances in the present day as well.289
Calvin's polemics further highlight that the correct definition of the law in Galatians is the whole law, and not only the ceremonial one as argued by papists.
This is connected to the fact that the merit of works, which Paul rejects, includes the quia operibus non possumus, pro confesso sumit, quod verum est, nos Christi iustitiae non aliter esse capaces, quam si propriae iustitiae inopes egenique simus. COR 16.51, on Gal. 2.16. See also e.g. COR
16.58, 16.116, on Gal. 2.21, 5.2 respectively.
285Ipse solus liberat a peccatis, donat iustitiam et vitam aeternam. Ista suis meritis congrui et condigni excluso Christo se certo consequi tradunt. WA 40a.237.26-28. See also the whole passage in WA 40a.
237.18-28, on Gal. 2.16, See also WA 40a.423.15-19, on Gal. 3.11.
286Quare cum adversarii hoc salvum nobis relinquere nolunt, quod sola fides in Christum iustificet: nec nos volumus nec etiam possumus in hoc cedere ipsis, quod fides formata charitate iustificet. WA
40a.167.18-20, on Gal. 2.5. See also the whole paragraph, WA 40a.167.18-168.14, on Gal. 2.5. Quis est ille 'Me'? Ergo peccator perditus et damnatus, sic dilectus a filio Dei, ut se ipsum traderet pro me. Si ergo operibus vel meritis de congruo et condigno potuissem diligere filium Dei et venire ad eum, quid opus fuisset eum tradi pro me? Ex hoc apparet, quam frigide tractaverint Papistae, imo prorsus neglexerint sacras literas et doctrinam fidei. Nam si tantum verba ista inspexissent, quod filium Dei oportuerit tradi pro me, impossibile fuisset ullum ordinem aut sectam oriri, Quia fides statim respondisset: Cur hoc genus vitae, hunc ordinem, hoc opus eligis? Num ut per ista placetur Deus et tu iustificeris? An non audis scelus, Filium Dei traditum et fudisse pro te suum sanguinem? Sic facillime fides in Christum potuisset resistere omnibus Sectis. WA 40a.295.36-296.22, on Gal. 2.20.
287Sic hodie Papistae, quia dimidium et lacerum Christum habere volunt, nullum habent, ideoque translate sunt a Christo. COR 16.17, on Gal. 1.6. See also e.g. COR 16.116, 16.119-121, on Gal. 5.2 and 288Papa autem non solum miscuit legem cum Evangelio, sed meras leges et eas tantum ceremoniales ex
Evangelio fecit. WA 40a.209.12-14, on Gal. 2.14. See also WA 40b.5.21-6.27, 40b.10.26-11.29, on Gal.
5.1 and 5.2, respectively.
289COR 16.91-92, 16.114-116, on Gal. 4.1, 4.31-5.1, respectively. works of the Decalogue.290 Luther's polemics against the papacy relating to the law and good works also focus on issues closely related to justification. Luther affirms that the papists' use of the law in order to attain justification is an abuse of the law.
The true use of the law is to show human sin, a use which papists do not understand.
Ceremonial observances can be maintained, Luther allows, but when they are seen as necessary for justification as by the papacy, they assume a wicked role.291 On similar lines, Luther stresses the importance and necessity of good works against the papal charge of Luther having repudiated God's law by his teaching. However, he is careful to add that they must be kept apart from the issue of justification.292
Luther, when addressing the work of the Holy Spirit, in his references to papists deals primarily with the issues of the assurance of salvation and the struggle between the Spirit and the flesh. Calvin's references, for their part, deal only with the believer's assurance before God. Both Luther and Calvin affirm that the requirement of doubt by the papacy is one of its worst tenets – they affirm instead that through the influence of the Spirit of God, the believers have certainty of their acceptance with God.293 Luther further rejects the papist thinking according to which walking by the Spirit is a task of the clergy alone, and rebuts the view which honours an austere form of life and a denunciation of one's sexual desires as a sign of having conquered the flesh. Instead, walking by the Spirit is necessary for all
Christians and they are marked by the fact that, by the Spirit, they fight against, not only outward sins such as immorality, but also 'spiritual' ones (Spirituales illos) such as doubt, blasphemy and contempt of God.294
While Calvin also mentions papal persecution and sees the papists as persecuting pure doctrine,295 his comment is not connected to a developed concept
290COR 16.51, 16.58, on Gal. 2.15, 2.21, respectively.
291Si autem Moses lege Dei vocat ad iram Dei et peccatum, quo vocabit Papa suis traditionibus? WA 40a.108.12-13, on Gal. 1.6. Paulus significat his verbis Nullam simpliciter legem posse vivificare, sed tantum occidere. Ergo mea opera quae non secundum leges Papae seu traditiones humanas, sed secundum legem Dei facio, non iustificant me coram Deo, sed peccatorem constituunt; non placant iram
Dei, sed irritant; non consequuntur iustitiam, sed tollunt eam; non vivificant, sed mortificant me. WA 40a.510.16-20, on Gal.3.21. Si autem lex Dei infirma et inutilis est ad iustificationem, multo magis leges
Papae sunt infirmae et inutiles ad iustificationem. Non quod in universum reiiciam et damnem leges ipsius, sed dico plerasque utiles esse ad externam disciplinam, ut ordine omnia gerantur in Ecclesia, ne oriantur dissidia, odia etc., ut Caesareae leges utiles sunt ad bene gerendas Respublicas etc. WA
40a.618.29-619.9, on Gal. 4.9. See also WA 40b.38.22-39.15, on Gal. 5.6.
292See WA 40a.40.21-27, Argumentum, WA 40a.265.29-266.19, on Gal. 2.18 and WA 40a.394.17395.14, on Gal. 3.10.
293Hinc apparet, qualis sit in Papatu Christianismus, ubi impiae praesumptionis damnant, di quis Dei Spiritum habere se dicat. Fidem enim sine Dei Spiritu et sine certitudine imaginantur. Hoc unum dogma illustri argumento est diabolum infidelitatis patrem in omnibus Papistarum scholis regnare. .... Quo diligentius infigendum est animis nostris hoc Pauli dogma: neminem esse Christianum, nisi qui Spiritus sancti magisterio edoctus Deum Patrem invocat. COR 16.94-95, on Gal. 4.6 . See also WA 40a.575.1323, on Gal. 4.6 and COR 16.149, on Gal. 6.16.
294WA 40b.86.20-88.13, 40b.112.14-28, on Gal. 5.16, 5.20.
295COR 16.18-19, on Gal. 1.8. of the scandal of the cross and suffering as a Christian as in Luther. In his comments on this issue, Luther often addresses both papists and Anabaptists in the same breath, pointing to the physical persecution inflicted by papists and the spiritual one
(through false doctrine) caused by Anabaptists. Luther further alludes to the fact that the formation of sects and civil unrest was unjustly ascribed to his teaching.
However, he rejoices and is comforted amidst these persecutions, because the fact of persecution demonstrates the authenticity of the gospel, just as it had done in the time of Paul.296
There are also a number of comments against papists in Luther's and Calvin's treatment of the theme of ministry. Both Luther and Calvin highlight the honour of the calling to gospel ministry and the necessity of holding to the pure gospel Word. Luther affirms that papists have not submitted to the pure gospel in their ministry. Therefore it has to be taught by others, who are sure in their rightful calling.297 Calvin for his part argues against the pope's claim that he ought to be honoured as Christ. Calvin requires legitimate evidence for this claim such as the pope transmitting the word in its purity and performing humble service as Christ did.298 A further issue named by Luther is a contrast drawn between the harshness with which the papists treated the fallen in contrast to how genuine ministers tenderly encourage the weak and the erring with the gospel.299
Both Luther and Calvin comment on the issue of papal primacy. Luther recognizes the validity of the church and sacraments of the Catholic faith, even if Antichrist reigns in the church. Accordingly, Luther cannot accept the Anabaptist desire to depose the pope by external force. However, Luther qualifies this affirmation in that he would recognize the pope's authority and position if the pope were to accept the pure doctrine of justification and give freedom of conscience with regard to papal laws. However, as the pope does not accept these two, Luther will continue to teach against him. On similar lines, Luther cannot accept that it is the pope who determines which gospel is right. The pope ought to submit to the gospel, thus allowing Scripture be the judge of doctrine.300 Calvin, for his part,
296WA 40a.677.28-678.14, 40a.680.32-681.22, both on Gal. 4.29. See also WA 40b.21.27-22.21, 54.3356.15, 165.17-21, on Gal. 5.4, 5.11 and 6.11, respectively.
297See e.g. WA 40a.130.32-133.30, on Gal.1.12.
298COR 16.101, on Gal. 4.14. Furthermore, both Luther and Calvin name the unduly high salaries paid to ministers in the papacy, and affirm by way of contrast that the salary of ministers ought to be reasonable
(Calvin's comment, COR 16.142, on Gal. 6.6) and that the ministers should seek to help the poor (Luther's comment, WA 40a.191.12-28, on Gal. 2.10).
299Non frustra igitur dicit Paulus: 'Considerans teipsum, ne et tu tenteris.' Qui exercitati sunt tentationibus, noverunt, quam necessarium hoc sit praeceptum. Contra qui illis non sunt probati, non intelligunt Paulum, ideoque nulla misericordia tanguntur erga lapsos, ut cernere fuit in Papatu, ubi mera tyrannis et crudelitas regnavit. WA 40b.143.30-144.13, on Gal. 6.1. On the other hand, Luther affirms that harsh words have to be used with the papists and Anabaptists, not to condemn them, but that they could be converted and saved. WA 40a.630.18-22, on Gal. 4.12.
300WA 40a.180.14-182.18, on Gal. 2.5 and WA 40a.358.17-359.14, on Gal. 3.5. See the whole discussion on the pope's authority and the attempt of those whom Luther terms Anabaptists to remove the pope argues against papal primacy by pointing out the submission of Peter (whose successor the pope claims to be) at Paul's rebuke directed against him.301 Moreover,
Calvin maintains that since the pope claims succession to Peter, the pope should exercise his authority only over the Jews, and not over other nations, as Peter did according to Gal. 2.7. A further issue outlined by Calvin includes the definition of the church. Although salvation is found only within the church, this does not disturb
Calvin, since the true church is found wherever the pure gospel doctrine reigns, which is not the case within the papacy.302
The subjects Luther and Calvin discuss in the context of the Catholic teachings of the time include nearly all the substantial concepts of their Galatians. It is evident that, as with Luther's and Calvin's comments on mediaeval theologians, almost all of their references to papal teachings and practice are made in a negative sense. In Calvin's critique, it is especially the theme of justification which is highlighted while Luther's polemics against papists deal with, in addition to justification, also the other key themes of his commentary in relatively exact detail.
Some slight differences can be detected in the formulation of Luther's and Calvin's theological critique toward the papists, reflecting similarities and differences in their theology which are outlined in more precise detail in section 6.
Nevertheless, the positions of each appear largely similar in reference to the Catholic teaching of their day.
2.4.3.2. Luther and Calvin on Anabaptists It is in Luther's commentary that one finds frequent references to the Anabaptists.
However, there is one reference in Calvin's Galatians to their teaching as well. This reference of Calvin's is briefly addressed first, followed by a succinct discussion of the primary concepts within Luther's polemic against Anabaptist teachings.303 from his position in WA 40a.353.13-359.14, on Gal. 3.5. Luther states on the authority of Scripture in relationship to that of the pope, Exemplum tamen hic nobis proponitur, quod certe statuere debemus mendacium et Anathema esse sentire, quod Papa sit Arbiter scripturae; Item quod Ecclesia habeat potestatem supra scripturam … Paulus simpliciter Seipsum, Angelum e coelo, doctores in terra et quicquid est Magistrorum, hoc totum rapit et subiicit sacrae scripturae. Haec Regina debet dominari, huic omnes obedire et subiacere debent. Non eius Magistri, Iudices seu Arbitri, sed simplices testes, discipuli et confessores esse debent, sive sit Papa, sive Lutherus, sive Augustinus, sive Paulus, sive Angelus e coelo, Neque alia doctrina in Ecclesia tradi et audiri debet quam purum verbum Dei. WA 40a.119.23-25,
120.18-24, on Gal. 2.9. See also WA 40a.188.10-18, on Gal. 2.8.
301COR 16.43-44, on Gal. 2.11.
302COR 16.14, 16.110-111, on Gal. 1.2, 4.26 respectively. Even the Jews, Calvin argues, who had a greater reason than the papists to claim the title 'church' for themselves, are assigned to the lot of Hagar by Paul because of their legalism. That is why Calvin is not in the least disturbed by the papists' claim that only their church is the true one. COR 16.110-111, on Gal. 4.26.
303Calvin also refers quite clearly to the Libertines (though not by that name) on one occasion. This reference has been quoted and briefly addressed in section 2.1.2. on the historical context of Calvin's
Calvin rejects a teaching, ascribed to 'some fanatics' (fanatici quidam) and Servetus, according to which the people who were elected by God during the time of the Old Testament only prefigured the true people of God in the New Testament, thus excluding all the patriarchs from the possibility of salvation.304 The same teaching is explicitly identified as an Anabaptist one in the Institutio of 1543/45.305 This also appears to have been represented by an individual by the name of Belot in the year preceding the composition of Calvin's Galatians, in 1545.306 Calvin, by way of contrast, affirms that the spiritual blessing of Abraham belongs to the patriarchs just as well as to the people of the New
In Luther's comments there appears generally no distinction between the terms Anabaptists, fanatics and sectarians (Anabaptistae, phanatici/fanatici spiritus, sectarii). Usually, these terms are used as a reference to any group of teachers ranging from Münzer and others who had supported the Peasant's revolt, to pacifist Anabaptists from around the time of Luther's lectures on Galatians in 1531. Accordingly, the term Anabaptist as used in this section, is to be understood, not as it is more distinctly identified in modern literature, but in the sense it is referred to in Luther – as an all-encompassing term referring to several widely differing groups.307 Most of the ideas Luther often refers to are not specifically characteristic of Anabaptists either. Luther frequently discusses
Anabaptists in the same group with papists, and at times also with the Jews and the Turks.308 For instance, in his preface of 1535 to the commentary, Luther likens
Anabaptists and papists to a fox with two different heads, but connected at the tail.309
The issues which are highlighted the most often in Luther's comment on Anabaptists include justification, the work of the Holy Spirit, the 304Primo hinc colligimus eiusdem haereditatis spem fuisse Patribus sub Veteri testamento, quam hodie habemus, quia eiusdem adoptionis participles fuerunt. Non enim (quemadmodum somniant fanatici quidam, et inter alios Servetus) in hoc tantum electos fuisse a Deo Paulus docet, ut nobis aliquem Dei populum figurarent, sed ut nobiscum essent filii Dei. COR 16.90, on Gal. 4.1.
305Quin etiam quod utilissimum alioqui futurum erat, necessarium nobis fecerunt furiosi nonnulli ex Anabaptistarum secta; qui non aliter de israelitico populo sentiunt, quam de aliquo porcorum grege: utpote quem nugantur a Domino in hac terra saginatum, citra spem ullam coelestis immortalitatis. CO
306Belot presented the view in 1545 that the Old Testament was abolished by the New. For further information and references, see Cottret 2000: 208.
307See a similar observation on Luther's wide ranging term of reference for 'Schwärmer' by Oberman in 308See e.g. WA 40a.48.29-31, 49.10-23, Argumentum. Occasionally Luther also adds the groups of the Sacramentarians. See e.g. WA 40a.296.25-28, on Gal. 2.20 and WA 40a.316.26-27, on Gal. 3.1.
Generally, Luther's statements are in the context of seeing none of these groups as holding to the authentic Christian doctrine of righteousness by faith.
309Sic et Papistae non cessant urgere usque hodie opera et personae dignitatem contra gratiam et fratres suos Anabaptistas (saltem verbo) fortiter iuvare. Caudis enim sunt coniunctae istae vulpes, sed capitibus diversae. WA 40a.36.19-22, Preface, 1535. scandal of the cross / suffering as a Christian, ministry, and perhaps somewhat strikingly, the doctrine of the Devil.
The most frequent polemic of Luther against Anabaptists deals with justification. Luther sees that the Anabaptists, together with the papists, believe that justification is at least partly dependent on one's good works.310 He regards that Anabaptists establish another set of works which, just as the old kind of works of the papacy, are also used in an attempt to achieve justification. This is demonstrated especially in the emphasis of Anabaptists on the necessity of suffering, bloodshed and the bearing of discomforts of life in addition to faith.311 Therefore Luther considers that Anabaptists have fallen away from Christ, and that they do not understand true Christian righteousness.312 Connected with this is the confusion
Luther sees in Anabaptists on the issue of the law and the gospel. Although they talk of both, in their belief in the necessity of good works in justification, they have changed the gospel to the law and Christ into Moses.313
Luther, treating the subject of the work of the Holy Spirit, notes how Anabaptists boast of the Spirit and how many fall prey to their teaching.314
Luther further affirms that true believers have the Spirit by faith and have the Spirit's help in their struggle with sin in contrast to the Anabaptists and papists who, being able only to speculate about the Spirit, mistakenly think that the early believers who had the Spirit, experienced no struggle with sin.315 Luther's longest single discussion relating to Anabaptists relates to his contrast between genuine deeds of the Spirit with those of the sectarians (Sectarii). Luther argues that love toward one's neighbour and patience in persecution is what demonstrates the genuine working of the Holy Spirit in a person, and not the externally radical actions of those who destroyed images and claimed liberty from all law.316
310See e.g. WA 40a.76.19-23, on Gal. 1.4 and WA 40a.249.10-21, on Gal. 2.17.
311Atque ita Christus fide apprehensus non est Iustificator, nihil prodest gratia nec fides vera esse potest sine charitate (Aut ut Anabaptistae dicunt: sine cruce, passione et effusione sanguinis). Si vero adest charitas, opera et crux, fides vera est et iustificat. WA 40a.251.34-37, on Gal. 2.17. See also the whole passage in WA 40a.251.19-37, on Gal. 2.17.
312See WA 40a.76.19-23 and 78.14-26, both on Gal. 1.4 and WA 40a.296.23-28, on Gal. 2.20.
313Itaque Papistae, Cingliani, Anabaptistae et omnes qui iustitiam Christi ignorant aut non recte tenent, non possunt non facere ex Christo Mosen et legem et ex lege Christum. Sic enim docent: Fides in Christum iustificat quidem, sed simul servari etiam oportet praecepta Dei, Quia scriptum est: 'Si vis in vitam ingredi, serva mandata Dei'. Ibi statim Christus negatus et fides abolita est, Quia mandatis Dei sive legi tribuitur quod est solius Christi. WA 40a.249.10-16, on Gal. 2.17.
314See WA 40a.76.19-23, on Gal. 1.3 and WA 40a.626.19-628.20, on Gal. 4.12.
315Papistae somniarunt Sanctos sic habuisse Spiritumsanctum, quod nunquam senserint aut habuerint tentationem. Illi speculative tantum loquuntur de Spiritusancto, Ut et hodie phanatici spiritus. Sed Paulus dicit virtutem Christi in nostra infirmitate perfici, Item Spiritumsanctum adiuvare infirmitatem nostram et interpellare pro nobis gemitu inenarrabili etc. Ergo tum maxime habemus opus Spiritussancti auxilio et consolatione tumque maxime adest nobis, cum maxime sumus impotentes ac desperationi proximi. WA
40a.584.19-25, on Gal. 4.6. See also WA 40b.23.20-26, on Gal. 5.5.
316See WA 40a.351.21-358.13, on Gal. 3.5 and WA 40a.359.17-24, on Gal. 3.6. See also section 4.2.5. for further discussion.
Another common theme in Luther's discussion of Anabaptists is the scandal of the cross / suffering as a Christian. Luther affirms that persecution by papists is easier to bear than spiritual persecution through the influence of Anabaptist teaching and doctrine.317 The only thing one can do in the face of the spreading of their views, Luther states, is to emit silent prayers to God for help and to teach against Anabaptists so that at least some could return to true faith.318 When the world accuses Luther and his followers of having caused unrest in society and for being responsible for the rising of numerous sects, comfort can be found in the fact that the same happened to Paul when he faithfully taught Christ.319 These troubles signify that one truly has Christ and that one holds to the pure doctrine.320
That is why Luther would not even want the persecution by papists and sectarian teachers to cease.321
Luther's discussion of the theme of ministry in reference to Anabaptist views includes his rejection of a teaching specifically characteristic of Anabaptists. Luther asserts the importance of a lawful calling against those who 'thrust themselves' (ingesserunt se) into teaching others claiming that they have a call from the Spirit.322 Proceeding further, Luther maintains that while one ought to be tender with the fallen, one needs to be sharp with sectarian teachers.323
Moreover, Luther sees the outwardly humble acts of Anabaptist teachers as a disguise, which cover their inner sense of superiority and vainglory (κενοδοξία).324
This vainglory, and seeking human applause, is what Luther sees as the true root behind the formation of sects.325
A fifth theme often treated by Luther in connection with the Anabaptists and their teaching is the doctrine of the devil. Luther sees that it is the devil who has inspired Anabaptist teaching in order to attack the gospel and those
317Luther saw it as especially painful that the rising of sects and other troubles had come to be seen as having been caused by Luther's evangelical teaching. Sic utrumque regnum, spirituale et corporale, occupat, hoc per mendacium impiorum doctorum (ut interim non dicam, quod perpetuo suis ignitis telis unumquemque privatim solicitat ad haereses et impias opiniones), illud per gladium tyrannorum, atque ita utrinque concitat contra filios Liberae pater mendacii et caedis spiritualem et corporalem persecutionem. Spiritualis, qua phanatici nos hodie impugnant, molestissima ac prorsus intolerabilis nobis est propter scandala, quibus diabolus deformat doctrinam nostram, quia cogimur audire sectas
Anabaptistarum et Sacramentariorum et omnia mala orta esse ex doctrina nostra. WA 40a.681.28-682.13, on Gal. 4.29.
318See WA 40a.583.20-31, on Gal. 4.6 and WA 40a.647.27-648.15, on Gal. 4.17.
319Paulus eandem tentationem passus est, quam nos hodie patimur. WA 40a.644.14, on Gal. 4.17. See WA 40a.644.14-647.6 for the larger context of the discussion; on Gal. 4.17.
320WA 40b.58.16-28, on Gal. 5.12.
321Quare non libenter velim, quod Papa, Episcopi, Principes et phanatici spiritus nobiscum concordes essent. Ea enim concordia certa significatio esset, nos amisisse veram doctrinam. WA 40b.55.13-15, on Gal. 5.11. See also the context in WA 40b.54.33-56.15, on Gal. 5.11.
322See WA 40b.127.13-128.14, on Gal. 5.25. See also WA 40a.59.24-60.14, on Gal. 1.1.
323See WA 40a.101.19-102.13, on Gal. 1.6.
324See section 4.6.4. for further discussion on the notion of κενοδοξία.
325See WA 40b.132.21-33, on Gal. 5.25. who are weak in the faith.326 For instance, Luther regards the devil as being the inspirer of the view according to which Anabaptists continue the work well begun, but not completed by Luther.327 Luther further considers that it is demonic bewitchment which lies behind the fact that sectarian teachers are so obstinate in holding to false doctrine, and that they therefore cannot be liberated from their error through their own powers, but only by God's pure Word.328
Other themes less frequently alluded to in Luther's polemic against Anabaptist teachings include the theme of the law and good works. Luther is of the opinion that Anabaptists understand no more of the proper use of God's law than do the papists.329 Further, Luther disagrees with the position of Anabaptists on papal ceremonies in that Luther does not try to abolish the ceremonies by force, but accepts them as long as no salvific value is connected to observing them.330 He also rejects the teaching connected to the peasants' revolt which stated that the gospel liberates from all law.331 There is a difference also in the kind of good works
Anabaptists teach. Luther asserts that Anabaptists teach works which deal with meaningless observances making a show of one's humility in outward acts, and not the true good works Paul urges.332
It is clear that Anabaptist teachings are significant for Luther's rather than Calvin's Galatians. While Cottret's claim that the Anabaptists (not papists) were 'the greatest heretics' for Calvin may hold some truth, at least in Calvin's Galatians it is the teachings of papal Rome rather than those of the Anabaptists which Calvin saw as the focal ones to warn about.333 Calvin only refers to a group of Anabaptists once, indicating his rejection of their view on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Luther, by way of contrast, refers to Anabaptist teachings frequently and the themes on which he discusses the position of the Anabaptists include aspects of nearly all the substantial concepts of 326See e.g. WA 40a.139.19-22, 444.24-29, 647.25-30, on Gal. 1.16, 3.13, 4.17.
327See WA 40a.109.22-110.25, on Gal. 1.6.
328See WA 40a.318.34-319.17, 319.25-31, on Gal. 3.1.
329Ut interim nihil dicam de Anabaptistis, Novis Arrianis et spiritibus blasphemis in Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi qui aeque ignorant hunc proprium legis usum et officium ac Papistae.
Iamdudum enim a pura doctrina Evangelii ad leges relapsi sunt. WA 40a.485.12-16, on Gal. 3.19.
330WA 40a.354.13-30, on Gal. 3.5. See the larger context of Luther's rather lengthy discussion on the issue of the sectarian attack against the papacy vs. his own approach in WA 40a.354.13-358.16, on Gal.
3.5. See also section 4.2.5. on genuine deeds of the Spirit vs. those of the Anabaptists.
331WA 40a.528.24-31, on Gal. 3.23.
332WA 40b.65.23-66.32, on Gal. 5.14.
333Cottret states, 'For Calvin the greatest heretics were the Anabaptists. They were the internal enemy, as against the papists, who threatened the development of the "true faith" from outside. Papists, moreover, were not heretics in the strict sense; their errors were predictable, almost programmed, and less dangerous on the whole than those original thoughts that risked affecting the Reformed world itself.' his Galatians. It emerges therefore that in his Galatians Luther saw Anabaptist teachings as just as important to caution of as against the papal ones.334
2.4.3.3. Luther and Calvin on Erasmus Both Luther and Calvin refer to Erasmus on four occasions,335 which, especially in the case of Luther, is little. Therefore it appears that Erasmus was not very significant for either Luther or Calvin at this time.336
Luther's explicit references to Erasmus are theological. Every occasion represents Luther's disagreement with Erasmus, which is a significant departure from his commentary in 1519, where Erasmus is still praised by Luther as 'a man preeminent in theology and impervious to envy'.337 There are three issues dealt with in these passages. The first deals with Paul's rebuke of Peter, which Erasmus, together with Jerome, tones down as a 'complaisant pretence' (ex simulatione officiosa). Luther, however, sees that Peter was clearly worthy of blame, which indicates that even the greatest of God's saints may fall into sin against the notion of the scholastics and monks of the church as sinless and perfect.338 Further, Luther disagrees with Erasmus and the scholastics339 on the definition of the law in Galatians, which both see as the ceremonial law, while
Luther together with Calvin, sees the law in Galatians as the whole law, including the moral one.340 The third issue deals with good works in relation to justification.
Erasmus and 'the Master of the Sentences' (Magister Sententiarum - Peter Lombard) together point to Cornelius as a man, who before receiving God's grace,
334When one compares Luther's critique of Anabaptist teachings to the one he directs at papists, it is evident that many of the themes overlap or are even the same including issues relating to justification
(e.g. no proper understanding of the distinction between the law and the gospel), the work of the Holy Spirit (e.g. no proper understanding of the Christian struggle with sin) and the scandal of the cross and Christian suffering (both papists and Anabaptists persecute, one physically, the other spiritually). On the other hand, there are issues specific to the two groups as well, which include that of papal authority and the importance of a lawful calling, which Luther saw Anabaptists did not have.
335See the table in Appendix 3 for further detail.
336As interesting as it would have been to examine the references Luther and Calvin make to other persons and groups, such as Aristotle, Porphyry, Julian, Thomas Aquinas, the Turks etc, there was a need to limit the discussion to the ones named in the sections above.
337Maluissem certe et ego expectare commentarios olim ab Erasmo, viro in Theologia summo et invidiae quoque victore, promissos: verum, dum ille differt (quod deus faxit non sit diuturnum) cogit me in publicum ire casus iste quem videtis. WA 2.449.21-24, Dedication.
338See WA 40a.195.11-196.21, on Gal. 2.11.
339Luther indicates that Erasmus and the scholastics followed Jerome and Origen here in identifying the law in Galatians as the ceremonial law. Hic iterum admoneo, Paulum non loqui de lege ceremoniali, ut perpetuo Sophistae nugantur; Et huiusce erroris authores primi extiterunt Origenes et Hieronymus, in hac parte nocentissimi doctores, quos secuti postea sunt omnes Scholastici; Et illorum errorem approbat et confirmat hodie Erasmus. … Ideo de tota lege loquitur. WA 40a.302.17-22, 26, on Gal. 2.21.
340See section 4.2.1 for further discussion on the definition of the law and its implications in Luther's commentary. For Calvin's definition of the law in Galatians as the whole law, see COR 16.8-9,
Argumentum and COR 16.24, on Gal. 1.13.
'by congruity' (de congruo), had gained merit by good works.341 Similarly, Erasmus, on another occasion, with the papists and the fanatics (Luther's reference to Anabaptists), is seen by Luther as teaching that Christ is a new lawgiver, and as insisting that good works, in addition to God's grace, are necessary for justification.
Luther, by way of contrast, affirms that Cornelius was a Gentile who did not in reality keep the law as it ought to be kept, and despite this was justified and received God's Spirit, thus demonstrating the opposite of what Erasmus affirmed – good works do not justify. Similarly, Christ is not a new lawgiver, but the justifier and Saviour of sinners. Law is not a part of the gospel, but an addition or an Appendix to the gospel, thus indicating how the law and the gospel ought to be kept distinct.342
Calvin, for his part, refers to Erasmus on four occasions.343 Calvin's allusions deal with exegetical facts connected to appropriate translations of specific words, and do not include explicit theological discussion either for or against Erasmus' position. Faber has written a brief but well researched article investigating the possible influence of Erasmus' Annotationes on Galatians to exegetical aspects of Calvin's commentary on Galatians. Faber concludes that Calvin had a positive attitude toward Erasmus as a scholar despite their evident theological differences.344
Faber's article is not discussed here in more detail, as the focus of Faber's study, as well as Calvin's comments on Erasmus, is exegesis, not theology. Therefore these instances are not dealt with in any more detail in this context.
In summary, while on the one hand there are only a few references Luther and Calvin make to Erasmus, on the other it is significant that they have chosen to allude by name only to him out of a number of contemporary theologians. On the basis of their statements on Erasmus, it is evident that while Luther treats Erasmus as a theologian in his Galatians, Calvin, for his part, discusses Erasmus as a scholar, whose renderings of the Greek he occasionally sees appropriate to comment on.
Luther regards Erasmus' views as being close to if not identical with the mediaeval 341WA 40a.337.23-338.15, on Gal. 3.2.
342See WA 40a.259.26-257.13, on Gal. 2.17.
343This is increased to six references in the last edition of Galatians from 1556. The two additional comments also deal with issues of translation and exegesis, not theology. See Calvin's references to Erasmus in COR 16.25, 16.109, 16.143, 16.146, on Gal. 1.15, 4.25, 6.8 and 6.13, respectively. For the added references of the 1556 edition, see COR 16.59, 16.149 on Gal. 3.1, 6.17, respectively.
344Faber agrees with Helmut Feld, the editor of the most recent edition of Calvin's Galatians, against Parker, who posits that Calvin became more negative in his assessment of Erasmus after the Romans commentary in 1540. Faber demonstrates that Erasmus and Calvin shared very similar principles of Bible translation, and also notes the fact Calvin added two references to Erasmus in his last edition of the commentary on Galatians in 1556. Calvin's references to Erasmus are respectful, especially when compared with his comment on patristic commentators on Galatians (Faber 2004: 275). Despite the fact that Erasmus and Calvin's theological positions were obviously different, Calvin appreciated Erasmus because, as Faber states, he had a 'basic agreement with Erasmus on matters of translation and exegesis'
Catholic position Luther rejects. Calvin, however, does not appear to show special interest in Erasmus' theological views, at least with regards to the issues of 2.4.3.4. Luther's Possible Influence on Calvin
This section includes a brief outline of Luther's possible influence on Calvin, which is considered in reference to Calvin's attitude toward Luther and with regards to some of Luther's books it is known that Calvin had read. Additionally, there is a brief consideration of the possibility of Calvin having been influenced by Luther's
Galatians.345 Luther's possible influence on Calvin is primarily investigated on a general level rather than discussing his impact on the form of particular doctrines in Calvin. Luther's influence on specific doctrines in Calvin would be an interesting and relevant issue to address in view of this research, but is too wide and complicated a topic to be treated here.346 Nevertheless, it is seen important to give attention to the question of whether Calvin could have been influenced specifically by Luther's Galatians.
Despite some real opportunities,347 Luther and Calvin never met and there was no direct communication between them, except for Calvin's letter to Luther in 1545, which in the end did not reach Luther. The content of this letter is discussed below.
It is interesting that in his early reformatory career Calvin appears to prefer Luther over the Swiss reformer Zwingli even though he was familiar with Luther's position on the controverted issue of the Eucharist.348 Furthermore, Calvin
345As the focus of this research is on Luther's and Calvin's commentaries on Galatians, it was seen as appropriate, in addition to making use of Calvin's comment on Luther in his letters, to make use of the findings in available secondary literature on Calvin's relationship to Luther. These include Lang 1936,
Zeeden 1958, Farris 1964, Gerrish 1967, Rogge 1968, Parker 1975, and Spijker 1986.
346The comparison of Luther's and Calvin's teachings on central themes in Galatians in section 6 is hoped to display agreements and disagreements on these issues.
347For instance, Calvin had been requested to go to Luther personally instead of sending him a letter.
Calvin, however, considered that Luther was too agitated by recent controversies with the Sacramentarians, and that he did not have the necessary time and linguistic ability for the journey. See
C0 12: 610.26, Calvinus Incerto, 1545. See also Farris 1964: 128. Calvin was not present when the Wittenberg Concord (1536) was drafted. Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer were there, however. Later,
Melanchthon and Calvin were both present and became friends at the colloquies between representatives of the two divisions of the Protestant churches in Frankfurt, Worms and Ratisbon in 1539, 1540 and 1541. Luther, however, did not attend these three meetings. See Farris 1964: 130.
348Calvin states in his letter to Farel that when Zwingli and Luther 'are compared with each other, you yourself know how much Luther has the preference.' Unfortunately, I could not find this reference in the original and therefore had to trust the translation in Calvin's Letters, Letter 30, to Farel, 28 February
1539. This letter does not appear in CO 10 in the place where it should. The translation of Calvin's Letters refers to an original in Library of Geneva, vol. 106.
By this time Calvin had read, it is assumed, among other works of Luther, Luther's Captivitate Babylonica, and two of Luther's sermons on the Lord's Supper (Sermon von dem Sakrament des Leibs und Blutes Christi wider die Schwarmgeister, translated into Latin 1527 and Sermon von dem explicitly approved of the Augustana Variata of 1540 and during his stay in Strasbourg (1536-39), worked in accordance with the Augustana Invariata of 1530 because it was one of the two official confessions of Strasbourg at the time.349
Luther, for his part, gave a good testimony of Calvin, having read Calvin's Petit traicté de la saincte Cene de nostre Siegneur Jesus Christ 1540,350 and probably also his Institutio of 1539, affirming Calvin to be a godly and learned man.351
Hochwürdigen Sakrament des heyligen wahren Leichnams Christi 1519, translated into Latin 1524). See Parker 1975: 23 and Lang 1936: 106.
349Augustana Invariata of 1530 refers to the original unchanged form of the Augsburg Confession written by Melanchthon in 1530. Augustana Variata of 1540 refers to the changed form of the Augsburg
Confession written by Melanchthon in 1540, where the issue of the Lord's Supper was dealt with in a way which was more acceptable to the Swiss reformers in its wording on the doctrine of the Eucharist than the earlier Augustana Invariata had been. It is likely that Calvin signed the Augustana Variata at the beginning of the Diet in Regensburg in 1541. See Nijenhuis 1972: 109-110. Calvin also explicitly expressed his favourable view toward the Augustana Invariata when he advised another minister Jean
Garnier to sign this document without reservations. This is known from a letter of Jean Garnier, which has been preserved in CO 15. Jean Garnier writes to Bullinger 'Ego quidem illam perlegi, at quum mihi non fido, ad praeceptorem meum D. Calvinum hac de re scripsi qui in haec verba mihi respondit:
"Augustanae Confessioni cur subscribere dubites, non video." CO 15.2058.336, Garnerius Bullingero, 10 December 1554. See also Nijenhuis 1972: 113. The city of Strasbourg had two confessions, which the ministers of the city had to agree with at the time of Calvin's stay there (1538-1541), the Tetrapolitan
Confession and the Augustana Invariata. (The Tetrapolitan confession was an evangelical confession of Strasbourg and three south German cities, and was stricter than the Augustana against the Roman
Catholic faith in its formulation regarding ceremonies and the authority of Scripture). It seems that the ministers were not officially required to sign them, however, although any teaching, which was not in accordance with their content, would not have been allowed. See Girardin 1979: 101 and Nijenhuis 1972:
104-112 for further information.
350Luther read this treatise in Latin translation.
351See Parker 1975: 136-137 for further detail and references. Calvin reports in his letter to Farel that Philipp (Melanchthon) had said that Luther had wanted Calvin to be greeted with respect, and that Calvin had found great favour in his eyes. Calvin writes, 'Luthero ad Bucerum in quibus ita scriptum erat:
Saluta mihi Sturmium et Calvinum reverenter, quorum libellos singulari voluptate legi. Iam reputa quid illic de eucharistia dicam. Cogita Lutheri ingenuitatem. Facile erit statuere quid causae habeant qui tam pertinaciter ab eo dissident Philippus autem ita scribebat: Lutherus et Pomeranus Calvinum et Sturmium iusserunt salutari. Calvinus magnam gratiam iniit.' CO 10.197.432, Calvinus Farello, 12 December 1539.
Further, some persons had told Luther of Calvin's words of critique of him, to which Luther had replied that he hopes Calvin would one day think better of them, but in any case he should have evidence of 'our good feeling towards him'. Calvin writes, 'Tandem ita fuisse loquutum Spero quidem ipsum olim de nobis melius sensurum sed aequum est a bono ingenio nos aliquid ferre.' CO 10.197.432, Calvinus
Farello, 12 December 1539. This evoked Calvin's statement that one would certainly be 'of stone' if not affected by 'such moderation'. Tanta moderatione si non frangimur, sumus plane saxei. CO 10.197.432,
Calvinus Farello, 12 December 1539. This also led to Calvin stating in his preface to his Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, that one ought not to expect to reach a universal agreement on all points of doctrine, but nevertheless 'cultivate brotherly intercourse'. He further cautioned that when departing from the interpretations 'of our predecessors', one ought ought 'not be stimulated by any humour for novelty', but be 'contrained by necessity alone, and by the motive of seeking to do good'. Nunquam enim tanto beneficio servos suos dignatus est Deus, ut singuli plena perfectaque omni ex parte intelligentia praediti essent. Nec dubium quin eo consilio ut nos in humilitate primum, deinde communicationis fraternae studio retineret. Ergo quum sperandum in praesenti vita non sit, quod maxime alioqui optandum esset, ut in locis scripturae intelligendis perpetua sit inter nos consensio, danda est
Calvin, in turn, was very touched by Luther's positive view of him, and in consideration of the fact that Luther commended him after having read Calvin's view on the Eucharist, Calvin praised 'the ingeniousness of Luther' and regarded those unreasonable who 'obstinately dissent from him'.352
Later, there was a turn in events, however. Luther became more pungent in the ongoing controversy on the Eucharist and wrote the work Kurzes
Bekenntniss vom Abendmahl (1544), in which he unsparingly denounced the Sacramentarians.353 Despite Luther's strong words of critique toward the Sacramentarians (one of whom he now considered Calvin to be),354 Calvin nevertheless maintained that 'even though he (Luther) were to call me a devil I should still not the less regard him … as an outstanding servant of God'.355 Calvin's letter to Luther, written in 1545 (a year before he composed his Galatians), further illustrates his continuing high regard toward his 'much respected father in the Lord', whom he regarded as a 'most distinguished minister of Christ'.356 opera ut nulla novandi libidine incitati, nulla sugillandi alios cupiditate impulsi, nullo instigati odio, nulla ambitione titillate, sed sola necessitate coacti, nec aliud quaerentes quam prodesse, a superiorum sententiis discedamus: deinde ut id fiat in scripturae expositione, in religionis autem dogmatibus, in quibus praecipue voluit. Dominus consentaneas esse suorum mentes, minus sumatur libertatis. CO
10.191.405, Calvinus Grynaeo, 15 November 1539. (In Corpus Reformatorum, Calvin's dedication of the epistle of Romans to Simon Grynaeus is found within the section on Calvin's letters in CO 10, not in CO 49, where the commentary on Romans is located.)
352Luthero ad Bucerum in quibus ita scriptum erat: Saluta mihi Sturmium et Calvinum reverenter, quorum libellos singulari voluptate legi. Iam reputa quid illic de eucharistia dicam. Cogita Lutheri ingenuitatem. Facile erit statuere quid causae habeant qui tam pertinaciter ab eo dissident Philippus autem ita scribebat: Lutherus et Pomeranus Calvinum et Sturmium iusserunt salutari. Calvinus magnam gratiam iniit.' CO 10.197.432, Calvinus Farello, 12 December 1539. Calvin sincerely hoped that the German and the Swiss Protestants could reach an agreement. When writing with regards to certain observances, which Luther maintained and Bucer had approved of (or at least did not consider as church dividing), Calvin explained to Farel that he agreed with Bucer who did not see these observances as church dividing. See CO 10.169.341, Calvinus Farello, April 1539.
353Luther had read some works composed by Swiss Protestants in Zurich on the Eucharist, which had angered him. In response, Luther proceeded to denounce the Sacramentarians. See CO 11.576.755,
Calvinus Farello, 10 October 1544. See also Parker 1975: 137.
354See Parker 1975: 137. At this time Luther said concerning those holding to what he saw as Sacramentarian views on the Eucharist, 'Und sie ein eingeteuffelt, durchteuffelt, uberteuffelt, lesterlich hertz und Luegenmaul hetten, Und wolt damit die warheit gesagt haben was 'eingeteuffelt, durch teuffelt, uberteuffelt, lesterlich hertz und Luegenmaul'. WA 54.147.33-34, Kurzes Bekenntnis vom heiligen
Sakrament, 1544. See also WA 54.132, Kurzes Bekenntnis vom heiligen Sakrament 1544, Einleitung.
355Saepe dicere solitus sum: etiam si me diabolum vocaret, me tamen hoc illi honoris habiturum, ut insignem Dei servum agnoscam: qui tame nut pollet eximiis virtutibus, eta magnis vitiis laboret. CO
11.586.774, Calvinus Bullingero, 25 November 1544.
356Calvin addresses Luther in the beginning of the letter, 'Excellentissimo christianae ecclesiae pastori.
D. Martino Luthero patri mihi plurimum observando.' CO 12.605.7, Calvinus Luthero, 1545. It seems unfortunate that Calvin's humble and respectful letter, which he sent through Melanchthon with an instruction to consider Luther's state of mind on whether or not to give the letter, was never passed on to Luther by Melanchthon. Calvin's letter was written on the issue of persecution in France where the churches were uncertain how publicly and directly it was their duty to confess their faith. Calvin saw that they should not hide their convictions, even if this meant risking their life, to which he sought
Despite his positive statements on Luther, Calvin never seems to have regarded him uncritically.357 While Calvin compared Wittenberg with Jerusalem as the birthplace of the true gospel,358 he also affirmed that Luther had faults, one of which was his vehement disposition and ungovernable impetuosity.359
Similarly, Calvin could not accept when Luther was given an authoritative position in the church and in doctrine.360 Calvin felt that God had accomplished a pivotal change through Luther, but at the same time he saw that the Reformation needed to continue.361 Calvin thought that the position he had taken on the Lord's Supper and on church organisation and discipline, for instance, were more in line with the Bible than the position of Luther.362 confirmation from Luther. Some French Protestants saw that it was appropriate to confess their faith in secret as Nicodemus did, coming to Jesus at night, which gave them the name 'Nicodemites'. Calvin had written two booklets relating to the issue at hand, namely, Petit traicte monstrant que c'est que doit faire un home fidèle, cognoisant la verité de l'Evangile quand il est entre les papists, 1543, and L'Excuse de
Jehan Calvin à Messieurs les Nicodemites, sur la complaincte qu'il font de sa trop grand rigueur, 1544.
Both of these booklets were translated into Latin for Luther to read. See Farris 1964: 127 for further information.
357For instance, in 1538 Calvin complained about the unwillingness of Lutherans to settle the controversy between themselves and the Swiss Protestants. Calvin saw that it was Luther who 'may have been to blame'. Calvin states, 'Peccet sane Lutherus, a quo mihi non satisfieri ingenue ipse fateor.' CO
10.149.277, Calvinus Farello, 24 October 1538.
358See CR 547, 8. Mai 1544. Quoted in Zeeden 1958: 179. See also Zeeden 1958: 180.
359Calvin states this in his letter to Melanchthon. See CO 12.657.98-100, Calvinus Melanchthoni, 28 June 1545. Calvin also maintains in this letter that while Luther ought to be held in honour, perhaps even in that of a primary position, it is not beneficial for a church to have to bow down before one person's authority.
360After Luther's death, some Lutherans regarded him as the third Elijah. See Zeeden 1958: 190. In view of the authoritative position Luther had gained, Calvin complained in his letter to Melanchthon that Luther had been tyrannical. See Zeeden 1958: 186.
361Gerrish, while recognizing that Calvin believed that he had taken the work of the Reformation further than Luther, makes an important observation that Calvin nevertheless recognized Luther as having been as fully God's servant as himself: 'If Calvin thought of himself as God's mouthpiece, he thought of Luther in the same way, and this did not prevent him from regarding Luther as fallible'. See Gerrish
362In 1549, Calvin appears to have called the 'adorable sacrament of Luther … an idol set up in the temple of God?' Calvin's Letters, Letter 244, to Bucer, June 1549. The excerpt is from Calvin's letter to Bucer, where he describes the excesses of certain Lutherans, while he commends the moderation of Melanchthon. Unfortunately, I was unable to trace the reference back to the original as it is not found in CO 13 where it should be. The translation of Calvin's Letters refers to an original in Calvin's Latin
Correspondence. Opera, vol. 9, p. 49. See also Bucer's response to Calvin on this issue in CO 13.1240.354-355, Bucerus Calvino, August 1549.
Joachim Rogge gives an example of how Calvin may have modified a specific doctrine, namely Luther's doctrine of the two regiments (the secular and the spiritual). In his article
¨Kritik Calvins an Luthers Zwei-Reiche-Lehre?', Rogge argues that Calvin adopted the doctrine of two regiments from Luther, but at the same time added a 'theocratic accent' in order to counteract 'the secularisation of the state' intimately connected with Luther's doctrine. In the conclusion of his article,
Rogge quotes Joachim Staedtke (Rogge agreeing with him) as follows, 'Er (Calvin) hat Luthers ZweiReiche-Lehre übernommen, sie aber modifiziert durch einen theokratischen Akzent, um der von ihm vorasusgesehenen Paganisierung des Staates entgegenzuwirken' (Joachim Staedtke, 'Calvins Genf und
Attention is now turned to a brief consideration of some of Luther's books Calvin had read and which are considered to have had an influence on him.
As is well-known, the first version of Calvin's Institutio, that of 1536, had many relatively clear links to Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer's writings. Lang lists
Luther's books, which have been seen to connect with Calvin's Institutio 1536 as the following: Luther's Kleine Katechismus (1529), Tractatus De libertate
Christiana (1520), De captivitate Babylonica (1520), Sermon von dem Sakrament des Leibs und Blutes Christi wider die Schwarmgeister (translated into Latin 1527),
(translated into Latin 1524), and Kirchenpostille.363 The most influential of these was most likely Luther's Kleine Katechismus. Lang enumerates connections between Luther's Kleine Katechismus and Calvin's Institutio 1536 on issues such as God's law, faith, sacraments and prayer, for instance, thus suggesting that Luther had influenced Calvin on at least these subjects.364
A brief review of some of Calvin's comments on Luther in his letters in 1538-1548 helped to identify two other works Calvin desired to have, namely, 'pias precationes Lutheri'365 (1539) and further, early in the year Calvin wrote his Galatians (1546), Luther's Commentarij in Genesim.366 Considering the die Entstehung politischer Freiheit' in Staat und Kirche im Wandel der Jahrhunderte, Stuttgart: Walther
Peter Fuchs, 1966, p. 100; quoted in Rogge 1968: 167). Whether Rogge is right in his view or not, it needs to be borne in mind that the relationship between the church and the state represents one of those few issues where Calvin's variance from Luther's view may be seen as more significant than in most other doctrines. An interesting counterpart to Rogge's article can be found in Willem Van't Spijker's article 'The Influence of Luther on Calvin according to the Institutes', where Spijker examines the ways in which Calvin accepted and modified Luther's teaching on 1) knowledge of God and humans, 2) predestination and 3) the Lord's Supper (Spijker 1986: 95-105). It is often said that especially the doctrines of predestination and the Lord's Supper were taught in a significantly different way by Luther and Calvin. However, Spijker argues that while there are differences in accent in Luther and Calvin, there is nevertheless an underlying continuity between the two reformers' thought even on these doctrines. Spijker says in his conclusion, 'Calvin never had any doubts about the idea that he was continuing along the way indicated by Luther. It was Luther's way, or rather the way first indicated by Luther. But Calvin went further along this way. … In the further elaboration of it, it was not the reformer from Wittenberg but the reformer from Strasbourg who illuminated his road.' See Spijker 1986: 104-105.
The subjects of Galatians, however, primarily deal with subjects where there is a large degree of agreement between Luther and Calvin. See section 6 of this research for further discussion.
363See Lang 1536: 104-106. It is possible that Calvin had also used Luther's Grosse Katechismus. It is thought that Calvin would have read Luther's Kleine Katechismus in a Latin translation of a collection of Luther's writings Betbüchleins. Additionally, Melanchthon's Loci Communes 1522, is seen to have several links with Calvin's Institutio 1536. Calvin had also with great likelihood read both
Melanchthon's Augustana and its Apologia. See Lang 1536: 106-107.
364See Lang 1936: 105.
365Calvin writes to Farel in 1539 about 'pias precationes Lutheri', which he wanted to obtain 'Vous maviez mande par Alexandre que vous aviez a moy pias precationes Lutheri desquelles vous ne faictes nulle mention. Ie vous prye aussi me mander comment il en va.' CO 10.194.426, Calvinus Farello, 27th
366Calvin, writing to Theodore Vitus, requests that he pass on to Luther's commentary on Genesis. CO 12.781.317, Calvinus Theodoro [Vito], 16 March 1546. large number of works Calvin had read by Luther, one could be led to think Calvin must have been largely influenced by them. While this was undoubtedly true in his
Institutio of 1536, the next edition of his Institutio (1539) showed otherwise.
Thenceforth, Calvin's theology is generally seen to stand on its own.
Next, some attention is given to the question of whether Calvin had read or been influenced by Luther's Galatians. The conclusions outlined here are made on the basis of Parker's and Feld's consideration of the two commentaries, in addition to my own study. Parker's analysis of the Latin utilised in Calvin's translation of the text of the New Testament present in Calvin's New Testament commentaries, included a consideration of possible connections between Luther's and Calvin's Galatians. Parker's study did not produce any links to Luther's
Galatians.367 Feld, for his part, makes no reference to Luther's Galatians in his introduction on the sources of Calvin's commentaries on Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians and Colossians. In the apparatus of Calvin's Galatians (in Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica, vol. 16),368 however, there are three references made to Luther's commentary. Each of them is briefly reviewed below in addition to one further allusion identified in the present study, which could be seen as a possible link between the commentaries of these two reformers. It may be in place to note here, that Calvin makes no explicit reference in his commentary to Luther. This, however, does not necessarily indicate that he had not used Luther's Galatians, as he also used Bullinger's commentaries without mentioning him by name, as Feld affirms.369
The first of Feld's references to Luther's Galatians in the apparatus of Calvin's Galatians is in the passage where Calvin alludes to the subject of justification as 'a fundamental article of the Christian faith' and as an issue, which is 'weighty and serious'.370 Luther, for his part, notes that the issue of justification is
'nothing trivial' for Paul and that it is 'the principal doctrine of Christianity'.371 This 367Parker did find connections between Calvin's New Testament text and that of Bucer, however. The relationship between Calvin and Bucer, as much as it could have been interesting to examine in reference to Calvin's Galatians, has to be left for others to investigate due to constraints of space. See Parker 1962:
368Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica vol. 16 is the same as COR (Calvini Opera Recognita), vol. 16.
369Feld affirms, 'Unter den reformatorischen Auslegern hat sich Calvin weitaus am häufigsten und intensivsten mit dem Zürcher Heinrich Bullinger auseinandergesetzt, allerdings ohne ihn jemals namentlich zu nennen. Der Grund dafür liegt auf der Hand: Calvin wollte wohl Bullinger, dessen
Interpretation er in den meisten Fällen ablehnt, persönlich nicht verletzen.' See Feld 1992: xxiv.
370At Paulus tanquam de primario Christianae fidei capite dimicat. Neque immerito. Non enim leve malum est suffocari Euangelii claritatem, laqueum iniici conscientiis, tolli discrimen Veteris et Novi testamenti. Videbat praeterea his erroribus coniunctam quoque esse impiam et perniciosam opinionem promerendae iustitiae. Haec causa est, cur tanta vehementia et contentione depugnet. Nos quoque admoniti, quam gravis et seria disputatio hic tractetur. COR 16.6, Argumentum.
371Paulus hic non agit de lana caprina nec de pane lucrando, sed de praecipuo articulo Christianae doctrinae. Illo conspecto et habito ob oculos caetera omnia vilescunt et nihili sunt. Quid enim est Petrus, statement, it appears, only demonstrates that both reformers saw justification as central both in Galatians and in the Christian faith. The wording is not so similar that it would suggest any direct connection. The second possible link is somewhat stronger. In his comment on Gal. 3.1, Calvin refers to the interpretation of those who see that Christ is being recrucified by the Galatians in their fall from the gospel. He sees this interpretation as 'strained'.372 This interpretation, which Calvin rejects, is represented by at least two other commentators, those of Nicolaus of Lyra and Luther. Luther explains Paul's comment ('quod sit in vobis crucifixus', Gal 3.1) as a warning to the Galatians because by attempting to achieve righteousness by the law they are recrucifying Christ.373 (Calvin also rejected righteousness by the law, but did not see it appropriate to see this as having a connection to recrucifying
Christ). While it is possible that Calvin also could have had Luther in mind when referring to the 'strained' interpretation of others, it needs to be borne in mind that Luther was not the only one holding this view, and that therefore Calvin's statement could well refer to others, not Luther.
The third possible connection between Luther's and Calvin's commentaries is found in Calvin's allusion to various interpretations of Gal. 3.3
('Ita stulti estis, ut exorsi a Spiritu, nunc carne consummemini'). Here Calvin refers to other explanations of the verse as 'doubtful' and 'divided' with regards to the meaning of the terms Spirit and flesh.374 Calvin explains the verse as meaning a fall from the Spirit into outward things or dead doctrine, which represented the flesh.375
Luther, for his part, interprets the flesh at this point as representing righteousness of the law, which human wisdom and reason see as the right way to justification.376
Despite the fact that there is variance in Calvin's and Luther's explanations of the verse (which could confirm the fact that Calvin sees Luther's interpretation as one of those which are 'doubtful'), it is uncertain whether this represents a connection between their commentaries, since Calvin's reference to the interpretation is so vague.
A further possible link could be suggested on the basis of Calvin's comment on Gal. 3.19, where he alludes to the 'many' who cannot see any other
Paulus, quid angelus e coelo, quid universa creatura ad articulum iustificationis? WA 40a.192.19-22, on 372Nam quod aliqui intelligent: Galatas crucifixisse rursus Dominum et ludibrio habuisse, quum ab
Euangelii puritate recesserant, vel certe praebuisse aurem et fidem accomodasse impostoribus, qui eum crucifigebant, mihi videtur coactius. COR 16.60, on Gal. 3.1.
373Utitur ergo hic Paulus gravissimis et atrocissimis verbis, ut Galatas absterreat et revocet a doctrina Pseudoapostolorum, Quasi dicat: Considerate, quid feceritis; Vos denuo crucifixistis Christum, hocque tam clare vobis ostendo et pingo ob oculos, ut videre et contrectare possitis, quia per legem vultis iustificari. Si autem per legem est iustitia, igitur Christus est peccati minister et frustra mortuus est. Si hoc verum est, tunc certissime sequitur eum in vobis esse denuo crucifixum. WA 40a.326.29-35, on Gal.
3.1. See also WA 40a.327.28-31, on Gal. 3.1.
374Hic etiam dubium est, quid per Spiritum, quid per carnem intelligat. Variant interpretes. COR 16.61.
376See WA 40.347a.26-27. advantage of the law except that it points out human sin. Calvin, for his part, affirms that the law is also helpful for 'teaching and exhortation', although he, too, acknowledges that the principal application of the law in Galatians is pointing out sin.377 This, again, could be a reference to Luther (among others). However, due to the lack of any further specification, and due to the fact that it could refer to any other work of Luther identifying his position on the uses of the law, even this statement cannot be seen as conclusive evidence for suggesting that Calvin would have read or been influenced by Luther's commentary on Galatians.
In summary, Calvin had high regard for Luther and had been influenced by him, especially in the earlier stages of his reformatory career. Despite the various books of Luther Calvin had read, however, Calvin's theology from 1539 onwards is his own. This seems confirmed by the results of this study, too, as may be reviewed in the nature of the similarities and agreements between Luther and Calvin in sections 4-6 below. Calvin expressed things differently to Luther, and on a few occasions also disagreed with his position. Additionally, the specific question as to whether Calvin was influenced by Luther's Galatians must be left open. While it is possible to suggest a few indistinct connections between their commentaries, the evidence is not sufficient to conclude with any certainty that Calvin had read or used Luther's commentary in preparation for his.
377Multiplex est Legis usus. Sed Paulus eum solum attigit, qui praesenti causae serviebat … Video enim plerosque hallucinari, quod nullam aliam Legis utilitatem agnoscunt, quam quae hic notatur. Atqui
Paulus ipse alibi praecepta Legis accomodat ad doctrinam et exhortationes. COR 16.77, on Gal. 3.19.