April 2002
Volume 35, Number 2
In This Issue:
For a free copy of
this Theological Journal, write: |
Whatever
Happened to the Reformation, ed. by Gary L. W. Johnson & R. Fowler White. Philipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing Co.,
Publishers, 2001. Pp. xxviii-337. $15.99
(paper). [Reviewed by Herman C. Hanko.]
Eschatology,
by Hans Schwarz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Pp. xv + 431. $26 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Our
School: Calvin College and the Christian Reformed Church, by Harry Boonstra. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 2001. Pp. xi-155. (Paper.) [Reviewed by Herman C.
Hanko.]
Revelation
Down to Earth: Making Sense of the Apocalypse
of John, by Edwin Walhout. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Pp. viii + 254.
$20 (paper). [Reviewed by David J.
Engelsma.]
Calvin: A Biography, by Bernard Cottret. Tr. M. Wallace McDonald. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000. Pp. xv + 376. $28 (cloth).
[Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Holy
Fairs: Scotland and the Making of American
Revivalism, by Leigh Eric Schmidt. Second
edition with a new preface. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Pp. xxix + 278. $27 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Looking
into the Future: Evangelical Studies in
Eschatology, ed. David W. Baker. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. 383 pp. $29.99
(paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Dictionary
of the Presbyterian & Reformed Tradition in America, ed. D. G. Hart and
Mark A. Noll. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Pp. vii
+ 286. $16.99 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
The Eschatology of the Old Testament, by
Geerhardus Vos. Ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2001.
Pp. ix + 176. $11.99 (paper). [Reviewed David J. Engelsma.]
Christ’s Spiritual
Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism by David J. Engelsma. Published
by The Reformed Witness, Redlands, CA, 2001. 158 pp. $9 (paper). [Reviewed by Russell Dykstra.]
Prof.
Russell J. Dykstra presents the first article of a series on “A Comparison of
Exegesis: John Calvin and Thomas
Aquinas.” Because of the stature of
these two theologians (Calvin in the Protestant, i.e., especially Reformed Protestant
tradition; Aquinas in the Roman Catholic tradition), Dykstra points out that for these two
men to be “compared and contrasted in many areas of their work and thought is only
natural.” And indeed there are many
works published contrasting these giants. Most
of these are based in Aquinas’ Summa and Calvin’s Institutes. Very little work has been done comparing the
exegesis of these theologians. This, in spite
of the fact that “both Aquinas and Calvin are not only theologians, they are
accomplished exegetes of the Scriptures.” Dykstra’s
purpose in writing this series is to demonstrate the significant similarities and striking
differences in the exegeses of these men.
In his contribution,
“Nothing but a Loathsome Stench: Calvin’s Doctrine of the Spiritual Condition of
Fallen Man,” Prof. David J. Engelsma presents a clear and important and
well-documented summary of Calvin’s teaching on original sin and total depravity. While candidly admitting Calvin’s erroneous
teaching called “General Grace,” Engelsma demonstrates the serious implications
for doctrine and life of the church of any compromise on Calvin’s correct teaching on
“the spiritual condition of fallen man.” Calvin’s
purpose in his “admittedly dark analysis of man’s spiritual condition ... is to
open up the way to belief of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the only source and
means of the salvation of the sinner.” In
this connection the reader must pay careful attention to what Engelsma has to say in
footnote 3 about the implications of the denial of God’s creation of man as good and
man’s depravity and sinfulness through his falling from that original goodness in
Adam! Read this important article. The Reformed reader will, after having done so,
breathe a fervent prayer of thanks to God for giving John Calvin to His church.
Pastor Lau Chin Kwee
presents the second article in his series on the “Serious Call of the Gospel.”
Undersigned continues his
exposition of the Epistle to Titus.
As
usual we also offer a number of book reviews to aid the busy pastors and members of the
churches.
An Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to Titus (5)
Again we remind the reader
that this exposition of the Epistle to Titus was first given in the form of “chapel
talks” by the author at the weekly Wednesday morning chapel services at the seminary. The author began the exposition in the 1997-1998
school year and completed the series the second semester of the 1999-2000 school year. The exposition is being published in the Journal
with the hope that it will prove helpful to a wider audience of the people of God in their
study of this brief letter in the sacred Scriptures.
So that both those able to work with the Greek language and those unable to do so
may benefit from this study, all references to the Greek will be placed in footnotes. The translation of the Greek text is the
author’s. We present this exposition
pretty much as it was spoken in the chapel services, application and all. Perhaps this will help the reader gain some
insight into what goes on in the seminary.
Chapter Two
Verse 1
After extending his
greetings to Titus the young preacher (chapter 1:1-4), the apostle explains why he left
Titus in Crete, viz., to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders
in every city…” (1:5). The apostle
then explains what gifts the elders must have if they are to serve in that office in the
church (1:6-9). In the last section of the
first chapter, the apostle describes the foolish and vain talkers whom Titus must sharply
rebuke (vv. 10-16).
Chapter two introduces a
contrast with that last section of chapter one. The
first verse reads,
But thou 1 speak that which becomes (or befits)2 sound teaching.3
In sharp contrast to the
speech of the foolish and vain talkers, Titus is emphatically commanded to speak that
which befits sound/healthful teaching/doctrine.
The antidote to the unruly
and vain talkers, that which will sharply rebuke them, is sound doctrine. The church needs to be taught wholesome or
healthful doctrine. Note well that this must
characterize all of Titus’ labors as a pastor.
He must in all his preaching and teaching speak those things which befit wholesome,
healthful, sound doctrine. By way of sharp
contrast with the unruly and vain talkers, whose false teaching/doctrine subverts whole
houses, Titus must speak the things which befit wholesome doctrine. In other words, the sound doctrine which Titus
must teach will edify, i.e., build up the saints and thus the church.
The speech which befits
sound doctrine is that which is consistent with, that which harmonizes with, sound
doctrine. More specifically, that speech
which is consistent with sound doctrine describes the godly life of sanctification which
must flow out of the sound doctrine/teaching of the sacred Scriptures. Or, we could say, that speech which is consistent
with sound doctrine describes the good works which are the fruit of a true and living
faith.
“The things which befit
sound doctrine” are carefully laid out in the rest of the chapter. Especially is this true of verses two through
ten, in which section five classes of church members are exhorted and addressed:
1. The aged men (v. 2).
2. The aged women (vv. 3 - 5).
3. The young, married women (vv. 4 - 5).
4. The young men (v. 6))
5. The slaves (vv. 9 - 10) 4
Not only must the above
mentioned be exhorted by Titus, but he, himself a young man, must set the example of good
works in his own daily living.
We need to pause at this
point lest we fail to be impressed with the tremendous importance of and indispensable
place of sound doctrine/teaching in the work of the ministry. Sound doctrinal teaching is the only source of the
godly life of good works, which are the fruit of faith, performed in obedience to
God’s law, and done to God’s glory.5 Because
sound doctrine is the source of the Christian’s life of faith, it is the only thing
that will expose the deceptive, false teachings of the unruly, vain talkers and thus
render their errors ineffectual in the church! Therefore
the teaching of Titus must be sound and he must in his living show himself as
“…a pattern of good works” (v. 7).
We must heed these
exhortations as well. As ministers of the
gospel of Jesus Christ and as those who are preparing to serve the church and her Savior
in that office, we must, in the face of opposition if necessary, “speak the things
which become sound doctrine.” Our
preaching, our catechism teaching, even our counseling and comforting the distressed, the
sick, the mourners will edify God’s people when in all these contexts we teach the
sound doctrine of the Word of God. And while
we are busy speaking the things which become sound doctrine we must show ourselves a
pattern of good works. Our lives too must be
in harmony with the sound doctrine of God’s Word!
In the rest of the chapter,
as we noted earlier, the apostle makes clear precisely what these “things which
become sound doctrine” are. In verse two he writes:
... the aged men that they be sober
(abstaining from wine), grave (to be venerated, respected, honorable), temperate, sound in
faith, in love, in patience.
The aged men of the church
must be exhorted to be sober, i.e., they must not be drunken. Neither this verse nor any other passage of
Scripture teaches that the people of God must totally abstain from alcoholic beverages. In fact this same apostle exhorts another young
preacher, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities”
(I Tim. 5:23).
The
important word in this verse from I Timothy is, obviously, “little.” But the verse under our consideration and a host
of other passages in Scripture do teach emphatically that the saints must not be drunken.6 The aged men of the church must not be drunken. If they choose to use alcoholic beverages, they
must use them moderately so that they remain sober at all times. The aged men must have their faculties, so as to
be able to discern the truth and godliness and the signs which herald the Lord’s
return. These aged men in the church will, in
obedience to this Word of God, set a good example to the younger men in the church
especially, but to all the members of the church as well.
Furthermore, the aged men
must be grave. The term “grave”
means “to be honored, venerated, respected.”7 Thus the aged men are to be taught to live their
lives in such a manner as to be worthy of the respect of the younger members of God’s
church. The aged men will have that honor
when they are upright in both their doctrine and their walk of life. Should they fail in this they can very easily
become the occasion for the younger members of the church to stumble!
Titus must instruct the aged
men to be sound in faith. Faith in this
context must be understood both from the point of view of its object (that which the aged
men must know and believe, viz., the truth of Holy Scripture) and from the point of view
of its activity (the actual believing of the aged men).
This means that the aged men must possess that certain knowledge of all that God
has revealed in His Word. They must hold that
certain knowledge for truth!8 And these aged men
must possess “an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in
[their] hearts; that not only to others, but to [them] also, remission of sin, everlasting
righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake
of Christ’s merits.”9 In both of these senses the aged men must be sound
in faith, i.e., strong in faith.10 This means, therefore, that the aged men must be
convinced and assured in their hearts that that certain knowledge of all that God has
revealed in His Word, that which they hold for truth, is for them. That must be evident in all their thinking,
willing, speaking, and doing. There must be
no errors mixed in with their doctrine. That
which they hold for truth must indeed be the unadulterated, pure doctrine of the Word of
God. And that pure doctrine must be
determinative of the way they live in the communion of the saints in the church and the
way they conduct themselves in their daily life in the world.
The aged men are to be
instructed to be sound (strong) in love.11 John Calvin, in his Commentary on this verse,
limits this reference to “love” to the second table of the Law of God, i.e.,
commandments five through ten, summed by Jesus as, “love thy neighbor as
thyself.” It is with a great deal of
hesitancy that we differ with Calvin’s exegesis.
In a way we really do not differ with Calvin, if we understand that the Christian
expresses his love for God precisely in the way of loving his neighbor. The “second commandment,” Jesus said,
“is like unto the first.” And the
Savior added, “…on these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets.”12
However we understand the text, this love is the love of God, for God is love
(I John 4:8).
God’s love is the bond of perfectness which
unites the three persons of the Godhead in perfect fellowship and communion. Because love is God’s, it is the chief virtue of the child of God
(Col. 3:14).
God’s love is “the more excellent way”
(I Cor. 12:31 - 13:
1 - 13). That love God commended to us, in that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners
(Rom. 5:8).
We
receive that love and are able to love God and the neighbor only because God’s love is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us
(Rom. 5:5)
In God’s love the aged
men must be strong! Again, in the communion
of the saints in the church and in the world the aged men must give evidence of the fact
that they love God because He first loved them. And
they do precisely that when they love their neighbors.
If that neighbor be ungodly, the aged men manifest God’s love to him by
calling him to repentance from his sins and faith in the Lord Jesus. If that neighbor be a fellow saint, the aged men
love him by seeking his eternal welfare and by sweet fellowship with him around God’s
Word, especially in the worship of God by the church.
Terribly important it is
that the aged men in the church are strong in love. That
is true because love is chief among the spiritual gifts and virtues with which God blesses
His people. I Corinthians thirteen, a chapter
to which we referred earlier, in the context of chapters twelve and fourteen, makes this
abundantly plain! Without God’s love,
all the other gifts of the Holy Spirit mean nothing.
Let the aged men of God’s precious church leave a good example to the younger
members in this regard. Above all else let
them be strong in God’s love!
The aged men must also be
strong in patience.13
In my preaching and teaching, I often
refer to this virtue/gift, patience, as the Christian’s “staying power.” Patience is always related in Scripture to the end
of all things, i.e., the victorious return of the crucified, risen Lord Jesus at the end
of the ages. This gift of patience also
often occurs in the context of the trials, chastening, and persecutions of the Christian. The aged men must be strong in patience. They must endure the Lord’s chastening. They must remain constant in the faith even while
enduring the sufferings of the present time. Especially
important is it that they be patient when persecuted on account of their faith.
In these ways the aged men
will be good, exemplary leaders in the church. Let
them be sober, grave, temperate, sound (strong) in faith, in charity (God’s love), in
patience. In these ways let us preachers
exhort, “speak the things which befit sound doctrine” to the aged men. God has given to the aged men in the church a
large, indispensable, wonderful, and crucially important place. That place is succinctly described in this little
text. Let not one aged man in the church
think otherwise. Indeed, let not one member
of the church young or aged think otherwise.
Verse 3
The aged women in like manner (that they be)
in behavior (deportment, bearing)14 as becoming holiness (or, as becoming in things
sacred to God),15 not prone to slander (accusing falsely),16 not enslaved to much wine,17 teachers of good things.
The behavior of the aged
women must be in harmony with holiness. This
is what Titus, the bishop of Crete, must teach them.
“Likewise” or “in like manner,” the apostle writes. In other words, just as Titus must teach the aged
men to be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity (love), in patience, so he
must instruct the aged women of the church “that they be in behavior as becometh
(befits) holiness. The aged women must in
their deportment, in the conduct of their daily life, refrain from sinful behavior and be
consecrated in the service of God. This is
what holiness is: separation from sin and consecration to the Lord.
But the inspired apostle is
not writing about the fact that the behavior of the aged women must harmonize with
holiness in general. He means that their
behavior must befit holiness in certain, very specific ways.
The behavior of these aged
women will befit holiness when they are not prone to slander. Slander is one of the forms of a great evil in
God’s church, the sin of evil speaking. That
this is a grievous sin and one often occurring in the church is evident from the mere fact
that Jesus and the Scriptures quite in general have so much to say about this sin. The other form of evil speaking is that of
backbiting. When someone backbites, the
content of what he is saying may very well be true, but he speaks not to the brother or
sister involved, but to others.
Here, however, the apostle
speaks of slander. This is the sin of
speaking lies, bringing false accusations of sin against a brother or sister in the
church. The evil motive of the slanderer is
to destroy the reputation, blacken the good name, of the fellow saint. Slander is the very opposite of sound speech,
which would edify, instruct, encourage, comfort, and, if need be, admonish a fellow
believer. The aged women must not be prone to
slander, guilty of being false accusers.
Neither must the aged women
be “given to much wine.”18 The aged women must not be enslaved to much wine! When one becomes immoderate in his use of alcohol,
he becomes enslaved to it. We have no quarrel
with the world’s calling that enslavement “addiction,” but that addiction
is not an illness, it is the judgment of God upon that sinner and his sin of habitual
drunkenness.
If an aged drunken man is a
pitiful, shameful sight to behold, a drunken woman is even more so! Such a woman leaves a terrible example to the
younger women in God’s church! Not only
does the drunkard lose her ability to discern reality and think clearly and speak sensibly
and clearly, but she loses her inhibitions, especially as concerning morality and modesty. She is easily given to cursing, swearing,
profanity. Often she becomes crude in her
speech. She quickly expresses filthy sexual
innuendo and becomes overtly and bluntly suggestive.
This writer has on more than one occasion had to deal with this sort of thing
during the course of his nearly forty years in the ministry. I can assure the reader, it is not a pretty thing
to see or hear.
On several occasions we have
had the opportunity to speak of the Bible’s teaching on the proper use of alcohol. Now again the Scripture puts the matter before us. Once more let it be said, the mere fact that there
are so many warnings against this sin, the sin of drunkenness, ought to give us pause. When one becomes immoderate in its use and does so
repeatedly, he or she becomes enslaved to it. And
a horrible bondage that is. Indeed! If aged women in the church are warned against
this enslavement, then surely we preachers and aspiring preachers ought to be warned
against it as well! What is more, we must
warn the church sharply and in no uncertain terms against this grievous sin in our
preaching and teaching. And by our own proper
use of alcohol we must set a good example for the congregations we are called to serve.
The aged women must also be
“teachers of good things.”19 When
the aged women are teachers of good things, they are teaching those things which are in
harmony with God’s will revealed in Scripture and summed in His Law. These good things are the fruit of a true, living
faith and have the glory of God as their goal. The
apostle will define precisely what those “good things” are in verses four and
five.
When the aged women conduct
themselves in this way, their behavior will befit holiness.
Before getting into an
exposition of verses four and five, we feel compelled to make one more point in this
connection. In our (the Protestant Reformed
Churches’) polemic against women serving in the threefold special office of Christ
(pastor, elder, deacon), I fear we tend to lose sight of and, therefore, appreciation for
the large, wonderful, indispensable place God has given to the women of the church. Women have no authorization to preach the Word or
to lead the congregation in prayer, no right to rule in God’s church, and no right to
collect and dispense the alms; but they do have an important, highly significant calling
in the church. It is a calling for both the
aged women and the younger women, and it is a calling that only they can fulfill by the
grace of God. Where the godly women are
obedient to that calling, that congregation is richly blessed! And in that congregation God’s great glory
shines brightly!
Verse 4
In order that they may teach the young women
to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children.
Here the apostle states the
purpose for the aged women to be in behavior as becomes holiness, not false accusers, not
given to much wine, teachers of good things. The
point is simply this: by means of their godly behavior and by means of their teaching, the
aged women are called to instruct the younger, married women. These young, married women of the church must be
taught by the aged women to be sober. The
young women must be sound in mind. It goes
without saying that they may never be drunken in the literal sense of the word, but the
point here is that they must be spiritually sober or of sound mind. The reason for this is, no doubt, that they may be
obedient to their calling. Only when they are
of sound mind can they love their husbands, love their children, etc.
The aged women must teach
the younger, married women to love their husbands. The
implication is that the husband is the head of his wife.
The love which the younger woman must have for her husband is God’s love. Her love for her husband must be the love of God
according to which she is a good, faithful help to her husband. Her love for her husband must be a submissive
love.
At this point it ought not
escape our attention that whenever the Scripture speaks of the relationship between the
wife and her husband, it always does so in terms of God’s love. Husbands must love their wives
(Eph. 5:25).
They are to “nourish and cherish” their wives, “even as the Lord the church”
(Eph. 5:29).
That the husband is the head of his wife does not give him sanction to exercise
harsh tyranny over his wife. Such action
would be the very antithesis of the biblical concept of headship. Christ, as Head of the church, “loved the church, and gave himself for it”
(Eph. 5:25).
And
the wife must submit in love to her own husband, just as the church submits to Christ
(Eph. 5:22-24).
This is the proper
relationship between the husband as the head of his wife and the wife as the obedient help
fit for her husband. This is so because God
instituted our earthly marriages as a picture of “the great mystery … concerning Christ and the church”
(Eph. 5:31-33).
Oh, how this great truth
concerning Christian marriage needs to be preached and maintained in our day, in which,
not only in the sinful world, but also in much of the church, there is so much
unfaithfulness, unbiblical divorce, remarriage of divorced persons, and other forms of
marital immorality!
Further, the aged women must
teach the younger women to “love their children!”
A. T. Robertson aptly remarks concerning this point, “This exhortation is
still needed where some married women prefer poodle dogs to children.”20 The younger women
must love their children.
This exhortation contains
several important implications.
1. The younger, married woman must love to bear
children. She wants a family! This is so because the younger, married woman
desires to serve the Lord in the highest calling a woman can be given, viz., to be a
covenant mother.
2. Loving her children implies that the godly
mother denies herself and, in a self-sacrificing way, seeks the welfare of her children. She will, by God’s grace, cheerfully always
“be there” for her children.
3. Loving those children, God’s heritage and reward
(Ps. 127:3),
the godly mother will teach them God’s fear, the great truths of
His inspired, sacred Word, as that Word applies to the life of the Christian. She will begin this instruction when her children
are very young. She will begin with simple
Bible stories of the great saints and “heroes of faith,” with simple prayers, and with “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs”
(Eph. 5:19).
She will continue instructing her children as they
mature and arrive at years of discretion. And
until her dying day the godly mother will set a good example of godliness and genuine
piety for her children.
4. Loving her children implies, too, that the
godly mother will discipline them. She knows
and is convinced of the truth of Scripture that to spare the rod is to spoil the child. She knows that correction of the child in the form of applying the rod delivers the child’s soul from hell
(Prov. 23:13 - 14).
Knowing this truth the godly mother will admonish,
reprove, correct, and discipline her children from earliest infancy on.
5. Loving her children implies finally that the
godly mother wants nothing more than to witness her children fearing and loving the Lord. She wants them to know and love the truth of
God’s Word and to lead new, godly lives. She
wants her children to be obedient to all in authority over them, to be respectful of their
elders, and to be active, faithful members of the church.
This is what it means for a
mother to love her children. Again, how this
needs to be preached, and maintained by means of church discipline if necessary, by the
church through her pastors and elders. And
modeled by godly mothers!
Verse 5
To be discreet (moderate, exercise
self-control) 21 chaste,
workers at home, good (kind, upright, distinguished for goodness),22 obedient to their own husbands in order
that the Word of God be not blasphemed (to speak reproachfully, to rail at, often
accompanied by sarcastic mockery).
The younger woman must be
taught to be moderate, to exercise self-control. The
godly mother will not be given to noisy, emotional outbursts. Nor will she be prone to uncontrolled outbursts of
anger. She must be chaste as well, i.e., free
from immorality.
The godly mother must be a
worker at home. How this too needs all the
emphasis we can muster in our day! Bearing
and raising a family of children is full-time work! Being
a good, faithful wife and mother takes all the time a woman has, and then some! And, we hasten to add, a woman could have no
higher, no greater, no more honorable or noble a calling than this! Young mothers and wives in the church need not
only to be exhorted and instructed in all this, they need (and their husbands too!) as
well to be encouraged and commended in this wonderful calling. And they need our prayers.
The godly younger women must
be good, i.e., kind and upright, distinguished for goodness. Their speech, actions, all of their living must
be in harmony with God’s will, done out of faith, and performed for God’s glory. This is goodness!
The godly woman must be
obedient to her own husband. This aspect of
her calling we have already discussed, but do not fail to note how the passage emphasizes
the importance of this!
The
purpose in all this instruction given to the younger women by the aged women is that
God’s Word be not blasphemed. If the
younger women fail to heed this good instruction, God’s Word will be evil spoken of
by the ungodly. They will rail at God’s
Word, speak against it sarcastically and with mockery.
That must not happen! That will not
happen when the younger women live in obedience to these instructions from the Word of
God.
John Calvin
and Thomas Aquinas
That John Calvin and Thomas
Aquinas should be compared and contrasted in many areas of their work and thought is only
natural. These are two of the most
outstanding theologians in the history of the church.
They stand out in their genius, their scholarship, and their influence both on the
church and on subsequent theology. Both
produced theological works which still dominate their respective traditions –
Aquinas’ Summa Theologica in the Roman Catholic Church, and Calvin’s Institutes
of the Christian Religion in the Protestant churches, particularly the Reformed
branch. Thus these two men serve as obvious
points of comparison on many aspects of these two church traditions.
One might, therefore,
consider another comparison of Calvin and Aquinas to be of little value – a reworking
of old ground, and perhaps even presumptuous. However,
little has been written comparing the exegesis of these theological giants.1 In large measure this can be ascribed to the heavy
emphasis placed on the Summa and on the Institutes. Too many consider these to be the only significant
works these men produced.2 The fact of the matter is that exegeting Scripture
was a major part of the work of both men! Aquinas
lectured on the Scriptures from the age of 27 until near the end of his life. He wrote commentaries on Isaiah, Job, Jeremiah,
Lamentations, Romans, John chapters 1-5, and 1 Corinthians chapters 1-7. His lectures on Matthew, John, the Pauline
letters, and Psalms were transcribed, corrected by Aquinas, and published.3 Aquinas also preached, and although Hughes Oliphant
Old indicates that Aquinas is not generally “recognized as one of the princes of the
pulpits,”4 Old does have high regard for Aquinas’
sermons.
Calvin is well known as a
man steeped in the Scriptures. He preached
upwards of five days a week and lectured in the academy on various books of the Bible. He
wrote commentaries on eight books of the Old Testament and on all but two of the New
Testament. He published lectures on seventeen more Old Testament books, and preached on
these and still other books of the Bible, many of which sermons were printed as well.5
The point is, both Aquinas
and Calvin are not only theologians, they are accomplished exegetes of the Scriptures.
There are excellent reasons,
therefore, not only for comparing these men as theologians, but also for comparing and
contrasting their exegesis. It is the purpose
of this article to undertake that effort. We
are confident that this comparison will demonstrate that while many similarities can be
found in the exegesis of Calvin and of Aquinas, yet striking differences exist. These differences are traceable to the significant
advances in exegesis that marked the Protestant Reformation. First of all, we will set forth the exegetical
principles and methods of both men so far as these principles can be known. Secondly, we will examine specific specimens of
exegesis from Ephesians in order, first, to observe whether or to what extent these men
remained consistent with their principles in their exegesis, and, secondly, to compare and
contrast the exegeses of Calvin and Aquinas. Finally,
we will offer explanations for the differences found in their respective exegeses.
Because principles of
exegesis arise, either consciously or unconsciously, out of the exegete’s view of
Scripture, it is necessary to begin there. From
a formal point of view, Calvin and Aquinas have nearly identical views of Scripture. Both men receive the Bible as God’s Word.
Writes Aquinas, “The author of the Holy Writ is God.”6 Likewise Calvin asserts that the Scriptures
“have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to
them.”7 Calvin and Aquinas thus have the same starting
point–Scripture is the Word of God.
However, Calvin, coming some
400 years after Aquinas, and being a second generation reformer, knows well the means by
which this crucial truth can be corrupted and perverted, and consequently he develops it
considerably more. He emphasizes particularly
the authority of Scripture, insisting that receiving the Bible as the Word of God
demands also submission to that Word. He
writes,
Paul saith the Word of God deserveth such reverence that we ought to submit
ourselves to it without gainsaying. He
likewise informeth us what profit we receive from it; which is another reason why we
should embrace it with reverence and obedience. There
have been some fantastical men at all times who would wish to bring the Holy Scripture
into doubt; although they were ashamed to deny that the Word of God ought to be received
without contradiction. There have always been
wicked men who have frankly confessed that the Word of God hath such a majesty in it that
all the world ought to bow before it; and yet they continue to blaspheme and speak evil
against God.8
And again,
Moreover, we must not read the Holy Scripture in order to support our own notions,
and favorite sentiments; but submit ourselves unto the doctrine contained therein,
agreeably to the whole contents of it; for it is all profitable. 9
That is the attitude with
which Calvin approaches the Bible. In this
respect he differs considerably from Aquinas on the authority possessed by Scripture
relative to such things as the church, pagan philosophers, and even the church fathers, as
will become evident later.
Since both Calvin and
Aquinas hold the Scriptures to be the Word of God, they insist that the exegete must
approach the Bible in faith. Aquinas
maintains that “those who wrote the Scriptural canon, such as the Evangelists,
Apostles and others like them, so firmly asserted the truth that they left nothing to be
doubted. Thus it states: ‘And we know that his testimony is true,’
(Jn. 21:24).
”10 Calvin maintains the same.
Another striking point of
agreement between these two men is that the true and accurate meaning of the Scripture is
in the text, i.e., the words as received. Both
theologians place great emphasis on the text itself.
They speak of the need for the exegete to determine the mind or intent of the
writer. Writes Calvin, “Since almost his
only duty is to lay open the mind of the writer whom he has undertaken to explain, he
deviates from his mark, or at least strays out of his own sphere, to the extent that he
leads his readers away from it.”11
Laying “open the mind
of the writer” is not to be understood as something different from discerning the
“mind of the Spirit.” Calvin ever
links the human writer and the Spirit. In one striking passage in his commentary on
1 Corinthians 2:9
(where Isaiah is quoted), after presenting a possible interpretation,
Calvin rejects it because, he writes, “it is too remote from Paul’s mind, a
consideration on which we should rely more than on any other. For who is a more sure and faithful interpreter of
this oracle that he himself dictated to Isaiah than the Spirit of God as he expounds it by
the mouth of Paul?”12 Notice that in the same breath Calvin speaks of
the mind of Paul, dictation by the Spirit, and the Spirit expounding Scripture by the
mouth of Paul!
Parker insightfully draws
out two exegetical principles from this conviction of Calvin. First, the text itself “is the
‘speech’ of the Holy Spirit, the text that is written in Hebrew, Greek or
Aramaic by some man or other. The mind of the
Spirit is understood when the text of the document is understood.”13 Secondly, the
proper interpretation of the text is possible only by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The human mind may understand the written words of
Scripture intellectually, but the Spirit’s working is required before one understands
spiritually, and believes the truth.14
This means that the text
is of critical importance for Calvin in exegesis, as Parker correctly concludes. For,
what is believed and accepted is the plain meaning of the story or the argument,
and that means, the plain sense of the text of the document. Hence, when the commentator reveals, clearly and
succinctly, the mind of the writer expressed in the text, he is fulfilling almost his only
duty.15
This has further
implications for Calvin, as Parker points out.
When we understand that for Calvin the proper study of the expositor is the text,
other factors in his New Testament work fall into place:
his great care in establishing what he thinks is the most reliable Greek text; his
literal translation of it into Latin; his championing of the litteralis sensus of
Scripture; indeed, the very form of his commentaries, following the text, in distinction
to Melanchthon’s method…. The text
is the place where the expositor encounters his author.16
The
Literal Meaning
A great divide among
exegetes is exactly the issue of a literal or non-literal interpretation of Scripture. This determines much about the product of
exegesis. How do Aquinas and Calvin compare
in this vital aspect of exegesis?
There is no question but
that Calvin is a champion of the literal sense of the text. In his commentary on
Galatians 4:22,
Calvin castigates Origen, “and many
others along with him,” for their allegorizing, describing it as a “torturing of
Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense.” He condemns it as a “contrivance of Satan to
undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true
advantage.” Scripture may be rich with
meaning, but Calvin denies “that the fertility consists in the various meanings which
any man, at his pleasure, may assign.” And
he adds, “Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and
obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely.”17
One ought not conclude from
this that Calvin is an absolute literalist in his exegesis. Calvin knows that Scripture contains figures of
speech, and he recognizes and interprets them accordingly.
Calvin develops this significant exegetical principle in the battle over the
doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and the presence of Christ.18
As noted above, Aquinas
seeks the meaning of Scripture in the text, and that in the literal sense. However, there is considerable difference of
opinion as to whether or not Aquinas is guilty of allegorical interpretation. Farrar criticizes him for allegorizing
“incessantly” in the “simplest narratives of the Gospels” and provides
some documentation.19
In fact, Aquinas is cited as
a promoter of the fourfold senses of the meaning of Scripture. Nicholas of Lyra, around the year 1300, wrote out
the well-known distich that expresses the four senses of Scripture.
The Letter teaches events,
Allegory what you should believe,
Morality teaches what you should do,
Anagogy what mark you should be aiming for.20
The poem can be traced back
to a work that expounds the teaching of Thomas Aquinas set forth in the first Question of
the Summa.21 In fact, Aquinas answers the question
“Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?” in the affirmative
and distinguishes four senses. He insists
that the “first sense [is] the historical or literal.” Next he distinguishes the “spiritual sense,
which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.”
That “spiritual sense has a threefold division,” namely, the allegorical,
the moral, and the anagogical senses. He
draws these senses from Scripture in the following way.
First, the Old Testament is a figure of the New, and therefore, “so far as the
things of the Old Law (or Testament, RJD) signify the things of the New Law (or Testament,
RJD), there is the allegorical sense.” The
moral sense arises out of the fact that what Christ our Head has done is an example for us
of how we ought to live. The anagogical sense
is based on the idea that the New Testament is a figure of future glory, and thus sets
forth what we should be aiming, or hoping for.22
In another place, Aquinas
explains how the words fiat lux (“let there be light”) can be understood
in four senses.
For when I say “fiat lux” with
reference to the literal meaning of corporeal light, this pertains to the literal sense. If “fiat lux” be understood to mean
‘Let Christ be born in the Church,’ this pertains to the allegorical sense. If “fiat lux” be said as meaning
‘Let us be led into glory through Christ,’ this pertains to the anagogic sense. And if “fiat lux” be taken to mean
‘Through Christ let us be illumined in understanding and enkindled in emotion,’
this pertains to the moral sense.23
In spite of the fact that
Aquinas allows for these four senses of meaning, he does react against the allegorizing of
the exegetes both prior to him and in his day.24 He contends that the first meaning of the
Scripture passage is the literal meaning, and that the spiritual meaning is based on the
literal.
While he expresses the same
desire as Calvin, namely, to obtain the literal meaning of the text, Aquinas approaches it
from a different point of view. Calvin’s insistence on finding the literal meaning of
a passage arises out of his view of Scripture as the very Word (even, words) of
God. Aquinas does not deny that, but he seeks
the literal meaning as a result of his philosophical viewpoint. Aquinas is an unabashed proponent of the
philosophy of Aristotle. One of the main
reasons that his appointment to the chair of theology at the university of Paris was
controversial was exactly that he promoted Aristotelianism.25 Beryl Smalley points out,
The contrast between St. Augustine and the newly recovered Aristotle, which aroused
[Aquinas’] strongest passions, upset or modified his most cherished notions about the
universe and its Creator, was bound to have a disturbing effect on his study of the
Creator’s special book. Aristotle caused
him to see Scripture as freshly as he saw all creation.26
The effect of the
Aristotelian view on exegesis in the Middle Ages was “sobering” according to
Thomas F. Torrance. He writes that “it
disparaged the development of a world of meaning … [without] … reference to the
historical sense of Scripture and careful examination of its words and concepts.”27
Accordingly, Aquinas sees
the true meaning to be in the letter, the words, first of all. “[T]hat first signification whereby words
signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal.”28 From this
literal meaning, a spiritual meaning may be discovered.
“That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a
signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and
presupposes it.”29 Thus, as Muller
explains,
Aquinas resolved the questions … concerning the relationship of the literal to
the other senses by emphasizing the connection between the ‘thing’ (res)
signified by the word of the text and the rest of the spiritual meanings and by insisting
that any word in a given text could mean only one thing.
It was not as if a multiplicity of spiritual meanings could be elicited by finding
a series of significations for a particular word: each
word of the text, given the grammatical context in which it stands, must speak univocally. The ‘historical or literal’ sense is
rooted directly in the ‘things’ that the words signify and is the sense intended
by the human author of the text.30
Only when that one meaning
intended by the author is established does Aquinas set forth the threefold spiritual
meaning – the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical, as noted above. And Aquinas concludes,
Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of
Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not
unfitting, as Augustine says, if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy
Writ should have several senses.31
Aquinas does not allow,
therefore, that the exegete may simply draw out whatever meanings he can according to his
own imagination. He disputes the contention
that having more than one sense will result in equivocation on the meaning of Scripture. “In Holy Writ no confusion results, for all
the senses are founded on one–the literal – from which alone can any argument be
drawn, and not from those intended allegorically, as Augustine says.”32
Thus it is that while
Aquinas maintains that Scripture does have more than one meaning, he does not hold that each
passage necessarily has four levels of meaning.
Additionally, the meaning may never be divorced from the very words of Scripture.
The conclusion of this
matter, so significant for exegesis, is that both Calvin and Aquinas seek the literal
meaning of the text. Yet, they arrive at this
point by radically different paths, and Aquinas also maintains that one word in Scripture
can have several senses of meaning. The
difference becomes evident in their exegesis, as Calvin shuns the use of allegory and
Aquinas is much more prone to its use – not infrequently (according to Farrar) seeing
“spiritual meaning in minor events.”33
Another significant issue
which must be addressed is the matter of exegetical freedom. This concerns, for example, the relationship
between tradition and Scriptures, and the authority of the church over exegesis. The exegete’s view on these questions
determines much about the final product of his exegesis.
On these crucial matters, Calvin and Aquinas will differ.
(…to be continued)
As we enter into this
chapter to consider the teaching of the “well-meant offer of salvation,” we must
immediately take note that many Reformed writers of the past did use the term
“offer” but in a different sense than the word is commonly used today. Prof. Engelsma noted:
In the past, the word “offer”
from the Latin word “offero” was used by Reformed men to describe
God’s activity in the preaching of the gospel because the word has originally the
meaning “bring to (someone),” “present (something or someone to
somebody).” All Reformed men hold that
Christ is presented in the preaching to everyone who hears the preaching. In this sense He is “offered” in the
gospel.1
For the purpose of our paper
we shall understand the well-meant offer to be as given by Rev. B. Gritters thus:
The “free offer of the gospel” is
the teaching that God offers salvation to all men when the gospel is preached
promiscuously to all. The free offer teaches
that God graciously and sincerely offers salvation to all who hear the preaching, and
honestly and sincerely desires to save all of them.2
That the dispute is over the
matter of God desiring the salvation of all men in the preaching of the gospel to all,
John Murray also acknowledged in his booklet The Free Offer of the Gospel.
It would appear that the real point in dispute
in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that
God desires the salvation of all men. The
Committee elected by the Twelfth General Assembly in its report to the Thirteenth General
Assembly said, “God not only delights in the penitent but is also moved by the riches
of his goodness and mercy to desire the repentance and salvation of the impenitent
reprobate”.... 3
A. The Arminian idea of the well-meant offer.
To begin with, we must note
that the Arminians do not believe that the will in the fallen state can will any saving
good before calling. In “The Opinions Of The Remonstrants” submitted to the
Synod of Dort, the Arminians state in C, 4:
4. The will in the fallen state, before
calling, does not have the power and the freedom to will any saving good. And therefore we deny that the freedom to will
saving good as well as evil is present to the will in every state.4
To surprise
us further how the Arminians could sound most orthodox like many today, let me quote the
Third Article of The Remonstrance of 1610:
3. that man does not have saving faith of
himself nor by the power of his own free will, since he in the state of apostasy and sin
cannot of and through himself think, will or do any good which is truly good (such as is
especially saving faith); but that it is necessary that he be regenerated by God, in
Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, affections or will, and all
powers, in order that he may rightly understand, meditate upon, will, and perform that which is truly good, according to the word of Christ,
John 13:5,
“Without me ye can
do nothing.”5
Reading the above articles
of the Arminians all by themselves, one may not realize their error in the third point
about “total depravity.” However,
when one combines this third article with their fourth on the conversion of man, one
begins to realize that their idea of the will of man is such that it is ultimately the
final arbiter of its own salvation. Without
the intervening of God’s sufficient grace, man is doomed, but with it in the hearing
of the gospel, man can still resist the grace of God to his own condemnation. We read in
their Opinion C, 6 thus:
6.
Although according to the most free will of God the disparity of divine grace is
very great, nevertheless the Holy Spirit confers, or is ready to confer, as much grace to
all men and to each man to whom the Word of God is preached as is sufficient for promoting
the conversion of men in its steps. Therefore
sufficient grace for faith and conversion falls to the lot not only of those whom God is
said to will to save according to the decree of absolute election, but also of those who
are not actually converted.6
In the mind of the
Arminians, whatever God may do in His grace, man’s will still stands sovereign and
able to reject that grace if he chooses (Opinion C, 8).
Even the so-called efficacious grace of God is not irresistible (Opinion C, 5). As this error can be clearly seen only when the
doctrine of the Fall of man is compared to that of the conversion of man, the Synod of
Dort dealt with the Third and Fourth Heads of doctrine together. It is good to read Rejection VI of these Heads to
have a better idea of this error:
That in the true conversion of man no new
qualities, powers, or gifts can be infused by God into the will, and that therefore faith
through which we are first converted and because of which we are called believers, is not
a quality or gift infused by God, but only an act of man, and that it cannot be said to be
a gift, except in respect of the power to attain to this faith.
Man’s
will needs God’s in order to be saved, but God’s will also needs man’s
before He can save a man. Thus we have Opinion C, 8, 9 of the Arminians:
8. Whomever God calls to salvation, he calls
seriously, that is, with a sincere and completely unhypocritical intention and will to
save; nor do we assent to the opinion of those who hold that God calls certain ones
externally whom He does not will to call internally, that is, as truly converted, even
before the grace of calling has been rejected.
9. There is not in God a secret will which so
contradicts the will of the same revealed in the Word that according to it (that is, the
secret will) He does not will the conversion and salvation of the greatest part of those
whom He seriously calls and invites by the Word of the Gospel and by His revealed will;
and we do not here, as some say, acknowledge in God a holy simulation, or a double person.7
The Arminians were very
clear about what they believed. God indeed
does offer salvation to all men. In fact, even by His sufficient grace in the offer, He
empowers the will of all who hear the gospel so that they are now able not only to accept,
but also to reject the offered salvation. God’s
decree of election is based on His foreknowledge of what man would do with this offer. If a man choose to believe then, God elects him to
be saved; if not, then he is reprobated. A. C. DeJong said as much:
He is a reprobate because he does not want
to believe, because he wills to live without God, and because he resists the redemptive
will of God revealed in the gospel call. His
unbelief, his rejection, his resistance bears an indirect relation to the will of
God’s decree similar to God’s “permissive will” in relation to sin.8
It must also be noted here
that, as far as the content of the gospel is concerned, the Arminians also believe that
Christ died for all men head for head to make the atonement available for all men. Christ by His atonement only made salvation
possible. The salvation benefits for all men
are there, and they are applied only to those who accept the offer by their own free will. The Canons reject the following error:
Synod rejects the errors of those who use the
difference between meriting and appropriating, to the end that they may instill into the
minds of the imprudent and inexperienced this teaching, that God, as far as He is
concerned, has been minded of applying to all equally the benefits gained by the death of
Christ; but that, while some obtain the pardon of sin and eternal life and others do not,
this difference depends on their own free will, which joins itself to the grace that is
offered without exception, and that it is not dependent on the special gift of mercy,
which powerfully works in them, that they rather than others should appropriate unto
themselves this grace.9
Notice the
Arminian tendency to make man the final arbiter of his own salvation and God someone
“…minded of applying to all equally the benefits gained by the death of
Christ.” Arminians are not fully
convinced that all men are truly hell-deserving and that salvation is fully of the Lord,
who saves effectually whom He wills.
But now we must turn to the
Reformed “offer,” which is essentially the same as the Arminian’s, except
that they still claim that they believe in the Five Points of Calvinism, and that any
apparent discrepancy is due to the mystery and paradox of God, which the truly humble and
pious should not dare to challenge.
B. The so-called Reformed offer.
1. Using the same term “offer” led to confusion in the Reformed camp.
As has been noted earlier,
there were Reformed writers who used the term “offer.” Even in the Reformed confessions we find this term
being used. For examples:
Article 9 of the III/IV
Heads of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort reads:
It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of
God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are
called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted.
Article 14 of the III/IV
Heads of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort reads:
Faith is therefore to be considered as the gift of God, not on account of its
being offered by God to man, to be accepted or rejected at his pleasure, but
because it is in reality conferred upon him, breathed and infused into him; nor even
because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by
the exercise of his own free will consent to the terms of salvation and actually believe
in Christ, but because He who works in man both to will and to work, and indeed all things
in all, produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also.
The French Confession,
Article XIII:
XIII. We
believe that all that is necessary for our salvation was offered and communicated
to us in Jesus Christ. He is given to us for
our salvation, and ‘is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,
and redemption:’ so that if we refuse
him, we renounce the mercy of the Father, in which alone we can find a refuge.