Chapter 17: Commentaries that Muffle God's Word. One of Calvin's greatest tools for propagating his belief system was his set of commentaries on the Bible. Luther set the precedent for writing a highly influential commentary on Galatians. However, Calvin went through virtually every book of the Bible and gave his explanation of what each passage supposedly means. Through his commentaries, he was able to shape Scripture to fit his theological system.
His was the first full set of commentaries written after the invention of the printing press. As a result of the printing press, his commentaries far and wide throughout the Protestant world at an affordable cost. To be sure, the average Reformation Christian never read Calvin's commentaries. The most evangelical preachers of his day did. As a result, so much of what was preached in evangelical pulpits throughout the world were Calvin's thoughts, not those of Jesus.
In fact, Calvin had no hesitancy to explain away Jesus' words when his words didn't fit into his Christo-Judaic system. In doing this, he often plagiarized Augustine. For example, his rationalization of taking oaths comes straight from Augustine. Jesus. Again, you have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord. But I say to you, do not swear at all." Matthew 5:33-34. Calvin.
Many have been led by the phrase "not at all" to adopt the false notion that every kind of swearing is condemned by Christ. Some good men have been driven to this extreme strictness by observing the unbridled licentiousness of swearing, which prevailed in the world.
The Anabaptists, too, have blustered a great deal on the ground that Christ appears to give no liberty to swear on any occasion because he commands, "Swear not at all." Christ teaches us, in my opinion, that it originates in the wickedness of men, that they are compelled to swear. For if honesty prevailed among men, that they were not inconsistent and hypocritical, they would maintain the simplicity that nature dictates. And yet, it does not follow that it is unlawful to swear when necessity demands it.
For many things are proper in themselves, though they have had a wicked origin. That, of course, is Augustine speaking, not Jesus. What about turning the other cheek? Calvin negated this teaching of Christ as well. Jesus. I tell you not to resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. Calvin. Unquestionably, Christ did not intend to exhort his people to wet the mouths of those whose propensity to injure others is sufficiently strong.
If they were to turn to them the other cheek, what would it be but holding out such an encouragement? It is not the business of a good and judicious commentator to eagerly seize on syllables, but to attend to the design of the speaker. And nothing is more unbecoming to disciples of Christ than to spend time in nitpicking about words, where it is easy to see what the Master means. I see. When we take Jesus' commandments literally, we're eagerly seizing on syllables and nitpicking about words.
What about loving our enemies? Calvin skillfully wiped out this teaching of Jesus as well. Jesus. You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." Matthew 5:43-44. Calvin.
It is obvious, as I've already said, that Christ does not introduce new laws, but corrects the wicked commentary of the scribes, by whom the purity of the divine law had been corrupted. So Calvin adroitly sidestepped the radical implication of what Jesus said about loving our enemies. According to Calvin, Christ wasn't introducing anything new. In other words, because war was allowable under the law, it still is allowable to Christians. Copycat commentaries.
Although Calvin's commentaries were extremely influential in their own rights, perhaps their greatest influence has been their impact on most commentaries written after them. In fact, many of the popular commentaries from the time of Calvin to the modern day have been little more than a reworking of what Calvin said. For example, Calvin interpreted the passage about the head covering found in the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians to be addressing public worship.
He wrote, "It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the church." 1 Timothy 2:12. It would not therefore be allowable for them to prophesy even with the covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied that the apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other.
For when he approves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. Although Calvin interpreted this passage to apply to public assemblies, when we read the passage under consideration, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, it makes no mention whatsoever of public assemblies.
The passage that immediately precedes it, 1 Corinthians 10:23-33, does not concern public assemblies at all. As Calvin himself points out, it would be rather absurd for Paul to tell women to cover their heads when prophesying in church, because just a few pages later he tells them, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak." 1 Corinthians 14:34. Regardless, virtually every commentator ever since has followed Calvin's error. Matthew Henry.
He wrote, "Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies." John Gill. In this chapter, the apostle blames both men and women for their indecent appearance in public worship. Adam Clarke. The apostle reprehends the Corinthians for several irregularities in their manner of conducting public worship. The men praying or prophesying with their heads covered, and the women with their heads uncovered.
Albert Barnes. In regard to the first, it seems probable that some of the women who, on pretense of being inspired, had prayed or prophesied in the Corinthian church, had cast off their veils after the manner of the heathen priestesses. Charles Hodge. Having corrected the more private abuses which prevailed among the Corinthians, Paul begins in this chapter to consider those which relate to the way they conducted public worship. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown. 1 Corinthians 11:1-34.
Censorship and disorder in their assemblies. People's New Testament. Dress and conduct in the church. Summary. Men in church to pray with uncovered heads, women to be veiled. Even though the passage says nothing whatsoever about public worship, even though it renders the passage absurd to interpret it to be speaking of public assemblies, because it contradicts 1 Corinthians 14, almost every commentator unthinkingly follows Calvin's error. It is truly a case of the blind leading the blind.
What I've given you is only one example. In chapter 20, we will be looking at some other examples of copycat commentators. In the end, dead theologians like Augustine, Calvin, and Luther still rule the church from their graves.