Protestant Reformed Seminary
|
Table of Contents:
Editor’s Notes – Robert D. Decker
Setting in Order the Things That Are Wanting (7) -- Robert D. Decker
A Comparison of Exegesis: John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas (3)
– Russell J. Dykstra
In the Space of Six Days (2) – Mark L. Shand
The Relationship of the Reformed Churches of Scotland,
England, Western and Eastern Europe From the 1500s to the 1700s – Chris Coleborn
Book Reviews:
The
Trinity, by Roger E. Olson
& Christopher A. Hall. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
Pp. vii + 156. $15 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Reformation
and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J.
vanAsselt & Eef Dekker. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
311 pp. $24.99 (paper). [Reviewed by
David J. Engelsma.]
Christianity
at the Religious Roundtable: Evangelicals
in Conversation with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, by Timothy C.
Tennent. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Pp. 270. No
price given (paper). [Reviewed by Robert D.
Decker.]
Charles
Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His
Life and Work, ed. John W. Stewart
and James H. Moorhead. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Pp. x + 375. $25 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Boyd’s Handbook of Practical Apologetics, by
Robert T. Boyd. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1997. Pp.251. No price (paper).
[Reviewed by Herman C. Hanko.]
Arius: Heresy & Tradition, by Rowan
Williams. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002. Pp.xiii, 378.
$20.00 (paper). [Reviewed by Herman C.
Hanko.]
The Systematic Theology of John Brown of Haddington,
by John Brown, with an Introduction by Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson. Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications. Obtainable from Reformation Heritage Books at RHbookstore@aol.
com. Pp. xliii - 576. No price given (hardcover). [Reviewed by Herman C. Hanko.]
Russell
J. Dykstra presents the third installment of his four- part series on “A Comparison
of Exegesis: John Calvin and Thomas
Aquinas.” According to the professor,
two main differences emerge, which clearly indicate serious differences in the
interpretation that the two men give of Ephesians
1:1-14 and 6:10-17. Dykstra finds plenty
of Medieval scholasticism in Aquinas’ exegesis.
Also, Aquinas used the Latin Vulgate. Calvin,
on the other hand, was able to work with the Greek, and this resulted in a correct
translation and, therefore, correct exposition.
Mark L. Shand presents the
second part of his series titled, “In the Space of Six Days.” He concludes convincingly, “The approach to
the days of Genesis
1 that prevailed at the end of the eighteenth century is almost unrecognizable when
compared with the one that parades itself in the halls of theological learning at the end
of the twentieth century. What has led to the
change? Quite clearly, it is not greater
exegetical insight, but so-called scientific discoveries.”
Chris Coleborn relates a
fascinating account of “The Relationship of the Reformed Churches of Scotland,
England, Western and Eastern Europe from the 1500s to the 1700s.” Rev. Coleborn draws lessons from two
characteristics about this relationship: 1)
There was a mutual respect, care, and help of one another in spite of differences. 2) There were principles that undergirded the
managing of their differences and similarities. Can
we today learn lessons from these in our own ecumenical work with others with whom we
differ, but share a “like precious faith”?
Undersigned continues his
exposition of the Epistle to Titus.
RDD
Setting in Order the Things That Are Wanting
An Exposition of
Paul’s Epistle to Titus (7)
Robert D. Decker
Again we remind the reader
that this exposition of the Epistle to Titus was originally given in the form of
“chapel talks” by the author during the weekly Wednesday morning chapel services
at the seminary. The author began the
exposition in the 1997-1998 school year and completed the series during 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 epistle in
the sacred Scriptures. So that both those
familiar with the Greek language and those who are unable to work with the Greek 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 11
For the grace of God bringing salvation (or,
which brings salvation) hath appeared1 to all men.
The text begins with the
conjunction “for,”2 which indicates that
this eleventh verse states the ground or reason for the preceding context. In other words, Titus must speak the things that
become or befit sound doctrine. And that
which befits sound (healthful) doctrine are all the various exhortations that Paul
commands Titus to bring to the aged men, the aged women, the young women, the young men,
and the servants or slaves. In bringing all
these exhortations, Titus himself must be a pattern (example, model) of good works. Why must these admonitions/exhortations be brought
to the aged and younger men and women and slaves by Titus the preacher? Why must Titus be an example of good works? The answer is:
because the grace of God bringing salvation hath appeared to all men.
The fact that this is true
leads us to a proper understanding of the identity of the “all men” mentioned in
the text.3
Well known, it is, that Arminians,
Pelagians, and Universalists pounce on a text like this, claiming that it proves their
teaching that God in the end saves all men head for head, soul for soul. Or at least they claim that texts like this prove
that God makes salvation in Christ possible for and available to all men on the condition
that they accept God’s well-meant offer of the gospel and persevere in the faith.
That this position is false
is evident from the fact that not all are saved! Scripture
teaches that God, before the foundation of the world, elected some in Christ to
everlasting life and glory. For these and
these alone Christ made the perfect atonement on the cross and was raised from the dead
and exalted to the Father’s right hand. Further,
Scripture teaches that God, from eternity, reprobated others in the way of their own
sinful wickedness to damnation (see, e.g., Tit. 1:1; Eph. 1, 2; Rom. 8, 9,
10, 11). Israel is God’s chosen,
not the other nations in the Old Testament era. Add
to this the fact that not all Israel is saved. Scripture
makes plain that it’s only the spiritual seed that God has chosen to salvation; the
natural seed God hates and destroys ( Jer. 30 and Rom. 9). The overwhelming testimony of Scripture (and this
great truth is reflected powerfully and eloquently in the Reformed confessions) is that
God saves only those whom He loves, predestinated, and graciously elected in Christ from
eternity.
That the Arminian, Pelagian,
Universalist teaching is erroneous is also plainly evident from the immediate context here
in Titus two. The preacher must exhort all
these various members of the church because the grace of God bringing salvation hath
appeared to all men, i.e., to all classes and stations of men: aged men, young men, aged
women, young women, free men and women, and Masters and slaves. Indeed, God is no respecter of persons. God elected and saves His beloved in Christ out of
all nations, classes, and stations in life. All
these are one in Christ according to Galatians three (study the entire chapter, but note
especially verses 26-29).
To all these “…
hath appeared the grace of God bringing salvation.”4 Grace
has a variety of meanings in Scripture. The
fundamental, root meaning of the term is loveliness, charm, or beauty. From this root meaning is conveyed the following
meanings:
1. It often means the unmerited
favor given by God to His people in Christ. An
example of grace used in this sense is found in Ephesians
2:8-10, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is
the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man
should boast. For we are his workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should
walk in them.” Another example of this
meaning of grace is found in Titus 3:5,
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he
saved us….”
2. Grace sometimes refers to that which is its
fruit, viz., salvation itself. II Peter
3:18 speaks of the necessity of growing in the “grace and knowledge of our Lord
and Savior, Jesus Christ….” Grace
in this verse is the grace of salvation in Jesus Christ.
3. Then too, there are a few instances in the New
Testament where grace means thanks or gratitude for the wonderful blessings of salvation
given us by God in Jesus Christ.
Whatever the particular
sense in which grace is used in a passage (and this is true of this 11th verse of Titus 2 as
well), it is God’s grace. The text
speaks of the grace of God.5 This means that grace is an attribute or
characteristic or virtue of God’s divine being.
God is the God of all grace, the gracious God.
God is the God of infinite, perfect beauty and loveliness in all the virtues of His
divine being.
This being the case, God is
the source of all grace. There is no other
grace than God’s sovereign and particular grace shown to His chosen in Jesus Christ. Think of what this means! God by the power of His grace takes us and all of
His elect in Christ, undeserving, totally depraved by nature, sinners who are able to do
no good at all, God takes us out of the misery, the filth, the ugliness of our sins, and
out of the curse of His wrath into the glory of His own covenant fellowship. This has the emphasis in the text, for it’s
“the grace of God that bringeth salvation…” (see footnotes 4 and 5).
Still more, even our
gratitude for that salvation is the gift of God’s grace in Christ. Thanks, after all, is the believer’s whole
life of sanctification. It’s walking,
living in obedience to God’s law. And
that is possible only by the power of the Holy Spirit who works that grace in us!
This grace of God, which
brings salvation, “hath appeared or did appear” to all men (see footnote
1 on this verb). The grace of God that brings
salvation has been clearly shown to all classes of men.
It has appeared in the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. God’s grace was shown when Jesus was
conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
God’s grace appeared when Jesus spoke gracious words, healed the sick, raised
the dead, and cast out demons.
God’s grace appeared
especially when Jesus suffered the agonies of hell under the wrath of God (which we so
richly deserved) on the cross for our sins and for the sins of all those given Him by His
Father. God’s grace appeared when Jesus
arose from the dead on the morning of the third day.
When Jesus was exalted to the Father’s right hand in glory, God’s grace
appeared. It was shown when the exalted Jesus
poured out the Holy Spirit upon the church. And
God’s grace will appear in all of God’s glorious beauty and power when
Jesus comes again to destroy the present heavens and earth and create a new heaven and
earth (II Pet.
3).
That grace of God which
brings salvation in Jesus appeared to men of all classes and stations in life: to men like
Peter, James, John, and the rest of the apostles; to women like Mary, Martha, Mary
Magdalene, Salome, and others; to aged men and women like Simeon and Anna. To younger men and women; even to babes, whom He
took in His arms and blessed with all the blessings of salvation; to rich men like Joseph
of Arimathaea, Nicodemus, and the young ruler whom Jesus loved; to poor beggars like blind
Bartimaeus — to all of them was shown the marvelous grace of God in Jesus. In one word, Jesus and the grace of God bringing
salvation have appeared to lost sinners of every class and station in life!
By means of the preaching of
the Word, the chief means of grace, God’s saving grace in Christ Jesus continues to
appear to His elect. Preaching, yes! That is the chief task of the minister of the
gospel. To you students who aspire to the
great calling of the ministry comes the call of God, “Speak thou the things which
become sound doctrine.” Speak that
blessed gospel of God’s grace in Christ to all in the congregation: aged and young, men and women, rich and poor. And when by God’s grace you are called and
ordained by Christ through His church, show yourselves as examples of good works!
To educate by lecture and by
the example of our lives, and in this way to prepare you students for the wonderful
calling of the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, is what this seminary is all about. May God in His mercy and grace in Christ give us
the grace we need faithfully to instruct and faithfully to receive that instruction so
that our pulpits and mission fields may be occupied by godly, competent, faithful pastors
and teachers. In this way our churches will
not be tossed about by the winds of false doctrine, but will grow up into their head
Christ and speak the truth in love!
Verse 12
Teaching us (or instructing us) in
order that, denying (renouncing or forsaking) ungodliness (lack of reverence toward God,
impiety) and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this
present age.
This verse tells us what
that “grace of God bringing salvation” teaches us. In one word, it teaches us or instructs us to live
a sanctified life in this present age. The
grace of God instructs us to deny, in the sense of renouncing or forsaking, ungodliness
and worldly lusts. “Ungodliness”6 means lack of
reverence toward God. One who is ungodly
scorns, blasphemes the holy name of God. He’s
impious. That ungodliness is the wicked
expression of his deep-seated hatred of God and His Christ and His church. He lacks any reverence at all towards God. The ungodly are without godliness. We need to renounce it and forsake it and have
nothing to do with it.
This involves not merely
quietly renouncing, forsaking ungodliness in our own lives.
It means we actively renounce ungodliness. When,
for example, we observe the ungodly cursing, swearing, blaspheming God’s holy name or
sarcastically ridiculing God and His Christ, we admonish them and call them to repent and
warn them of the judgments of the holy and righteous God.
We must have zero tolerance for ungodliness. And
certainly this also means we must fearlessly and sharply preach against ungodliness.
We are further instructed to
forsake worldly lusts. 7
“Worldly” must be taken in the
sense of the world of unbelief and sin, the fallen world, which has the character of this
present corrupt age. “Lust” is to
desire that which God forbids. This is all
that one finds in the ungodly world (see I John
2:15-17). Hence we must not love that
world, but renounce it.
Worldly lusts take on a
variety of forms. It may be sexual lust,
adultery, fornication. It may be a carnal
desire for the pleasures of sin, pursuing our own pleasures rather than worshiping the
Lord. It may be a love of money, a desire to
amass a fortune. It may be a craving for
power.
All these worldly lusts we
are instructed by the grace of God to renounce and forsake.
We must actively fight against them and put them away from us. We must have nothing to do with them. Again, we preachers must understand that this must
be a part of our preaching. We must warn
God’s people to renounce ungodliness and worldly lusts. The danger that God’s people yield to these
lusts is real. It is only a very small
remnant in the churches today who take this with any degree of seriousness. Worldly lusts abound. Let us be warned and let us be resolved by the
grace of God to forsake and renounce these worldly lusts.
Positively, the grace of God
instructs us to live soberly and righteously and godly in this present age. These are the very opposites of ungodliness and
worldly lusts. “Soberly” conveys
the ideas of to be of sound mind, to exercise self control, to curb one’s passions,
to be temperate and discreet.8 This means we may not be drunkards. No drunkard inherits the kingdom. This also means that we must be spiritually sober. We must exercise self control and be temperate. We must not be given to passions. Only in this way are we able to discern right from
wrong, good from evil.
God’s grace also
teaches us to live righteously. “Righteously”
means justly, agreeably to right, uprightly.9 We
live righteously when, by God’s grace, we think, speak, and act in obedience to
God’s will expressed in Scripture and summed in His Law. Living righteously is loving God with all our
heart, mind, soul, and strength and loving the neighbor as ourselves.
Finally, we are instructed
by God’s grace to live godly, which means with reverence toward God.10 How this needs emphasis in our day! We must be in awe of God. He is, after all, the sovereign Creator of the
heavens and the earth and all that is in them. He’s
the God who saved us in Jesus Christ from our sin and death. He’s the God before whom the angels do cover
their faces and cease not to cry, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts: the
whole earth is full of His glory” (Is. 6:3). This
one, only, true, and living God we must reverently fear and worship.
And thus we must live. Living godly is more than a formal confession of
faith, more than attending church. It’s
all that and more! It’s living godly in
our homes with our spouses and children. It’s
living godly at work and at play. It’s
living soberly, righteously, and godly in this present evil age.
If God’s people are to be instructed by God’s grace in that kind of living, they will need faithful preachers of the Word. They will need men of God who give themselves now to preparation for that great work so that in days to come they may be able faithfully, diligently, courageously, and prayerfully to preach the Word.
John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas (3)
Russell J. Dykstra
The aim presently is to
examine a specimen of the exegesis of Aquinas and Calvin in light of the comparison of
these two giants in their traditions made in the previous two articles. The specific comparison will be taken from the
exegetical work of these men in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Ephesians
1:1-14 is chosen because it is a doctrinal passage, and one in which a particular
doctrine of controversy is set forth, namely, predestination. The second passage is Ephesians
6:10-17, because it is a more practical application of the truth to the lives of the
believers.
Aquinas’ exegesis of
Ephesians was delivered as lectures, almost certainly in the period of his teaching in
Italy from 1259 to 1268. Most scholars
believe that they were given while Aquinas was teaching in the court of Urban IV in
Orvieto (1261-1264).1 They were transcribed by Reginald and approved by
Thomas Aquinas before publication.
Exactly when Calvin wrote his commentary on Ephesians is not known, but it was printed in 1548, about the same time as his commentaries were published on Paul’s epistles to the Galatians, Philippians, and Colossians.2 They were reprinted in 1556 and again in 1557 with some revision.3 He began his series of forty-eight sermons on Ephesians in 1558.4
Both Calvin and Aquinas like
to explain a book in its context, which begins with an introduction to the book. Calvin
customarily gives “The Argument” of the book at the beginning of the commentary,
or in the first sermon on a given book. Often
these introductions are a concise, even gripping, exposition that sets forth plainly the
theme of the book and, if it can be determined, the purpose for which it was written. His introduction to Ephesians, however, is not
such an argument. Calvin supplies a bit of
history on the city of Ephesus, and then gives an overview of the Epistle by summarizing
the contents of each chapter.
In the sermon on Ephesians
1:1-3, Calvin gives a slightly more concise, though not much more descriptive, summary
of the epistle when he says,
The sum of this
Epistle which I have now taken in hand to expound is that St. Paul confirms such as had
been already instructed in the gospel, in order that they might know that that is what
they must rest upon, as upon the true and perfect wisdom, and that it is not lawful to add
anything to it.5
Aquinas, characteristically,
has a general scheme for all the New Testament books, and that under the theme of grace. “The gospels give us the origin of grace; the
letters of Paul give us the power of grace; while the other books give us the realization
of grace.”6
In Aquinas’
introduction to this epistle we find the three elements noted earlier: 1) allegorizing; 2) scholastic distinctions; and
3) references to the Glosses. The
introduction is framed by an allegorization of Psalm 74:4,
I have strengthened its pillars. Aquinas puts those words into the mouth of Paul,
and makes the pillars to be the “Church’s faithful at Ephesus.”7 This is apparently Aquinas’ statement of the
theme of the epistle.
The manner of dividing up
the passages indicates a formal difference in exegesis between Calvin and Aquinas. The respective divisions are as follows:
Aquinas’ Lectures
Calvin’s Commentary
Calvin’s
Sermons
1-6a
1-6
1-3
6b-7
3-4
8-10 7-12 4-6
11-12 7-10
13-14
13-14
13-14
Aquinas’ Lectures
Calvin’s Commentary
Calvin’s Sermons
10-12
10-13
10-12
13-17
14-20
11-17
This comparison reveals that
Calvin and Aquinas agree little on how best to divide the text of Scripture in these
passages.
The study of the exegesis of
Aquinas and Calvin will be in two parts. This
article contains an overview and will set forth those elements in their exegesis of Ephesians
1:1-4 and 6:10-17 that illustrate similarities and differences. The final installment (in the next issue of the Journal,
D.V.) will examine the passage Ephesians
6:14-17 to compare how Aquinas and Calvin developed the concepts of the armor of
salvation.
Thomas Aquinas’
exegesis of Ephesians
1:1-14 and 6:10-17
Consistent with his own
testimony concerning the text of Scripture being the Word of God, Aquinas gives attention
to the words of the text. In verses
1-6a, e.g., he discusses the terms apostle, grace, peace, and discusses the significance
of the copula and between God and Father, etc.
However, Aquinas’ treatment of this passage might best be described as
“superficial,” though admittedly such a judgment is somewhat subjective. His commentary does not ordinarily develop the
concepts, but lists ideas or implications connected with them. More detailed analyses are found in areas where
the schoolmen were wont to dwell, as, for example, the discussion of God’s will and
possible causes and effects of God’s will.
There is considerable
evidence of medieval scholasticism in this exegesis.
Five examples are noted.
First of all, Aquinas (1:6)
gives the classic scholastic distinction between two kinds of grace — gratia
gratis data and gratia gratum faciens. He
opts for the latter in this passage — sanctifying grace.
As noted above, in his
discussion of topics Aquinas is fond of providing divisions and subdivisions of the
material. Having explained the salutation and
greeting (1:1-2), Aquinas asserts that verse 3 is the heading of a large section that
includes chapters 1-3. He writes: “Then when he says Blessed be God…
in giving thanks, he strengthens them in good [recall Aquinas’ introduction, RJD],
and he does this in three ways.” These
three ways amount to chapters 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Next he divides chapter 1 into three parts: 1)
blessings to all believers (vv. 3-7); 2) blessings to the apostles (vv. 8-12); and 3)
blessings especially to the Ephesians (vv. 13ff.). Aquinas
then further divides section one (blessings to all) into six parts. And he subdivides some of these to yet another
level. He is constantly listing, but expounding little— four advantages of election,
six characteristics of predestination, etc.
Thirdly, at times Aquinas
employs the scholastic method of developing concepts according to the often tedious style
followed in the Summa. He uses this
in his treatment of 6:10 — “Someone might say…. He replies….
An objection: …I
reply….” And later, “I reply
in two ways.”
The fourth illustration of
medieval scholastic influence is seen in the treatment of angels. In the exegesis of 6:12, Aquinas sets forth the
scholastic doctrine of angels, complete with three levels of angels and the various
distinctions among the angels at each level.
The final example (there are
more) to be cited is Aquinas’ reason as to why the blessing of God is greatly to be
desired (1:3). The desirableness is connected
with its efficient cause, its material cause, its formal cause, and
its end, all of which Aquinas finds in verse three.
This clearly reflects scholastic method and scholarship.
Aquinas makes use of several
outside sources, as is evident from explicit reference.
In the passages under consideration, it is evident that he employs Glosses,
philosophy, and the church fathers.
Glosses — Aquinas acknowledges
that he is following a Gloss on verses 6-7, even though he admits that it “seems to
be a far-fetched interpretation.” He
refers to Glosses also in 1:10, 1:11, 1:14, and 6:12.
In the entire commentary on Ephesians Aquinas makes reference to the Glosses at
least thirteen times.8
Philosophical influence
— In explaining Ephesians
1:4, taking adoption to be a process, not an event, Aquinas uses a
philosophical argument to prove that this adoption (process) must “occur through the
natural son” [i.e., Jesus]. Why? “It must be through contact with fire that
something starts to burn since nothing obtains a share in some reality except through
whatever is that reality by its very nature. Hence….” In addition, in 6:12, Aquinas quotes “the
Philosopher” (Aristotle) to substantiate the exegesis he proposes.
References to the fathers
— In these passages, Aquinas quotes Augustine twice (1:4, 11); he refers to Origen
once and rejects his interpretation.
References to apocryphal
books — To the other
sources employed by Aquinas could be added apocryphal books. Admittedly, Aquinas does not consider this to be a
reference “outside the Bible.” It
is noted here for the sake of contrast with Calvin, who does not quote any apocryphal
books in these passages. It should be noted
that the number of references to apocryphal books is exceedingly small in comparison with
the references to other passages of Scripture. In
the passages under consideration, Aquinas refers to Ecclesiasticus in Ephesians
1:12 and 6:11, and to Wisdom in the Prologue and in 6:14.
An essential element of
exegesis is that it must be free from the control of a church — not serving simply to
substantiate church dogma. Aquinas does not
always display such freedom in his exegesis. There
are instances where Aquinas’ exegesis seems to be unduly influenced by the doctrine
of the church, if not actually skewed to support the church.
On saints — Aquinas
differentiates between the faithful and the saints (1:1 — … to the saints
which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus). He gives two possible interpretations. It may be
that Paul means, “I, Paul, write about morals to those who are holy through the
exercise of virtue, and about faith to those who believe with true knowledge.” Or it may mean “to the saints who are the
elders and perfect [members], and to the faithful who are less experienced and
imperfect.” 9 The church’s longstanding doctrine was that
only some believers are saints, and thus are to be venerated. The practice of canonization was first officially
practiced by Pope John XV in 993; and Pope Alexander III, in 1170, made canonization the
exclusive right of the pope.10 Both options given by Thomas Aquinas preserve the
church’s doctrine and practice concerning saints.
On predestination and merit
— Aquinas discusses the relation between merit and election and really adopts
semi-Pelagianism, though he rejects the views of the Pelagians (significantly, identified
thus: those “who held that the source of
good works exists within ourselves”). Aquinas
insists that “the reason for predestination is the will of God alone.” Yet he maintains that “in the realm of what
is willed, effects are a motive for the divine will in such a way that a prior effect is
the reason for a later one.” This
corresponds with the scholastic device of allowing merit to be, in some way, a cause of
predestination. With this logic, God wills to
give grace to a man so that he does good works. The
good works become the merit for salvation. For
this reason God wills to predestinate this one to eternal life. In this way the scholastics could hold to merit in
predestination (merit being the foundation of the Romish sacerdotal system), and yet claim
that it was all of God, and even a free choice of God, as Aquinas does in this commentary.
One of the remarkable
features of Aquinas’ exegesis is his reliance on the Vulgate, as has been noted. This reliance has an immense and significant
impact on the exegesis of Aquinas. It is
striking that many of the differences in the exegesis of Aquinas and Calvin are due to
Aquinas’ use of and reliance on the Vulgate. Six
concrete examples are here given.
1. In his exegesis of Ephesians1:4, Aquinas
understands the kaqw;" (according as)
to mean that God elects in the same way that He blesses, namely, by grace. The Vulgate’s translation (sicut, meaning
as or just as) opens the way for this interpretation. Calvin translates kaqw;" with quemadmodum
(in what manner), and understands this to mean that God blesses according as He
chose us, i.e., that election is the foundation and cause of the blessings.
2. It soon becomes evident that the
division of the sections in chapter 1 has significance.
While Calvin treats verses 7-12 as a unit, Aquinas excludes verse 7 from the
section. This difference in division is due
to the fact that the section 1:8-12 is expounded in radically different ways by Calvin and
Aquinas. From the start, Aquinas sees this
section as describing blessings to the apostles (and thus the clergy) which do not apply
to the laity. Calvin does not so distinguish. How
does Aquinas arrive at this position?
First, he claims that the
first person plural pronoun, having been used five times in verses 3-7, and each time
including all believers, suddenly in verses 8-12 refers only to the apostles. He does not give the grounds for the shift in the
antecedent.
However, erroneous doctrine,
combined with the Vulgate’s translation, gives the bad directions for Aquinas to
proceed down this path. The first instance is
in verse 8, where for hJ"
ejperivsseusen enj hJma'" (Wherein he hath
abounded toward us, KJV, referring to the riches of God’s grace) the Vulgate has quae
superabundavit in nobis (which [grace] hath ‘superabounded’ in us). [Calvin translates the Greek: Qua exundavit in nos (Which hath
overflowed in us). The point is that the
Vulgate leads Aquinas to interpret this to mean that God gives a grace to apostles above
and beyond what He gives to others. Why? They are the pastors of the church. In addition, he says, “Greater dignity was
preordained by God to some saints, and hence he infused grace more abundantly into
them.” So, the obvious conclusion is
that to the clergy of the church, as pastors, God gives a grace above what the laity
receive! [Incidentally, the verb perisseuvein is used in Romans 15:13;
2 Cor. 8:7,
9: 8, and other places, where the reference is obviously to all believers, not just to
apostles or clergy. Aquinas is not using
Scripture to interpret Scripture.]
The second significant
impetus to this exegesis comes in verse 9, where the Vulgate translates musthvrion (mystery,
KJV) as sacramentum (the word from which sacrament is derived). [Note: Calvin translates it arcano, i.e., secret
or hidden]. Although Aquinas does
not interpret the word as an official sacrament of the church, this would be another
reason for making verses 8-12 to refer to apostles, namely, they received the sacramentum.
The third significant
translation irregularity is in verse 11, where the Greek is ejn
w'/ kai ejklhrwvqhmen, i.e., In whom
also we have obtained an inheritance, KJV. (Note
that the verb means literally to obtain by lot, referring to the believers’
inheritance, as Israel received her inheritance in Canaan from God through the casting of
the lot. See Joshua 18
ff.) However, the Vulgate has In quo etiam
sorte vocati sumus, i.e., In whom also we have been called by lot.
[Calvin translates it In sortem adnosciti sumus, i.e., In whom we have received
by lot.] The significance is that Aquinas
believes this to refer to the special calling that the apostles had, although he does not
identify the calling of the apostles by lot. He
rather goes on a long excursus about the lot and how it is no longer used to call men to
office.
However, especially in this
last verse, Aquinas’ exegesis is noticeably incomplete, and of poor quality,
particularly for a man of his ability. He
does not deal adequately with the text. For
example, he fails to face the fact that the next phrase returns to predestination (being
predestinated according to the purpose…), thus linking these verses to the
previous verses that set forth the predestination of all believers. That, even though (surprisingly!) he does connect
this verse with Romans 8:30
— “And whom he predestinated, them he also called.”
We might add that Aquinas is
also following the lead of a Gloss from Lombard’s Magna glosatura. Additionally, he believes he is following the
patristic father Ambrose, though the editor of the commentary (Lamb) maintains that
Aquinas is reading this also in Lombard’s Magna glosatura, and that this is an
erroneous reference to Ambrose.11
Calvin does not make
specific reference to any of this exegesis in his commentary. One almost gets the feeling that he is aware of
it, but refuses even to honor it by mentioning it. Some
evidence for this is found in his comments on verse 11, which directly reject all that
Aquinas teaches. He writes,
Hitherto
he has spoken generally of all the elect [contra Aquinas, who makes distinctions as
to whom Paul addressed, RJD]; he now begins to take notice of separate classes. When he says, WE have obtained, he
speaks of himself and of the Jews, or more correctly, of all who were the first fruits
of Christianity; and afterwards he comes to the Ephesians.
It tended not a little to confirm the faith of the Ephesian converts, that he
associated them with himself and the other believers, who might be said to be the
first-born of the church. As if he had
said, “The condition of all godly persons is the same with yours; for we who were
first called by God owe our acceptance to his eternal election.” [Bold emphasis mine, RJD.]
3. In 1:13, for the Greek ejsfargisqhvte (from sfargivzein, to set a seal
upon, to seal), the Vulgate has signati, which emphasizes the mark or sign. Calvin
translates it obsignati – to seal.
The exegesis differs in that Aquinas deals with this as a mark like a brand on
cattle. Calvin is able to expound the deeper meaning of a seal and the
“certainty” it gives.
4. In 1:14, the Vulgate translates ajrrabw;n with pignus,
pledge. Aquinas explains this idea, then notes that a Gloss gives the word arrha
(earnest) as an alternate reading, adding, “and perhaps this is a better
reading.” He discusses briefly the
concept of an earnest, but does not stray far from the official translation of the church,
“Nevertheless, it can also be a pledge….”
Calvin translates the term arrhabo (earnest money), and so expounds it.
5. In 6:10, for the Greek ejn
tw/' kravtei th'" ijscuvo" aujtou (in the power of
his might, KJV), the Vulgate has in potentiae virtutis eius, and thus
Aquinas begins to expound on the virtues of God’s power. Calvin rather translates this in robore
potentiae ipsius, and explains it accordingly.
6. In 6:13, for the Greek katergasavmenoi (a participle from katergavzein, to perform,
accomplish), the Vulgate gives perfectis.
The effect on Aquinas’ exegesis is an excursus on whether or not one can stand
perfectly, quite beside the point. Calvin
translates the term peractis, which has the same basic meaning as the Greek.
In general, it should be
noted that Aquinas is willing to allow for differences in exegesis. One example of this is found in his exegesis of Ephesians
6:12 — on the meaning of “in high places.” Aquinas sets forth two possible explanations and
expresses no preference.
John Calvin’s
exegesis of Ephesians
1:1-14 and 6:10-17
One of the first notable
features of Calvin’s exegesis of these passages is his careful attention to the text. He often gives justification for his translation
when it differs from the Vulgate or Erasmus. He
writes on Ephesians
1:2: “Most of the Greek copies want
the word all; but I was unwilling to strike it out, because it must, at all events,
be understood.” On 1:4 Calvin brings out
the Greek meaning for “before him.” In his exposition of 1:5, Calvin compares
the Greek eij"
aujtovn and
ejn aujtw"/, and later in the
verse quotes the Greek ejcarivtwsen
env cavriti (He hath made us
accepted in the beloved, KJV) and expounds it. Likewise,
commenting on 6:11, Calvin cites the Greek for “the wiles” of the devil.
Calvin is not only concerned
with the words of the text, he seeks the precise meaning of the original Greek words. In his comments on 1:10, Calvin notes that
“in the old translation it is rendered (instaure) restore; to which
Erasmus has added (summatim) comprehensively.
I have chosen to abide closely to the meaning of the Greek word anvakefalaiwvsasqai, because it is more
agreeable to the context.” Calvin chose
the translation recolligeret, to gather together again, which is the meaning
of the Greek. In addition, on 1:14 he writes,
“Peripoivhsi", which we translate the
possession obtained…,” i.e., as Calvin translated it, acquisitae
possessionis, where the Vulgate has simply adquisitionis.
We find in this exegesis of
Calvin very few specific references to outside sources.
His reference to church fathers in these passages is but one — Chrysostom on
1:3. No references to philosophers are to be
found, or even philosophical arguments. In
fact, Calvin denigrates the latter in his comments on 1:13.
He writes, “The true conviction which believers have of the Word of God, of
their own salvation, and of religion in general, does not spring from the judgment
of the flesh, or from human or philosophical arguments, but from the sealing of the
Spirit….” [Emphasis mine, RJD].
Calvin, like Aquinas, is
willing to allow for differences in exegesis on specific passages. This is evident from 1:4 on the exact meaning of
“love.” Yet, though he gives more
than one possible meaning, he does express his preference as to the correct meaning.
Calvin is far more polemical
in his exposition of Ephesians than is Aquinas. While
Aquinas condemns only the views of Pelagius and of Origen, Calvin exposes the errors of
many. He rejects the claims of the Jews
(1:3), contrasting Christ and all the “Jewish emblems, by which the blessing under
the law was conveyed.” He rejects the
teaching of the Sorbonne, namely, that God foresaw how man would act and on that basis
chose some because they were worthy (1:4). He
castigates the “licentious,” who would use election as an excuse to sin (1:4).
In addition, Calvin rejects
the perfectionism taught by Catharists, Celestines, and Donatists (1:4). He criticizes the “sophists” for
allowing merit to play a part in the reason for election, and later, for robbing God of
glory (1:5). Calvin opposes the Church of
Rome’s doctrine of penance (1:6): “As
if the blood of Christ, when unsupported by additional aid, had lost all its
efficacy.” He denounces unspecified
persons who, “whenever they are unable to discover the reason of God’s works,
exclaim loudly against his design” (1:10). And
he condemns the Manicheans for “their wild notion of two principles” (6:12).
As a general observation, we
note that Calvin is called the theologian of the glory of God, and this element is found
in his exegesis of Ephesians. In 1:4 Calvin
notes that the phrase “that we should be holy” is the immediate purpose of God,
not the final one. The “glory of God is
the highest end, to which our sanctification is subordinate.” Accordingly, he is a foe of all notions of merit
in man. (Cf. comments on 1:4; 5, etc.)
In 1:14 he writes, “The
frequent mention [in this passage] of the glory of God ought not to be regarded as
superfluous….” In addition, Calvin
lays down (1:14) what could almost be termed an underlying principle of polemics, if not
of exegesis: “We may likewise observe,
that there is not a more effectual method of shutting the mouths of wicked men, than by
shewing that our views tend to illustrate, and theirs to obscure, the glory of God.”
Briefly to sum up what this
comparison has revealed, we notice some similarity between these two notable scholars, but
much more divergence. The primary similarity
is that both men pay attention to the words of the text.
And it has been noted that both men were wise enough to allow for divergence of
opinion as to the exegesis of a given passage. On
the other hand, there are significant differences. Aquinas
refers to outside sources far more than Calvin. The
style of Calvin’s exegesis is noticeably freer than the scholastic method followed by
Aquinas. Aquinas’ exegesis tended to be
bound to church doctrine, resulting at times in a forced meaning. And the fact that Aquinas was bound by the Vulgate
translation, while Calvin was able to use the original Greek, has a significant impact on
the exegesis that resulted. Aquinas was often
led astray by the translation with which he labored.
... to be concluded.
Mark L. Shand
Significant Changes
Post-1800
The early nineteenth century
saw the science of geology reach a state of maturity.
Geologists concluded that various rock formations required thousands, if not
millions, of years to be formed. For many in
Reformed ranks, such thinking disturbed the accepted biblical account of the origins of
the earth. How could such long periods of
time be found in the Genesis creation account?
The Scottish theologian
Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) obliged with an answer which involved a reconsideration of Genesis 1:2.
1 Put simply, Chalmers maintained that there was a
creation (Gen.
1:1), followed by a catastrophe (Gen. 1:2) and
a re-creation (Gen. 1:3ff.).
His views were adopted subsequently by C. I.
Scofield and incorporated into his Reference Bible and so received widespread
dissemination.
The reconstructionist theory
or gap theory, as Chalmer’s theory became known, asserted that the six days of Genesis 1
were not, as had previously been thought, days of creation, but rather days of
reconstruction or re-creation. It was argued
that God had initially created a perfect world. However,
this original creation sustained a terrible catastrophe as a result of the fall of Satan. This catastrophe occurred between the first and
second verses of Genesis 1;
hence the name “gap theory.” According
to the majority of the proponents of this theory, Genesis 1:2
should have been translated, “and the earth became without form and
void,” thereby allowing for changes to have occurred in the original form of the
creation.
Following the catastrophe,
the world was said to be have been left alone by God for millions of years, and during
those years the various geological changes identified by science occurred. Then, somewhere around 4000 B.C., God
reconditioned the earth in six literal twenty-four hour days. In this way, geology and Scripture were thought to
be harmonized.
The gap theory represented a
concession on the part of theologians to the demands of geology that the crust of the
earth required a great deal of time for its formation.
For a while, there was a measure of peace between the theologians and the
geologists. However, that peace did not last,
because geology began to make further concessionary demands. It soon became apparent that the problem
presented by geology was not just the need for long periods of time, but there were also
issues concerning sequence. Geology
maintained that rocks presented a sequence among themselves and that fossils buried in
these rocks provided a key to interpreting the sequence of those rocks.2 This presented theologians not only with a problem
as regards time, but also with respect to sequence. The
gap theory could accommodate time, but it was mute as regards the issue of sequence. Therefore, theologians felt compelled to develop a
further theory that would accommodate the new demands of geology. Geology was a demanding taskmaster, and the
theologians became her compliant servants.
The problem was resolved to
the satisfaction of some with the age-day or Concordist interpretation of Genesis 1. Geologists Hugh Miller, James Dana, and J. W.
Dawson argued that the days of Genesis 1
were periods of time representing the geological and biological history of the earth. The name Concordistic theory arose from the stated
design of the theory, which was to harmonize the geological record with the creation
account in Genesis
1.
The main argument in support
of this theory concentrated on the Hebrew word mwOy. It was noted that mwOy in Scripture did
not always signify a period of twenty-four hours. Therefore,
it was claimed that mwOy could refer to a
considerable or even indefinite period of time. Genesis 2:4
was pointed to in support of that proposition, as were also Job 20:28, Psalm 20:1,
and Ecclesiastes
7:14. Attention was also focused on the
seventh day of the creation week, with respect to which Scripture made no reference to the
morning and evening as was done with the other six days.
From this it was deduced that the seventh day was of permanent duration and that ipso
facto the other six days could also be treated as long periods of time. In short, the conclusion was that mwOy should be treated
metaphorically and not literally. The problem
of reconciling so-called science with Scripture had again been solved.
Further challenges to the
long accepted interpretation of the creation account in Scripture emerged in the area of
biology with the publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species in 1859. While the work occasioned great interest in the
scientific community, it was not viewed initially as representing any serious or
irreconcilable conflict with Scripture. Suggestions
as to the extent to which the hypotheses might be pressed occasioned some disquiet, but it
was not until Darwin himself spelled out the implications in his subsequent work, The
Descent of Man, in 1871 that the assault on the biblical account of creation was fully
appreciated.
By the late 1860s many of
the orthodox leaders of the Presbyterian churches in the United States had imbibed the
claims of science, with the result that they abandoned the idea of a literal
interpretation of Genesis 1
and six twenty-four hour days of creation. They
rapidly assimilated the gap theory or the day-age theory into their theology. There were few who maintained a literal view of Genesis 1 in
the face of the claims of science. The
capitulation was swift and widespread.
The change in thinking from
the approach advocated by Dick is evident from the following observations made by the
editor of the Presbyterian Quarterly. He
wrote:
In an article
entitled “Is the Science of Geology True?” the writer observed that the Bible is
not a book of science and that it was not meant to anticipate all future inventions or
discoveries in philosophy and science…. The
writer affirmed that Christians should no longer hesitate to admit that geology had
established beyond a shadow of a doubt,
1. That the
earth, instead of originating six thousand years ago, had existed through an indefinite
period, safely expressed by millions of ages.
2. That
Creation taken in its largest sense, instead of being accomplished in one of our weeks,
was a gradual work through countless ages.3
Debate over the proper
interpretation of Genesis 1
& 2 flourished throughout the 1850s, with various writers offering new slants on the
Genesis account. Taylor Lewis, a Dutch
Reformed professor at Union College, suggested that “create” did not mean
“to bring into existence from nothing,” but that it bore the meaning “to
bring into existence from pre-existing materials.”
From this he concluded that the primary meaning of the term “day” as
employed in Genesis
1 was a cycle of indefinite duration.4
Even the most conservative
institutions were affected. In 1868,
Princeton Theological Seminary appointed James McCosh as president of the Seminary.5 Within a week of his arrival, McCosh had raised
the eyebrows of many by securing to himself the dubious honor of being the first leading
American clergyman openly to espouse the theory of evolution. He contended that evolution was simply “the
method by which God works.”6 McCosh was entirely in “favor of evolution
properly limited and explained.” At
least his theological conscience was not totally seared, in that he denied the evolution
of the human race, claiming that to maintain such a position would be in direct
contravention of Scripture.7
Attempts to reconcile Scripture and science found few detractors within Princeton. Charles Hodge (1797-1878), who was professor of
Exegetical and Didactic Theology at the Seminary from 1840-1878, initially favored the gap
theory. However, by the 1860s his views had
changed. He began to espouse the day-age
theory. Significantly, the catalyst for his
change in thinking did not originate from his interpretation of Scripture. Rather, Hodge concluded that the day-age theory
accorded more closely to the fossil record than did the gap theory; hence the change.8
His approach was consistent
with his view of the relationship between Scripture and science. In his Systematic Theology, which was first
published in 1872, Hodge declared:
Christians have
commonly believed that the earth has existed only a few thousands of years. If geologists finally prove that it has existed
for myriads of ages, it will be found that the first chapter of Genesis is in full accord
with the facts, and that the last results of science are embodied on the first page of the
Bible. It may cost the church a severe
struggle to give up one interpretation and adopt another, as it did in the seventeenth
century, but no real evil need be apprehended. The
Bible has stood, and still stands in the presence of the whole scientific world with its
claims unshaken.9
In Hodge’s view,
scientists had done much to illuminate Scripture, and for this “the friends of the
Bible owed them a debt of gratitude for their able vindication of the sacred record.”10 Clearly, Hodge was prepared to concede that if the
idea of an old earth could be established, then Genesis 1
would need to be reinterpreted accordingly.
David Calhoun, commenting on
the attitude of the faculty at Princeton to so-called science during the period of Charles
Hodge, opines:
The seminary
professors believed that science and theology were allies in establishing the truth. God is the author of both Scripture and creation; so the Bible properly interpreted, they believed
and taught, could not conflict with the facts of nature properly understood.11
Hodge opposed Darwin’s evolutionary theory, but his basis for doing so was narrowly confined. In 1874 he published What is Darwinism?&nb