Problems With The Patriarchs: John Calvin’s Interpretation Of Difficult Passages In Genesis

By Scott M. Manetsch

[Scott M. Manetsch is Associate Professor of Church History at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Ill.]

Mark Twain once wryly noted, “It is not the parts of Scripture that I don’t understand that bother me. Rather, it’s the parts of Scripture that I do understand.” And there are few portions of Scripture that are more difficult for the Christian exegete and preacher than the book of Genesis—with all of its obscurity and clarity. Here the Christian interpreter confronts a whole battery of baffling questions. First, there are the obscurities. The scientist asks, “What has Genesis 1 to do with science?” The Christian historian inquires, “Should the account of the patriarchs be taken as history or (mere) kerygma?” The man or woman in the pew wonders, “When did God create the heavens and the earth? Where precisely was Eden located? Whom did Cain marry? How did Noah get all those animals on his ark?” So many obscurities, and the interpreter is barely six chapters in.

But the clarities of Genesis may be even more problematic. The patriarchs of old—these men depicted as heroes of faith—sometimes behaved rather badly: Noah weathers the flood, only to sink, naked, into a drunken stupor in his tent. Abraham—the great exemplar of faith— is a polygamist who has a nasty habit of endangering his beautiful wife Sarah by not acknowledging that they are married. And what is to be said about Lot, Jacob, and Jacob’s twelve sons, whose sins include polygamy, incest, drunkenness, offering daughters to sexual predators, selling a brother to slave traders, and slaughtering an entire city to avenge a sister’s rape? What is the faithful Christian expositor to do with all of this obscurity. .. and embarrassing clarity in the book of Genesis? The brave interpreter exploring this dangerous landscape would seem well-advised to heed the sign on the rim of the Grand Canyon: Warning! Dangerous trail ahead. Proceed at your own risk!

John Calvin (1509–64) traveled the treacherous terrain of the book of Genesis repeatedly during twenty-five years of pastoral ministry in Geneva. The grand themes of Genesis (creation, fall, providence, justification by faith) as well as details of the patriarchs’ lives are woven tightly into the argument and theology of each successive edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. In the 1559 edition of the Institutes, for example, Calvin quotes from or alludes to the book of Genesis nearly 250 times. The reformer also lectured on the book of Genesis. Beginning in 1550, he spent nearly two years explaining the text of Genesis to students in Geneva; these lectures formed the basis of his Latin and French commentaries on the book published four years later.1 Calvin also preached extensively from the book of Genesis. Employing the lectio continua method of exposition practiced in Zurich, Calvin preached successively through Genesis from 1542–43.[2] Seventeen years later the reformer returned to the history of the patriarchs: over a period of nine months he delivered 123 sermons on Genesis from the pulpit of St. Pierre’s during weekday preaching services.[3] In all these ways, then—behind desk, lectern, and pulpit—John Calvin interpreted the text of Genesis and communicated its message to his congregation in Geneva. Whatever its obscurities and difficulties, Calvin insisted that Moses’ ancient account of creation, paradise, and the patriarchs was of central importance to sixteenth-century Christians. As Calvin once observed, “We are companions of the Patriarchs.”[4]

This article will explore the manner in which John Calvin interpreted and preached difficult passages from the early chapters of Genesis. In recent decades, historians and theologians have treated in detail Calvin’s hermeneutics[5] as well as his homiletic ministry in Geneva.[6] Specialized studies are now available that examine the reformer’s exegesis of several problem texts in Genesis against the backdrop of the history of Christian interpretation.[7] The first objective of this article is to take a wider (and somewhat bolder) tack, examining how Calvin the commentator treats more than a dozen passages from the first twelve chapters of Genesis so as to clarify the general coordinates of his method of interpreting difficult texts. Some of these passages are difficult because their meaning is unclear or their natural sense appears to violate common experience or reason; others are controversial because they highlight the moral failures of biblical heroes. All of these texts, however, are ones that Calvin himself acknowledged to be problematic or subject to variant readings. Calvin’s work as interpreter did not end with exegetical study and the writing of commentaries; he also interpreted the biblical message each time he climbed into the pulpit. Accordingly, the second objective of this article is to consider the reformer’s strategy as he preached these difficult texts to the people in his congregation. By comparing Calvin’s interpretive approaches in these two didactic genres—exegetical commentary and sermon—this article will discover clues as to how he understood and differentiated his roles as biblical commentator and Christian preacher. This approach is admittedly broad, but it is hoped that reading Calvin intra-textually will provide insight and historical perspective as we seek to be faithful interpreters of the biblical text in the present day

I. The Division of Labor in Calvin’s Theology

Before examining John Calvin’s method of interpreting difficult passages, it is important first to understand how he conceptualized his theological program. Calvin’s “exile” years in Strasbourg from 1538–41 were decisive in the development of his theological method.[8] During these years, Calvin served as the pastor of the French refugee church in Strasbourg and gave lectures in the city’s academy. The reformer’s pen was also prolific: he published a substantial revision of the Institutes in Latin (1539) and translated this version into French (1541). In addition, he completed his first commentary—on the book of Romans—in 1540, translated the sermons of Chrysostom (c. 1538–40), and defended the Genevan reformation in a treatise against Cardinal Jacob Sadolet (1539). In the midst of this intense pastoral activity and literary productivity Calvin formulated for the first time the division of labor that he intended between his theological exposition in the Institutes and the exegetical work in his commentaries.

A. Calvin as Commentator

Calvin’s most detailed discussion of the role of the biblical commentator appears in the preface to his Commentary on Romans (1540), where he distinguishes his own method of commentary writing from that of his contemporaries.[9] After dismissing the allegorical or semi-allegorical approaches of Erasmus and Luther, Calvin turns his attention to the highly regarded commentaries of Luther’s lieutenant, Philip Melanchthon. Instead of providing a verse-by-verse exposition of the sacred text, Melanchthon’s biblical commentaries focused upon selected theological topics—or common places (loci communes)—through which the primary teachings of the Bible were summarized. While paying due respect to the German humanist, Calvin judges Melanchthon’s approach arbitrary and unbalanced in that it entirely ignored many passages that did not fit the a priori questions and categories of the theologians. Calvin deems the exegetical writings of his friend, the Strasbourg reformer Martin Bucer, to be equally flawed. In his massive commentaries, Bucer provided the reader both a running commentary on the biblical text and a lengthy treatment of selected theological topics (loci communes). From Calvin’s perspective, Bucer’s work was too clumsy and cumbersome—both in size and intellectual substance—to be of much use to the average pastor. As Calvin notes: “Bucer is too verbose for busy men to read quickly, and too profound to be easily understood by the less intelligent and those not very perceptive. For in whatever subject that he addresses, so many things are suggested to him through the incredible brilliance of his mind. .. that he does not know when to stop writing”[10]

In the preface to his commentary on Romans, Calvin proposes an alternative method of exegetical writing. In contrast to Melanchthon’s use of theological topics, Calvin states his intention to follow a verse-by-verse exposition of the biblical text. In contrast to Bucer’s prolixity and subtlety Calvin champions a method of interpreting Scripture that values concise notations on the text while refraining from unnecessary debates and digressions. As Calvin succinctly puts it, “the chief virtue of an interpreter lies in lucid brevity [perspicua brevitas].”[11] The Latin phrase perspicua brevitas is crucial for our understanding of the reformer’s method of exegetical writing as well as his hermeneutics. For Calvin, human communication—in oral and written form—reflects the “stamp of the mind [character mentis]” of the communicator.[12] Accordingly, he believes that the Christian interpreter encounters and is able to understand the intention of the prophets and apostles in the text of Scripture. The task of the expositor, then, is to make clear the author’s intention (perspicua) by exposing briefly what is pertinent and relevant (brevitas). Here we see the structure of Calvin’s hermeneutic: the commentator must lay bare the intended (true) meaning of the biblical author by providing a clear and concise analysis of the biblical text, verse by verse, with the goal of edifying the people of God.[13] This style of exegetical writing, Calvin believes, most closely accords with the style witnessed in the Scriptures themselves. Just as the prophets and apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote with power, simplicity, and clarity—avoiding the frivolous rhetoric and expansive subtlety of classical rhetoricians[14] —so the faithful expositor should unfold clearly the meaning of the biblical text in a manner that will assure the understanding and edification of the people of God.

B. Calvin as Theologian

Calvin did not intend his commentaries to stand alone, however. Rather he anticipated a functional symbiosis between the concise exegetical notations in his commentaries and the more discursive Institutes. The first edition of the Institutes, published in 1536, was conceived of chiefly as a brief summary of Christian teaching to be used in catechetical instruction. By 1539, however, Calvin had expanded and restructured the Institutes so that it is now a much longer work, intended as a theological primer for students of theology and as a supplement to his exegetical writings. In this revised form, the Institutes functions as a kind of collection of common places in which the reformer develops in a systematic fashion those theological topics omitted from his commentaries.[15] Calvin explains his theological method in a striking passage found in the preface to the 1539 edition of the Institutes:

For I think that I have so understood the sum of religion in all its parts and arranged them in order that if anyone grasps it aright, he will have no difficulty in determining both what is most important for him to seek in Scripture, and to what end he should refer everything contained in it. And so I have, as it were, paved the way. And if I shall hereafter publish any commentaries on Scripture, I shall always condense them and keep them short, for I shall have no need to undertake long discussions on doctrines, and digress into common places [loci communes ]. By this method, the godly reader will be spared great trouble and loathing—provided he approaches the commentaries equipped with a knowledge of the present work as a necessary tool.[16]

Here then is the division of labor Calvin envisioned in his theological program. The Institutes provides a doctrinal frame that directs the interpreter’s attention to the central articles of the Christian religion, serving as an entry point into a proper reading of the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, the Institutes addresses in detail important doctrinal themes and theological debates that would otherwise render the commentaries unclear and unwieldy for pastoral use. The interpreter who approaches a biblical text must thus be familiar with the larger landscape of Christian theology if he is to understand the Word of God aright. For Calvin, theology and exegesis are two parts of one whole, with each part informing the other; but the right order of teaching requires that extended doctrinal formulation and biblical interpretation be treated separately and preserved in different literary genres.[17] The reformed pastor must have both commentary and theological common places at his desk as he interprets the Scripture.

C. Calvin as Preacher

So far we have described two aspects of Calvin’s theological program as well as two dimensions of his vocation as a doctor ecclesiae. In his roles as theologian and exegete, he endeavored to provide ministers and students a comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures and the Protestant religion. But Calvin was also a preacher, and in this capacity he recognized his responsibility to instruct ordinary Christians who could neither read Latin commentaries nor master the finer details of theological discourse. In a preface to Chrysostom’s homilies, penned in 1540, Calvin highlights the vital importance of interpreting the Scriptures for common lay people:

Now truly, if it is right that ordinary Christians should not be deprived of the Word of their God, neither should they be denied the resources to help them understand it correctly. .. It is obvious, therefore, that they should be assisted by the work of interpreters who have advanced in the knowledge of God to a level that they can guide others as well.[18]

The interpretive resources that Calvin had in mind in this passage were Chrysostom’s sermons, which at the time he proposed to publish in order to “facilitate the reading of Holy Scripture for those who are humble and uneducated.”[19] A decade later, Calvin’s own sermons would serve the same purpose. Beginning in 1549, a refugee society called La compagnie des e´trangers hired a stenographer named Denis Raguenier to copy word for word Calvin’s sermons delivered from the pulpit of St. Pierre’s in Geneva. Of more than 2000 French sermons transcribed, Raguenier and his assistants published several hundred, with the financial proceeds going to support the city’s poor refugees.[20] It is not the purpose of this article to describe in detail the general principles underlying Calvin’s theory of preaching. It is sufficient to note that in style and form, Calvin’s sermons stand somewhat closer to his exegetical than his theological writings, though they form a distinct genre of their own. As with his commentaries, Calvin’s sermons begin by quoting the scriptural text and then provide a running exposition of the biblical narrative. His sermons, however, are more expansive, often exceeding by four or five times the length of the corresponding comment in his commentary.[21] In his pulpit oratory, Calvin takes greater liberty to develop theological themes, discuss parallel passages, and draw out points of application, all in a style less formal and more accessible to his congregation. Thus, whereas the reformer’s homiletic style has decisively departed from the principle of brevitas, it remains faithful to the principle of perspicua and communicates the intention of the author in a manner that is clear and compelling. As in his exegetical writings, Calvin believes that the sermon is no place for the preacher to show off his rhetorical skills or indulge in extravagant speculations. Rather, pulpit exposition should be truthful, direct, and appropriate to the text that is being considered.[22] Central to Calvin’s theological program, therefore, is the conviction that scriptural interpretation—whether in the form of exegetical writings, sermons, or theological common places—must equip the people of God to understand and respond to the Word of God.

II. Calvin and the Obscurities of Moses

How then did John Calvin as commentator and preacher interpret and apply difficult passages for the edification of the Church? This present section will examine Calvin’s method of interpreting obscure passages in Gen 1–6, passages that are difficult because their meaning is unclear or their natural sense appears to violate common experience or reason. Although this analysis will draw on examples from throughout these six chapters, particular attention will be devoted to three passages that are most instructive for understanding Calvin’s hermeneutic. Here Calvin not only models, but also explicitly instructs his audience on proper methods of interpreting difficult texts in Scripture.

The reader is impressed from the outset by the sheer number of questions and problems that Calvin addresses in these chapters. The structure of Calvin’s exposition is dictated by the biblical text itself, but the dynamism of both commentary and sermon comes in large part from his lively discussion of the many exegetical difficulties and theological and historical questions raised by the text. What is meant by the divine name Elohim? Why did not God create the universe sooner? Where was Eden located? At what time did the Fall occur? Why were the animals punished for the sin of Adam and Eve? What is meant by the “mark of Cain”? From time to time, Calvin the commentator does not address the question directly referring his reader instead to the Institutes for a fuller treatment of a theological problem.[23] On other occasions, Calvin warns his audience about the dangers of unbridled speculation. Most people have a passion to know too much, he believes.[24] But Calvin’s normal practice is to anticipate the questions of his audience—lay people as well as theologians—and devote significant space to elucidating the text in a manner that addresses their concerns.

What strategies does Calvin employ as he attempts to shed light on these difficult texts in Genesis? There are several interpretive moves that he does not make. First, in these chapters he nowhere impugns the truthfulness or reliability of the biblical author. (More will be said about this later.) Second, Calvin rejects allegorical interpretations of the biblical text. The reformer criticizes Origen and later medieval commentators as instruments of Satan for abandoning the literal sense of Scripture and adopting allegorical interpretations that render “the doctrine of Scripture ambiguous and destitute of all certainty and firmness.”[25] Rather than trifling with allegories, the interpreter should “adhere strictly to the natural treatment of things.”[26] Third, Calvin is usually suspicious of easy answers that discount the gravity of real textual problems. For example, he rejects as too “subtle” the argument of Augustine and other early interpreters who substituted a geometrical cubit for the biblical cubit in their reading of Gen 6:16 so as to enlarge the dimensions of Noah’s ark to a size suitable for its animal population.[27] Finally, Calvin does not automatically embrace popular “Christian” readings of texts. He rejects as a “violent gloss” the interpretation (defended by Martin Luther) that the plural form of the divine name Elohim points to the three persons of the Trinity.[28]Again, in his exegesis of Gen 3:15— the so-called protoeuangelion—Calvin judges as “too narrow” the popular interpretation that identified Christ alone as the promised seed of the woman that would one day crush the serpent’s head. Indeed, throughout his commentaries, the Genevan reformer regularly displays surprising independence in his interpretation of problem passages.

A. Genesis 3:15—The Protoeuangelion

Calvin’s treatment of the protoeuangelion in Gen 3 deserves further comment because it illustrates particularly well aspects of his interpretive method. John Calvin’s first concern is to establish the correct reading and translation of the Hebrew text of Gen 3:15. He rejects the Vulgate translation that substituted a feminine pronoun for the masculine or neuter pronouns found in early Hebrew and Greek codices, thus rendering verse 15c “she shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise her heel.” Calvin points out that Catholic interpreters—in their “great ignorance, dullness, and carelessness,” as he puts it—have seized upon this corrupt reading in order to attribute to Mary, the mother of Christ, a greater role in salvation than is biblically warranted.[29] But Protestant commentators have also misinterpreted this verse by identifying the “seed of the woman” as a prophetic reference exclusively to Christ. This interpretation does violence to the word “seed,” which is a collective noun in the Hebrew. Calvin suggests a different reading: “I explain, therefore, the seed to mean the posterity of woman generally. But since experience teaches that not all the sons of Adam by far, arise as conquerors of the devil, we must necessarily come to one head, that we may find to whom the victory belongs. So Paul, from the seed of Abraham, leads us to Christ.. . .”[30] Thus, Calvin understands the protoeuangelion to point to the ongoing battle between the human race and Satan and the ultimate victory achieved through the cross work of the God-man, Jesus Christ. This reading is borne out, he believes, by Paul’s words in Rom 16:20: “The Lord shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” Several aspects of Calvin’s hermeneutic are evident here. First, as an interpreter he readily participates in a dialogue with Christian interpreters of the past and present. For Calvin, the doctrine of sola scriptura clearly does not mean that the biblical text is the only resource to be used in interpretation.[31] Second, he looks to the biblical languages and to early scriptural versions to establish the correct translation of the text. Third, Calvin studies the grammatical structure of the passage, as well as the literary context, in order to inform his interpretation. Finally, he employs the analogy of faith—allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture—as he seeks to understand the obscurities of the biblical text.

Calvin’s sermon on this same passage, preached five years after the publication of his commentary, sheds further light on his hermeneutic.[32] In the first half of this sermon, the preacher of St. Pierre’s lays out the true or “literal” meaning of the text. Although he does not descend to an explicit discussion of Hebrew grammar nor impugn other biblical commentators by name, he nonetheless alerts his congregation to the errors of the Vulgate version and criticizes interpretations that he finds wanting. Calvin’s sermon is more explicit than his commentary in attacking the “ugly blasphemy” of Catholics who believe that the virgin Mary crushed the head of the serpent, “as if our salvation proceeded from her.”[33] After explaining that the “seed of the woman” refers to the human race in general, Calvin signals his transition to application: “Since we have discovered the natural sense of this passage, let us now observe how it benefits us.”[34] Subsequently for the next twenty minutes,[35] Calvin applies the meaning of this single verse to his audience. Calvin’s application is direct and rhetorically powerful. The Church is locked in a desperate battle with Satan, the wicked prince of this world. The hoards of hell harass and frequently harm the people of God. But Christians must resist Satan’s devilish designs, take courage and not fear. God will rescue his children even from the precipice of hell and will ultimately grant them victory. For in Christ, the seed of the woman has decisively crushed the serpent’s head—this is the promise that Christians must live by[36] Throughout his exposition, Calvin pinpoints specific matters for application with variations on this formula: “There it is, a crucial point that we must hold on to from this passage.”[37] Calvin here is modeling what he demands of all Christian preachers, namely that they not only interpret the Scriptures faithfully, but also apply divine truth to the people’s profit. “When I expound Holy Scripture,” Calvin once observed, “if I do not procure the edification of those who hear me, I am a sacrilege, profaning God’s Word.”[38] Even with difficult passages, the Christian preacher must seek to edify his congregation. And, indeed, as Calvin moves from hermeneutics to homiletics, he draws from hard texts—and controversial readings of those texts—some of his most profound lessons and pointed applications. Rather than ignoring difficult passages, or dismissing them in a cursory fashion, or allowing them to undermine the logic of his exposition or the flow of his narrative, John Calvin the preacher uses difficult texts as access points to uncover deeper truths into the nature of God, grace, and the Christian life. As with Scripture in general, hard texts serve as “glasses” through which Christians are able to discern divine mysteries more clearly and are led to worship and adore their God.[39]

B. Genesis 1:6—The Waters of Heaven

Thus far this article has examined Calvin’s method of interpreting passages in which the meaning is obscure, but not necessarily contradictory to received opinion. It is now necessary to consider how the reformer treats hard texts that appear prima facie to violate common experience or natural reason. The account of the second day of creation presents Calvin with his first such difficulty: “And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven” (Gen 1:6–7). What does Scripture mean by locating waters above the heavens? Calvin acknowledges that this description of the natural world seems nonsensical, even incredible. Consequently some commentators have sought refuge in allegory and understood this “water” to mean the angelic hosts of heaven. Others have accepted on faith that a great watery expanse rests above the clouds. Calvin rejects both of these alternatives, and instead, lays out a basic interpretive principle:

For me, this is a certain principle, that nothing is treated in this passage except the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and other profound arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God wishes to teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and incorrectly respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned.. .. Whence I conclude, that the waters here described are those such as the rude and unlearned observe them.[40]

Two points are of particular importance for us. Here as elsewhere, Calvin affirms the inspiration of the biblical text: it is the Holy Spirit who speaks and teaches through the instrument of the biblical author.[41] Moreover, the Holy Spirit works through the biblical writers in such a way as to insure that the Scripture’s meaning is intelligible to all kinds of human beings, regardless of their education or intelligence. God intended the Bible to be a book for the unlearned. Calvin’s sermon puts it succinctly: “[L]et us recognize that Moses wanted to adapt his style of writing to the rough nature of the most ignorant and stupid, so that everyone would be without excuse and able to be taught about the works of God.”[42] In describing the waters above the heavens, therefore, Moses did not intend to provide a detailed scientific description that would satisfy astronomers; rather, he wished to teach common people that it was God alone who protected the land from inundation and governed the clouds which seeded the earth with rain, hail, and snow. This reading Calvin defends by quoting from a half-dozen other biblical passages that describe God’s sovereignty over the great waters of sky and earth. Having established the correct interpretation of Gen 1:6, Calvin the preacher finally proceeds to application. Once again, a difficult text bears a poignant lesson. Human existence is precarious upon the earth. Floods and earthquakes can destroy life without warning. And yet God’s grace sustains his people. “Let us therefore recognize how fragile we are,” Calvin exhorts his congregation, “and let us learn to pray to our God and place our life in his hands.”[43]

John Calvin’s treatment of Gen 1:6 reflects the reformer’s doctrine of accommodation, that God, in the Scriptures, accommodates himself to the capacity of the human mind and heart. Ford Lewis Battles pointed out more than twenty-five years ago that this principle is central not only to the way in which Calvin handles the biblical text but also to his view of the relationship between God and human beings in general.[44] Here in the early chapters of Genesis, Calvin frequently reminds his audience that the scriptural text—as a speech-bridge between infinite deity and finite humanity—regularly employs rude and unrefined language in order to communicate divine truth in a manner comprehensible to the reader. In Scripture, sublime truth is often cradled in a common style. Hence, when Moses wrote that God planted a garden in Eden (Gen 2:8), he was “accommodating himself, by a simple and uncultivated style, to the capacity of the vulgar.”[45] Similarly, when Gen 6:6 reports that the Lord “repented” of creating human beings because of their wickedness, the reader should not conclude that God changes his mind or is subject to shifting human emotions. Rather, Calvin argues, 

The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding of him.. .. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy rest; yet, because we could not otherwise comprehend how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity.[46]

Does the principle of accommodation indicate that Calvin lacks confidence in the truthfulness of the biblical authors or the authority of holy writ? Clearly not.[47] It is ultimately the Holy Spirit who “accommodates himself” to human capacity in the language of Scripture. Accommodation reflects God’s fatherly love for human beings and his desire to instruct them despite the limitations of their finitude and sin. Consequently, Calvin argues, Moses is not to be blamed if, in his divinely appointed office as schoolmaster, he has chosen to communicate God’s truth in language suitable for the understanding of children.[48]

C. Genesis 1:16—The Two Great Lights

Calvin regularly employs the doctrine of accommodation to unravel the most difficult of textual and theological knots. One of the best examples of this is found in his comments on Gen 1:16, the account of the creation of the sun and moon on the fourth day.[49] The reformer begins with this problem: why does the prophet describe the sun and moon as “the two great lights” when astronomers have shown conclusively that the planet Saturn is larger than the moon? Before turning to Calvin’s solution, it is important to observe that even by admitting that such a difficulty exists, the reformer is implicitly affirming the value of extra-biblical knowledge in the task of scriptural interpretation. In this case, the discoveries of astronomy inform Calvin’s hermeneutic. And this is not an isolated instance. In Gen 2, Calvin will draw upon the writings of secular authors such as Pliny, Nearchus, and Strabo to clarify near-eastern topography and determine the likely location of Eden.[50] Elsewhere in his commentaries, Calvin cites Latin and Greek literature regarding history, philosophy, psychology, meteorology, zoology, and botany to help bring clarity to thorny passages. These extra-biblical sources are employed to confirm, not falsify the meaning of the biblical text, however. They serve to illumine Scripture, not undermine it.[51] Although Calvin attaches greatest importance to the literary context within the biblical text, he is not adverse to drawing upon resources from the arts and sciences outside the biblical text to assist in interpreting difficult passages.

With that said, how does Calvin explain the apparent discrepancy between Moses’ description of the moon as a “great light” and the findings of the astronomers? The reformer begins by reminding his audience that Moses was writing in his capacity as a theologian and teacher, not as a philosopher or astronomer. His primary concern was not to disclose the secrets of the stars, but to describe the celestial handiwork of God in a manner that corresponded with the experience of ordinary people so as to elicit their wonder and praise. Hence, Moses described the moon as it might appear to a simple peasant, gazing into the night sky, rather than to an astronomer, studying his astronomical charts. Calvin here does not employ the Latin word accommodare or its derivatives, but the concept of accommodation is clearly in view. Moses has descended to a “grosser method of instruction”—as Calvin puts it—in order to train both scholars and simpletons in the “common school” of Holy Scripture.[52] This interpretation of Gen 1:16 will serve as Calvin’s model when confronting other textual problems later in his commentary: in his discussions of the location of the Garden of Eden and the size of Noah’s Ark, he will point the reader back to Gen 1:16 and the principle of accommodation found there.[53] Whether in matters of astronomy, natural history, or geometry, Calvin argues, Moses was accommodating his historical account to the capacity of his age.

Before leaving Gen 1:16, one important difference between the argument of his commentary and sermon must be noted. In his comment on this passage, Calvin does not address the question of whether or not Moses actually knew that Saturn was larger than the moon (although the doctrine of accommodation implies as much). By contrast, in his sermon on this passage, Calvin goes to great length to defend Moses from the charge of ignorance. The Genevan preacher castigates certain “vain fools” who out of their contempt for Scripture have trumpeted Moses’ ignorance of the heavenly sciences. To answer these critics, Calvin appeals to Stephen’s speech in Acts (7:22) to prove that Moses had received extensive training in astronomy during his youth in Pharaoh’s court. Indeed, Moses “was so well instructed in the planetary arts that he excelled among the astronomers of Egypt, who were famous throughout the ancient world.” Nonetheless, when Moses wrote the creation account in Genesis, he chose to withhold his astronomical knowledge so as to provide for the comprehension of common people and the edification of the Church.[54] Calvin’s use of Acts 7 is somewhat disingenuous: Stephen nowhere reports that Moses was trained in astronomy per se. But it is striking the length to which Calvin goes in his sermon to assure his congregation that Moses is a reliable guide and, by extension, that the biblical text can be trusted. Why is it that this defense of Moses, so prominent in Calvin’s sermon, is entirely missing from his commentary? It is possible, of course, that this discrepancy merely reflects the reformer’s response to changed historical circumstances. More likely, this difference suggests the division of labor in Calvin’s expositional writings that was noted earlier. Calvin’s chief concern as a commentator is to interpret the difficult passage in such a way that the author’s intention is made clear. But in his role as preacher, Calvin must perform a double act of interpretation: he must interpret the text, and interpret the needs of the intended audience so that the exposition of God’s Word will edify rather than cause harm. Thus, whereas Calvin the commentator neither asks nor answers the question, “Was Moses ignorant of astronomy?” Calvin the preacher treats this matter at length so as to silence the doubts and solidify the faith of his people.

The major contours of Calvin’s method of interpreting obscure passages in the book of Genesis are now in view. The reformer’s confidence in the authority of the biblical text causes him to address textual problems directly and carefully. His primary goal is to discover the literal or natural meaning of the passage— that is, the author’s intention. He does this by establishing the best reading of the Hebrew text, studying the language and grammar of the passage, and consulting the immediate literary context. Scripture must interpret Scripture. In addition, Calvin the interpreter draws extensively from the writings of Christian commentators of the past, and even from acquired wisdom in the arts and sciences, to shed light on the meaning of the biblical text. But he employs these extra-biblical resources cautiously, and frequently displays independence from them. Finally Calvin regularly appeals to the principle of accommodation: that Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, accommodated his account to the capacity of ordinary folk. Christian interpreters must recognize that Moses wrote Genesis not primarily for philosophers or astronomers or mathematicians, but for the “most stupid of people.” Understanding this is essential in order to bring clarity to the obscurity of Scripture.[55]

This summary of Calvin’s hermeneutic may give the impression that the reformer believed the skilled interpreter could elucidate obscure passages of Scripture through technical competence alone. Such is not the case. Calvin emphasizes that the Holy Spirit is crucial for lifting the veil of darkness and illumining the mind of the interpreter to understand the text of Scripture. He writes, “And indeed it is my belief that the Spirit of God is certainly not only the best, but also the sole guide, since without him, there is not even a glimmer of light in our minds enabling us to appreciate heavenly wisdom. Yet as soon as the Spirit has shed his light, our minds are more than adequately prepared and equipped to grasp this wisdom.“[56] Additionally, Calvin believes that the meaning of some passages will remain unclear to even the most gifted of interpreters. In these first chapters of Genesis, Calvin himself admits in several places to be stumped. He is not certain whether the people listed in the genealogy of Gen 5 are included by virtue of God’s preference or human primogeniture.[57] Likewise, he admits ignorance about the precise nature of the mark on Cain’s forehead as well as the identity of the “gopher wood” which Noah used to construct his ark.[58] The meaning of other passages remains forever inaccessible because they but hint of the high and holy mysteries of God’s nature and will. In such cases, Calvin believes, interpreters must humble themselves before the text and worship the wisdom of God. Indeed, when reason fails, adoration is the proper posture of the Christian interpreter.[59]

III. Calvin and the Sins of the Patriarchs

To this point, this article has examined John Calvin’s interpretation of passages in Genesis that posed difficulties because they were obscure or appeared to violate human reason. For Calvin and other Protestant exegetes who championed the literal sense of the Scripture, the sins of the ancient patriarchs presented a different kind of interpretive challenge. Whereas the patriarchs are portrayed in the New Testament as models of virtue and heroes of faith, in the Old Testament their deeds are sometimes less than exemplary. How can the Christian interpreter preserve the patriarchs’ status as moral exemplars without inadvertently excusing gross immorality or indulging in a tortured casuistry?[60] This final section will briefly examine the ways in which Calvin as commentator and preacher navigated these difficulties in his treatment of two instances of patriarchal sin: Noah’s drunkenness in Gen 9 and Abram’s endangerment of his wife Sarai in Gen 12.

A. Genesis 9:20–21—The Drunkenness of Noah

Calvin’s exegesis of the account of Noah’s drunkenness illustrates well the rigorous stance the reformer adopts toward the sins of the patriarchs. Calvin describes the patriarch’s failure in this manner: “The holy patriarch, though he had hitherto been a singular example of frugality and temperance, losing all self-possession, threw himself naked on the ground in abase and shameful manner, so as to become a laughing stock to all.”[61] In his commentary on Gen 9, Calvin makes no effort to rationalize or justify Noah’s behavior. Drunkenness is “a filthy and detestable crime,” and hence, the sin of the holy patriarch was serious and worthy of censure. Calvin rejects interpretations that would excuse Noah’s action. He finds unconvincing the conclusion of medieval commentators (such as Nicolas of Lyra) who had argued that Noah’s offense was less serious because no one had ever grown grapes or made wine before the Flood.[62] And, while Calvin recognizes some merit to the suggestion that Noah’s intemperance may have followed a hard day’s work, he finds the judgment of the biblical account indisputable: God branded Noah with a permanent mark of disgrace for his intoxication.[63] Calvin’s sermon on this text also condemns the drunkenness of Noah, but the emphasis is somewhat different. The Genevan preacher argues that the patriarch’s sin was a momentary lapse, indeed an accident. Throughout his long life, Noah was the most righteous man on earth, a model of temperance and a “mirror of all holiness and perfection” in the midst of a wicked world.[64] This changed in the aftermath of the Flood. Having grown unaccustomed to strong drink during the many months on the ark, Noah now imbibed too freely of the fruit of his vineyard and became drunk “by surprise and in an instant."[65] Though the patriarch’s sin was still worthy of great blame, Calvin emphasizes that it was an anomaly, an accident. In the hands of the preacher, therefore, Noah’s sin is a cautionary tale. His example serves as a “sober” warning that “the most holy and perfect people are subject to stumble grievously and to commit terrible sins, unless God preserves them.”[66] Overall, Calvin’s sermon places greater accent than his commentary on Noah’s righteous character both before and after his bout of drunkenness. Following God’s punishment, Noah once again returned to his righteous way of life and never fell into drunkenness again.[67] Forgiven and restored, Noah remained “the man who was dearer and more precious to God than any man on earth.”[68] As might be expected, the preacher of St. Pierre’s concludes his exposition with a lengthy application in which he warns of the dangers of drunkenness and unbridled appetites. However, in a surprising twist, Calvin also extols the outstanding virtues of the fruit of the vine: wine is an excellent gift that God gives to human beings to sustain them and bring joy to their hearts. Wine serves as a prime example of the lavish liberality of God and should spur us on to praise and bless him.[69] Yet again, a difficult passage renders a powerful lesson.

B. Genesis 12:10–20—The Endangerment of Sarai

The pattern evident in Calvin’s treatment of Noah is repeated in his interpretation of the life of the patriarch Abram. While Calvin censures Abram’s sins, he nonetheless praises the overall righteousness and faithfulness of this man, holding him up as an example for all Christians to emulate. “For we must always remember,” Calvin notes, “that Abram is not to be regarded simply as one person among the faithful, but as the common father of all believers. Consequently all should seek to imitate his example.”[70] One of the places where the example of Abram would seem most problematic for Christian interpreters is the so-called endangerment of Sarai in Gen 12. In this passage, famine has forced Abram and his wife Sarai to leave Canaan and seek refuge in Egypt. Before entering Egypt, Abram instructs Sarai to conceal her identity as his wife so that he will not be killed. The trick works: Abram’s life is spared, but at the cost of Sarai being taken to the palace as one of Pharaoh’s wives. How, then, did Calvin interpret this shocking account? The Genevan reformer acknowledges from the outset that Abram’s dissimulation was a lie that endangered the chastity of his wife.

The pretense that Abram persuades his wife to adopt seems to have been tainted by a lie. And although afterwards he makes the excuse that he had not lied or feigned anything that was untrue, nevertheless he was guilty of a great wrong because it was not owing to his care that his wife was not prostituted. For when he lies about the fact that she was his wife, he deprives her chastity of its legitimate protection.[71]

In the history of the exegesis of this difficult passage, Calvin’s judgment of Abram’s sin is uniquely severe. Whereas other commentators had justified Abram’s deception by appealing to his prophetic knowledge (Augustine), to divine permission (Ulrich Zwingli), to his good intentions (Johannes Oecolampadius), or to his unique mission to sire the messianic race (Martin Luther), Calvin by contrast allows no special dispensation to excuse the patriarch’s behavior.[72] From Calvin’s perspective Abram—indeed all of the patriarchs—must be judged by the moral standards of Scripture. The reformer explicates this principle elsewhere in his commentaries:

For, as in estimating the conduct of saints we should be skillful and humane interpreters, so also superstitious zeal must be avoided in covering their failures, since this would often infringe on the direct authority of Scripture. And, indeed, when the faithful fall into sin, they desire not to be lifted out of it by a false defense, for their justification consists in a simple and free demand of pardon for their sins.[73]

From Calvin’s perspective, then, interpreters must not allow sympathy or superstition to blur their evaluation of the behavior of the patriarchs. Even the heroes of the faith are subject to the authority of Scripture and its ethical standards. Calvin is thus unwilling to appeal to extenuating circumstances or divine permission in order to excuse Abram’s action. His dissimulation was a lie, and thus culpable.

But if Calvin condemns Abram’s lie, he nonetheless assigns the highest of motives to the patriarch’s actions overall. Particularly in his sermon, Calvin showers explicit and effusive praise upon the righteous man Abram. The fact that Abram seeks refuge in Egypt, rather than return to his native country of Haran, is proof, Calvin believes, that the patriarch is living by faith in God’s promises. In old age, Abram has renounced all the pleasures and riches and comforts of this world; he aspires only for heaven.[74] Hence, the reformer emphatically rejects the accusation of certain “scoundrels” that Abram’s dissimulation was motivated by fear for his own safety or lack of concern for his wife. No indeed, Abram’s efforts at self-preservation were motivated solely by the desire to see the fulfillment of the promised offspring through whom God would bless the world. Abram’s willingness to give up his beloved wife Sarai— even to expose her to danger—for the sake of this divine promise was thus “an act worthy of great praise.”[75] Abram may have stumbled momentarily, but he never lost sight of God’s promise. Calvin observes:

And thus, it is certain that Abram’s desire to preserve his life proceeded from his passion and zeal to obtain the fulfillment of the promises of God. We therefore see in his error and shortcomings. .. the admirable strength of his faith. It is as if he renounced everything that was most dear and delightful to him in this world, in order to obtain that hope of God which he awaited.[76]

What then happened to Sarai? Did she become the victim of Pharaoh’s lust? In the absence of explicit textual evidence, Calvin points his audience to a parallel passage in Gen 20 (v. 1) as support for his conclusion that God protected Sarai’s chastity during her sojourn in Egypt.[77] Before concluding his sermon, Calvin turns his attention one more time to the sin of Abram in order to make a final application. Abram sinned because he employed illegitimate means to achieve a praiseworthy end. He did not entrust everything to the providence of God. Christians must emulate his faith, avoid his failures, and rest completely in God’s providence. And when it seems that God has given no means of escape, the Christian should repeat the words of an Abram better instructed: “The Lord will provide.”[78]

In a recent study of Calvin’s exegesis, John Thompson has argued that the Genevan reformer is consistently more severe than other medieval or Reformation era commentators in faulting the patriarchs for moral infractions. Calvin is more disciplined in following the biblical text, less willing to read into the silence of Scripture details that exonerate or excuse. My findings here substantially corroborate Thompson at this point. However, Calvin’s sermons provide a slightly different picture. In preaching the sins of the patriarchs, we have seen that the reformer regularly portrays Moses and the patriarchs in a more positive light than is seen in his commentaries. From the pulpit, Calvin is more inclined to interpret the silence of the biblical text. Hence, he defends Moses from the charge of ignorance by ascribing to him detailed astronomical knowledge. So too, he argues that Noah’s drunkenness was accidental (though still culpable) due to his incapacity for strong drink caused by long abstinence during the Flood. Indeed, Calvin the preacher is confident that Noah never again committed the sin of drunkenness. Finally, from the pulpit the reformer is more insistent in his defense of Abram’s character in the case of Sarai’s endangerment. In his sermons, therefore, we find Calvin holding in tension several competing concerns: he seeks to create sympathy for the patriarchs without rationalizing their misbehavior; he wishes to warn the faithful without providing justification to sinners;[79] he attempts to defend the New Testament’s assessment of these men as exemplars of faith, even as he takes seriously the biblical passages that expose their sin. Calvin himself judges as misguided those who would defend the saints of old at any cost. Accordingly, in both commentary and sermon, the ethical standards of Scripture are the measuring stick by which the reformer judges the culpability of the misdeeds of the patriarchs. But as a Christian preacher, Calvin is interested in doing more than ascribing blame to sinful behavior; he also wants to edify the people of God. Thus, in the sermons under study, Calvin points to Noah and Abram as models not simply of faith but of the Christian life. They were men who trusted in God in dangerous times. They were men who sinned suddenly and unexpectedly. They were men who repented and received God’s grace. Abram and Noah are heroes of faith, not because they were impeccable, but because they persevered in their faith despite failure and difficulty. In that sense, we too are companions with the patriarchs.

IV. Conclusion

Scholars who have studied John Calvin’s hermeneutics have limited their analysis almost exclusively to the reformer’s theological and exegetical writings. His sermons have been all but ignored. This article has demonstrated that the reformer’s sermons on difficult biblical passages from Gen 1–12 depart at important points from the interpretation found in his commentaries. As Calvin moves from exegesis to homiletics, he is more positive in assessing the character of the patriarchs, more willing to interpret the silence of the text in a manner that accentuates the patriarchs’ status as spiritual models. This discrepancy is most likely explained by Calvin’s conviction that the Christian preacher should edify the people of God. In the sermons examined, Calvin does not attempt to rationalize sinful behavior, but he is concerned to strengthen his congregation’s confidence in the reliability of the biblical author as well as to preserve the reputations of Abram and Moses as exemplars of Christian faith and life.

This article has also shed light on the strategies that Calvin employed as he preached difficult passages from Genesis. Five principles evident in Calvin’s ministry of pulpit and pen seem particularly relevant for Christian preachers, for those who travel frequently the path between exegesis and homiletics. We will state these insights as propositions: First, difficult texts should be preached. Second, difficult texts provide access points to deeper Christian truths. Third, difficult texts offer preachers the opportunity to model before their congregations basic principles of biblical interpretation. Fourth, difficult texts should be preached with an eye to edifying the Church. Fifth, difficult texts should move the interpreter to worship the wise and inscrutable God. As Calvin reminds all who elucidate and preach the sacred text: when reason fails, adoration is the appropriate response of the Christian interpreter.

An initial draft of this article was presented to the Scripture Seminar of the Center for Theological Understanding, Deerfield, Ill. The author is grateful to the seminar participants for their insights and comments.

Notes

1. T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 15, 25, 29. See also Richard Stauffer, “L’exegese de Genese 1, 1–3 chez Luther et Calvin,” in In Principio, Interpretations despremiers versets de la Genese (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1973), 255.
2. See the evidence presented by Max Engammare in his introduction to Calvin’s Sermons sur la Genese, Chapitres 1.1-11.4 (Neukerchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), ix.
3. T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 152, 156.
4. “.. . ita non vulgaris eius est confirmatio, nos esse patriarcharumsocios.. . .” Calvini Opera (ed. Wilhelm Baum, Edward Cunitz, and Edward Reuss; 59 vols.; Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke and Sons, 1863–1900), 23:11–12, hereafter cited as CO. For English translation, see Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis (ed. and trans. John King; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1989), 66, hereafter cited as COTC 1; and Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses (repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1993), hereafter cited as COTC 2.
5. Important full-length studies of Calvin’ s hermeneutics include T. H. L. Parker, Calvin s Old Testament Commentaries and Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993); Thomas Torrance, The Hermeneutics of John Calvin (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988). Consult the notes below for articles examining specific aspects of Calvin’s hermeneutics.
6. Notable studies of Calvin’ s homiletic ministry include James Ford, Preaching in the Reformed Tradition,” in Preachers and People in the Reformations and Early Modern Period (ed. Larissa Taylor; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 65–88; Tom Lambert, “Preaching, Praying and Policing the Reform in Sixteenth-Century Geneva” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1998); Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, Vol. 4: The Age of the Reformation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 90–134; Parker, Calvin’s Preaching; Rodolphe Peter, “Rhetorique et predication selon Calvin,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 1975: 249–72; Richard Stauffer, “Un Calvin meconnu: Le predicateur de Geneve,” Bulletin de la Societe de l’histoire du protestantismefrancais 123 (1977): 184-203.
7. Examples include Roland Bainton, The Immoralities of the Patriarchs According to the Exegesis of the Late Middle Ages and of the Reformation,” HTR 23 (1930): 39-49; Stauffer, “L’exegese de Genese 1, 1–3 chez Luther et Calvin”; David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); John Thompson, “The Immoralities of the Patriarchs in the History of Exegesis: AReappraisal of Calvin’s Position,” CTJ26 (1991): 9-46, and “Patriarchs, Polygamy and Private Resistance: John Calvin and Others on Breaking God’s Rules,” Sixteenth Century Journal 25 (1994): 3-27.
8. This discussion of Calvin’s theological method relies particularly upon Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 85–108; Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 21–38; and Richard Gamble, “Brevitas et Facilitas: Toward an Understanding of Calvin’s Hermeneutic,” WTJ47 (1985): 1-17.
9. See Calvin’s letter preface to Simon Grynaeus, Nov. 1539, in CO, 10:402–6.
10. CO, 10:404. See Gamble s discussion of this passage in ‘Brevitas et Facilitas, 5–6.
11. “Sentiebat enim, uterque nostrum praecipuam interpretis virtutem in perspicua brevitate esse positam.” CO, 10:402–3. See Parker’s discussion in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 91.
12. Calvin writes in his comments on 1 Cor 2:11: ‘Nam quum lingua sit character mentis, communicant inter se homines suos affectus: ut alii alios suarum cogitationum habeant conscios.” CO, 49:341. See Parker’s comments on this passage in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 91. For a discussion of Calvin’s conviction that authorial intention is accessible to the interpreter, see Parker, ibid.; and Randall Zachman, “Gathering Meaning from the Context: Calvin’s Exegetical Method,” JR 82 (2002): 5-6.
13. Calvin reiterated these principles in his commentary on the Psalms seventeen years later: “And so not only have I maintained a simple style of teaching [simplex docendi ratio] but so as to avoid all ostentation, I have abstained from refuting [my opponents] as much as possible.. .. Nor have I mentioned contrary opinions, unless there was danger that silence would leave my readers in doubt or confusion. I recognize at the same time that many would have been more pleased had I gathered together an impressive mass of splendid material. But I have considered nothing more important than the edification of the church.” The Latin text is found in CO, 31:33–36. See Gamble’s discussion of this passage in “Brevitas et Facilitas,” 2–3.
14. That is not to say that Calvin believed the biblical authors eschewed all rhetoric. On the contrary, the prophets and apostles utilized a “holy rhetoric” in order to penetrate the hearts of their audience: “Public speakers affect fine speaking only to catch applause, or to fill men with empty fear or joy; but the Prophets had a different goal in view, namely to teach, to exhort, to reprove, to threaten, in a way calculated to bear fruit” (see CO, 39:292). Again, “The Prophet, then, although he was not taught in the school of the rhetoricians, thus adorned this discourse through the impulse of God’s Spirit, that he might more effectually penetrate into the hearts of the people” (CO, 38:664). For Calvin’s understanding of the use of “holy rhetoric” in preaching see Zachman, “Calvin’s Exegetical Method,” 12; and Peter, “Rhetorique et predication selon Calvin,” 249–72.
15. Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, 21–38.
16. CO, 1:55–56. See Parker s discussion in Calvin s New Testament Commentaries, 89–90.
17. See Elsie Anne McKee, “Some Reflections on Relating Calvin’s Exegesis and Theology,” in Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective (ed. Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991).
18. CO, 9:832. See Randall Zachman, ‘Do You Understand What You are Reading? Calvin’ s Guidance for the Reading of Scripture,” SJT54 (2001): 6.
19. CO, 9:833. See Zachman, Calvin s Guidance for the Reading of Scripture, 6.
20. For the fascinating history of the transmission of Calvin’s sermons, see Parker, Calvin’s Sermons, 65–75.
21. Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, 29, 143–45.
22. In the preface to Calvin’s Sermons. .. touchant la Divinite, humanite et nativite de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ (1558), Conrad Badius described the reformer’s preaching in the following way: “Ce ne sont point lieux communs tout maschez, ne sermons qu’il ait en sa manche pour les faire servir a tous passages de l’Escriture, comme une forme a tous pieds: ains expositions vrayes, pures, nues, et pro-pres pour le texte qu’il ha a deduire” (CO, 35:587–88).
23. Thus, Calvin points the reader to the Institutes for a fuller discussion of whether Adam sinned by necessity or by contingency (3:1) and for a more complete refutation of Pelagius’s understanding of original sin (3:6). See CO, 23:56, 62; COTC 1:145, 155.
24. “.. . il y a comme deulx passions repugnantes en nous, car nous avons ung appetit de scavoir, mesmes plus beaucoup qu’il ne nous est licite. Car noz cupidites sont insatiables et cependant nous oublions le principal et n’en voulons nullement aprocher.” Sermon #1, 4 Sept 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 1–2.
25. Comment on Gen 2:8, CO, 23:37; COTC 1:114.
26. “Origines etiam audacius allegoriis ludit: sed nihil utilius est quam in genuina rerum tracta-tione insistere.” Comment on Gen 6:14, CO, 23:123; COTC 1:257.
27. Comment on Gen 6:14, CO, 23:123; COTC 1:256–57.
28. Comment on Gen 1:1, CO, 23:15; COTC 1:70–71. See Stauffer, “L’exegese de Genese 1, 1–3, chez Luther et Calvin,” 252, 259.
29. Comment on Gen 3:15, CO, 23:71; COTC 1:170.
30. Comment on Gen 3:15, CO, 23:71; COTC 1:170–71.
31. McKee makes a similar observation: “No responsible scholars equate the major Protestant Reformers’ view of sola scriptura with a naïve ‘me and my Bible’ attitude.” See “Some Reflections on Relating Calvin’s Exegesis and Theology,” 220.
32. Sermon#17, 7 Oct 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 197–207.
33. Ibid., 202.
34. Ibid.
35. Calvin’s application of Gen 3:15c consumes nearly 40% of the hour-long sermon, i.e., 140 of the 373 lines in the critical edition of the sermon.
36. Sermon #17, 7 Oct 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 202–5.
37. “Voila ensomme ce que nous avons aretenir de ce passage.” Sermon #17, 7 Oct 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 204–5.
38. This passage is worth quoting at length: “Quand donc i’expose l’Escriture saincte, il faut que ie me regle tousiours la, c’est que ceux qui m’oyent, recoivent profit de la doctrine que ie propose, qu’ils en soyent edifiez a salut. Si ie n’ay ceste affection-la, et que ie ne procure l’edification de ceux qui m’oyent, ie suis un sacrilege, prophanant la parole de Dieu.” Sermon #26 on 2 Tim 3:16–17, in CO, 54:287. See Parker’s discussion of this passage in Calvin’s Preaching, 11–12.
39. “.. . nous pouvons appeller la parolle de Dieu comme des lunettes. ... Il n’y aura nulle prudence ny discretion, mais quand nostre Seigneur nous donne sa parolle, voila noz yeulx qui sont disposez pour regarder distinctement, pour estre instruictz en ce qui est necessaire pour l’adorer et servir, et luy attribuer la gloire qui luy appartient.” Sermon #1, 4 Sept 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 3.
40. Comment on Gen 1:6, in CO, 23:18; COTC 1:79–80.
41. Calvin regularly identifies the Holy Spirit as the ultimate author of Scripture: Or donc, nous voyons quelle a este l’intention de Dieu quand il a dicte a` Moyse ce que maintenant nous oyons touchant la creation du monde” (Sermon #1, 4 Sept 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 10, 3); “Ainsi apprenons que le Saint Esprit, en disant que nous sommes chair. . .” (Sermon #33, 17 Nov 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 369); “Mais l’intention de Moise, ou plus tost du saint Esprit, a este de nous specifier en tout et par tout quelle a este la bonte et l’amour de Dieu envers les hommes” (Sermon #9, 20 Sept 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 101–2).
42.  .. cognoissons que Moyse a voulu conformer son style a la rudesse des plus ignorans et idiotz, afin que nul ne fust excusable, que tous [ne] soyent enseignez des oeuvres de Dieu.” Sermon #3, 6 Sept 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 24.
43. “Cognoissons donc nostre fragilite, que nous apprenions d’invocquer nostre Dieu et luy remettre nostre vie en sa main.” Sermon #3, 6 Sept 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 27.
44. See Battles, od was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity originally published in Int31 (1977): 19-38, reprinted in Readings in Calvin’s Theology (ed. Donald McKim; Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 1998), 21–42. The subject of accommodation is also treated extensively in Edward Dowey The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994), 3–17.
45. ‘Deum plantasse dicit, crasso rudique stylo, ad vulgi captum se accommodans. Comment on Gen 2:8, CO, 23:36; COTC 1:113.
46. Comment on Gen 6:6, CO, 23:118; COTC 1:248–49.
47. Battles agrees with this assessment. For Calvin, he notes, “accommodation as practiced by the Holy Spirit so empowers the physical, verbal vehicle that it leads us to, not away from, the very truth. Thus accommodating language and the truth to which it points are really a unity.” “God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity,” 41.
48. “Diximus alibi, Mosen crasso rudique stylo accommodare ad popularem captum quae tradit: idque optima de causa. Neque enim illi indoctum modo vulgus docendum erat: sed illa erat puerilis ecclesiae aetas, quae nondum altiorem doctrinam capere poterat. Nihil itaque absurdi, silacte pascuntur quos scimus et fatemur pro illo tempore fuisse quasi infantes. Vel (si alia similitudo magis placet) minime culpandus est Moses si paedagogi munus sibi a Domino impositum fuisse cogitans, puerilibus rudimentis insistit.”
49. Comment on Gen 1:16, CO, 23:22–23; COTC 1:86–87.
50. Comment on Gen 2:10, CO, 23: 40–42; COTC 1:119–23.
51. See Randall Zachman, “Calvin’s Exegetical Method,” 1–26.
52. Comment on Gen 1:16, CO, 23:22; COTC 1:87.
53. See Calvin’ s Comments on Gen 2:10 and 6:14, CO, 23:40, 123; COTC 1:120, 256–57.
54. “Mays j’ay desja monstre qu’il avoyt este tellement enseigne en cest art, qu’il estoit excellent entre les astrologues qui ont este reputez de toute anciennete du monde. Cependant, il s’est deporte de son scavoir. Et pourquoy? Pour l’edification de l’Eglise.” Sermon #4, Sermons sur la Genese, 38.
55. “Au rest, quand il est parle du ciel et de la terre, et que Moyse laisse les anges sans en faire nulle mention, en cela nous voyons que Dieu a voulu icy donner une instruction basse et rude pour les plus idiotz.” Sermon #1, 4 Sept 1559, Sermons sur la Gen`ese, 9.
56. Preface to Chrysostom s Sermons, CO, 9:832. See Zachman s discussion of this passage, in “Calvin’s Exegetical Method,” 24.
57. Comment on Gen 5:32, CO, 23:109; COTC 1:234.
58. See Comment on Gen4:15, CO, 23:97; COTC 1:214; Sermon #35, 11 Dec 1559, Sermonssur la Genese, 393.
59. Speaking of the doctrine of the Trinity, Calvin comments: “Or ce secret la est trop hault pour nostre sens, mays il nous le fault adorer et recepvoir ce qui nous est enseigne, encores que nous [ne] le comprenions pas au jourdhuy.” Sermon #1, 4 Sept 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 11. Addressing God’s judgment upon the animal world for the sin of Adam and Eve, Calvin writes: “Et d’autre coste aussi cognoissons que les jugemens de Dieu surmontent nostre portee et nostre mesure, et qu’il nous les faut adorer, quand la raison ne nous sera point evidente.” Sermon #33, 17 Nov 1559, Sermons sur la Genese, 376.
60. See John Thompson’s discussion of this dilemma in “Patriarchs, Polygamy, and Private Resistance,” 3–4, as well as his “The Immoralities of the Patriarchs in the History of Exegesis,” 9–46.
61. Comment on Gen 9:20, CO, 23:150; COTC 1:300–301.
62. In his sermon on this passage, Calvin will more explicitly reject this interpretation: La vigne donc estoit en usage devant le deluge.” Sermon #45, 11 Jan 1560, Sermons sur la Gen`ese, 502.
63. “Atqui Deus aeternam illi probri maculam inurit.” Comment on Gen 9:20, CO, 23:150; COTC 1:301.
64. Sermon #45, 11 Jan 1560, Sermons sur la Genese, 500–501.
65. Or neantmoins le voicy surpris en un moment. Sermon #45, 11 Jan 1560, Sermons sur la Genese, 505. Earlier Calvin noted: “Or, de ce qu’il a este surpris d’ivroignerie, il ne s’en faut point esbahir. Car nous savons qu’un homme qui n’aura point acoustume de boire vin sera beaucoup plus tost surpris qu’un autre qui en usera avec mediocrite et temperance” (ibid., 503).
66. Sermon #45, 11 Jan 1560, Sermons sur la Genese, 500.
67. “Nous ne voions pas que Noe se soit enyvre pour le seconde fois. Il a este surpris pour un coup, mais il a vescu sobrement tout le reste de sa vie.” Sermon #45, 11 Jan 1560, Sermons sur la Genese, 509.
68. Sermon #45, 11 Jan 1560, Sermons sur la Genese, 509.
69. Ibid., 506-7.
70. Comment on Gen 12:11, in CO, 23:183; COTC 1:358.
71. Comment on Gen 12:11, in CO, 23:184; COTC 1:359.
72. See Thompson, “Immoralities of the Patriarchs,” 16: “In addressing the patriarchs’ mendacity polygamy, and similar crimes, none of the commentators surveyed is more reluctant than Calvin to invoke special dispensation. Not only is he consistently more severe in faulting the patriarchs for these infractions, he is exceptional in refusing to appeal to divine intervention of this sort to bail the patriarchs out.”
73. Comment on Exod 1:18, in CO, 24:19; COTC 2:35.
74. “Or Abram, comme nous avons veu, ne s’est point amuse a` ce monde ni a delices aucunes, ni a voluptez, ni a richesses, ni a son repose, ni a rien qui fust. Bref, comme nous avons dit, il a este vraiement passant par ce monde et aspirant au ciel.” Sermon #56, 7 Feb 1560, Sermons sur la Genese, 626.
75. Ibid., 627-28.
76. Ibid., 627.
77. Comment on Gen 12:15, CO, 23:186; COTC 1:363.
78. Sermon #56, 7 Feb 1560, Sermons sur la Gen`ese, 630.
79. Calvin observes that there are many people like Noah’s son Ham, “who most studiously pry into the faults of holy and pious men, in order that without shame they may throw themselves into all kinds of iniquity; they even make the faults of other men an occasion of hardening themselves into a contempt for God.” Comment on Gen 9:22, CO, 23:151; COTC 1:303. In a similar fashion, Calvin’s sermon criticizes those “blasphemers” who delight in the sins of David and Noah and find in them a justification for their own wrongdoing. See Sermon #45, 11 Jan 1560, Sermons sur la Gen`ese, 501–2.