Calvin On The “Shared Design” Of The Old And New Testament Authors: The Case Of The Minor Prophets

By G. Sujin Pak

[G. Sujin Pak is Assistant Professor of the History of Christianity at Duke Divinity School in Durham, N.C.]

A number of recent studies have highlighted the significance of Calvin’s interpretations of OT prophecy in the history of exegesis. Barbara Pitkin has shown that Calvin’s interpretations of the prophecies of Daniel run counter to the prevailing views of his Protestant contemporaries, for he reads them as past events rather than as an apocalyptic lens for present times.[1] Pete Wilcox has argued that Calvin’s interpretations of the OT prophets contain theological themes and emphases beyond those found in the Institutes; in particular, Wilcox demonstrates that Calvin uses the biblical prophets to frame salvation history through the concepts of “the progress of the Kingdom of Christ” and “the restoration of the Church.”[2] In addition, Wilcox has rightly attested to the role Calvin’s audience plays, especially in his lectures on the biblical prophets.[3] More recently, Frederick Harms has written a book on Calvin’s ecclesiology as found in his interpretations of the Minor Prophets in which he argues that Calvin applies the teachings of the Minor Prophets as a mirror for the church today in order to supply enduring lessons of discipline, consolation, and hope.[4] Another recent book, The Judaizing Calvin, argues, amongst other things, that Calvin’s exegesis marks a shift in the history of biblical interpretation particularly concerning OT prophecies cited by NT authors, where Calvin can be viewed as demarcating the christological possibilities of several OT psalms—even at times eclipsing their christological import.[5]

Indeed, this article will demonstrate that in Calvin’s exegesis of the passages in the Minor Prophets cited by NT authors only those that Calvin reads typologically (Mal 3:1 and Hag 2:21) apply to Christ per se. All the other passages in which Calvin affirms the christological readings apply more specifically to Christ’s kingdom—that is, they apply to the church. This, coupled with Calvin’s rejection of several prior christological readings of these OT prophecies by the antecedent Christian tradition, generates a larger impression of an eclipse of christological interpretations of the OT in Calvin’s exegesis. History attests to this sentiment, as a later Lutheran, Aegidius Hunnius, accused Calvin of such a program in 1593, for he found in Calvin’s exegesis a clear reduction in the number of OT passages that can be rightly applied to Christ and the Trinity.[6] This article will argue that a better way to understand Calvin’s exegesis, however, is that it aims not so much to reduce christological exegesis of the OT as it aspires to maintain the unity of the two testaments by preserving the “shared design” of the biblical authors in harmony—a harmony in which the purpose of the OT prophet reigns supreme.[7]

Hence, we will proceed by demonstrating Calvin’s exegetical practice of using the OT author’s design or “intention” as a decisive parameter for the proper use of OT prophecies by NT authors. The prominence Calvin gives to the OT authors’ contexts and his fairly frequent statements of unease with NT authors’ usage of OT prophecies have often been noted by scholars.[8] Taking these observations one step further, I will show that Calvin actually aims to bring the purpose of the NT author’s use of OT prophecy in direct line with the original “intention” of the OT author. In other words, Calvin’s concept of the unity of the two testaments includes an insistence upon the shared design of the OT and NT writers. More controversially, this article contends that Calvin gives primacy to the design of the OT prophet; in this way, he aims to curb the exegetical possibilities of the NT author’s use of OT prophecies and thereby also delimit the possibilities of contemporary and future interpretations and applications of those prophecies. In addition, I will show how Calvin uses the principle of accommodation in order to align the NT writer’s intention with that of the OT prophet and how his larger vision of providence shapes the contours of his exegesis.

Before beginning, there are a couple of matters to be addressed concerning sources and terminology. For the purposes of this article, the prophecies of the Minor Prophets cited in the NT have been chosen because they illuminate the concept well; however, it should be stated that even a brief look at Calvin’s interpretations of citations of other prophetic texts in the NT (such as certain Psalms and prophecies of Isaiah in particular) support the conclusions found here. Secondly, on terminology, there are problems with applying the concept of “authorial intention” to John Calvin’s exegetical principles because of its modern connotations. Since the Latin term that Calvin uses most to refer to this concept is consilium, the term “design” or “purpose” will be preferred in hopes of avoiding a misleading conflation of Calvin’s focus on the prophet’s purpose with the modern concern for authorial intention. Indeed, modern conceptions of authorial intention do not rightly apply to Calvin because they do not operate from the same set of assumptions. For example, Calvin sees no discrepancy between the divine and human purposes of biblical prophecy. Divine and human intentions for the words of Scripture are profoundly united for Calvin, which, as this article will argue, is intricately bound to Calvin’s vision of providence. Hence, it is not possible for Calvin to talk singularly about the human author’s intention; for him this is never separate from the divine Author’s intention.[9]

I. Clear Prophecies Of Christ’s Kingdom

To be clear, Calvin believes that many of the passages of the Minor Prophets cited by NT authors were meant to point to Christ and Christ’s kingdom. In these cases, Calvin aims to show that the christological application of the OT prophecy by the NT author is clearly in agreement with the design of the original prophet. Hence, when the antecedent Christian exegetical tradition also reads these prophecies christologically, Calvin deems these as faithful readings. Three exegetical moves become evident in Calvin’s affirmation of the Christian exegetical tradition’s faithful readings of these texts. First, the church fathers have read rightly because their readings affirm that the NT application is in keeping with the design of the OT prophet. Next, Calvin clarifies just how exactly the NT author maintains the OT author’s purpose. Finally, he draws noticeable parallels between the context of the NT application and the context of the OT prophecy in order to affirm further their shared purpose.

A few examples will suffice to demonstrate how Calvin affirms the christological import of a NT author’s citation of a passage from the Minor Prophets by showing their shared design. We begin with Hos 1:10, which is cited in Rom 9:25-26. According to Calvin, Hosea’s purpose was to teach about God’s vengeance in casting the people away, as well as God’s merciful election through the promise of a remnant.[10] He maintains that Hosea intended this prophecy for the whole church: “Hosea speaks not here of the kingdom of Israel [after the flesh] but of the Church, which was to be restored by a return, composed both of Jews and of Gentiles.”[11] Thus, Calvin judges Paul to be a faithful interpreter of this passage in Rom 9:25-26 by accommodating it to the inclusion of the Gentiles because it strengthens the truth and correctness of the prophecy and because such a reading matches Hosea’s design.[12] In his commentary on Rom 9:25-26, Calvin admits that there may be “some difficulty” in Paul’s application of the prophecy because strictly speaking Hosea was only referring to the Israelites in this prophecy (and not to the Gentiles). Yet, he maintains that Hosea planned to point to the kingdom of Christ; thus, Paul’s use of Hosea’s prophecy is in agreement with Hosea’s larger design. Calvin writes,

When the prophets had pronounced the vengeance of God on the Jews on account of their iniquities, it was not strange or unusual for them to direct their attention to the kingdom of Christ, which was to be spread throughout the whole world. . . . Where the kingdom of Christ is raised, there also is lifted up that heavenly Jerusalem, into which the inhabitants of every part of the world are gathered. . . . We can see from this that the prediction of the prophets applies well to the present subject [of Paul].[13]

Thus, Paul aptly applied Hosea’s prophecy in Rom 9:25-26 because Paul maintained and strengthened Hosea’s prophetic purpose.

On the prophecies of Mal 3:1 (cited in Matt 11:10) and Hag 2:21 (cited in Heb 12:26) Calvin appeals to typology to demonstrate the shared design of the OT and NT authors’ applications. Malachi prophesied both a messenger who will prepare the way—that is, John the Baptist—and the Lord and “messenger of the covenant,” who, of course, is Christ.[14] Haggai pointed to Christ under the person of Zerubbabel, who was properly a type of Christ because just as the world despised Zerubbabel and God highly esteemed him, so it would be with Christ.[15] The prophecies of Amos 9:11-12 and Hab 1:5, on the other hand, serve as examples of Calvin’s appeal to parallel contexts in order to demonstrate the shared design of the OT and NT authors’ applications.[16] Thus, the apostle (in Acts 15:16-17) maintained Amos’s purpose by applying it to the call of the Gentiles, for Amos’s larger context foretold a remnant of the nations. Specifically, Calvin points out the shared attributes between the inclusion of Edom described in Amos 9:11-12 and the inclusion of the Gentiles described in Acts 15:16-17. In both cases, “what particularly belonged to the Jews alone at that time [was] given to both in common”—first to Jews and Edomites and then to Jews and Gentiles. Both spoke of a “new and unaccustomed thing” that God was doing.[17] Likewise, Habakkuk (1:5) wanted to proclaim an approaching destruction that would warn the Jews of the OT of God’s dreadful judgment because of their lack of faith,[18] just as the Apostle Paul (in Acts 13:41) also aimed to proclaim the punishment awaiting the Jews of his day for their lack of faith: “Paul, after having offered Christ to them and seeing that many of them regarded the preaching of the Gospel with scorn, added these words [from Habakkuk] . . . for as God had once threatened his people by his Prophet Habakkuk, so God is still like himself.”[19]

Finally, for Calvin the prophecy of Hos 11:1 cited in Matt 2:15 contains all of these aspects: it is a prophecy of both Christ and the church; it has a typological design; and the contexts between Hosea and Matthew are parallel.[20] Hosea’s design in this prophecy, argues Calvin, was to show that the nativity of God’s people was their coming out of Egypt, that God’s love was gratuitously given before they were even born, and that God drew them out from death to life.[21] At first, says Calvin, it looks like Matthew has misapplied Hosea’s prophecy by applying it to Christ, and Calvin cites other expositors who explain this apparent contradiction by saying that Matthew is merely making a comparison between the two events. Yet, Calvin argues that Matthew “most fitly accommodates this passage to Christ”[22] by writing:

But I think that Matthew had more deeply considered the purpose of God in having Christ led into Egypt and in his return afterwards into Judea. . . . God in his wonderful providence intended that his Son should come forth from Egypt that he might be a redeemer to the faithful; and thus he shows that a true, real and perfect deliverance was at length effected when the promised Redeemer appeared . . . [for] as the body [Israel] was then brought from Egypt into Judea, so at length the head [Christ] also came forth from Egypt.[23]

Thus, Hos 11:1 rightly refers to Christ because it is a prophecy of the church, of whom Christ is the head, for “whatever then happened formerly in the church ought at length to be fulfilled by the head.”[24] Just as Hos 11:1 refers to the nativity of Israel, so also does it rightly refer to the nativity of the church that is brought to completion by Christ—a nativity and redemption from death to life.[25]

II. “Shared Design” Over And Against The Antecedent Tradition

Thus we see that when Calvin affirms prior Christian interpreters’ christological applications of prophecies in the Minor Prophets, he does this on the basis that these readings maintain the NT author’s fidelity to the OT prophet’s purpose. On the other hand, where the prior Christian exegetical tradition makes the design of the NT author discordant in some way with the design of the OT prophet, Calvin views the tradition as having wrongly applied the prophecy. Thus, in these cases he may discard a christological reading common in the antecedent exegetical tradition of the church or qualify that christological reading by aligning it within the bounds of the design of the OT prophet. Calvin maintains that only when one assumes this fidelity can one rightly understand the NT author’s meaning.

Hence, concerning the prophecies of Hos 13:14, Mic 5:2, Zech 9:9, and Zech 13:7, Calvin argues that the antecedent exegetical tradition has provided improper readings of these texts insofar as they have placed the design of the NT author at odds with the OT prophet’s intention. The vast majority of Christian exegetes up until the time of Calvin interpreted Hos 13:14 (cited in 1 Cor 15:54-55) as being spoken by Christ.[26] For Calvin, Hosea had two basic purposes for this verse: first, to show that God promises redemption, but in a conditional manner and, second, to set forth the power and sovereignty of God over death and the grave.[27] He stoutly objects to the customary allegorical application of Hos 13:14, where several interpreters have introduced a new word into the text by way of explanation. Calvin disparages this stratagem:

And then into the words of the Prophet, “I will be your excision, O hell,” they have introduced the word “bait” and have allegorically explained it of Christ—that he was like a hook. For as a worm, when fastened to the hook and swallowed by a fish, becomes death to it, so also Christ, as they have said, when committed to the sepulcher, became a fatal bait. For as the fish are taken by the hook, so death was taken by the bait of the death of Christ.[28]

Calvin views this as an erroneous explanation because it does not preserve the genuine purpose of Hosea—indeed, it requires the insertion of an extra word.

Calvin then grapples with Paul’s application of Hos 13:14 in 1 Cor 15:54-55, upon which these christological readings are based. He argues that Paul employed this passage only by way of allusion and resemblance, for the apostles “do not avowedly at all times adduce passages that apply to the whole context of the subject they handle,” but sometimes allude to a word only or apply it by way of resemblance.[29] In fact, he contends that Paul did not even quote this passage for the purpose of confirming the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, but merely to show God’s sovereignty over death—a reading that places Paul’s purpose in harmony with Hosea’s design to teach God’s sovereignty over death. Indeed, he concludes, “We now then perceive how the real meaning of the Prophet agrees with the subject handled by Paul.”[30]

Calvin also objects to certain aspects of the christological application of Mic 5:2 (cited in Matt 2:6), which Christian exegetes traditionally viewed as a prophecy of Christ’s birth in Bethlehem and as depicting the preexistence and two natures of Christ.[31] On the clause pertaining to Bethlehem, he points out that Matthew misquoted Mic 5:2 by saying “You, Bethlehem of Ephratah, are by no means the least,” which is exactly opposite of what Micah wrote. He accounts for the misquotation by explaining that the evangelist aimed not to “relate the expressions of the prophet,” but merely to point to the passage and denote Bethlehem’s esteemed condition at the coming of Christ within it.[32] Thus, to be clear, Calvin agrees that Mic 5:2 can rightly be understood as prophesying Christ’s birth in Bethlehem; yet, he insists that the prophecy should be interpreted first in reference to David. He contends that Hosea’s design was to provide a message of comfort by reminding the people that though no one expected a great king such as David to come from such a small, humble place as Bethlehem and yet God “drew light out of darkness,” so God can now again bring restoration through just as seemingly humble conditions.[33] More pointedly, Calvin insists that the traditional christological readings of the phrase “whose goings forth have been from of old” as depicting the preexistence of Christ are incorrect. He discards the application of the plural “goings forth” to the two natures of Christ. Instead, he maintains that the plain sense is simply that it would not be a “sudden thing” that a ruler (Christ) comes forth, but that God had predetermined this from long ago.[34] Hence, Calvin sustains the prophet’s design for Mic 5:2 to teach that the restoration of the church was planned by God from long ago, and that this plan cannot be thwarted, for nothing can overrule God’s “secret and incomprehensible providence.”[35]

In his dealing with the quotation of this verse within the context of Matthew’s gospel, Calvin counsels his reader always to look for the way in which the NT author rightly attends to the design of the OT author:

We must always observe the rule that as often as the Apostles quote a testimony from Scripture, although they do not render it word for word, in fact may move quite far away from it, they adapt it suitably and appropriately to the case in hand. So readers should always take care to note the object of the passages of Scripture that the Evangelists use, not to press single words too exactly, but to be content with the one message that they never take from Scripture to distort into a foreign sense, but suit correctly to its genuine sense.[36] (emphasis added)

The phrases in italics above point to Calvin’s concern for the design of the OT prophet and his conviction that the NT author’s use of the text must be found to correspond to this design in concrete ways. Thus, it is the duty of the reader to discern the correct meaning of the NT author within the constraints that the knowledge of the OT author’s original purpose provides.[37]

Finally, Calvin rejects the applications of Zech 9:9 (cited in Matt 21:5) and Zech 13:7 (cited in Matt 26:31 and Mark 14:27) to Christ alone by the church fathers, because he believes these prophecies rightly belong to the whole church. On Zech 9:9, he concurs that the prophet prophesied about Christ and the restoration brought by Christ.[38] Yet, he insists over and against the prior exegetical tradition that the Hebrew—not the Greek—version possesses the right rendering of the description of the king. The Hebrew reads, “He is just and having salvation,” while the Greek reads, “Just and saved shall he be.” Hence, the Hebrew is clearly preferable, for what good is salvation if only Christ is saved (as the Greek text describes)? Instead this salvation is one Christ brings to the whole church, which maintains what Calvin has already laid out as Zechariah’s main purpose—to show how God restores the church.[39]

Secondly, in order to preserve Zechariah’s main purpose to depict Christ as “an obscure person who would not make an appearance above that of the common people,” one should read metaphorically (rather than literally or allegorically) the description of the king riding on a donkey.[40] At the heart of this seemingly odd contention is Calvin’s attack against prior allegorical readings of the text, for immediately thereafter he writes,

I omit many frivolous things, which in no degree tend to explain the Prophet’s meaning, but even pervert it and destroy faith in prophecy. For some think that Christ rode on a donkey and also on a colt because he was to govern the Jews, who had been previously accustomed to bear the yoke of the law, and that he was also to bring the Gentiles to obedience, who had been hitherto untamable. But these things are frivolous. It is enough for us to grasp the genuine mind of the prophet.[41] (emphasis added)

Thus, Calvin aims to guide his readers away from false allegories and display the proper figural reading of this text that maintains the OT author’s genuine sense or design.[42]

Calvin is equally displeased with the confinement of the prophecy of Zech 13:7 singularly to Christ by church fathers.[43] He argues that just as Deut 18:15 spoke singularly of a prophet being raised up and that under the term “prophet” both Christ and all prophets inspired by God were included, so also “shepherd” should be understood to convey both Christ and all pastors given by God—Christ being the head and prince of shepherds.[44] Furthermore, this reading retains Zechariah’s purpose to warn about a coming turmoil that will deprive them of their shepherds and to encourage the faithful to hold fast through the impending struggle.[45] Indeed, Calvin has the present-day condition of the struggling Protestant churches in mind when he applies this passage to exhort them to trust in God’s providence: “Zechariah teaches us here that even though the Church were contemptible in the world and though the faithful are few in number and all of them exposed to calamities, yet God’s hand will be over them so as to gather for himself again a Church from the torn members.”[46]

In the context of Matthew’s gospel, Calvin asserts that Christ had Zechariah’s wider application of the prophecy in mind when he cited it in reference to himself:

I have no doubt that the Lord wished to include that whole period in which the Church after the tyranny of Antiochus was stripped of good shepherds and reduced to waste. Then God gave license in dreadful measure for the sword’s career, slaying the pastors and causing the people a wretched state of distress. Yet this dispersion did not prevent the Lord from stretching out his hands to gather his sheep. The prophet gives a general warning that the Church must be deprived of her shepherds; yet, it applies truly and properly to Christ himself. As he is the Chief of all the pastors, on him alone hung the salvation of the Church, and in his death all hope might seem to be cut off.[47]

Calvin uses his principle of parallel contexts to show how the context in which Zechariah wrote typifies the context for which Christ intended his evocation of this prophecy. Furthermore, both Zechariah and Christ’s uses of the prophecy carry a shared purpose of giving a warning of an ensuing calamity and pointing to the place where real hope and comfort reside—in the sovereignty of God’s providence where “God will stretch out his hand to bring back the scattered sheep to himself.”[48] While in the end, Calvin only fully rejects the christological reading of Hos 13:14, while maintaining several aspects of the christological readings of Mic 5:2, Zech 9:9, and Zech 13:7—reading them more concerning

Christ’s kingdom (church) than Christ per se—nevertheless, in every case Calvin reins in the exegetical possibilities by insisting that any proper application of the OT prophecy by NT authors must align with the original prophet’s intent.

III. Calvin’s Uses Of Accommodation In Preserving The Old Testament Prophet’s Design

Most studies of Calvin’s use of the principle of accommodation have focused on how it applies to divine accommodation—God accommodating himself to human capacity—and, thus, its consequences for Calvin’s doctrine of God.[49] This article illustrates several examples of how the principle of accommodation works in Calvin’s navigation between the two testaments concerning the question of the NT author’s fidelity to the design of the OT prophet.[50] He employs the principle of accommodation in various ways in order to bring the design of the NT author’s use of an OT prophecy in line with the purpose of the OT prophet. In the cases where he views a christological application as part of the design of the OT author, Calvin applies the principle of accommodation in order to clear away any possible incongruities between the NT and OT authors’ usages. For example, Calvin appeals to Joel’s accommodated language—his comparative and hyperbolic language—in order to dissolve any apparent discrepancy between Joel’s prophecy that God’s Spirit would be poured out on “all flesh” and its fulfillment at Pentecost (on Joel 2:28-32 cited in Acts 2:17-21).[51] He also uses the principle of accommodation in order to identify rightly the NT author’s purpose over and against what he considers to be inaccurate prior Christian identifications of this purpose. For example, in his explication of how Matthew’s use of Mic 5:2 adhered to the OT prophet’s design, Calvin explains that though the evangelist did not actually quote the passage accurately, the evangelist “accommodates it suitably and appropriately” because his purpose was to “nourish infants and novices in faith with drinks of milk, for as yet they could not digest solid food.”[52] This echoes 1 Cor 3:1, where Calvin also speaks clearly about the NT author’s necessary uses of accommodation:

I fed you with milk [1 Cor 3:1] . . . refers to [Paul’s] manner or form of teaching, rather than to the substance of what he taught. For the same Christ is milk for babes and solid food for adults. The same truth of the Gospel is handled for both, but so as to suit the capacity of each. Therefore a wise teacher has the responsibility of adapting himself to the power of comprehension of those whom he undertakes to teach, so as to begin with first principles when instructing the weak and ignorant and not to move any higher than they can follow.[53]

Hence, the evangelist has not actually moved away from the design of the OT prophet but, rather, has simply accommodated the prophecy to human capacity.

Furthermore, Calvin uses the principle of accommodation to explain how Matthew’s use of Zech 9:9 is still faithful to Zechariah’s purpose. Even though Matthew cited only a portion of the prophecy and thus accommodated it to his own purpose, he did so in order to emphasize the meek and lowly appearance of the advent of Christ’s kingship, which is a point in keeping with Zechariah’s purpose.[54] Likewise, though Matthew (2:15) “accommodates” Hos 11:1 to the person of Christ, Calvin argues that he retains Hosea’s purpose of showing how God calls and redeems his people out of Egypt.[55] Furthermore, in his explication of how Paul’s use of Hos 13:14 in 1 Cor 15:54-55 adheres to the prophet’s design, Calvin employs the language of allusion and resemblance in his commentaries on both Hosea and 1 Corinthians in order to explain how the NT author remained faithful to the OT author’s purpose.[56] Hence, Paul’s accommodated and partial use of Hosea’s prophecy serves the purpose of strengthening the difficult teaching about the power of God over death, which is a teaching in harmony with the OT prophet’s design.[57]

Calvin also explains the accommodated NT use of an OT prophecy by an appeal to context. For example, he explains Christ’s application of Zech 13:7 to himself when his disciples fled from him at the time of his passion through an appeal to accommodation and parallel contexts: Christ “accommodated the passage to himself when his disciples fled him. Though they were but a small flock, being very few in number, yet they were scattered and put to flight. In that case then, as in a mirror, appeared how truly it had been said in Zechariah that the scattering is nigh when a pastor is smitten.”[58] Thus, the event of the dispersion of the disciples at Christ’s passion acts as a mirror of the event Zechariah prophesied—they are parallel events. In his comments in his harmony of the Gospels, Calvin echoes this concern to show how Christ’s use of this prophecy adheres to the design of Zechariah: “We see how appropriately Christ quoted this passage, so that no future scattering should frighten the disciples beyond limit; and yet they should be aware of their own weakness and lean on their own Pastor.”[59] Hence, Calvin brings Christ’s purpose in harmony with Zechariah’s teaching of comfort.

IV. The Old Testament Author’s Primacy And Calvin’s Vision Of Providence

Calvin’s navigation between the two testaments is shaped by the conviction of the primacy of the design of the OT author as a clear guide to the exegetical parameters and possibilities of the prophecy’s use by the NT author.[60] Time and again, Calvin seeks to demonstrate the NT author’s fidelity to the purpose of the OT prophet.[61] For him “the prophet’s meaning must be retained.”[62] Indeed, in his comments on Acts 15:15 he directly addresses the subject of the apostles’ use of OT prophecy: “We now see that the apostles took nothing on themselves imperiously, but reverently followed what was laid down by the Word of God. And they did not feel it an irksome thing, or consider it out of keeping with their dignity, to profess themselves students of Scripture.”[63] Implicit in this is Calvin’s recognition that in the apostles’ time, the only Scripture that they had was the Hebrew Scriptures, the OT. Thus, Calvin essentially argues that for the apostles to handle the Word of God that they had before them in a reverent manner and for them to be good students of Scripture, they had to take seriously—and as a guiding principle—the design of the Hebrew prophet. In fact, Calvin says as much in Book 4 of his Institutes:

Let this be a firm principle: No other word is to be held as the Word of God, and given place as such in the church, than what is contained first in the Law and the Prophets, then in the writings of the apostles; and the only authorized way of teaching in the church is by the prescription and standard of his Word. From this also we infer that the only thing granted to the apostles was that which the prophets had had of old. They were to expound the ancient Scripture and to show that what is taught there has been fulfilled in Christ. Yet they were not to do this except from the Lord, that is, with Christ’s Spirit as precursor in a certain measure dictating the words.[64] (emphasis added)

Just as the prophets teach nothing apart from what is given to them by God’s Spirit, so also the apostles do the same; and this is one and the same Spirit. Hence, they must be in harmony, for they speak the one Word of God.

Finally, throughout Calvin’s exegesis of these prophecies in the Minor Prophets and their uses by NT authors, one hears echoes of his doctrine of providence. Calvin’s constant appeal to the consilium of the prophet suggests that his exegesis operates within the larger context of his doctrine of God’s providence, for it evokes a vision of God’s providential plan and purpose being set forth first by the prophet and then shared and confirmed by the NT writer. Indeed, in several of these passages Calvin uses the same word, consilium, to refer to manifestations of God’s providence—God’s design, plan, or “eternal counsel.” For example, on Mic 5:2 Calvin argues that in the decree of a Ruler who will “go forth,” God is calling attention to “his eternal counsel” (consilium suum aeternum)—that God’s purpose is not to destroy but to restore the people again.[65] Likewise, in explaining Paul’s use of Hos 1:10 about God calling “my people which was not my people,” he also writes of God’s eternal counsel specifically concerning election.[66] Furthermore, Calvin views many of these prophecies as describing aspects of God’s providence. Micah 5:4 sets forth God’s providential vision of a Redeemer who is predetermined “from of old”; Hos 11:1 teaches about God’s providential action of calling his Son and his people out of Egypt; Hos 13:14 illustrates the power and sovereignty of God over all things, even death and the grave; Hos 1:10 teaches about God’s providential election; Hab 1:5 demonstrates that God remains consistent with his larger providential plan when he warns his disobedient people; Zech 13:7 provides a contemporary teaching to struggling Protestant churches to trust in God’s sovereignty and providence. Calvin applies Zech 9:9 to teach that one should adhere to the design of the OT prophet precisely in order to strengthen faith in prophecy—that is, to strengthen faith in God’s providence in the course of history.[67] Indeed, on Hag 2:21 he describes the promise of Christ and Christ’s kingdom as “no ordinary providence”:

God then does not speak of his ordinary providence, nor simply claim to himself the government of the heaven and the earth, nor teach us that he raises on high the humble and the low, and also brings down the elevated, but he intimates that he has some memorable work in contemplation, which when done would shake men with fear and make earth and heaven tremble. . . . It is therefore necessary that this should be applied to Christ.[68]

The promise of Christ and Christ’s kingdom is the centerpiece of God’s providence, but it also remains part of a larger vision and providential portrait that all of Scripture paints. In the Institutes, Calvin emphasizes that Scripture teaches three aspects of God’s providence: (1) One must consider God’s providence with regard to the “the future as well as the past.” (2) Providence sometimes works through an intermediary, sometimes without one, and sometimes contrary to one. And finally, (3) the purpose of divine providence is to demonstrate God’s “concern for the whole human race, but especially his vigilance in ruling the church.”[69] Through retaining the design of the OT prophet, Calvin seeks to accomplish these precise purposes—to preserve the vision from the past as a mirror for the future, to hear the voices of God’s intermediaries, and to declare God’s sovereign beneficence and faithfulness to the church.

V. The Significance Of “Shared Design” For Exegesis Past And Present

The primacy Calvin gives to the OT prophet’s purpose and his efforts to harmonize the NT author’s meaning with it so that they have a shared design not only did not go unnoticed in his own era, but they were points of controversy and attack. A Lutheran theologian, Aegidius Hunnius, who was concerned about growing Reformed influences in Lutheran territories, attacked these very exegetical practices of Calvin. Hunnius severely criticized Calvin’s interpretation of all of these passages from the Minor Prophets in which Calvin demarcates where the Christian exegetical tradition has read rightly and wrongly according to the principle of shared design.[70] The Reformed theologian David Pareus came to Calvin’s defense, since Hunnius’s attacks were given after Calvin’s death, which launched these two men into an exchange of treatises dealing with aspects of Lutheran and Reformed principles of biblical interpretation in dispute between them.[71]

Calvin’s principle of shared design underscores an aspect that makes his conception of the unity of the two testaments distinct within the history of biblical interpretation. Very often in the pre-modern history of Christian biblical exegesis there is the presumption of the supremacy of the NT, since it is viewed as the fulfillment or completion of the OT. Calvin, on the other hand, does not begin with the presumption that all of the OT should be viewed primarily or singularly through the focusing lens of the NT. Rather, he begins with a presumption of the unity—harmony—of the overall design of the biblical testaments. More to the point, the direction in which he reads does not so much lead him to read the OT in light of the NT, but more to view the very intentions of the OT author as that same light that shines through the prism of God’s providential history into the NT and displays the design of the divine Author that is shared across the testaments—a design first expressed by the OT author. This can look at times as if Calvin is giving supremacy to the design of the OT author over and against that of the NT, but this would be an inaccurate understanding of Calvin, for Calvin insists upon their shared design rather than pitting one over and against the other.[72]

Finally, Calvin’s exegetical principle of shared design provides a compelling response for the Christian community to certain questions raised by historical criticism. Historical criticism has argued for the need to read a text squarely within its original historical context and to consider the original human author’s intentions as decisive for the possible meanings of the text. Typically this has led to the excision of christological readings of the OT. Calvin forges a path in which the original historical context and author are vitally central to the matrix of possible faithful readings of a biblical passage, and these readings unquestionably allow for the possibility of a christological reading that is soundly grounded in its historical properties. Calvin’s vision of the unity of the testaments offers a way to navigate between the two testaments in a way that gives far more credibility to the original design and context of the OT author—something several centuries of Christian christological interpretations of the OT have tended to obscure.

Notes

1. Barbara Pitkin, “Prophecy and History in Calvin’s Lectures on Daniel (1561),” in Die Geschichte der Daniel-Auslegung in Judentum, Christentum und Islam: Studien zur Kommentierung des Danielbuches in Literatur und Kunst (ed. Katharina Bracht and David S. du Toit; BZAW 371; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 325-26.
2. P. J. Wilcox, “Evangelisation in the Thought and Practice of John Calvin,” Anvil 12 (1995): 201-17; Wilcox, “The Restoration of the Church in Calvin’s Commentaries on Isaiah the Prophet,” ARG 85 (1994): 68-95.
3. P. J. Wilcox, “Calvin as Commentator on the Prophets,” in Calvin and the Bible (ed. Donald K. McKim; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 107-30. See also his earlier article, “The Lectures of John Calvin and the Nature of His Audience,” ARG 87 (1996): 136-48.
4. Frederik A. V. Harms, In God’s Custody: The Church, A History of Divine Protection; A Study of John Calvin’s Ecclesiology Based on His Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Reformed Historical Theology 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). There is also the classic article by Richard A. Muller on Calvin’s interpretation of prophecy. See “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom,” in The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (ed. David C. Steinmetz; Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990), 68-82.
5. See G. Sujin Pak, The Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-Century Debates over the Messianic Psalms (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
6. See Aegidius Hunnius, Calvinus Iudiazans, hoc est: Iudaicae Glossae et Corruptelae, quibus Iohannes Calvinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae Loca & Testamonia, de gloriosa Trinitate, Deitate Christi, & Spiritus Sancti, cum primis autem ascensione in caelos et sessione ad dextram Dei, detestandum in modum corrumpere no exhorruit. Addita est corruptelarum confutatio per Aegidium Hunnium (Wittenberg, 1593). Hunnius addresses all the prophecies from the Minor Prophets that Calvin rejects in part or in full concerning their christological applications and disparages Calvin’s exegesis.
7. The Latin term Calvin uses most frequently here is consilium, which means “design or purpose.” He also speaks at times of the mens prophetae, or “mind of the prophet.” Jon Balserak has an article on this topic entitled, “Expounding the ‘mens prophetae’: Calvin on the Prophets and Calvin as a Prophet,” in Calvin—Saint or Sinner? (ed. Herman Selderhuis; Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 51;Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).
8. See, e.g., David Puckett’s discussion of Calvin’s concerns about how NT writers sometimes “twist” the meaning of the OT passages that they cite, in John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament (Columbia Series in Reformed Theology; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 91-100.
9. For further discussions on this, see Puckett, Calvin’s Exegesis, 35-37; and Pak, The Judaizing Calvin, 136-37.
10. Hos 1:10 reads (NRSV), “Yet the number of the people of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered; and in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘Children of the living God.’”
11. Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia (ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss; 59 vols.; Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1863-1900), 42:217; hereafter CO; Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets: Hosea (vol. 1 of Calvin’s Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets; trans. John Owen; 5 vols.; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1846-1849; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1986), 64-65. Hereafter this volume will be noted as “Commentary on Hosea.”
12. CO 42:217; Commentary on Hosea, 65. Calvin writes here, “Hence, this view agrees best with the prophet’s design, which I have just explained.”
13. CO 49:189-90; John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (trans. Ross Mackenzie; vol. 8 of Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; 12 vols.; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1959-1972; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Hereafter Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries will be cited as “CNTC.”
14. CO 44:461-62; Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, Vol 5: Zechariah and Malachi, 567-69; henceforth cited separately as “Commentary on Zechariah” and “Commentary on Malachi.” Mal 3:1 reads (NRSV), “See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts.”
15. Yet, of course, Zerubbabel did not gather and restore God’s people, for this was fulfilled by Christ alone. See CO 44:122, 124; Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, Vol 4: Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, 387, 388; hereafter cited as “Commentary on Habakkuk” and “Commentary on Haggai.” Hag 2:21 reads (NRSV), “Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I am about to shake the heavens and the earth.”
16. Amos 9:11-12 reads (NRSV), “On that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old; in order that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name says the Lord who does this.” Hab 1:5 reads (NRSV), “Look at the nations and see! Be astonished! Be astounded! For a work is being done in your days that you would not believe if you were told.”
17. CO 48:355-56; Calvin, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (14-28) (trans. J. W. Fraser; CNTC 7), 46-47. Immediately afterwards Calvin concludes, “From that it is quite evident how well the prophet’s testimony suits the present purpose” (47).
18. CO 43:499-500; Commentary on Habakkuk, 23-26.
19. CO 43:500; Commentary on Habakkuk, 26.
20. The typological design includes the view of Israel as a type of the church and as a type of Christ as the Head of the church. Hos 11:1 reads (NRSV), “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”
21. CO 42:432; Commentary on Hosea, 386.
22. CO 42:432-33; Commentary on Hosea, 387.
23. CO 42:433; Commentary on Hosea, 387.
24. Ibid.
25. Calvin writes on Matt 2:15 in his commentary on the harmony of the Gospels, “So the Prophet’s words have the effect of saying that the people were snatched out of Egypt as from the depths of a grave. Now the redemption brought by Christ, what was it if not a rising from death, the beginning of new life?” (CO 45:98-99; A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol 1 [trans. A. W. Morrison; CNTC 1], 101). Yet, Calvin makes clear that the prophecy should not be understood as applying to Christ alone: “We should take it as unquestioned that the passage may not be restricted to Christ alone” (CO 45:98; Harmony of the Gospels, 1:101).
26. Hos 13:14 reads according to the Hebrew, “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be your plagues; O grave, I will be your destruction; repentance shall be hid from my eyes.” The Greek Syriac version—the version Paul quotes in 1 Cor 15:54-55—reads differently: “Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your destruction? Compassion is hidden from my eyes.”
27. CO 42:491, 491-92, 492; Commentary on Hosea, 477, 476, 475, 476-77. Calvin notably reads this text concerning God the Father, rather than as the words of Christ.
28. CO 42:493; Commentary on Hosea, 478.
29. CO 42:493; Commentary on Hosea, 478, 478-79.
30. CO 42:494; Commentary on Hosea, 479. Commenting on the citation of Hos 13:14 in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Calvin is even more explicit about bringing the purpose of Paul in line with the purpose of Hosea by clarifying that the redemption God offers here is a conditional one. See CO 49:563; and Commentary on the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (trans. John W. Fraser; CNTC 9), 345.
31. Mic 5:2 reads (NRSV), “But you, O Bethlehem of Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
32. CO 43:365; Commentary on Micah, 295.
33. CO 43:366-67; Commentary on Micah, 296-97.
34. CO 43:367-68; Commentary on Micah, 299.
35. CO 43:369; Commentary on Micah, 300-301.
36. CO 45:84; Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 1:85-86.
37. Specifically concerning how Matthew’s usage of Mic 5:2 retains Micah’s purpose, Calvin argues that though Matthew changes the wording, Matthew—like Micah—“intended by this alteration to praise God for his grace that a slight and obscure little town had been made the birthplace of the supreme King” (CO 45:85; Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 1:86.)
38. Zech 9:9 reads according to the Hebrew, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, your king comes to you; he is just and having salvation; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey.”
39. CO 44:269-71, 270; Commentary on Zechariah, 251-53, 253. Calvin writes, “If he came privately for himself, he might have been for himself just and saved . . . but as he came for the sake of others and has been for them endued with righteousness and salvation, then the righteousness and salvation of which mention is made here belong to the whole body of the Church and ought not to be confined to the person of the king” (Commentary on Zechariah, 253; CO 44:270-71).
40. CO 44:272; Commentary on Zechariah, 257. Yet, Calvin concedes that there is no reason why Christ did not also literally mount a donkey in order to convey visibly this truth.
41. CO 44:273; Commentary on Zechariah, 257. Church fathers read this text allegorically so that the tamed donkey represented the Jews and the untamed colt represented the Gentiles.
42. Likewise, when he explains Matthew’s use of Zech 9:9 in his commentary on the harmony of the Gospels, he affirms that they both intended to convey the promise of a redeemer who would have a meek appearance in contrast to regal finery. See CO 45:373-74; Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol 2 (trans. T. H. L. Parker; CNTC 2), 292-93.
43. Zech 13:7 reads (NRSV), “Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd and against the man that is my fellow, says the Lord of hosts. Smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered; and I will turn my hand upon the little ones.”
44. CO 44:354; Commentary on Zechariah, 395.
45. CO 44:354, 355; Commentary on Zechariah, 395, 396.
46. CO 44:356; Commentary on Zechariah, 398. Wilcox has demonstrated that Calvin’s audience and mission to and concern for the struggling French Protestant churches are upmost in his mind in these particular lectures. See Wilcox, “Calvin as Commentator on the Prophets,” 111-15, 130.
47. CO 45:714; A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol 3 (trans. A. W. Morrison; CNTC 3), 141-42.
48. CO 45:714; Harmony of the Gospels, 3:142.
49. See Ford Lewis Battles, “God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity,” Int 31 (1977): 19-38; David F. Wright, “Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism: Equity, Hardness of Heart, and Divine Accommodation in the Mosaic Harmony Commentary,” CTJ 21 (1986): 33-50; Wright, “Accommodation and Barbarity in John Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries,” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (ed. A. Graeme Auld; JSOTSup 152; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 413-27; Wright, “Calvin’s Accommodation Revisited,” in Calvin as Exegete: Papers and Responses Presented at the Ninth Colloquium on Calvin and Calvin Studies Held at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 20-23, 1993 (ed. P. De Klerk; Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1995), 171-90; Wright, “Calvin’s Accommodating God” in Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex (ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong; Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 36; Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997), 3-19; and Jon Balserak, Divinity Compromised: A Study of Divine Accommodation in the Thought of John Calvin (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006).
50. This of course has overlaps with divine accommodation, since Calvin views Scripture as a prime example of God’s accommodation to human capacity. See Institutes 1.17.13 and 2.11.13. Puckett briefly notes Calvin’s use of accommodation in describing what the NT author is doing with OT citations (Puckett, Calvin’s Exegesis, 51, 93).
51. CO 42:567-68; Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, Vol. 2: Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 94-95; hereafter cited as “Commentary on Joel.” Calvin justifies the prophet’s use of this accommodated language in two ways: first, the prophet spoke in a way that is customary for his time so that his people would understand his prophecy, and, second, the prophet spoke in this way on account of human dullness in order to evoke the proper response (CO 42:568-69, 568; Commentary on Joel, 95, 94). Similarly, Calvin speaks of Paul accommodating Hos 1:10 to apply it to the inclusion of the Gentiles and argues that such an application is fitting because it still maintains Hosea’s design (CO 42:217; Commentary on Hosea, 65).
52. CO 45:84; Harmony of the Gospels, 1:85-86.
53. CO 49:347; Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 66.
54. CO 45:573-74; Harmony of the Gospels, 2:292; CO 44:271-72, 273; Commentary on Zechariah, 254-55, 257.
55. CO 42:432-33, 45:98-99; Commentary on Hosea, 385-88; Harmony of the Gospels, 1:101.
56. Calvin points out that the apostle uses only a portion of the prophecy in accordance with his own purposes, but that such a selected use is not contrary to the purpose of the OT prophet. He writes, “The Apostles do not avowedly at all times adduce passages that in their whole context apply to the subject at hand, but sometimes they allude to a word only, sometimes they apply a passage to a subject in the way of resemblance, and sometimes they bring forward testimonies” (CO 42:493; Commentary on Hosea, 478); and see also CO 49:564; Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 346.
57. CO 42:494, 564; Commentary on Hosea, 479; and Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 346.
58. CO 44:355; Commentary on Zechariah, 397.
59. CO 45:714; Harmony of the Gospels, 3:142; and in Zechariah, CO 44:355, 356; Commentary on Zechariah, 396-97, 398. There is one case in which Calvin seems to imply that rather than finding a NT author’s accommodation of an OT prophecy that is not rightly in keeping with the design of the prophet, it is actually a case in which the NT author is not quoting an OT prophecy. The passage is 1 Cor 15:54-55, where Calvin is not at all sure that Paul is actually quoting Hos 13:14. Calvin writes, “I am quite clear in my own mind that he did not really intend to use the prophet’s testimony here, so as to take advantage of his authority, but, in passing, simply adapted to his own purpose a saying that had passed into common currency” (CO 49:564; Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 346). Such an example reveals Calvin’s conviction that the NT author’s purpose could not run contrary to the purpose of the OT prophet, for that would be taking advantage of his authority.
60. The term “primacy” is employed to denote the “first-ness” of the OT prophet’s prophecy, not necessarily to denote supremacy or dominance. The importance of this distinction will be further explained in the conclusion.
61. See Calvin’s comments on Matt 2:6 in CO 45:84; Harmony of the Gospels, 1:85-86.
62. CO 48:32; Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (1-13) (trans. W. J. G. McDonald; CNTC 6), 57. Here he specifically argues that it is fruitless to dispute about the subtleties of words and translations because “whatever changes are made in the words, the prophet’s meaning must be retained.”
63. CO 48:355; Commentary on Acts (14-28), 46.
64. Institutes, 4.8.8. Calvin proceeds from here to teach that the apostles were authorized to teach only what Christ commanded and to set limits on any idea of ongoing revelation; namely, the canon of Scripture is closed after the apostles.
65. CO 43:366; Commentary on Micah, 296.
66. CO 49:190; Commentary on Romans, 214. The Latin reads, Tametsi autem quos aeterno suo consilio sibi destinavit Deus in filios, hi sunt et perpetuo filii: scriptura tame saepe non recenset inter Dei filios, nisi quorum electio vocatione est appprobata.
67. CO 43:366-67, 367-69; Commentary on Micah, 296-97, 299-301; CO 42:432-33, 491-92, 216; Commentary on Hosea, 387, 476-77, and 64; CO 43:500; Commentary on Habakkuk, 26; CO 44:355-56, 273; Commentary on Zechariah, 397-98, 257.
68. CO 44:121; Commentary on Haggai, 385.
69. Institutes 1.17.1.
70. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudiazans, 39-42, 80-84, 99-101, 104-7, 107-21, 140-45, 152-55, 156-57, 158-65, 167-70. He also accuses Calvin of Arianism and judaizing (4-6).
71. See David Pareus’s response in Libri Duo: I. Calvinus Orthodoxus de Sacrosancta Trinitate: et de aeterna Christi Divinitate. II. Solida Expositio XXXIIX. Difficilimorum Scripturae Locorum et Oraculorum: et de recta ratione applicandi Oracula Prophetica ad Christum. Oppositi Pseudocalvino Iudaizanti nuper a quodam emisso (Neustadt: Matthaeus Harnisch, 1595).
72. Hence, Calvin gives the OT primacy (“first-ness”). Such an understanding of Calvin’s conception of the unity of the testaments also nuances a few of the points made by Richard Muller in his important essay on this topic cited previously, “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom.” Muller writes about the “kerygmatic analogy” (pp. 72, 75, 79) Calvin draws between the two testaments and argues that the “logic” of the OT text is central to how Calvin relates its fulfillment in the NT (p. 72). The concepts of shared design and primacy of the OT author offered here, however, suggest that the terminology of “promise and fulfillment” can be misleading, for this characteristically implies a greater significance given to the NT. It should be clearly stated, though, that Muller acknowledges that by “fulfillment” Calvin points to multiple referents (p. 81). Even more pointedly, after a very insightful analysis of various OT passages cited by NT authors where Calvin finds seeming contradiction (but argues for their harmony), David Puckett concludes that Calvin “insists that the New Testament as a product of the Holy Spirit must be regarded as an authoritative guide to the meaning of the Old Testament” (Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis, 100). This article has argued that it is what Calvin finds shared between the testamental authors that is the authoritative guide—even with a weighty significance given to the “first-ness” of the OT author’s prophecy.