6. Comparison of Substantial Concepts in Luther's and Calvin's Commentaries on Galatians The comparison of Luther's and Calvin's Galatians below demonstrates a farreaching agreement between the two reformers encompassing nearly all main subjects relevant to their commentaries. It should therefore not come as a surprise that Luther at one stage commended Calvin's books and that Calvin saw Luther as an eminent servant of God.1036 Nevertheless, as much as Calvin held Luther in high regard, he is by no means a carbon-copy of his predecessor. Despite some early influences from Luther, he expresses his theology in an independent way.1037
Rather, it seems that both reformers, considering the same Biblical text, without any direct dependence of Calvin's commentary on Luther's, have come to largely the same conclusions.1038
This is not to say that the commentaries of Luther and Calvin are similar. There is great variance in the way the German and the Swiss reformers present their theology. Where Luther is profound, creative and personal in his presentation of theological concepts, Calvin is precise and systematic focusing on the concepts themselves rather than in their colourful illustration. The observation seems to mirror Marc Lienhard's comparison of the two reformers' interpretation of the Lord's Prayer, where Luther's style is seen as existential and concrete as compared to the more philosophically oriented Calvin.1039 For instance, we would not find in Calvin the kind of vivid illustrations of the duel of Christ with the law or of the law as being the ass which must be left behind in the valley while the conscience stays with the gospel on the mount with Abraham. Instead, we find a point-by-point presentation of the meaning of faith, or a caution not to overlook the exhorting function of the law, when focusing on its accusing office, for example. In the comparison below, the differences in style are sidelined, however, for the purpose of focusing on similarities and differences in the concepts themselves.
1036The books Luther had read probably included also Calvin's Institutio 1539, which introduces the basic content of the theology present in Calvin's commentary on Galatians as well. See section 2.4.3.4. for further discussion.
1037With 'independent', in addition to the fact that there does not appear any direct interdependence between the commentaries, I mean the fact that Calvin differs from Luther significantly in style and in the way he presents theological concepts. See sections 2.2. and 2.4.3.4. for further discussion. Despite the difference in style, however, the subject matter of the theological concepts in Luther's and Calvin's
Galatians appears to be in large degree of agreement, while some differences remain.
1038At the same time, it needs to borne in mind that Luther and Calvin did not live in a vacuum but had been influenced by various factors during their reformatory careers. For instance, both shared the 16th century situation where the evangelical faith was defined against Catholic beliefs on the one hand and Anabaptist ideas on the other. Calvin had also been affected by other reformers and, as Hesselink observes, he was, at least in some sense, a second generation reformer. See Hesselink 1984: 69.
1039See Lienhard 1992: 86-87.
In addition to the different styles and personalities of the two reformers as evident in their commentaries, there is another caution to be made. As Gottfried W. Locher poignantly notes, there is a tendency in comparisons between the reformers to stress their differences, which easily leads to overlooking the great extent of existing agreement.1040 Accordingly, an attempt is made below to outline both agreements and differences to a sufficient degree.1041
Further, when evaluating the results of the present study, it needs to be borne in mind that the results are partly influenced by the chosen subject. In a study of this kind, where the focus is on a biblical commentary, the subjects treated are limited, to a large extent, to the ideas present in Paul's epistle to the Galatians.
That is why Calvin, for instance, does not emphasize the third use of the law as much as he may have done had he been commenting on another book in the Bible, and he, like Luther, stresses the second use of the law, as this is a key subject within the epistle.1042 Therefore, when evaluating the results of this study, it is useful to bear in mind also other kinds of studies which focus on a single subject or on the whole of Luther's and Calvin's theology. These other kinds of studies can pay more attention to the larger context and the underlying key notions than a study which compares a number of substantial concepts in a biblical commentary. There are strengths and weaknesses in studies of each kind. Studies on a single subject or on the whole of Luther's and Calvin's theology tend to prioritize interpretative insight while they run the risk of being subjective. Studies examining and comparing the main themes in a biblical commentary, on the other hand, have as their strength that they can be more comprehensive and objective while they may risk having too little depth. Studies of both kinds can therefore complement each other.
The results of this study, therefore, ought to be seen in the larger context of other studies which compare Luther's and Calvin's thought. At the same time, one ought to bear in mind the significance of studies of the present kind. It is significant that a far reaching agreement emerges on key notions of Galatians. This is further accentuated by the fact that the identified large degree of agreement deals not only with which themes Luther and Calvin have identified as central in Paul's epistle to the Galatians but also with the two reformers' respective understanding of the central concepts. It is also important to bear in mind what is meant in the discussion below with the words 'difference' and 'disagreement' and on the other
1040Locher states, 'To compare the Reformers and to reach deeper understanding of them, it is necessary to distinguish one from the other. But immediately there arises the danger of overemphasizing their differences, of laying too much stress upon contrasting attitudes instead of properly assessing their similarities. … When we question the motives of the Reformation movement we must not be surprised at the different answers we reach … rather we should be amazed at the complete fullness of what they have in common.' Locher 1967: 6-7.
1041Even then, it is recognized, the description of the differences may be liable to take up proportianetely too much attention. Nevertheless, they have to be highlighted in a comparison of this kind.
1042Conversely, focusing on a biblical book which highlights a theme where Luther and Calvin obviously differ, would produce different results. hand, 'identical' and 'similar'. The more polarised words 'identical' and 'disagreement' have been used with caution in the present study, while the more elliptical words 'similarity' and 'difference' have been generally preferred. Some further explanation appears necessary regarding the sense in which the word
'difference' is used below. It usually does not indicate outright disagreement, but instead refers to a) variance in emphasis or b) variance to some degree in the subject matter of the issues treated. For instance, there is a difference in that Luther talks much about the comfort for one's conscience when addressing the concepts of justification and the work of the Holy Spirit. It would be wrong to say Calvin disagrees, although he does not discuss the theme much in his Galatians. Instead, this represents a difference in emphasis. An example of a certain degree of variance in the subject matter of the issues treated can be found in Luther's and Calvin's notions on the second and third uses of the law, for instance. Both similarities and differences have been identified below in Luther's and Calvin's concepts on this subject. Although some would also identify a disagreement, the word difference has been preferred below. There is similarity in that there is a large degree of agreement on the convicting function of the law, and further similarity/difference in what
Luther identifies as the second use of the law, since these partly overlap with what Calvin sees as part of the third use of the law. Further, there is clear difference on Calvin's stress on a separate third use of the law, its function as a positive guide in the believers' lives, a separate identification for which cannot be found in Luther.
Nevertheless, the word 'difference' has been preferred to 'disagreement' since Luther also discusses the law as a positive guide in the believers' lives.
The comparison of the substantial concepts in Luther's and Calvin's commentaries is facilitated by the fact that the major themes in each commentary are largely the same. Therefore, each of the substantial themes is addressed, including justification, the work of the Holy Spirit, law, good works and ministry in addition to the theme of the scandal of the cross and suffering as a Christian, present in Luther, but only in little detail in Calvin.
Three kinds of variance are highlighted, a) issues where the difference is primarily in emphasis, b) subjects where the difference is more significant and c) clear disagreements. However, as shown below, there are only a few subjects which fall into the second category, and even fewer, which fall into the third.
6.1. Similarities and Differences on Justification It is noteworthy that both Luther and Calvin regard justification as fundamental to their understanding of doctrine. Both also cover much of the same ground in their discussion. This section includes a comparison of Luther's and Calvin's concepts on justification in their Galatians in reference to the contrast between righteousness by works to that by faith, the role of Christ in justification, law and gospel, the relationship between the Old and New Testaments and Christian liberty.
6.1.1. Similarities and Differences in the Contrast between Righteousness by Faith and Righteousness by Works The two reformers hold a far-reaching agreement in the concepts underlying justification as also maintained by Boyer and Hesselink.1043 Both Luther and Calvin most often discuss justification in terms of its contrast to righteousness by works.
Luther and Calvin see eye to eye on the fact that justification takes place by faith alone, excluding works and the law. Both also see justification as grounded in God's mercy and free imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, categorically excluding the consideration of the person's inner qualities such as one's love or merits as playing any part in being justified. Further, both Luther and Calvin, presenting the doctrine of righteousness by faith, contrast it with the teaching of the Catholic church (Luther and Calvin) or the Anabaptists (Luther) on justification, rejecting the mediaeval notion of congruous and condign merit (Luther and Calvin) and the Anabaptist stress on the necessity of new obedience for justification (Luther).1044
However, one can find several differences in the manner in which Luther and Calvin present the contrast between righteousness by faith and by works.
Luther is more extensive than Calvin, which is understandable considering the comparative length of the two commentaries. Luther also uses more illustrations on the meaning of justification including, among others, the contrast between passive and active righteousness and the Abraham of faith against the Abraham of procreation, which do not appear in Calvin in this form. For instance, in the introduction to the commentary, while Luther contrasts human-produced active righteousness to the one of faith, which passively receives Christ's righteousness from God, Calvin outlines the importance of paying attention to the general principle of justification by faith alone, which determines one's correct relation not only to ceremonies but to all law. Further, where Luther contrasts two 'kinds' of Abraham on Gal. 3.7-9, pointing to the natural human way by which Ishmael was
1043Boyer states, 'Calvin reste fidèle à Luther pour le maintien d'une seule justice, celle qui n'est pas nötre, celle qui ne devient pas réelle en nous, celle qui est seulement du Christ et qui nous est imputée.'
Boyer 1973 : 69. See also Boyer 1973: 68-75. Hesselink, for his part, affirms, 'Concerning the basic issue at stake here there is again no difference at all. That is, justification is not by works but by faith. …
Calvin appears to be as much in harmony with the thrust of the apostle in this epistle as Luther when it comes to the fundamental question of salvation by grace through faith as over against salvation by works of the law; here there is no divergence whatsoever.' Hesselink 1984: 72-73.
1044The fact that Calvin refers to the Anabaptists only once in his polemics, does not mean that he would disagree with Luther's rejection of their teaching. As pointed out above, Calvin indirectly refers to certain Anabaptists, who believed that the people of the Old Testament could not be saved. See COR
16.90, on Gal. 4.1. See also CO 1.11.1. born in opposition to Isaac, born by faith in God's promise, Calvin for his part defines Abraham as the universal type of faith, which means to trust in God's promise alone, by faith alone, without considering one's personal qualities.1045
On the other hand, Calvin often presents Christ's righteousness and human righteousness as opposite and alternative ways to justification, of which the latter, human righteousness as a way to justification is impossible.1046 This is a less common, though not unknown, way to describe justification in Luther.
Another example of how Calvin's view of justification relates to how Luther's can be found in Calvin's portrayal of faith and righteousness in Gal.
3.6. Calvin defines faith as trust in God and as taking as certain God's fatherly kindness1047 while Luther in this instance describes faith as having two functions, those of slaying human reason and of glorifying God in giving him all the honour for one's justification.1048
Calvin further defines true righteousness as God's freely imputed righteousness in that God in his grace counts the faith of the believers as righteousness. Luther, for his part, sees Christian righteousness as consisting of two parts, of faith and of God's imputation, which forgives the remaining sin of the believers. This includes forgiveness of the imperfection of one's faith, in disparity with Boyer's view according to which only Calvin considers that the faith of believer is in need of God's forgiving grace.1049
1045Compare WA 40a.373.19-391.27, on Gal. 3.7-9 with COR 16.66-67, on Gal. 3.7-8. (Calvin treats also Gal. 3.9 within his treatment of Gal. 3.8.)
1046See e.g. COR 16.47-48, on Gal. 2.15, COR 16.57-58, on Gal. 2.21, COR 16.68-69, on Gal. 3.10-11 and COR 16.74-76, on Gal. 3.17-18.
1047Credendo ideo iustificatus est Abraham, quia, quum promissionem a Deo haberet paterni favoris, eam certo amplexus sit. Ergo fides hic relationem habet ac respectum ad tale verbum Dei, quo freti homines acquiescere in ipso possint. COR 16.64. It needs to be borne in mind that not only Calvin, but also Luther elsewhere defines faith as trust in God (fiducia). See e.g. WA 40a.228.31-229.25, on Gal. 2.16 where
Luther calls faith 'fiducia cordis et firmus assensus quo Christus apprehenditur'. See section 4.1.4. for further discussion.
1048Hocque est iuge illud sacrificium vespertinum et matutinum in novo Testamento, Vespertinum: mortificare rationem, Matutinum: glorificare Deum. WA 40a.370.14-16. See also WA 40a.362.26363.16, on Gal. 3.6. Interestingly, in his sermons Calvin also affirms that faith in God's promises gives him the honour he is due while when doubt reigns, there is no reverence or authority for God's word.
Quand donc nous avons ceste promesse de Dieu, voilà comme il sera honoré par nous. Puis qu'ainsi est, ce seul mot nous doit suffire : et si nous y sommes arrestez et resoluz, c'est signe que nous signons la verité de Dieu, comme sainct Iean en parle, comme ceux qui luy sont fideles tesmoins. Au contraire quand nous sommes en doute ou en branele, la parole de Dieu n'ai nulle authorité ni reverence en nous.
CO 50.446, Quatorzieme sermon, on Gal. 2.20-21.
1049Boyer states, 'Luther donne a la foi un rôle plus positif. Sans doute elle est mise en nous par Dieu et nous la recevons passivement. Toutefois, elle est notre acte et elle possède une efficacité particulière pour nous relier à la justice du Christ. Calvin répète bien que la foi nous unit au Christ, qu'elle est un instrument par lequel nous obtenons la justice du Christ … Mais il insiste pour dire qu'elle ne le fait pas de sa proper vertu, car elle est toujours trop débile et elle a besoin elle-même d'être acceptée par pure grace.' Boyer 1973: 73-74.
Boyer also argues that Luther gives a more positive role to faith than Calvin - for Luther faith is a human act (though given by God) but for Calvin it is strictly and only an instrument.1050 However, this position does not seem to find support in Luther's Galatians. The fact that faith gives all the honour to God is totally exclusive, leaving neither honour nor room for human initiative. Further, in accordance with Luther's view which identifies human righteousness as passive, the human agent contributes nothing at all to their justification, leaving no place for an 'act' of faith. In support of his view according to which only Calvin attributes absolutely everything to God, Boyer quotes Calvin to the effect that it is not faith by its own worth (de sa propre vertu) which justifies, but Christ.1051 However, Luther also points to the fact that it is only on account of Christ, the treasure that faith apprehends and holds onto, that faith justifies.1052 Therefore, in regarding faith as having only instrumental value in justification, there appear no convincing grounds to see Luther and Calvin in disagreement.1053
1050See Boyer 1973: 73-74. For the quotation, see the footnote above.
1051See the footnote above for the quotation from Boyer. Unfortunately, Boyer gives no references to Luther's writings in his discussion of this issue. He quotes Calvin as follows, 'Nous disons que la foi justifie, non point qu'elle nous mérite justice par sa dignité, mais parce que c'est un instrument par lequel nous obtenons gratuitement la justice Christ (Institutio 1559 3.18.8, p. 307)' and 'Quand donc la foi est ainsi débile en nous, il semblerait que nous ne fussions agréables à Dieu qu'en partie, et que d'autre côté nous fussions réprouvés de lui; mais notons que la foi ne nous justifie point de sa vertu; et voilà pourquoi aussi il ne faut point avoid égard à la perfection d'icelle pour dire que notre salut soit parfait. A parler proprement, il n'y a que Dieu seul qui nous justifie (CO 23.722)'. Quoted in Boyer 1973: 74.
1052See section 4.1.1.4 for further discussion.
1053Althaus also sees faith in Luther as 'an act of the will' (while maintaining that God's word creates faith in believers and while maintaining faith as trust, too), corresponding to Boyer's position. Compare
Althaus 1966: 46 with Boyer 1973: 73-74. Prenter, by way of contrast, rejects the view according to which faith is understood as a 'free acceptance of the Word' (Prenter 1953: 293; emphasis in the original). Instead, he maintains that the Spirit is the sovereign Lord over faith, which He 'freely and sovereignly gives.' See Prenter 1953: 292. Closely connected with Prenter's argumentation is his view of God's real presence in the sacraments and in the believer which makes faith possible. This, again, links with Mannermaa's view according to which the believer participates in God's own being by faith.
Mannermaa explicitly refers to Prenter as being close to his position in reference to this issue. Compare e.g. Prenter 1953: 289 and Mannermaa 1979: 15. The position taken here is similar to that taken with regards to the precise relationship between forensic and effective aspects of justification in Luther's
Galatians. Luther ought not to be pressed into answering a question he does not himself address, because it could very easily lead to superimposing an accent alien to Luther's own view. See the beginning of section 4.1. and section 4.1.1.2 for further discussion. Althaus refers to WA 40c.50.3-4 in support of his argument, where Luther states, 'Natura fidei voluntas, quae pendet in verbo, quod praescribit invisibilia qaudia, auxilia et patrocinia'. Althaus' translation reads 'It is the nature of faith that the will holds to the word which provides invisible joys, help, and defense.' Althaus 1966: 46. This statement of Luther's, however, does not, strictly speaking, seem to be a definition of faith. Instead, it appears to describe faith in action, affecting the human will so that it holds on to the Word. It is also noteworthy that preceding the quote Althaus makes, Luther refers to faith as fiducia, which may rather be seen as Luther's definition for faith in that passage. Hoc (Heb. 11.1) docet his cersus, fides discat, quod 'fiducia est rerum invisibilium et expectantarum'. WA 40c.49.13-15. Further, Luther's statement (which Althaus refers to) needs to be taken in light of the fact that faith in its justifying role is passive (see sections 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.4). In the least, it would seem injudicious to found on this statement of Luther's a view according to Both Luther and Calvin affirm that believers are righteous outside of themselves, 'in Christ'1054 (Calvin) and 'solely in the grace of God and in His imputation' (Luther),1055 an agreement noted also by Wendel.1056 Again, there are some differences between the reformers concerning the manner and aspects of justification each sees as important. Calvin affirms, discussing faith as the cause of justification (causa instrumentalis), that the reason for calling faith the cause of justification (despite the fact that the principal cause of righteousness is God's free acceptance, not faith) is the fact that faith is the means, the instrumental cause, by which believers arrive at righteousness. Luther, on the other hand, describes the believers in the context of the concepts simul iustus et peccator and the joyous exchange. He affirms that believers are sinners, yet holy because Christ's righteousness is counted as theirs, and their sin as Christ's.
One can quite easily see that there is no evident disagreement between the concepts of Luther and Calvin on the contrast between righteousness by faith and works. Instead, the existing differences lay primarily in the way they present their thought.
6.1.2. Similarities and Differences on the Role of Christ in Justification Scaer posits, that Luther sees God as loving humans for their own and Christ's sake, while Calvin, to whom God's sovereignty is paramount, sees God as redeeming 'not for the sake of the sinner but for Himself'.1057 This position is not find supported by the present research. The role of Christ in justification appears to be perceived generally along similar lines by Luther and Calvin. Both lay great emphasis on the fact that salvation is by Christ alone and see importance in the fact that his work is which there would be a cooperating interrelationship between the human will and justification (faith = use of the will > justification). The sovereignty of the Spirit over faith affirmed by Prenter, by way of contrast, appears in line with Luther's emphasis on Christian righteousness as passive (section 4.1.1.1), the nature of faith as giving glory to God and as apprehending Christ (section 4.1.1.4) and the creating role of the Spirit in the hearing of faith (section 4.2.1). However, the emphasis present in Mannermaa
(and alluded to in Prenter) on theosis, on participation into God's being in faith, does not seem suggested in Luther's Galatians according to this research (see section 4.1.1.2).
1054Meminerimus ergo, qui fide iusti sunt, eos extra se iustos esse, nempe in Christo. COR 16.65, on Gal.
1055Iustitiam non esse formaliter in nobis … sed extra nos is sola gratia et reputatione divina. WA 40a.370.28-30, on Gal. 3.6.
1056Wendel states, 'La notion de la justification comporte donc bien, comme chez Luther et Mélanchthon, l'idée d'une justice étrangère et qui nous est seulement imputée, sans rien laisser préjuger de l'état réel dans lequel nous nous trouvons.' Wendel 1950 : 195.
1057Scaer states, 'For Luther God loves the sinner for Christ's stake [sic]. It is not a question of what God will get for Himself out of His expenditure of redemptive love. For Calvin God moves from the motive of divine sovereignty. God redeems not for the sake of the sinner but for Himself. The question is no longer Luther's, what God can do for man, but what man can do for God.' Scaer 1985: 191. See also
Cameron 2003: 17-18, 20-21. on behalf of each believer individually, that Christ gave himself 'for us' (pro nobis).1058 Luther exhorts,
'Therefore read these words "me" and "for me" with great emphasis, and accustom yourself to accepting this "me" with a sure faith and applying it to yourself. Do not doubt that you belong to the number of those who speak this "me".'1059
Calvin for his part admonishes, For me is very emphatic. It is not enough to regard Christ as having died for the salvation of the world; each man must claim the effect and possession of this grace for himself personally.1060
Illustrations specific to Luther such as seeing Christ as the greatest sinner (maximus peccator) who conquered sin and overcame the battle against the law for the benefit of the believer (Christus victor), though not expressed by Calvin in the same way, nonetheless appear to present no theological subjects foreign to the Swiss reformer's teaching.
However, some interesting variances can be identified in the way Luther and Calvin understand the believer's union with Christ. This is a subject which led Boyer, for instance, to regard Calvin's insistence on faith alone as less stringent than that of Luther, because Calvin 'joins justification and sanctification in an indissoluble union'.1061 There is striking similarity in the illustrations Luther and Calvin use of the believer's union with Christ, Luther describing the closeness of the union as a ring (faith) enclosing a gem (Christ), both Luther and Calvin seeing the union as becoming one with Christ and Calvin comparing the believer to sap joining the root (Christ), or as a garment (Christ) belonging to the believer.
Nevertheless, one would not expect Luther to say the following, 'Christ lives in us in two ways. The one consists in His governing us by His Spirit and directing all our actions. The other is what He grants us by participation in His righteousness, that, since we can do nothing of ourselves, we are accepted in Him by God. The first relates to regeneration, the second to the free acceptance of righteousness, and this is how I take
1058Compare WA 40a.295.36-300.22, on Gal. 2.20 with COR 16.56, on Gal 2.20.
1059Lege igitur cum magna Emphasi has voces: 'ME', 'PRO ME', et assuefacias te, ut illud, 'ME' possis certa fide concipere et applicare tibi, Neque dubites, quin etiam sis ex numero eorum, qui dicumtur
'ME'. WA 40a.299.29-30, on Gal. 2.20 (Pro me). Emphasis in the original.
1060Neque parum energiae habet pronomen, quia non satis fuerit Christum pro mundi salute mortuum reputare, nisi sibi quisque effectum ac possessionem huis gratiae privatim vendicet. COR 16.56, on Gal.
1061Boyer states, 'Mais voici que nous arrivons à une diversité très importante à laquelle Calvin a été conduit par ses tendances personelles. C'est qu'il unit indissolublement justification et sanctification.' the passage. But if anyone would rather apply it to both, I will willingly agree.'1062
As evident in Calvin's statements in the Institutio of 1543/45 and in the statement above, while maintaining that justification is grounded in the imputation of Christ's righteousness alone, and excluded any assessment of the believer's inner qualities,
Calvin nevertheless regards that one cannot have Christ for justification without having him at the same time for one's sanctification as well.1063 Despite the fact that Luther also describes union with Christ in terms of Christ's presence in the believer, he never connects justification and sanctification in such explicit terms.1064 Instead, one can find other illustrations of justification, which exclude sanctification from the event of justification.1065
Another area in the role of Christ where one may see a difference between Luther and Calvin, deals with Luther's contrast of seeing Christ as an Example and a Lawgiver versus regarding him as a Redeemer and a Comforter.
Although Calvin never discusses Christ as an example in his commentary, it is clear from his statements, as discussed in more detail on his concept on the law, that he has no qualms about seeing Christ as giving laws in a positive sense for the purpose of instructing and guiding the Christian. At the same time, however, it must be maintained that Calvin, and in no uncertain terms, excludes the law from justification. Further, although Calvin also sees assurance of salvation as important
(as Luther sees the role of Christ as the Comforter as important), Calvin does not emphasize the personal comfort received from the gospel in quite the same way as Luther, to whom the concept of Anfechtung is very important.1066
1062Porro vivit Christus in nobis dupliciter. Una vita est, quum nos Spiritu suo gubernat atque actiones nostras omnes dirigit; altera, quod participatione suae iustitiae nos donat, ut quando in nobis non possumus, in ipso accepti simus Deo. Prior ad regenerationem pertinet, secunda ad gratuitam iustitiae acceptionem, de qua hunc locum intelligere licebit, quanquam si quis de utraque accipere malit, minime repugnem. COR 16.55, on Gal. 2.20.
1063Vis ergo iustitiam in Christo adipisci? Christum ante possideas oportet: possidere autem non potes, quin fias sanctificationis cius particeps; quia in frusta discerpi non potest. CO 1.10.57.
1064McGrath represents a view according to which precisely through his view on union with Christ in relationship to imputed righteousness, Calvin developed and clarified what had been only introduced in Luther. According to McGrath, this became clear especially in Calvin's response to Osiander. McGrath states, 'It was left to Calvin to demonstrate how Osiander's legitimate protest against the externalisation of Christ might be appropriated while maintaining a forensic doctrine of justification.' McGrath 1998:
213. See also McGrath 1998: 201.
1065See e.g. sections 4.1.1.1. and 4.1.1.5. of this paper for a discussion of Luther's emphasis on imputation, excluding the consideration of any inner quality or reality within the Christian. See section
6.2.2. for further discussion on the relationship between the concepts of unio and imputatio as they relate to the work of the Holy Spirit.
1066See section 6.2. for further discussion.
6.1.3. Similarities and Differences on Law and Gospel Law and gospel is a subject which can be seen to cover more than is treated here, where the discussion of the theme is limited to those passages where Luther and Calvin explicitly mention the two terms.
Hesselink has devoted his brief article comparing Luther's and Calvin's Galatians to the theme of the law and gospel. However, many of the subjects he treats under this heading, is here dealt with in the section on the law.
Hesselink concludes that the perception of Calvin as a 'Gesetzlehrer' (Teacher of the Law) in distinction to Luther, the teacher of grace, is false. The results of this study fall in line with Hesselink's observation. As Hesselink also affirms, both Luther and Calvin perceive a contrast between the law and the gospel, and not merely a difference which is relative.1067 This ought to be borne in mind in contrast to the view which affirms only a quantitative difference between the law and the gospel in Calvin while ascribing a qualitative difference between the law and the gospel only in Luther.1068
The theme of gospel and law is treated here in reference to Luther's and Calvin's definitions of the time periods for the law and the gospel, the way they contrast the two concepts and how both see law and gospel as in agreement in the daily life of the Christian.
Both Luther and Calvin define the law and the gospel as representing different time periods, the time of the law relating to the Old
Testament and the time of the gospel to the New Testament. Luther adds that the times of the law and gospel also relate to the life of the believers. The time of the law refers to the accusing function of the law, showing the persons their need for the gospel. The time of the gospel, on the other hand, refers to the receiving of the comforting Word of the gospel and grace. Calvin gives another definition for the law and the gospel, which Luther would heartily agree with; Calvin defines the law
(in contrast to the gospel) as the law of the hypocrites who seek salvation by works while the gospel represents the free promise of the gospel, the Holy Spirit, faith and grace.
Luther, as well as Calvin, sees the law and the gospel as being in contrast to each other. Calvin presents the law and the gospel as two opposite ways to salvation. Luther, for his part, accentuates that the sum of Christian doctrine is to be able to distinguish between the law and the gospel, illustrated in his affirmation of the place of the law as being in the valley with the ass while the conscience ascends to the mount with Abraham to the freedom of the gospel.
1067Hesselink elucidates, 'The second surprise is the fact that Calvin, the so-called man of law, the alleged "Gesetzlehrer", teaches in his Galatians Commentary and elsewhere not only a relative difference but also an antithesis between the law and the gospel, when the former is portrayed as letter, as a bare law, and the latter is equated with the new dispensation of the Spirit.' Hesselink 1984: 78-79.
1068For a recent example of this view, see e.g. Couenhoven 2000: 70.
Despite the contrast between the law and the gospel, both Luther and Calvin maintain the connection of the law and the gospel in one's daily life.
Calvin affirms that it is only in the issue of justification that the law and the gospel must be kept separate. In all other areas of life the exhortations of the law are beneficial. Luther for his part affirms that in one's daily life the law and the gospel are very near each other and that there is a continuing need for the law, too. The flesh of the Christians needs perpetual controlling by the law, while the conscience continually needs the comfort of the gospel.
Luther and Calvin are in near total agreement on the themes of the law and gospel when limited to the themes presented above. There are some differences of emphasis such as Luther's focus on the comfort of the conscience in a struggle of faith, for instance. The existing differences are discussed in more detail on the concept of the law, which seems a more appropriate place to address the variance of their views (section 6.3.).
6.1.4. Similarities and Differences on Christian Liberty Christian liberty is another area, where it is difficult to identify any substantial conceptual difference between Luther and Calvin. The theme is a little more discussed in Calvin's commentary than in Luther's, while Luther's treatment of Christian liberty appears in some ways more detailed. Luther's and Calvin's respective notions on the theme are here compared in terms of Christian liberty itself, the relationship of Christian liberty to the law and the use of Christian liberty.
Christian liberty is seen to be of two kinds in Luther, referring to both freedom from God's wrath and to freedom from the terrors of the law. Calvin sees Christian liberty as an internal quality in the conscience of the Christian, but he does not detail its properties in the commentary further than by affirming it to be a liberty from the bondage of the law. Luther, paralleling his presentation of the subject of Christ as the lawgiver vs. Comforter, regards Christian liberty as a freedom from one's personal tribulations (Anfechtungen). While Calvin would hardly disagree at this point, he does not focus on this aspect of the theme in any substantial detail in his commentary.
Both Luther and Calvin pay considerable attention to the relationship of Christian liberty to the law and to ceremonies. Both assert that Christian liberty entails freedom from the law and its bondage. Luther affirms,
'Now if our sin has been forgiven through Christ Himself, the Lord of the Law – and forgiven by His having given Himself for it – the Law, that slave, no longer has a right to accuse and condemn us because of our sin; for this has been forgiven, and we have become free by the deliverance of the Son. Therefore the entire law has been abrogated for the believer in 1069Remisso autem nobis peccato per Christum ipsum Dominum legis (sic tamen remisso, quod se ipsum tradiderit pro eo) non habet amplius lex Serva ius accusandi et damnandi nos propter peccatum, cum
Calvin for his part asserts, 'For what a small thing it would be, if He had freed us only from ceremonies. This is a stream which flows from a higher source. It is because He was made a curse that He might redeem us from the curse of the law, because He has revoked the power of the law, so far as it held us liable to the judgmnet of God under the pain of eternal death, because, in a word, He has rescued us from the tyranny of sin, Satan and death.'1070
Accordingly, both Luther and Calvin hold it as very important that no ceremonial observances are imposed on people as necessary for justification – consciences ought to be left free to find their acceptance with God through faith alone.
The appropriate use of Christian liberty is treated in some detail by both Luther and Calvin.1071 Luther contrasts two kinds of freedom, the true
Christian liberty and liberty understood as licence for sin. True Christian liberty of the conscience has nothing to do with freedom to sin, which nevertheless is the way in which most people use it. Therefore law also has its place restraining both the wicked and the believers, whose flesh (though not conscience) also needs restrictions. In line with Luther, Calvin affirms that the flesh ought to have no freedom, but to be kept under the constraint of love toward one's neighbour.
Further, Luther affirms that it is important to maintain certain observances in the church, such as set times for the purpose of hearing the Word of God. Calvin, mirroring his German counterpart's views, affirms that while Christians are free from ceremonies, it is nevertheless beneficial to hold to certain observances.
Sacraments, for instance, are aids to faith and therefore advantageous.
It is evident that both Luther and Calvin are in essential agreement on the issue of Christian liberty. At the same time, it is clear that their thought on the issue is independent. The same foundational concepts are discussed in significantly different ways by each reformer.
6.1.5. Similarities and Differences on the Relationship between the Old and When comparing Luther's and Calvin's Galatians, it transpires that the relationship between the Old and New Testaments is an issue especially important for Calvin. It is also treated in Luther, though perhaps not in as much detail. nobis remissum sit ac iam Liberi facti simus liberante nos Filio. Quare credentibus in Christum tota lex abrogata est. WA 40a.672.24-28, on Gal. 4.27.
1070Quantulum enim id foret, si nos tantum liberasset a caeremoniis? Hic ergo rivus ex altiore fonte manat: nempe quia factus est maledictum, ut nos a Legis maledictione redimeret; quia vim Legis abrogavit, quatenus Dei iudicio nos tenebat obnoxios sub reatu aeternae mortis; quia denique a tyrannide peccati, Satanae et mortis nos asseruit. COR 16.115, on Gal. 5.1.
1071Boyer sees that Luther and Calvin attempt to avoid creating a problematic relationship between Christian liberty and good works. For Boyer, Luther does not show sufficient care in addressing the question, while Calvin for his part does not succeed in explaining the relationship of Christian liberty to the reality of both justification and sanctification. See Boyer 1973: 86-88.
Both Luther and Calvin affirm that the patriarchs and believers of the Old Testament were saved by their faith in Christ, just as well as the believers of the New Testament. While the people of the Old Testament put their faith in an absent Christ (Calvin) or in the Christ to come (Luther), the believers of the New
Testament have their faith directed to the present Christ (Calvin), who has already come (Luther). Further, both Luther and Calvin affirm the freedom of Christians from Mosaic ceremonies, which had been necessary at the time of the Old
Testament, as Christ whom the ceremonies pointed to, has now come.
Calvin, describing two further differences between the Old and New Testaments, affirms first that while the patriarchs of the Old Testament perceived the substance of faith as in a mirror, the believers now have the true substance in Christ. Second, while Christians now enjoy Christian liberty, it did not apply at the time of the Old Testament in the same sense. At that time the people were still outwardly under the guardianship of the law, despite the fact that inwardly their consciences were free. These differences between the Old and New
Testaments are not as specifically treated by Luther, although he agrees with the general concept.
Although it appears that the theme of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments seems to be somewhat more developed in Calvin, the underpinning concepts of both Luther and Calvin are roughly the same on this issue, too. Bearing in mind the difference in emphasis, it is noteworthy that in his examination, Engels also comes to the conclusion that there is a large degree of agreement between Luther's and Calvin's views regarding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.1072
6.2. Similarities and Differences on the Work of the Holy Spirit In comparisons between Luther and Calvin, it is often the differences regarding the role of the Holy Spirit, especially as they relate to regeneration, which are alluded to instead of indicating their substantial and far-reaching agreement.1073 This can be
1072Engels states, 'Dort bezieht Luther ebenso alle Väterverheissungen auf Christus und kommt von daher wie Calvin zu der Feststellung, dass der Glaube der Väter mit unserem Galuben identisch sei. … Mit diesen Aussagen folgen beide, Calvin wie Luther, weder Augustin, der die Väterverheissungen lediglich als Schatten oder Abbilder des neuen Bundes, im Grunde aber als irdische Verheissungen gewertet wissen will.' Engels 1967: 30.
1073See e.g. Boyer 1973: 74-78, Lose 1996: 287-288, 290, Couenhoven 2000: 71-72. Parker, for his part, sees a difference between Luther and Calvin in that 'there is no confusion of the Spirit with human historical existence in Calvin as there is in Luther' (Parker 1963: 75). Wetmore, on the other hand, highlights a difference between the Spirit and the means of grace (sacraments and the preached Word) in Luther and Calvin. He affirms that for Calvin the Spirit can and does work directly and independently of the means of grace, in opposition to Luther where the Spirit works only through the preached Word and the sacraments. See Wetmore 1992: 126-130. seen, at least in part, as a result of the fact that the role of the Holy Spirit is generally referred to in context of comparisons, the primary focus of which is on other themes, and not on the work of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, there is an unfortunate lack of systematic comparisons of Luther and Calvin on this central and illuminating subject.
Luther's and Calvin's concept of the work of the Holy Spirit as presented in their Galatians is compared below in reference to the hearing of faith, regeneration, assurance of salvation, the struggle between the Spirit and the flesh and Luther's notion of the genuine deeds of the Spirit vs. those of the sectarians.
The differences between Luther and Calvin with regards to the work of the Holy Spirit deal primarily with the concepts of the hearing of faith and regeneration. The former is discussed in more detail by Luther while the latter, regeneration, is more frequently alluded to by Calvin. While there is a large amount of agreement between the two reformers in their understanding of these concepts, too, there also appear some differences in their understanding of the hearing of faith and regeneration (see sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.4). On the other hand, there is no significant deviance between the German the Swiss reformers on the concepts of assurance of faith and the struggle between the Spirit and the flesh.
6.2.1. Hearing of Faith Calvin's brief allusion to the hearing of faith in his comment on Gal. 3.2-3 affirms, in line with Luther's much longer treatment, that the Holy Spirit is received by faith and through the gospel. Luther shows that the Holy Spirit was received by faith and the gospel, not the law, both in the Old Testament as well as now, which confirms the evangelical understanding of justification. However, while Luther focuses in his discussion on the confirmation the giving of the Holy Spirit provides for the doctrine of justification, Calvin considers what the receiving of the Holy Spirit referred to, preferring to see it as the grace of adoption and regeneration. It is also noteworthy that Luther's assertion that the Holy Spirit is received through the medium of the purely preached Word of the gospel is an aspect absent in Calvin's commentary. This is not to say that Calvin does not link the Word with the receiving of the Spirit, but it nevertheless highlights the importance of the intimate relationship between the preached Word and the Spirit in Luther.1074
1074While the consideration of Calvin's Galatians is limited due to the brevity of Calvin's references, the comparison of the commentaries is in line with, at least to some extent, the conclusions presented in Wetmore's study. Wetmore asserts that in Calvin the Holy Spirit, while working through preaching, has a more direct role without the indispensable role ascribed by Luther to the preached Word and the sacraments. See Wetmore 1992: 126-130. Wetmore asserts, 'The point of difference between Luther and Calvin is this. Luther insists that God has chosen to bring His grace to man exclusively through common things such as words, voices, bread, wine and water. Calvin replies that "the inner grace of the Spirit, as distinct from the outward ministry, ought to be considered and pondered separately.' … Even though
Calvin did not use the phrase "immediate grace," the way he describes the dynamics involved in the Lord's Supper argues that he did indeed regard grace as coming immediately, through the direct work of Luther and Calvin discuss regeneration in somewhat differing contexts.
Nevertheless, to a large extent, again, their notions agree. Parallel to Luther's contrasting of the new creation brought about by the Spirit with human works,
Calvin addresses the relationship of regeneration and the law. Luther's assertion that it is Christ alone and a new creation that count before God, not human works, is in line with Calvin's thinking. Similarly, Calvin's notion of the fact that until regeneration the law increases one's guilt, and that in regeneration the law is written in the believers' hearts, is a concept not alien to Luther. Further, both connect assurance of salvation with regeneration, maintaining that the believer rejoices in God's goodness, not in his own works (Luther) and that one's regeneration testifies of one's new status before God (Calvin).
The difference of Luther and Calvin on the issue of regeneration in their Galatians corresponds to the difference of their conceptions on the believer's union with Christ. On the surface, their concepts may seem similar in that Luther, as well as Calvin, in discussing regeneration, makes no explicit separation between justification and regeneration. Luther affirms that in baptism one puts on Christ, is regenerated, and receives Christ's benefits including salvation, righteousness and the Holy Spirit. Calvin, for his part, affirms that the Spirit of regeneration is intimately connected with faith. Nevertheless, as portrayed in the respective concepts of the two reformers regarding the believer's union with Christ, Luther makes no explicit connection between justification and regeneration. Calvin, however, does. Calvin sees no difficulty in asserting that justification and the Spirit of regeneration are connected because believers have both justification and the Spirit through their union with Christ (though justification is exclusively based on Christ's imputed righteousness).
Luther, however, it must be borne in mind, does not discuss the relationship between faith and regeneration in his commentary in detail.1075 That is the Holy Spirit.' See Wetmore 1992: 129, emphasis in the original. Wetmore asserts a fundamental disagreement between the views of Luther and Calvin on the issue. This conclusion is too polarised. It appears rather that there is a significant difference of emphasis. See Wetmore 1992: 130. See also CO
1.16.7-11, where Calvin draws attention to the role of the Spirit in illuminating and making the preached Word powerful, indicating the importance of this concept to Calvin as well, despite the fact that he does not explicitly treat this concept in his Galatians.
1075For instance, Luther's statements on Gal. 3.11 suggest that it is faith which leads to renewal. His discussion in this context centres on describing a false idea of faith, a faith which does not renew a person. He states, 'Ficta est quae audit de Deo, Christo et omnibus my steriis incarnationis et redemptionis et apprehendit illas res auditas et pulcherrime de eis novit loqui, et tamen mera opinio et inanis auditus manet qui tantum relinquit bombum in corde de Evangelio, de quo multa garrit, re vera autem non est fides, quia non renovat nec immutat cor, non generat novum hominem, sed relinquit eum in priori sua opinione et conversatione.' WA 40a.421.21-26. On the other hand, Luther's discussion of baptism could be read in such a way as to suggest that regeneration occurring in baptism leads to trust in God (instead of faith [which is also a gift of God] working together with the Spirit bringing the new birth about). However, there is no explicit discussion of Luther on the relationship between faith and regeneration in his commentary. This corresponds to the remaining tension between various illustrations why, Luther's statements on faith and regeneration are as inconclusive as his comments on imputatio and unio, since he does not explicitly address their relationship.
6.2.3. Assurance of Salvation Zachmann explicitly examines the notion of assurance of salvation in Luther and Calvin, though not specifically in their commentaries on Galatians. Zachmann's insightful work relates the assurance of salvation to several other concepts of the two reformers, and it is specifically these other concepts which appear to underlie most of the differences Zachmann perceives in Luther and Calvin.1076 As far as the assurance of salvation itself goes, there seems to be a far reaching agreement despite the different ways in which the underlying ideas are presented by the two reformers. Perhaps with the exception of Luther's focus on the struggle of conscience, not present in Calvin,1077 there do not seem to be any substantial differences between the two reformers in their Galatians. Luther's and Calvin's concepts on the assurance of salvation are briefly compared below in terms of their rejection of the scholastic doctrine requiring doubt concerning salvation, the nature of the assurance and the relationship of the assurance of salvation to the struggle of conscience.
Both Luther and Calvin discuss assurance of salvation in opposition to the scholastic position, which leaves one in doubt regarding one's salvation.
Luther affirms that such a doctrine overthrows the whole gospel, while Calvin, for his part, explains that such a view is based on the judgment of human flesh, and not the testimony of the Spirit. of justification. Some of them can be seen as connecting justification and sanctification (union with Christ) while others present justification in light of Christ's imputed righteousness alone (passive vs. active righteousness, the Abraham of faith vs. the Abraham of works / procreation). See sections 4.1.1.1,
4.1.1.2, 4.1.1.3, 4.1.1.4. and 4.1.1.5. of this study. Luther's later statement in his disputation concerning justifying faith (An fides iustificat) is interesting in this context in that it addresses the relationship of imputation and cleansing. There Luther prioritises imputation, which is followed by a real cleansing of the believer. The following includes both the proposition and the first part of Luther's response, 'Contra definitionem verbi iustificari, quod sit reputari iusticia. In Act. cap. 5: Fide corda purificans. Ergo iustificari est renovari, seu purificari id est accipere novas qualitates. Includitur his ipsis verbis, quod
Deus purgat scilicet imputative. Sic induc itinitium repurgationis. Sed postea personaliter et realiter purgat.' WA 39a.122.17-21, Disputacio Lutheri. An fides iustificat, 1536. This statement, it must be borne in mind, is made in 1536, five years after the composing of the commentary.
1076Zachmann sees, for instance, a disagreement in Luther's and Calvin's understanding of justification in relationship to sanctification. Also, he considers that due to this difference, Calvin came to emphasize the importance of external actions as more binding to one's conscience than Luther, who regarded all rites as indifferent. Nevertheless, states Zachmann, 'the relationship of the testimony of the good conscience to the assurance of faith' is an issue where Luther and Calvin 'fundamentally agree'. See Zachmann 1993:
247. See also pp. 242-248 for a more detailed account of agreements and differences Zachmann enumerates in Luther and Calvin regarding conscience and the assurance of salvation.
1077Regarding the absence of the theme of the struggle of conscience in Calvin's Galatians, as well as regarding the absence of other concepts, it needs to be borne in mind that this study is limited, in the first place, only to Calvin's Galatians.
Luther explains that there is both an external and an internal witness assuring the Christian of their salvation. The external witness relates to acts of love done with a glad heart in order to help one's needy neighbour and in faithfulness in one's calling. This corresponds to Calvin's view, who presents regeneration as a confirmation of one's acceptance and new status before God
(though Calvin does not discuss good works as confirmation of one's adoption in his commentary). Luther describes the internal witness as certainty of the fact that not only one's outward acts but one's whole person is acceptable before God on account of Christ while Calvin portrays assurance of salvation as an inner boldness and an unwavering confidence, and as having come to regard God as our Father.1078
Both assert that the assurance is not a mere intellectual ascent but that it is also felt in a real way.
Luther relates the notion of the assurance to one's personal struggle of conscience. When one has difficulty believing in God's favour, it is God's Word and its promises that are one's only comfort. While Calvin does not discuss individual tribulation in reference to the assurance of salvation, he nevertheless also affirms at the close of his commentary on Galatians how important it is that the confidence of God's favour reaches to one's own spirit.1079
6.2.4. Struggle between the Spirit and the Flesh Luther's and Calvin's notion on the struggle between the Spirit and the flesh is addressed here in reference to their definitions of the Spirit and the flesh, the nature of the struggle between the Spirit and the flesh and the focus of Luther on personal tribulations relating to the struggle.
Luther and Calvin define the Spirit and the flesh in much the same way. Both maintain, in opposition to a scholastic view that the flesh includes, not only sensuality, but also, and especially, the higher faculties of the soul such as one's intelligence and free will. Luther defines the Spirit as representing either justification or works done with the Spirit while Calvin sees the Spirit as 1078Seeing God as our Father is an aspect which Zachmann sees as more developed in Calvin's understanding of the assurance of salvation than in Luther. See Zachmann 1993: 244-245.
1079Järveläinen draws attention to a difference between Luther and Calvin regarding the perseverance of the righteous. Järveläinen argues that in Luther's view, it is possible to lose one's faith. In fact, one loses it daily. Calvin, by way of contrast, sees that faith cannot be lost. See Järveläinen 2000: 103-104. While this difference does not explicitly and clearly emerge in Luther's and Calvin's Galatians, one could perhaps see it referred to in Calvin's statement where he maintains that justification by faith is not lost amidst the dangers believers have to meet. Quo significant non ad tempus eos modo sustentari, ut adveniente aliqua procella ruant, sed in perpetuum tempus stare, ut ne in media quidem morte desinant vivere. COR 16.69, on Gal. 3.11. Luther for his part mentions a number of times in his Galatians the possibility of losing one's faith. Haec ideo tam diligenter inculco, ne quis putet doctrinam fidei esse facilem. Iest quidem dictum facilis, sed apprehensu difficillima, Deinde facile obscuratur ac amittitur.
Versemur igitur summa diligentia et humilitate in studio sacrarum literarum ac serio oremus, ne veritatem Evangelii amittamus. WA 40a.206.14-17, on Gal. 2.13. See also e.g. WA 40a.129.27-130.31, on Gal. 1.11-12. represented by one's renewed nature, or as not putting one's trust in ceremonial observances.
Both Luther and Calvin see the struggle between the Spirit and the flesh in light of the fact that the believer is not yet perfect. Luther explains this in light of the simul iustus et peccator concept. Calvin maintaining a position very similar to that of Luther's without using the explicit term simul iustus et peccator.
Both Luther and Calvin maintain that Christian life is characterized by an ongoing struggle between the new life of the Spirit and the remaining sinful human flesh.
Here, in Christian life apart from justification, both Luther and Calvin see that human effort and cooperation with God plays a part, termed painstaking effort by Luther and labour, fighting and self-denial by Calvin. The struggle is nevertheless characterised by a positive note of victory in at least two ways. First, the Spirit holds the upper hand in this struggle. Second, despite the remaining sin in the believers' lives, they can find assurance of God's favour through the fact that the Spirit liberates one from the condemning dominion of the law (Calvin) and that they are accounted as fully righteous through the imputed righteousness of Christ
(Luther), both concepts of which are adhered to by both the German and the Swiss reformer.
The only difference that seems significant enough to be noted here is Luther's focus on the personal tribulation of the believer, related to Luther's earlier experience as a monk. The doctrine of the continuing struggle between the flesh and the Spirit had become an issue of great comfort to Luther. Instead of showing his failure, the fact of the struggle between one's own sin and the new life brought about by the Spirit is an inevitable element of Christian life and characterises a true Christian.
6.2.5. Luther's Contrast of the Genuine Deeds of the Spirit with Those of the Luther's contrast of the genuine deeds of the Spirit, namely, those of faithfulness in one's calling and the love of one's neighbour as against the outwardly radical works of the Anabaptists does not find its exact counterpart in Calvin's commentary.
However, this is not to say that Calvin would not agree with the basic concept had he come to discuss this theme. Naturally, as Anabaptist teaching has hardly any role at all in Calvin's Galatians, this contrast of Luther's represents only the German reformers' theology on the work of the Spirit in his Galatians.
6.3. Similarities and Differences on the Law Luther and Calvin treat similar subjects in their comments on the law, including the misuse and abrogation of the law, the uses of the law and ceremonial observances in Christian life. It appears that the differences between Luther and Calvin on the law have often been exaggerated. Rather, in line with Hesselink's assessment of Luther's and Calvin's commentaries on Galatians, it seems that Luther and Calvin agree on most central issues relating to the concept of the law, despite the obvious difference on Calvin's accentuation of the third use of the law, and of Christ as the Mediator of the law.1080
6.3.1. Abrogation and Misuse of the Law It is significant that both Luther and Calvin define the law in Galatians in the same manner, rejecting the viewpoint originating from Origen and Jerome that a distinction should be made between the ceremonial and moral laws in Galatians, of which only the ceremonial law is abrogated. Both reformers assert instead, that it is the whole law which is in question in Paul's epistle to the Galatians.
Accordingly, both Luther and Calvin see that it is not only the ceremonial law but also the moral law which was abrogated by the coming of Christ. Therefore, not only Luther, but also Calvin maintains that the Christian conscience is to be kept free from the law. Calvin asserts that the Christian is free both from the domination and condemnation of the law. Luther for his part affirms that Christ damned the damning law by his death and resurrection and thus the Christian conscience is wholly free from the law. However, there is a slight difference in that Calvin cautions in a way similar to his comments on the first use of the law (that is, first use in Calvin, usus elenchticus legis),1081 that the law is not abrogated so that it would have no meaning for the Christian. It is still beneficial for exhortations.
Further, both Luther and Calvin agree on the fact that the law is abused when it is used in order to achieve justification. Luther's discussion on the theme includes much more detail than Calvin's – some of Luther's longest treatments on a single theme in the commentary deal with the abuse of the law in an attempt to achieve justification. For instance, Luther describes two ways of misusing the law, a) either breaking the law or b) remaining under the condemnation of the law without accepting the comfort and forgiveness offered through faith in Christ, neither notion of which is in disagreement with Calvin's view. Moreover, Luther's treatment of two kinds of doers of the law, the key concept of which relates to setting up our own works (without trust in God) as one's
1080Hesselink states, for instance, '"There was no promise of Christ added to the Law," maintains Luther, whereas Calvin would say this was only true of the bare law, abstracted from the covenant of grace. Thus the differences are there, reflecting their dogmatic presuppositions, but they are fundamentally one in understanding the message of Galatians. They are also one in their conviction that the law continues to play a role in the life of the Christian, although the nuances are again different.' Hesselink 1984: 78. For the larger context of Hesselink's discussion, see Hesselink 1984: 77-79.
1081Usus elenchticus legis is the first use of the law in Calvin, and the second use of the law in Luther.
Conversely, the use of the law as a restraint for the wicked (usus politicus legis) is the second use of the law in Calvin and the first use of the law in Luther. See section 6.3.2 for further discussion. idol in contrast to obeying the law on the grounds of faith, appears to be in line with Calvin's position although the illustration itself is specific to Luther.
6.3.2. Uses of the Law The notion of the two vs. three uses of the law is one of the most discussed differences between Luther and Calvin, especially in reference to Calvin's notion of tertius usus legis. However, the comparison of the two reformers' Galatians demonstrates a great degree of agreement in their thinking regarding the uses of the law.
Luther's first use of the law deals with the necessity of laws as a restraint for the wicked in civil society (usus civilis). Humans are compared to wild animals, who must be kept in check and caged in by laws in order to prevent total chaos. This use of the law corresponds to Calvin's second use of the law, which however is not referred to in Calvin's commentary.
Luther's second use of the law, the law as showing human sin and preparing one for the gospel, is according to him the principal use of the law. Calvin also affirms the validity of this use of the law, which in his numbering is the first use of the law. Although this is not the primary office of the law for Calvin, most of Calvin's discussion on the law in his commentary deals with this theme because he sees this role of the law as the most significant in Galatians.
Luther's and Calvin's views on this convicting role of the law (usus elenchticus legis) are compared below in reference to illustrations Luther and Calvin use relating to the law (Luther's references to the law as a hammer and the law in relationship to the veil of Moses and Calvin's illustrations of the law as a mirror, a schoolmaster and a prison).1082 Luther's portrayal of the law is very forceful. The law is a hammer which crushes human pride and shows humans their sin. Similarly, Moses had to wear a veil when he descended from mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments lest the Israelites be instantly killed by the holiness and convicting power of the law. However, this terrifying role of the law is necessary so that humans would see their need of Christ. Thus this is the highest and the true theological use of the law for Luther (usus theologicus). Calvin's portrayal of the condemning office of the law is also very strong, though not quite to the same extent as in Luther. Calvin asserts that the law leads to despair and death, striking fear into the heart by the sentence of everlasting condemnation. As in Luther, however, this compels humans to admit their guilt. In this way the law is a mirror, demonstrating how far each one is from fulfilling God's requirement. At the same time, the law works as a schoolmaster, educating humans to recognize their sin and 1082Luther also discusses the law as a prison and as a schoolmaster in his comments on Gal. 3.23-24. See
WA 40a.518.27-534.33, on Gal. 3.23-24. However, it seemed better to focus on Luther's illustrations of the law as a hammer and the veil of Moses, because these illustrations are specific to Luther. Also, his statements on the law as a prison and schoolmaster do not add anything strikingly different from what is presented in the other illustrations. prodding them forward to learn the remedy for their need in Christ. The law as a prison, on the other hand, brings into focus Calvin's concept on the difference between the Old and New Testaments. In this role, the law restricted the Old
Testament believers until the coming of Christ for their benefit while at the same time pointing to Christ through symbols, a concept which is in line also with Calvin explicitly identifies a third use of the law (tertius usus legis; usus in renatiis), that of the law as a guide to believers, a concept which he briefly alludes to nearly every time he discusses the first use of the law, expressly avoiding any impression that the law has no role for the Christian. In this role the law is no longer a prison or a schoolmaster, but a kind adviser. That is why David P. Scaer's view must be rejected, according to which Calvin, the moral disciplinarian, focuses on the negative prohibitions of the law, while Luther in contrast emphasizes the positive role of the law for the believer, the law as a positive description of the 'life lived with Christ' (Scaer accepts a third use for the law in Luther).1083 Instead of focusing on the negative, Calvin in contrast sees that in its third role the law no longer condemns but instead leaves the conscience free, which is a necessary caution against those who see in Calvin a degree of legalism. The law in its kind, exhorting role, shows the right way to believers by giving a guideline for an upright and holy life, and at the same time keeps the believers' flesh under control. This, for Calvin, is the most important role of the law. Despite the fact that Luther does not explicitly identify a third use of the law, it needs to be borne in mind that his second use of the law partly overlaps Calvin's third use. Luther also maintains that believers need the law in order to keep their flesh under control while the conscience, just as in Calvin, is left free. Moreover, Luther at times discusses obedience to the law in a positive sense, such as in his treatment of good works performed on the grounds of faith.1084
It is in the context of these overlapping views that one can properly understand the existing difference between Luther and Calvin regarding the temporal versus permanent role of the convicting function of the law (usus elenchticus legis) in Christian life. For Luther, the Christians need the law continually to keep their flesh in check – thus he considers that the convicting function of the law is in constant need on this side of heaven. Calvin, however, sees that the convicting function of the law ends at regeneration. After this, the positive
1083Scaer sees 'the law with its negative prohibitions' as 'the predominating will of God' in Calvin. He states, 'In Luther's theology the third use means that the negative prohibitions of the law are transferred into positive indicatives and descriptions of the life lived with Christ. … For Calvin the will of God as prohibitive law is seen as motivation for Christian living. … The law as prohibition in the life of the Christian as Christian also accounts for his stress on moral discipline in the congregation to the point of making it one of the necessary signs whereby the church is recognized as church.' Scaer 1985: 191-192.
1084It is also significant that Luther never condemned Melanchthon's identification of a positive third use of the law for believers. role of the law (usus in renatiis) takes over, which includes the keeping of the flesh of the Christian under control.
Further, the fact that Luther does not see obedience to the law on the grounds of faith to be a separate use of the law, indicates some difference to Calvin. Presumably Luther wanted to protect Christian freedom and avoid the danger of coming to regard the believer's new obedience as a condition for justification.
Again, the conclusions drawn here appear to fall roughly in line with Engels' position on the relationship of Luther and Calvin regarding the concept of law. While acknowledging the difference in identifying a third use of the law only in Calvin, Engels does not support the view that Calvin is a representative of a legal religion with an overall emphasis on the perpetual role of the law, as against Luther who stresses Christian liberty. Instead, Engels notes that Luther, in his
Galatians, recognizes the permanent role of the law for believers while Calvin, too, stresses the importance of Christian liberty, thus suggesting a larger degree of continuity between the two reformers' views than has often been thought.1085
6.3.3. Christ vs. Moses as the Mediator of the Law Luther and Calvin define the identity of the giver of the law differently in their
Galatians. Calvin regards Christ as the Mediator of the law, a concept undoubtedly connected to his positive third use of the law for the purpose of instructing the believer. Christ is therefore the Mediator of both justification and the law. Luther, however, sees Moses as the giver of the law in contrast to Christ, who is the Giver of only the gospel. This difference between Luther and Calvin is important, but nevertheless less significant than it would seem at first sight as both Luther and Calvin strictly maintain the law / gospel contrast in the issue of justification.1086
1085Engels states, 'Lässt man diese Voraussetzungen, unter denen Calvin sein Gesetzesverständnins entwickelt, gelten, soerscheint es freilich nich mehr möjlich, seinen Gesetzesbegriff lediglich asl
Ausdruck sogenannter "Gesetzlichkeit" oder "Gesetzesreligion" abzutun. .. Es mag jedoch zunächst bedacht warden, dass auch Luther – ausdrücklich z.B. im grossen Galaterkommentar – die bleibende
Bedeutung des Gesetzes auch für den Christen als dem simul iustus et peccator nich in Frage stellt. … Zum anderen betont Calvin wie Luther den Gedanken der Freiheit eines Christenmeschen: Christen sind als die Kinder Gottes die Freien, ihr Gehorsam hat nichts mehr mit einem erzwungenen, sklavenhaften
Gehorsam gemein.' Engels 1967: 133.
1086It may be asked in what way the existing difference in Luther's and Calvin's concepts on the third use of the law and Christ vs. Moses as the Mediator of the law influences other aspects of their theology. For instance, is there a connection between Calvin's stronger concept of the law as a positive guide in the Christian life to the different positions of the two reformers regarding the relationship between the church and state? This issue, however, does not appear sufficiently elucidated in their commentaries on Galatians (especially in Calvin) and has been, at least to some extent, treated in other research. See e.g.
6.3.4. Ceremonial Observances in Christian Life Luther's and Calvin's concepts on ceremonial observances in Christian life parallel each other closely. Both Luther and Calvin see that the Mosaic ceremonies had a legitimate role during the time of the Old Testament, but that they were rendered obsolete at the coming of Christ. Also, both regard the maintaining of Christian freedom as an issue of primary importance in reference to external ceremonies. This liberty is maintained in opposition to the view which sees ceremonial observances as necessary for justification. Ceremonial observances can be used, however, for the purposes of edification and when they contribute positively to matters in civil society (Calvin) and for bringing the people to hear the Word of God (Luther).
Adding an accent not present in Calvin, Luther also affirms that even the laws of the pope can be observed (despite the fact that they lack the command of God) if they are not regarded as necessary. Calvin, for his part, draws attention to love of one's neighbour as the appropriate tool for determining which observances to maintain.
6.4. Similarities and Differences on Good Works Luther's and Calvin's concepts on good works are compared a) in reference to the relationship of good works to justification, b) in relation to Luther's contrast between genuine and spurious good works, c) with regards to the relationship of love and good works and d) in terms of good works in practical Christian life.
6.4.1. Relationship between Justification and Good Works Both Luther and Calvin are careful to point out two opposite considerations regarding the relationship of justification and good works. On the one hand, they emphasize that justification and Christian liberty deny any necessary role for human works.1087 On the other hand, both stress that genuine faith always leads to good works. Thus Luther maintains that a faith which does not lead to good works is useless and Calvin affirms that faith never remains alone but leads to goods deeds.
Calvin gives some consideration to the concept of merit in his commentary. He affirms that strictly speaking, it is impossible for human actions to be meritorious due to their imperfection. However, on the ground of God's covenant, when good works are seen exclusively as an outworking of God's grace, it is possible to maintain that God rewards the good deeds of Christians. While
1087It is noteworthy that Luther subordinates the notion of good works to that of justification in stating that with the closure of the consideration of justification the main part of Paul's epistle to the Galatians was over. Although Calvin makes no such reference, he, too, sees justification as the most important concept of the commentary, and never outlines the content of the epistle's sixth chapter, dealing with good works, in the first part of his commentary (Argumentum epistolae), which suggests that he also saw the preceding sections of the epistle as more important. Compare WA 40a.470.24-27, on Gal. 3.17, WA
40a.473.20-23, on Gal. 3.18, WA40a.600.25-26, on Gal. 4.8-9 and WA40b.59.20-30, on Gal. 5.12 with COR 16.9, Argumentum.
Luther's consideration of the concept of merit in his Galatians is primarily negative, there seems to be no element in Calvin's treatment of the concept which would be alien to Luther's theology.
6.4.2. Contrast between Genuine and Spurious Good Works Luther frequently considers good works in terms of a contrast between genuine and spurious good works. Good works of human choosing include outwardly impressive accomplishments such as pilgrimages or observances relating to clothes and seasons. While admirable to human reason, these are of no value in God's sight.
Genuine good works are always based on faith, but in their simple and inconspicuous nature they are regarded by many to have no special value, but are in fact highly appreciated by God. Calvin generally does not discuss good works in his commentary in terms of this kind of contrast. Nevertheless, the idea important to Calvin's discussion of merit and good works, namely, that good works can be acceptable (and meritorious) only on the grounds of God's covenant and grace, closely parallels Luther's thought that genuine good works are always based on faith.
6.4.3. Love of One's Neighbour Both Luther and Calvin see love as the underlying motivation behind good works.
Both also point to one's neighbour as the one toward whom Christian love and good works ought to be directed. Luther identifies one's neighbour as everyone in need, and Calvin sees that all humans, even one's enemies are neighbours to the Christian.
While Luther draws attention to the notion of natural law in that humans have a natural knowledge of just what kinds of good deeds they ought to perform to help their neighbour, for Calvin the reality or absence of love toward one's neighbour is the issue which proves whether one's faith is real.
While Luther's and Calvin's discussion on love toward one's neighbour is characteristic of each, no significant conceptual differences emerge.
6.4.4. Good Works in Practice There is much that is similar in Luther's and Calvin's consideration of good works in practice. While Luther emphasises the importance of loving and helping one's needy neighbour in all possible ways, Calvin enumerates that love ought to be shown by kind acts, preferring others to oneself, and by doing no harm to others, but instead helping one's neighbour as much as one can. Besides helping one's needy neighbour, Luther sees faithfulness in one's daily calling as especially important, and it appears more so than in Calvin, although Calvin, too, comments on the importance of faithfulness in one's personal calling.
When considering the issue of correcting the fallen, both Luther and Calvin agree on the fact that one ought to do it gently, though Luther primarily discusses this in reference to ministry, and Calvin in reference to Christians in general. Also, regarding the remuneration of ministers, both consider that the value people place on the gospel is proven by their willingness to give financial support to their pastors. However, while ministers ought to be provided for, their remuneration ought to be reasonable, not luxurious.
6.5. Similarities and Differences on Ministry The concept of ministry is a central one both to Luther and Calvin in their commentaries on Galatians. Luther's and Calvin's concepts on ministry are compared relating to the calling to and honour of the ministry, pure gospel ministry, the task of ministry, the issues of popularity and needed tenderness in ministry and other practical exhortations relating to ministry.
6.5.1. Calling to and Honour of the Position of Ministry Both Luther and Calvin maintain that God's call can come directly, as in the case of apostles, or through a human instrument (per hominem), especially after the time of the apostles. However, the issue on who this mediated call comes from is perhaps the only significant outright disagreement in Luther's and Calvin's commentaries.
Luther asserts that the call ought to come from the prince of the land,1088 while Calvin considers the votes of the people as the most appropriate method of calling.1089
They both affirm the high honour of the position of ministry, because of the focal importance of the gospel the minister defends (Luther) and the central significance of the task of the doctrine of eternal salvation (Calvin). Calvin further adds how astounding it is that God has chosen to use human means in an issue of such incomparable importance, an accent not present in Luther's discussion.
6.5.2. Pure Ministry of the Gospel Both Luther and Calvin see it as central that the gospel ministry is genuine and that the doctrine is kept pure. This is because everything else depends on the Word of the gospel (Luther) and because of how dangerous it is to have confusion on the issue of justification (Calvin).
Calvin affirms that the task of the minister is to exhibit Christ purely. That is why no additions to the gospel are permitted. Instead, one ought to strictly abide with what is sufficiently and clearly presented in God's Word. Luther also emphasizes the centrality of the unadulterated Word, and the pure doctrine of 1088For further information on this concept and for the role of the bishop vs. the role of the prince of the land in giving the call to ministers in Luther's view, see section 4.6.1 and Beyer 1983: vol. I, 107-108, vol. II, 762.
1089See section 3.2.1.5. for further detail on Calvin's position on the call to ministry. justification. His presentation stresses the fact that while Christians in their life in general should be loving and acquiescent, in defence of pure doctrine one needs to be hard and unyielding.
6.5.3. Task of Ministry Both Luther and Calvin see the task of ministry as essentially connected to the work of the Holy Spirit. While both recognize the importance of the preached word, the spoken Word appears to have a more central role in Luther's understanding. While
Luther focuses on how the Spirit affects the hearing of faith by means of the preached Word, Calvin for his part talks of God's activity through the Spirit for the rebirth of humans, a task in which God has chosen to cooperate with human agents.
Both Luther and Calvin see opposing false teachers as an important aspect of ministry. While Luther's comment relates to the fact that false teaching leads people to fall away from the pure doctrine of justification, Calvin addresses the issue of God's glory vs. human benefit, regarding which he concludes that it is
God's glory and the welfare of the whole church which motivates one to turn sternly against the false teacher.
Calvin's personal tendency to give brief practical advice for edification becomes evident in relation to his other concerns relating to ministry. He exhorts the ministers to come to the level of their hearers in their preaching, which is a concern of Luther's, too, who recommends the use of stories and illustrations so that the message can be understood. However, Calvin adds that their preaching ought to illustrate Christ before the eyes of the people, so that there is no need for pictures in churches, which one would not expect to read in Luther.1090 Further,
Calvin admonishes ministers to display zeal in their work and urges them to be orderly in their work in the manner of Paul.
6.5.4. Popularity and Tenderness in Ministry Luther and Calvin address several practical considerations regarding the minister's work. With reference to the two most significant issues, popularity and tenderness in ministry – they are generally of the same opinion. Both Luther and Calvin see popularity as a serious danger in ministry and put the accent on how important it is for the minister not to seek honour from humans, but from God instead, and perform their God-given task conscientiously and well.
Luther, contrasting true ministry with the one motivated by vainglory (κενοδοξία), maintains that ministry which seeks honour from humans
1090This is connected to Calvin's negative relation toward images in churches. See CO 1.384-393 for the larger context of Calvin's discussion on images. For further discussion, see also section 5.5.3. As is well known, Luther did not regard the commandment forbidding images as a separate commandment, as Calvin did. Compare e.g. CO 1.3.15-1.3.39, 1.3.78-79 with e.g. WA 30a.283.19-284.3, 289.21-291.31
(Kleine Katechismus). On the other hand, Calvin would probably disagree with Luther regarding the appropriateness of the use of allegories in preaching – according to Luther those ministers who are well established in Christian doctrine may use allegories with caution as illustrations in their teaching. leads to the formation of sects while true ministry properly administers sacraments and proclaims the gospel. In true ministry, the worker has a testimony of one's own conscience affirming that the work has been well done in contrast to seeking human applause, which the vainglorious ministers seek. Calvin, for his part, warns of ministry which loves its own ease and the smell of the kitchen. True ministers, by way of contrast, are ready to despise human favour and endeavour to remain faithful to Christ in working for the edification of the church.
Relating to those who minister to the fallen, both Luther and Calvin highlight the importance of loving concern for those being corrected. It is important to have the person's restoration to faith in mind (Calvin) and while false teachers have to be treated with severity, the common people and those who grieve for their sins need to be treated with love and tenderness (Luther).
6.6. Similarities and Differences on the Scandal of the Cross and Suffering as a The essential agreement of Luther and Calvin on substantial themes in Paul's epistle to the Galatians is further demonstrated by the fact that there appears only one major theme which does not appear central in any significant way in the other reformer's commentary.1091 The notion of the scandal of the cross (scandalum crucis) and suffering as a Christian is an idea of significance only in Luther's commentary. It must be borne in mind that this study only shows that this theme is not significant in Calvin's Galatians. Elsewhere, Calvin treats Christian suffering in more detail.1092
Nevertheless, Calvin addresses the subject of persecution in his commentary on Galatians, exhorting to fortitude and perseverance, which indicates that persecutions were very much a current issue for evangelical believers at that time both in Germany and in Switzerland. Calvin also affirms that scandalum crucis refers to the offence humans take for the fact that Christ, being holy, takes human sin upon himself and dies for us. In two instances Calvin also implicitly connects the concepts of Christian suffering and scandalum crucis, where he draws attention to the fact that the gospel invites persecution – thus the marks (stigmata), which Christians bear are partaking in shame and suffering for the sake of the cross.
Nonetheless, while Calvin's insights closely correspond to concepts lying at the core of Luther's understanding of scandalum crucis, he does not have a 1091A further theme could possibly be added, that of the personal struggle of faith, Anfechtung, in Luther.
In this study, however, this concept has been discussed in connection with the concepts of justification and the work of the Holy Spirit.
1092See e.g. InstFa: 792-819. The whole concluding chapter, 'De la vie chrètienne' is relevant to Calvin's concept of Christian suffering. See InstFa: 784-822. The prominence of the themes of trials and tribulation in the chapter on Christian life point to the importance of the concept for Calvin. well developed notion regarding the scandal of the cross and Christian suffering in the way Luther has. In Luther's commentary, this is a major concept of its own, treated in much detail and depth.
Luther understands scandalum crucis in two ways, first as having to suffer persecution and second, as the offence humans take for the fact that true gospel ministry is despised by ecclesiastical and secular powers.1093 Similarly,
Luther regards Paul's 'weakness' (Gal. 4.13-14) and the stigmata (Gal. 6.17) as a reference, not to any outward physical mark, but to suffering as a Christian, either outwardly in the form of persecution or inwardly, in the form of inner affliction and terror of heart.1094 Luther sees scandalum crucis and suffering as a Christian as inevitable because the pure gospel always irritates and enrages both Satan and those trusting in their works of self-righteousness. The sufferings Christians face can also be seen as training, because they help to keep Christians from becoming proud and lead them humbly to trust in God. However, despite one's sufferings, Christians may feel comforted and assured, because Christ stands Victor over all their struggles and is well able to take care of their affliction. Also, in persecutions
Christians have reason for joy, because persecutions are an evidence of the genuineness of the gospel they preach.
It is seen that the examination of other concepts (i.e. those notions which were not seen as major concepts in the commentaries as a whole, but which were nevertheless to some extent important) in Luther's and Calvin's Galatians are not presented in sufficient detail or comprehensiveness to draw any far reaching conclusions. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to make at least three observations.
First, as these concepts (church, Lord's Supper, theology of hope, doctrine of the devil, predestination, interpretation of Scripture, human depravity) are treated only briefly in Luther's and Calvin's commentaries on Galatians, and 1093Calvin also notes that Christians have to face persecution because they uphold the scandal of the cross. However, he does not identify persecution with the scandal of the cross in the same way Luther does. For Calvin, the cross offends humans by the fact that Christ, being holy, dies for humans, who are unholy.
1094What is called Luther's concept of the scandal of the cross (scandalum crucis) and suffering as a Christian is closely connected to the concept of the theology of the cross (theologia crucis), which has been discussed in several scholarly works on Luther. See e.g. McGrath 1985 and Kadai 1999. The fact that one finds few scholarly works on Calvin's theology of the cross, however (at least not in the same sense it is treated in Luther), reflects the difference which emerged also in the results of this study. For an exception, however, see e.g. Feld's analysis of Calvin's commentary on Philippians, in which he sees
Calvin's theology of the cross and suffering (Passions – und Kreuzestheologie Calvins) as significant.
Feld 1992: xxxvii-xxxix. because the treatment here is limited in scope, it appears more advisable not to attempt to outline specific areas of agreement and difference on these issues.
Second, it is nevertheless reasonable to ask which of these themes are of more importance in Luther's and Calvin's discussion. In Luther's Galatians, it is evident that the doctrine of the devil and theology of hope are much more developed than in Calvin's commentary.1095 On the other hand, Calvin's concepts on predestination and human depravity have clearly more accent in his Galatians than in Luther's.1096
Third, one could postulate that it is these subsidiary themes which indicate the specific emphases of Luther and Calvin even more than the main subjects of their Galatians on the grounds that the main subjects are, to a large extent, determined by the subjects treated in Paul's epistle to the Galatians. The subsidiary themes would then be seen to express the respective characteristic accents of Luther and Calvin. However, while there may be some truth to the argument, the scope to which these minor themes are treated both in Luther's and Calvin's Galatians and the extent to which they are investigated in this study, do not warrant the conclusion of seeing these concepts as being of major importance.
1095However, Calvin treats the concept of hope in some more detail in his Institutio 1543/45. Calvin's treatment is much briefer than Luther's but bears some similarity to how Luther expounds the concept in his Galatians. Compare CO 1.5.37 with WA 40b.23.27-33.34.
1096It is not possible, on the basis of this study, to affirm the theme of interpretation of Scripture as more important in Calvin than in Luther, despite the fact that it was included in the section on other themes only in Calvin, not in Luther. (Compare sections 4.7. and 5.6.) The reason for the omission of this theme from the section on other themes in Luther's commentary is that in Luther's Galatians there are other minor themes, which appear more significant than that of interpretation of Scripture. See Appendix 4 for more detail on these themes. See also section 2.4.1 for a brief discussion of this theme in Luther's
Galatians in relation to the views of patristic commentators, and footnote 1033 under section 5.6.6 where some further remarks are made on Luther's view on the interpretation on Scripture in his Galatians.