Calvin's Interpretation of 'The Lord's Prayer'. A Rhetorical Approach E-Book
Professor J.H. Mazaheri
Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: études litteraires françaises
- Sprache: Englisch
This book presents a detailed textual analysis of Calvin's Interpretation of the Lord's Prayer, from the last version of the Institution de la religion chrétienne (1560), Chapter XX. The author also compares the French Reformer with some of the most important theologians from Augustine to Luther.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 316
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
J.H. Mazaheri
Calvin’s Interpretation of ‘The Lord’s Prayer'. A Rhetorical Approach
Narr Francke Attempto Verlag Tübingen
© 2018 • Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 • D-72070 Tübingen www.francke.de • [email protected]
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
E-Book-Produktion: pagina GmbH, Tübingen
ePub-ISBN 978-3-8233-0100-4
Inhalt
Acknowledgments
Three chapters of this book appeared earlier in the following journals: Chapter I (“Our Father in Heaven”) in Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique106, 3–4, 2011, 440–451; Chapter II (“Hallowed be Thy Name”) in Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie60, 2, 2013, 396–403; and Chapter III (“Thy Kingdom Come”) in Zwingliana40, 2013, 101–111. I thank the respective editors for permission to reprint them. I am also grateful to the College of Liberal Arts at Auburn University, for the subvention award I received, to Professor Rainer Zaiser, of Kiel University, for publishing this book in ‘Études littéraires françaises’, as well as to Mrs. Kathrin Heyng, of Gunter Narr Verlag, for all her help.
Introduction
‘The Sermon on the Mount’ is the longest speech delivered by Jesus in the Gospels, taking up three entire chapters (5–7) in the Gospel of Matthew. The “essence” of Christianity is most eloquently expounded in these chapters. Now the subject of prayer is situated in the middle of it (6: 5–14), and ‘The Lord’s Prayer,’ a model of prayer offered by Christ, exactly at the center of the sermon. This prayer, being the most significant one for Christians of all groups and denominations, has evidently brought about countless publications and interpretations, from the greatest theologians to the most common preachers in the world throughout the history of Christianity. John Calvin’s exegesis of it, in his Institutes of Christian Religion and in his Commentaries of the Bible, is no doubt among the most profound and influential ones. Fascinated by its depth and powerful presentation, I would like to share here with others my own reading of Calvin, based on his French works. Although the language of the 16th century can still be considered Middle French, Calvin’s style announces the classical period by its precision, clarity, and methodical presentation. No wonder then, as Francis Higman rightly points out, that “Ever since the first appearance of Calvin’s writings in French, admiration has been expressed for his handling of that language (…). His friends admired his language. His ennemies did too, calling it seductive poison and so on …,” and that “J. Plattard described the 1541Institutes as the ‘first monument of French eloquence’.”1
I.The Language of Prayer
The 20th Chapter of Book III of the Institutes of Christian Religion is devoted to prayer. Since the present essay only concerns the “Lord’s Prayer,” I put aside the author’s thorough introduction to prayer in general, and focus only on a few points regarding my limited subject. Calvin raises the double issue of hymns and language. With regard to the latter, criticizing the common habit of praying in Latin at church, he argues that when one prays in public, one ought to do it in the language everyone understands:
Dont aussi il appert que les oraisons publiques ne se doyvent faire n’en langage Grec entre les Latins, n’en Latin entre François ou Anglois (comme la coustume a esté par tout cy devant), mais en langage commun du pays, qui se puisse entendre de toute l’assemblée, puisqu’elles doyvent estre faites à l’édification de toute l’Eglise, à laquelle ne revient aucun fruit d’un bruit non entendu.1
The reason we pray in public being the “edification” of ourselves and others, it is evident (“il appert”) that we all need to understand what we are saying to God. Otherwise our prayer is useless, as we receive “no benefit” (“aucun fruit”) from it. These words are apparently addressed mainly to a preacher, who might not even care much about his congregation. Calvin’s idea concerning the language in prayer is actually inspired by saint Paul, to whom he explicitly refers. Indeed, the Apostle writes:
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue, should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive. What should I do then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also. Otherwise, if you say a blessing with the spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say the ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since the outsider does not know what you are saying? For you may give thanks well enough, but the other person is not built up. (1Corinthians14: 13–17)2
Those who pray without understanding the words may be sincere and pray “with the spirit,” but this is not sufficient: they must understand what they say. In other words, the prayer has to be said with the “mind” too. Calvin shares this idea. Moreover, he himself happens to have the gift of “interpretation”. Although he refers to Paul concerning the language, he goes beyond the First Corinthians by alluding to insincere preachers, the ones who do not really care about others, or do not pray even with the “spirit”, let alone with the “mind”. The theologian addresses the latter by saying, “Encore ceux qui n’avoyent aucun esgard ny à charité ny à humanité se devoyent pour le moins esmouvoir un petit de l’authorité de sainct Paul, duquel les parolles sont assez évidentes…,” and by quoting the First Corinthians14:16 (InstitutionIII, xx, 33, 375–76).3 Strange expectation though, for if someone, who prays in public, does it without “charité” or “humanité”, how could he care about Paul himself? I must also remind the fact that the former term (“charity”) has a religious connotation, being done for God’s sake, whereas the latter (“humanity”) is profane —it is done for human’s sake.
II.Public Prayer vs Private Prayer
First, praying without sincerity, whether in public or in private, is not only worthless, but also offensive to God. Calvin states that, “Toutesfois il nous faut tousiours penser qu’il ne se peut faire que la langue sans le cœur, soit en oraison particulière ou publique, ne soit fort déplaisante à Dieu. Davantage, que l’ardeur et véhémence du vouloir doit estre si grande, qu’elle outrepasse tout ce que peut exprimer la langue” (InstitutionIII, xx, 33, 376).1 The word “cœur” (heart) expresses the idea that we must truly feel what we are saying in our prayer, for without a pure heart and sincere love to God, it will not be heard by Him. A prayer is not genuine if it is devoid of ardor (“ardeur”), which implies devotion and fervor, as well as a passionate will (“véhémence du vouloir”). An important difference, however, is to be noted between the two kinds of prayer: whereas we must utter words out loud when we pray with others, we can be silent when we are alone with God. Praying in silence is then possible insofar as our desire to communicate with God and our “vouloir” (willingness and eagerness to pray) are more important than the words themselves. Besides, the prayer ought to “outrepasse tout ce que peut exprimer la langue” (“to surpass all that the tongue can express by speaking”). And lastly,
Finalement, qu’en l’oraison particulière la langue mesme n’est point nécessaire, sinon d’autant que l’entendement n’est point suffisant à s’esmouvoir soy-mesme, ou bien que par esmotion véhémente il pousse la langue, et la contraind de se mettre en œuvre. Car combien qu’aucunesfois les meilleures oraisons se facent sans parler, néantmoins souvent il advient que l’affection du cœur est si ardente, qu’elle pousse et la langue et les autres membres sans aucune affectation ambitieuse. De là venoit qu’Anne, mère de Samuel, murmurait entre ses lèvres (I Sam. 1,13), voulant prier. Et les fidèles expérimentent iournellement en eux le semblable, quand en leurs prières ils iettent des voix et souspirs sans y avoir pensé. (InstitutionIII, xx, 33)2
As we can observe, Calvin’s theology closely follows the Holy Scripture. Indeed, what he says about silent prayer with such mystical fervor is inspired, at least partly, by the First Samuel. The first point is that words are not, in private prayer, indispensable—and actually the best private prayers might even be silent (“combien qu’aucunesfois les meilleures oraisons se facent sans parler”). The second point, which is the more significant as it reveals a less known aspect of Calvin’s thought, is the emotional element in prayer. The words emphasized are thus, “s’esmouvoir” (to be moved), “esmotion” (emotion), and “cœur” (heart). Furthermore, the adjectives “véhémente”, “ardente”, as well as the phrase “voix et souspirs” (voice and sighs), which ends this passage, all show how one can get emotional when one’s prayer is deeply felt. True religious people experience this kind of prayer, but only those familiar with Calvin’s works know how sensitive and fervent he himself must have been.3 Anyhow, the fact of the matter is that one can pray without uttering any word. Furthermore, sometimes, when one gets too emotional, the words come by themselves—one then prays extempore (“sans y avoir pensé”). Moreover, not only the tongue, but also other parts of the body, in an ecstatic state, might move in praying (“… qu’elle pousse et la langue et les autres membres”). All this has to be of course sincere, unostentatious, and not caused by any ambitious motive (“sans aucune affectation ambitieuse”).
III.Bodily Gestures
With regard to one’s posture and gestures in praying, such as kneeling, Calvin declares that these are “exercises” helping us to intensify our deference to God. In other words, they are helpful if sincerely felt, and not automatically or ritually performed: “Quant aux maintiens et façons extérieures du corps qu’on a coustume d’observer (comme de s’agenouiller et de se deffuler), ce sont exercices par lesquels nous nous efforçons de nous appareiller à plus grande révérence de Dieu” (InstitutionIII, xx, 33, 376).1 This is something everyone who prays, somehow at some point, thinks about. Calvin is quite concise on this subject, and has a liberal approach to it, thus remaining faithful to Jesus’ words. The only thing that really matters to him, is that prayer must be genuine and said with the utmost respect to God (“à plus grande révérence de Dieu”), and that is how one’s posture and gestures may become meaningful as well. If we feel that the act of kneeling down (“s’agenouiller”) better expresses our respect to the Father, then we do it withoutout thinking. The same thing could also be said about taking one’s hat off or just any garment—the verb “deffuler” usually refers, in Middle French, to removing one’s hat; but it could also apply to another garment, such an an overcoat. If we feel that we must remove it out of reverence for God, we do it. Here, one just follows the community’s customs (“coustume”). Nonetheless, the main point, implicitly expressed, is that a rite by itself is absurd, and only makes sense if it is observed when sincerely needed, in order to glorify God. To better explicit Calvin’s thought, we may think of Moses at the Burning Bush, a holy place where he felt that he had to remove his sandals. There Moses heard the Holy Spirit saying to him: “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” (Exodus3: 5). So if God himself asks you to observe a certain rite—you hear his voice telling you what to do—, you do it. On the other hand, these rites are not important by themselves; that is why Jesus does not attach any importance to them. We just know how he prays himself: alone, with God, and kneeling down—as it is described in Luke22: 41. Besides, at this particular moment, “In his anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground” (Luke 22: 44). This reveals the intensity of his feeling when communicating with the Father. Although Calvin does not refer to this passage here, he must have this type of examples in mind to understand what he means by “bodily gestures” in praying. Jesus’ ardor and passion are a perfect model of authentic prayer.
IV.The Way to Pray and the Duration of Prayer
Concerning the way to pray, or how to address God, Jesus says to his followers: “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Mat 6:7–8).1 Calvin comments the first part (Mat 6:7) as follows:
Il reprend un autre vice en l’oraison, assavoir l’abondance de paroles. Il use de deux divers mots, mais toutefois en un mesme sens. Car, en premier lieu, il met le mot de Battologie, et puis le mot de Polylogie, desquels le premier signifie une repetition et une redite superflue et affectee. L’autre signifie un babil sans substance. Or Christ reprend la folie de ceux lesquels desgoisent beaucoup de paroles, afin de mieux persuader à Dieu ce qu’ils demandent. Et à ceste doctrine n’est point contraire l’assiduité de prier, qui est louée souvent en l’Escriture. Car quand la priere est prononcee d’une vraye affection, la langue ne s’avance point plus que le cœur. En apres, on ne pretend point de plaire à Dieu par une vaine suite de propos, mais plustost le cœur fidele deslasche ses affections, ne plus ne moins que fleches, pour parvenir iusques au ciel. Cependant ceci est pour condamner la superstition de ceux qui pensent par grans barbotemens rendre Dieu propice à leurs prieres. Duquel erreur nous voyons la Papauté tellement abbruvee, que le babil est là tenu pour la plus grande vertu de la priere. Car tant plus un chacun barbote longuement, d’autant plus estime-on qu’il ait bien prié. Davantage, leurs temples resonnent sans cesse de longue chantrerie, comme si la douceur du son retentissoit dedans les aureilles de Dieu pour le flechir à eux. (Commentaires123)2
A too long prayer with “abondance de paroles” could even be unethical, if the words are superfluous. The Evangelist uses the Greek term “battology” (βαττολογία), which means, Calvin reminds the reader, vain repetition of words and an affected speech (“une repetition et une redite superflue et affectee”). The Gospel also uses the term “polylogy” (πολυλογία), meaning verbosity. The theologian describes it as “un babil sans subtance”. The word “babil” (futile speech) is stressed by the redundant “sans substance” (without any content). Christ, Calvin points out, rebukes people who are mad enough (“reprend la folie”) to think that by repeating and by being loquacious (as they “desgoisent beaucoup de paroles”), they can persuade God to do what they are requesting from Him (“ce qu’ils demandent”). Perseverance in praying (“l’assiduité de prier”) is not of course a problem. On the contrary, it is often praised in the Scriptures (“louée souvent en l’Escriture”), for when the words come from the heart (“prononcee d’une vraye affection”), the speech does not expand beyond the heart (“la langue ne s’avance point plus que le cœur”). We note again the emphasis put on the word “cœur” (heart). It is thus repeated in the following sentence. The faithful heart, in a true prayer, “unburdens” itself (“le cœur fidele deslasche ses affections”). The idea of superstition is also important in this passage: Calvin contends that those who make too long and repetitive prayers are just being “superstitious”. He condemns “la supersition de ceux qui pensent par grans barbotemens rendre Dieu propice à leurs prieres.” I will not insist on Calvin’s criticism of the Pope and his court (“la Papauté”), but rather on his disgust of long, futile, and artificial prayers, as well as his good intention to fight against “superstition” and promote real religion (“ceci est pour condamner la superstition de ceux qui…”). He thus accumulates a number of terms and expressions related to false prayers: “grans barbotemens”, “babil”, “barbote”, “longue chantrerie”…. He ends by saying that those who commit these acts cannot fool God—He will not listen to them, however beautiful their prayers may sound (“la douceur du son…”).
Moreover, continues Jesus, the Father already knows what we want to say when we pray, so we should not be like those superstitious people: “Do not be like them [the Gentiles], for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Mat6: 8). Here is Calvin’s comment of this verse:
Ce seul remede suffit à purger et abolir la superstition qui est ici condamnee. Car d’ou vient cette folie que les hommes pensent beaucoup gagner quand ils importunent Dieu par leur babil, sinon pource qu’ils imaginent qu’il est semblable à un homme mortel, qui a besoin d’estre adverti et solicité? Mais quiconques est bien persuadé que Dieu non seulement a soin de nous, mais aussi cognoist nos necessitez, et previent nos souhaits et solicitudes avant que nous le requerions, cestuy-la sans beaucoup babiller se contentera de prolonger ses prieres tant qu’il sera besoin pour exercer sa foy; mais d’user de grande Rhetorique envers Dieu pour le flechir par paroles, il estimera cela mal-seant et ridicule. Sur ceci on pourroit dire que si Dieu, avant que nous le requerions, cognoist ce qui nous fait besoin, que c’est une chose superflue de prier. Car s’il est de soy-mesme enclin à nous aider, quel besoin est-il que nos prieres entrevienent pour empescher le cours volontaire de sa providence? La solution est facile, quand nous considerons quelle est la fin et le but de la priere. Car les fideles ne prient pas pour advertir Dieu de quelque chose qui luy soit incognue, pour l’inciter à faire son office, ou le soliciter, comme s’il tardoit trop, mais plustost afin de se resveiller eux-mesmes à le cercher, d’exercer leur foy en meditant ses promesses, de se soulager en deschargeant leurs solicitudes sur luy, et finalement pour rendre tesmoignage tant à eux-mesmes comme aux autres, qu’ils esperent et attendent tous biens de luy seul. Et aussi, luy de son costé, ce que liberalement et n’estant point encores requis, il a deliberé de nous donner. Toutesfois il promet qu’il l’ottroyera à nos prieres. Parquoy il nous faut entendre l’un et l’autre, assavoir qu’il previent volontairement nos requestes, et que toutesfois par prieres nous obtenons de luy ce que nous demandons. Touchant ce qu’il diffère quelque fois longuement à nous aider, et mesme quelque fois ne complaist pas à nos desirs, nous en traiterons en un autre lieu plus propre. (Commentaires123)3
This text contains several interesting ideas:
The idea of “Superstition”. This term was relatively new in French, since the first use of it goes back to the late 14th century. It is thus mentioned, for the first time in all likelihood, in Raoul de Presles’ translation of Augustine’s De Civitate Dei (La Cité de Dieu) in 1375.4 In classical Latin, superstitio refers to the “attitude of irrational religious awe or credulity, particular superstitious belief or practice, foreign or non-orthodox religious practice or doctrine,” to which the Oxford English Dictionary adds that it is “in post-classical Latin also luxury, profusion (8th cent.), superfluity (9th cent.)…” (OED). Maybe, by the excess of words and repetitive prayers, some people think that they will be better heard by God. At any rate, it is thanks to the first translation in French of Augustine’s City of God, in 1375, that the term “superstition” was introduced first in French, then from the latter (Middle French) into English. But here is the passage where the word appears in Augustine’s work:
Cicero the augur laughs at auguries, and reproves men for regulating the purposes of life by the cries of crows and jackdaws. But it will be said that an academic philosopher, who argues that all things are uncertain, is unworthy to have any authority in these matters. In the second book of his De Natura Deorum, he introduces Lucilius Balbus, who after showing that superstitions have their origin in physical and philosophical truths, expresses his indignation at the setting up of images and fabulous notions, speaking thus: ‘Do you not therefore see that from true and useful physical discoveries the reason may be drawn away to fabulous and imaginary gods? This gives birth to false opinions and turbulent errors, and superstitions well-nigh old wifeish.5
Here, Calvin highlights the fact that verbosity (“babil”) is folly (“folie”), and is condemned (“condamnee”) by the Lord as superstition. One should not importune Him. What is superstitious, explains the exegete, is that people who pray long, futile, and repetitious prayers, imagine God to be like a human being (“pource qu’ils imaginent qu’il [God] est semblable à un homme mortel)—critique of anthropomorphism, though this term is anachronic.
2º)But a long prayer is not necessarily a bad sign, Calvin thinks. Indeed, someone who earnestly has more to say to God, “se contentera de prolonger ses prieres tant qu’il sera besoin pour exercer sa foy.” It is then a matter of personal spiritual need—a prayer can be longer if one feels that in this way one’s faith gets more “exercised” or strengthened, and not because God may be more persuaded, which is just an unsuitable and ridiculous idea (“mal-seant et ridicule”).
3º)Now, if someone objects that praying may not even be necessary, since God already knows what we want, he or she ought to consider the object and purpose of prayer (“quand nous considerons quelle est la fin et le but de la priere”). We are here reminded that if we pray, it is not because we want to tell God something He is not aware of, in order to incite Him “to do his duty” (“l’inciter à faire son office”) or “to listen to our request” (“le soliciter”). It is because we need to wake up and seek Him (“mais plustost afin de se resveiller eux-mesmes à le cercher”). Prayer is also a spiritual exercise: the believers pray to “exercer leur foy”, i.e., to put into practice their faith and strengthen it, as they meditate on God’s promises (“meditant ses promesses”). Furthermore, they relieve themselves from their solicitudes—word to be taken in the etymological sense (< Lat. Sollicitudo)—of worries, troubles, or anxieties (“se soulager en deschargeant leurs solicitudes sur luy”). Finally, if they pray, it is because they wish to demonstrate that their only hope resides in God, for they know that every good comes from Him.6 Finally, a prayer testifies to this belief (“finalement pour rendre tesmoignage tant à eux-mesmes comme aux autres, qu’ils esperent et attendent tous biens de luy seul”), and God, who even gives us more than what we request (“ce que liberalement et n’estant point encore requis, il a deliberé de nous donner”) will grant it with our prayer.
4º)Sometimes, however, we may wait a long time before we receive what we have asked from Him (“il diffère quelque fois longuement à nous aider”), and even sometimes we do not receive it at all (“et mesmes quelque fois ne complaist pas à nos desirs”). The Reformer promises to discuss this issue in another and more appropriate place (“nous en traiterons en un autre lieu plus propre”).
V.The “Pater noster” as a Model
Calvin points out the fact that Jesus offers us a model of prayer for several reasons. What matters to the Lord is the content or what a good prayer addressed to the Father should consist of. Here is the way the theologian sets it forth in The Institutes:
Maintenant davantage, il nous faut apprendre non seulement la façon de faire oraison, mais le stile mesme et formulaire que nostre Père céleste nous en a donné par son trescher Fils, nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ (Matth. 6, 9; Luc 11, 2). En quoy nous pouvons cognoistre une bonté et douceur incompréhensible. Car outre ce qu’il nous admoneste et exhorte de nous retourner à luy en toutes noz nécessitez, comme enfans ont leurs recours à leur père toutes fois et quantes que le besoin les presse, cognoissant que nous ne pouvons assez entendre combien grande est nostre povreté et misère, ne comprendre ce qui est bon à luy demander, et ce qui est utile et profitable, il a voulu subvenir à nostre ignorance, et suppléer de soy-mesme le défaut de nostre esprit. (InstitutionIII, xx, 34, 376–77)1
Jesus, he specifies, also teaches us, not only the way (“la façon”), but also the style (“stile”) of praying, and so proposes us a model or form (“formulaire”) of prayer. In fact, it is the Father himself who teaches us this prayer through his beloved Son. The reason is that He knows that we need such a prayer. So, it is out of kindness, since we do not even know what to say to God and how to say it. Therefore, Jesus incites (“admoneste”) and urges us (“exhorte”) to go back to the Father (“de nous retourner à luy”) for all our needs. We are like helpless children—the words “povreté” and “misère” stress this idea—who need to go to their fathers for help. Calvin stresses the fact that we ourselves do not know what our needs are, i.e. what is useful and profitable for us to ask God (“ce qui est utile et profitable”), that which makes “The Lord’s Prayer” all the more important for our happiness. It also shows God’s goodness in teaching it to us.
In his Commentaries, Calvin raises an interesting issue with regard to a difference existing between the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. He reminds the fact that in the former, one of the disciples asks Jesus how to pray, whereas in the latter it is the Lord himself who decides to teach them the Lord’s Prayer without being asked: “S. Luc dit qu’il en fut requis, & S. Matthieu l’introduit enseignant ceci sans en estre prié” (Commentaires124).2 Concerning Luke’s reference to John the Baptist, he gives the following explanation:
Quant à ce que sainct Iean avoit baillé à ses disciples une formule particuliere de prier, ie pense qu’il l’avoit faite selon que le temps le requeroit. Il est tout certain que les choses estoyent lors fort corrompues entre les Iuifs; pour le moins toute la religion estoit tellement deschuë, qu’il ne se faut pas fort esbahir si la vraye et pure maniere de prier estoit prattiquee par bien peu de gens. Davantage, pour ce que lors la Redemption promise approchoit, il estoit besoin que les esprits des fideles fussent resveillez à l’esperance et desir d’icelle en priant. Ainsi donques il se peut faire que S. Iean avoit dressé quelque certaine priere, recueillie de divers passages de l’Escriture, laquelle estoit convenable pour ce temps-la, et approchoit de plus pres du Regne spirituel de Christ, qui commençoit desia à estre revelé. (Commentaires124)3
First of all, Calvin refuses to explain the difference between Matthew’s exposition and that of Luke. Maybe, he points out, Matthew just omitted mentioning the circumstance Luke describes in his Gospel [“il se peut faire que sainct Matthieu a omis la circonstance et l’occasion laquelle S. Luc touche, combien que de cela ie n’en veux debattre avec personne” (Commentaires124)]. Secondly, commenting on Luke, he believes that at the time of John the Baptist, a prayer based on the Scripture had been proposed by the Prophet because the Jews were confused and there was too much corruption among them (“Il est tout certain que les choses estoyent for corrompues entre les Iuifs”) and that their religion was perishing (“toute la religion estoit tellement deschuë”). So the prayer John had taught his disciples, which was based on the Scripture, had certainly been useful in view of that time. But when Christ came, that prayer had to be replaced by the one the Lord prescribed. Calvin suggests that the disciples should not have compared John with Jesus in the first place. The former was just a prophet and did what he could under those circumstances. However, the spiritual kingdom of Christ was approaching and about to be revealed (“commençoit desia à estre revelé”), i.e. the Lord was to show himself. Therefore, we must not think of John’s prayer anymore after the coming of Jesus.
In The Institutes Calvin underscores God’s goodness (“bénignité”, “mansuétude”), as He teaches us through the Son how to pray and what to say to Him. This is a great consolation for us, he declares (“une singulière consolation”), for in this way we also know what we ought not to request from Him. Indeed, we must not ask Him anything improper (“illicite”), anything which importunes Him (“importune”), nor anything extravagant (“estrange”)—in other words something not religious. On the other hand, the reference to a dialogue, supposed to be by Plato, is also noteworthy, as it shows the great respect Calvin had for the Greek philosopher and how close he believes the latter subconsciouly was to Christ:
Platon voyant l’ignorance des hommes en leurs désirs et souhaits qu’ils font à Dieu, lesquels souvent ne leur peuvent estre concédez sinon à leur grand dommage, déclaire que la meilleure manière de prier est celle qu’a baillé un Poète ancien, de requérir Dieu de nous faire le bien, soit que nous le demandions ou ne le demandions pas, et vouloir destourner le mal de nous, mesmes quand nous désirerions qu’il nous advinst. (InstitutionIII, xx, 34, 377)4
The reference to the Second Alcibiades is quite significant. It does not matter to us whether this dialogue was written by a disciple of Plato in the 3rd or 2nd century B.C. and not by himself, for whoever the author is, the text belongs to Pre-Christian times. The fact that Calvin compares a Christian text on prayer with a pagan text is interesting by itself.5 It reveals that to the Reformer, God—there is just one—is present in this pagan work. Now, the Second Alcibiades is focused on prayer, and the comparison between the two texts is quite appropriate. In this dialogue, Alcibiades, a young man going to the temple to pray, accidentally meets Socrates, who strikes up a conversation with him on the subject of prayer. The philosopher would like to know whether Alcibiades knows what to pray for, or what to ask God. The difference between Socrates and Jesus is that the former indirectly teaches in the form of dialogue and reasoning, whereas Jesus just tells us what to do, and does it with much greater authority. Calvin does not go as far as truly comparing a wise man and a great thinker with God. He does not compare reasoning with faith, but realizes that Socrates’ conception of prayer is very close to that of Christianity; so would be, as a consequence, his understanding of god. Thus, Socrates says to Alcibiades that if one is not aware of what is really good for one’s soul, one might pray for something evil. Such people may face misfortune, and then blame the gods for what happened to them:
I question therefore if men are not really wrong in blaming the gods as the authors of their ills, when ‘they themselves by their own presumption’—or unwisdom, shall we say?—‘have gotten them more than destined sorrows.’ It would seem, at any rate, Alcibiades, that one old poet had some wisdom; for I conceive it was because he had some foolish friends, whom he saw working and praying for things that were not for their advantage, though supposed to be by them, that he made a common prayer on behalf of them all, in terms something like these: ‘King Zeus, give unto us what is good, whether we pray or pray not; [B]ut what is grievous, even if we pray for it, do thou avert.6
Another interesting fact is that Socrates himself refers to Homer, whose Zeus, “the father of gods and men,” thus complains at the beginning of the Odyssey:
My word, how mortals take the gods to task!
All their afflictions come from us, we hear.
And what of their own failings? Greed and folly
double the suffering in the lot of man.
See how Aigísthos, for his double portion,
stole Agamémnon’s wife and killed the soldier
on his homecoming day. And yet Aigísthos
knew that his own doom lay in this. We gods
had warned him, sent down Hermês Argeiphontês,
our most observant courier, to say:
‘Don’t kill the man, don’t touch his wife,
Or face a reckoning with Orestes
The day he comes of age and wants his patrimony.’
Friendly advice—but would Aigísthos take it?
Now he has paid the reckoning in full.7
So Calvin highly regards the Greek thinker Socrates, his disciple Plato, as well as the poet Homer, and believes that Jesus was present in them as they talked about their gods in such a way. Speaking of Plato’s conception of prayer, he writes—even though the Second Alcibiades may not have been written by Plato himself, but a fact that which was not known by Calvin and his contemporaries:
