CONCLUSION This study has shown that Jean Calvin’s interpretation of Deuteronomy and the latter Pentateuch is both traditional and innovative. It is traditional in that Calvin critically interacts with and learns from the patristic and me- dieval traditions of biblical exegesis. Much of what Calvin says in the mate- rial under examination is reminiscent of the comments of a church father, a medieval commentator, or one of Calvin’s contemporaries. Contrary to the enthusiastic praise that August Tholuck lavished on Calvin, originality is not the most prominent feature of the reformer’s exegesis. Not even the enigmatic Mosaic Harmony is entirely without precedent, given the possible sources of inspiration in the exegetical tradition represented by Philo and Calvin’s contemporary Melanchthon. Where Calvin does demonstrate some innovation is in his method of expositing a biblical text from the pulpit or in a commentary. Calvin’s pas- sion for proper method, which he acquired from the leading rhetorical theorists of his day, gives both his sermons and his commentaries their dis- tinctive forms and characteristics. It is his concern for proper method—the right order of teaching—that moves him to preach in an amplified manner, using a more copious style, and it is that same concern for method that moves him to arrange the vast and complex narrative and legal material of the latter Pentateuch into the shape of a harmony. As a second-generation reformer, what Calvin says is much less innovative than how he says it. Calvin’s interpretations of Deuteronomy in the sermons and in the Mo- saic Harmony display a remarkable amount of continuity of substance, while diverging significantly in their mode of exposition. Aside from Calvin’s decision to exposit the latter Pentateuch in the form of a harmony, this study has not observed many significant exegetical developments, such as those that Nicole and Rapin discovered in their study of the Isaiah sermons and commentaries. More conspicuous in the Deuteronomy material are the different approaches to the text that Calvin employs; one for the con- gregation listening to a sermon, and another for the pastor and teacher reading a commentary. In both cases it is his desire to provide an effective 267 268 THE SCHOOL OF GOD methodus (via, chemin), a “way through” the material, that determines his mode of exposition. The differences consist in the fact that the commen- tary is a pedagogical resource for teachers, intended to help identify the main themes of the text, while the sermon represents the actual teaching that should result from the pastor’s study of commentaries. In both cases, Calvin starts by determining the scopus of the material: his first sermon on Deuteronomy characterizes the book as a course in reme- dial education in the school of God; his harmony structure in the com- mentary classifies the doctrine of the latter books of the Pentateuch accord- ing to the ten loci of the Decalogue. In the commentaries, Calvin provides fairly brief expositions of the biblical material, so that ministers and teach- ers may quickly find their way through the text to the important doctrinal topics. In the sermons, Calvin himself is doing the teaching, and here he employs a more ample and copious style, replete with repetition and brimming with the devices of classical rhetoric, despite the fact that he does not use the artificial structure that characterized some medieval and early modern preaching. In his sermons, Calvin is less restrained in multiplying corroborating and illustrative biblical passages to amplify his exposition of the text at hand. In the commentaries, Calvin provides a tool for teachers; he limits himself to indicating the main theological themes that are to be derived from the text. In the sermons, Calvin himself guides his congrega- tion through the material, drawing contemporary lessons from the text, applying these lessons to the lives of the Genevan people and society, and combating those forces that threaten the faith of the Reformation and the survival of the Protestant enterprise. Calvin’s homilies are thoroughly rhe- torical in that he employs the devices and figures of classical oratory for the dual purpose of proper pedagogy and effective spiritual persuasion. We could add that political persuasion was also part of his agenda, but it is doubtful that Calvin would have seen any difference. Calvin’s exegesis, and specifically his method of deriving spiritual meaning and applications from the text, exhibits both continuity and dis- continuity with the tradition of medieval exegesis. The practical applica- tions that he derives from the biblical text include all three spiritual senses from the medieval quadriga, the traditional fourfold method of interpreta- tion. Like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Nicholas of Lyra, he consid- ered the literal sense of the text to be fundamental. But he differs from the medieval tradition in that he was much more scrupulous with respect to the limits that the literal sense of the text placed on spiritual interpretation. For Calvin, the literal and spiritual senses are not separable. But the literal Conclusion 269 sense for Calvin is not merely the mens auctoris, unless that auctor is under- stood to be the Holy Spirit. He can add to the literal meaning both peda- gogical reinforcement and rhetorical amplification drawn from the context of the whole of Scripture, particularly when the text at hand cites or alludes to that passage. The context of biblical history can also provide legitimacy to allegorical interpretations or applications, as evidenced in Calvin’s ex- planation of Paul’s use of allegory in Galatians. Calvin rejects the unrestrained practice of allegory, the abuse of allegory of the kind that he accuses Origen and his spiritual heirs (“the papists”) of perpetrating. This polemical context is essential to the evaluation of Cal- vin’s comments on, and his actual use of, spiritual interpretation. Calvin wants to preserve the relevance of the biblical texts, particularly Old Tes- tament texts, without resorting to the excesses that had manifested them- selves in the tradition. Calvin rejects such “subtle” allegories not only be- cause they lack adequate foundation in the text, but also because he sees them as providing the flimsy foundation for so many erroneous doctrines. Nevertheless, we have seen that Calvin also understands allegory to be a legitimate rhetorical device, an extended metaphor. Thus he is not embar- rassed when he finds these devices employed by Daniel, Paul, or the author of Hebrews. Contrary to numerous claims in the secondary literature, however, Calvin not only identifies such uses of allegory by the inspired authors of Scripture, but, on occasion, he also uses allegory himself. What makes this legitimate in terms of Calvin’s method is his assumption that the particular scopus of a given text must be interpreted in the context of the more comprehensive scopus of Scripture as a whole. Allegory, moreover, is a form of rhetorical decoration and amplification; thus it is more aptly suited to the pulpit than to the commentary. Here Calvin’s practice is akin to that of Luther. After criticizing Lyra’s principle of identifying the pri- mary referent of many Old Testament passages as Christ, rather than David or Solomon (the more historical referent), Luther had affirmed, “Even though the allegory is not inappropriate for teaching, its meaning is nevertheless weak and useless in a dispute. For who would prevent the de- vising of many such meanings, just as many shapes can be formed from a single piece of wax?”1 The subject of allegorical interpretation in both the medieval and early modern periods is much more complex than the secon- dary literature has often represented it. Interpreters of Scripture were not divided into those who did not employ allegory and those who did; rather, the distinctions among interpreters had to do with the limits of allegory. 1 Luther on Genesis 15:7, WA 42: 568; LW 3: 28. 270 THE SCHOOL OF GOD Calvin’s use of allegory is on the austere end of the spectrum; he usually avoids referring to his own extended metaphors as allegories, and he is self- consciously scrupulous in applying the textual and historical criteria that constrain the spiritual interpretation of the text. But Calvin did not reject allegory altogether as a rhetorical and pedagogical tool. Calvin uses numerous rhetorical tools in order to teach and persuade: the two main goals of oratory, and essential components of his program of reform. It is therefore wholly untenable to assert that Calvin’s sermons are not rhetorical on the basis of the fact that he does not employ an artificial argumentative structure (dispositio) in his sermons, or, even more dubi- ously, on the basis of an alleged ideological incompatibility between the method of a biblical reformer and that of a philological humanist. Calvin’s own explicit comments on rhetoric should make this fact abundantly clear. Further evidence is his sermonic use of such rhetorical figures as loci communes: the school of God, the right way or path, the ABC motif, the need to render oneself teachable, the necessity of perpetual pro- gress and profit in God’s doctrine, the patience of a God who persists in teaching his children, even when they remain truant and forgetful. To this category also belong the images that some scholars would strip of their sig- nificance through psychologizing interpretations: the abyss, the labyrinth, and the bridle. To these stereotyped expressions and images we may add the rhetorical devices of irony, exaggerated denunciation (δενωσις), inclusio, quæstio or interrogatio, anticipatio, concessio, typology, ναγωγ, exempla sanctorum hominum, φαντασα in concipiendis visionibus, metaphors and similes, synecdoche, copious repetition and variation, proverbs and adages, rhetorical vehemence and νεργεα, the accumulatio of arguments and corroborating texts, and, of course, the continua metaphora of allegory.