Luther and Calvin on Law and Gospel in Their Galatians Commentaries*

Luther and Calvin on Law and Gospel In Their Galatians Commentaries*

I. JO HN HESSELIN K I. Historical Background

In this Luther Year ( 1983), when we celebrate the 500th a nni ve rsary of the bi rth of the great reforme r, it is a pprop ri ate that we consider at least o ne aspect of the rela ti o n of Luther to Calvin . In some ways, however, this is difficult fo r, altho ugh they were contemporaries, they never met and rarely refer to each other, except indirectly and th rough their mutua l friend Melanchtho n. T hey also operated basicall y in two different worlds, Luther the Germani c, and Calvi n the French-Swi ss. One sho uld also qualify the o bservation that they we re "contemporaries," fo r Calvin was, in a sense, a second generati on reformer. Luther was born in 1483 and died in 1546; Calvin was bo rn in 1509 and died in 1564. Luther's earl y writings we re already being circul ated in France when Calvin was a unive rsity student and provid ed one of the earl y evange li cal influences in his lifc. 1 When Luther was involved in the famous Marburg Coll oquy with Zwingli in 1529- the event that res ulted in the pe rmanent ri ft between the Lutheran and Reformed movement s - Calvin was still studying law in O rl eans and Bo urges. By the time Calvin arrived in Basel in 1535 to complete the first edit io n of his famous Institutio Luther was fi ft y-two yea rs o ld and was completing o ne of his last major works, his great Commentary on Galatia ns, which is one of the main sources fo r this paper. Consequently, although Luther made some impact o n the young Calvin, and altho ugh Luther eventually became aware of the Genevan reformer and a few of hi s writ ings, notably Calvin's "Short T reatise on the Lord 's S upper" of 1543, which impressed Luther very positively,2 they never reall y dialogued or debated with each other. T here we re differences, however, despite a basic unanimity and mutual respect. Even in Luther's last years, when he tended to be negative and censori o us, Calvin " neve r ceased to render homage to Luther and his wo rk."3 T he differences were real but not fund amenta l. It was la rge ly a matter of accent o r approach in relati on to q uestio ns li ke Christo logy, predesti nation, the sacraments, and the Christi an life. T he differences became sharp and divisive after Luther's death when some of his overly-zealous disciples li ke Tileman Hesshusius and J oachim Westphal attacked viciously Calvin 's view of the Lord's Supper. As a result of this controversy concerning the Lord's Supper, the earli er dispute at Marburg, and subsequent developments in Lutheran and Reformed Churches,4 it is common ly assumed that this is the key iss ue which separated Luther from Calvin . Actua lly, what may have been a bigger barrier- even tho ugh it never became a matter of controversy between Luther and Calvin- were their differing approaches to the relatio n of law and gospel. Werner Elert, the d oughty German Lutheran theologian of a past generati on, believed

*A paper presented to the Calvin Studies Society, meeting at Calvi n T heological Seminary, May 4, 1983.

69 that Calvin was e ngagin g in a deliberate po lemic agai nst Luther when he describes the third use or the law (the law as a guid e and no rm for the Christian) as the "princi pal use (usu.1· praecipuus) which pertains more closely to the proper use (propriurn/inem) of the law. "5 The basis for Elcrt 's contention is the fact that both Luther a nd Mela nchthon speak of the second use of the law- for Calvin the first , the usu.1· elenchticus or theologicus- as the "proper a nd principal use of the law" (proprium legis divinae et praecipuwn). 6 Hence Elert concludes that "Calvin differs from Luther not simply in tcad1ini; a third functi o n of the law (so does Melanchthon), but also in designating the third function as the 'principal' function, the truly proper function of the law. "7 Granted, there is a striking similarity in the language which Luther uses here to descri be the seco nd use of the law and Calvin the third, but there is nothing in the context of Calvin 's rema rks to suggest that he is attacking Luther- or anyone else, for that matter. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that today this is a se rious obstacle lo Lutheran a nd Reformed understand ing. In recent Lutheran-Reformed d ia logue in Europe and the United States this is clearly.a matter of continuing contention. In this connection it is interesting to observe the res ults of conversations between representati ves of the o rth American Area of the World Alliance of Reformed C hurches and thei r counterparts of the National Com1nittee or the Lutheran World Federation which co:-ic lucl ed in Princeton in 1966. Three papers and several summary statements were published in a booklet entitled Ethics and Ethos ("A Reexamination of Lutheran and Reformed Traditions- IY").x Included a re three summa ry statements previously issued, viz., "Gospel, Confession and Scripture"; "Christology, the Lord's S upper and Its Observance in the Church": and "Creation and Redemption- Justification and Sanctification- Law and Gos pel. " One se nses that the iss ues least resolved are in the last categories. 9 Friends of mine engaged in current Lutheran-Reformed dialogue confirm that this is the biggest iss ue between the two traditions. 10 This, then, gives a special re levance to the subject of law a nd gospel as understood by Luther and Calvin .

II. Texts and the Scope of the Investigation

Much has been written about the law-gospel di alectic from a Lutheran perspective, but there is surprisingly little from the Reformed sicl e. 11 Whereas the majority of books on Luther's theology wi ll have a chapter on law a nd gospeJ, 12 in the standard works on Calvin's theology there is very little or nothing on this subject.13 Thus the issue is obviously of more interest and concern to Lutherans than Reformed; but it is for that very reason that we who stand in the Reformed tradition should take this subject more seri o usly and seek to clarify the issues and clear up, if poss ible, certain misunderstandings. It is toward that encl that th is paper is offered. I must explain, however, the reason for the very limited scope of my subject. One reason is that there are more than enough overviews of this subject in theological encyclopedias such as Religion in Ceschichre und Cegenwarr and histori es of dogma such as the four volume work by Reinhold Seeberg, Lehrhuch der Dogmengeschichre. 14 Even more technical studies of the subject a re general a nd draw upon a wide vari ety of sources, es peciall y in the case of Luther. 70 For a more precise understanding o f the extent to which Luther a nd Calvin agreed o r disagreed o n this subject, what is required is a seri es of monographs which compa re the handling o f this subject by the two great reforme rs in the same context. This is extreme ly d ifficu lt , however, because Luther never discussed the subject of law a nd gospel as such in a ny single treati se, despite the importa nce of this subject for him (a ltho ugh it is a key issue in severa l ma jo r trcati ses15); a nd Calvin docs not even give a systematic treatment o r the subject in hi s Institutes, wi th the possible exceptio n o f the ve ry brief chapter (IX) in Book 11 which has the title. "Christ, Altho ug h He was Known to the J ews unde r the Law, was at Length C learly Revealed O nl y in the Gospe l. " He rc, however, the contrast is primarily between the o ld a nd new covenants, not the narrower meaning of law a nd gospel in the typi cal Luthera n se nse of those terms. Orn; a pproach, which would be fruitful , would be to compa re the two reformers' exposit io ns o f the decalogue in thei r respecti ve catechi sms as well as in their commentaries a nd sermo ns o n this theme. In their catechi sms, I h·ave discovered, their interpretati o ns a nd understa nd ing of the positi ve a nd enduring role of the ten commandments are stik ingly similar. Where o ne would expect the sha rpest di vergencies, however, would be in their handling of the key Pauline passages dealing with the law and the gospel. Here one thinks immcd iatcly o r the Epistles to the Ro ma ns a nd Galatians. 1 have chosen the la tter because Luther's l.ectures on Rumans16 were give n in 15 15 a nd 15 16, prior to the posting of hi s ninety- ri ve l heses and his break with Ro me. Hence they a re not representative of his more ma ture thought. His 1535 Lectures on Galatians 17 (given in 1531), o n the o ther ha nd , a re not o nly the product o r the reformer at the peak of his powers and hi s most thorough commenta ry; they are a lso regarded by many scho la rs as hi s m ost profound theological treatise. is In this sense it is no t un li ke Ka rl Barth's famous Commentary on Rom ans ( 19 19) which was as much a major theological treatise as an exegetical commenta ry. The o nl y difficulty, as far as Calvin is concerned , is that his Commentary on Galatians, written in I 548, is a very modest work by comparison with Luther's great exposition of Galatians. The Eng li sh translatio n of C a lvin 's Commentary is only 11 9 pages whereas Luther's classic ta kes up pa rts of two volumes of Lwher's Works 19 and runs to a total of 604 pages 1 Consequently, occasio na ll y 1 sha ll fill in from C alvin's comments o n the relevant Galatians texts in his lnstiflltes in o rder to redress the imba lance somewhat. Fortunately, we have excellent English translations in both cases, Luther's commenta ry being translated by the distinguished Lutheran scholar, Jaroslav Pe li kan, and Calvin's com me nta ry being translated by the leading Eng lis h C alvin scholar, T. H. L. Parker.2° The o riginal texts, which I am a lso using, are Volu me 40 (two pa rts) of D. Martin Luthers Werke, i.e., the Weima r Aufgabe ( 1911 and 19 14), and Volume 50 of the Calvini Opera (Corpus Reformatorum Vol. LXXVlll).

III. A Comparison of the Exegesis of Selected Texts

1 shall li mit myself to a I"ew key texts which deal with the question of la w a nd gospel, compa re the expositions of the two reformers, a nd make a few observati o ns in each case before attempting any conclusions. It sho uld be kept in mind that in Galatians we have the

71 sharpes t attacks aga in st the law and works of th e law in th e whole Pau lin e co rpus. Pauline sc holars recogni ze th at the tone, if not the co ntent , is perceptibly different in Romans, eve n though there too there are some passages where there appears to be a sharp antithesis . One or those passages is Romans 6: 14: "You are not und er the law but under grace." It should be noted th at in Galatians we have what on the surface might appear to be the most "Lutheran" portion of the New Testament. However, it wo uld be rash to presume at the outset th at the odds are stacked in Luther's favo r. The first passage is Galatians 2:16: "A man is not justified by works of th e law but through fai th in Jes us Christ .... " Luther first observes that "works of the law" ge nerall y "mean whatever is opposed to grace; whatever is not grace is law," whether the law be conceived as of civi l, ceremoni al, or moral (the Decalog). 21 Therefore, Paul here is speaking "about the entire law" (de universa lege). says Luther, and he rejects the opinion of Jerome and ot hers who maintain that Paul here is speaking only of the works of the ceremoni al law, not those of the moral law.22 Calvin also frequently makes such distinctions and in this case he co ncurs with Luther and notes that "the context will show that the words [in 2: I Sf.] relate also to the moral law. " 23 Conce rning the basic iss ue at stake here there is again no difference at all. That is, justification is not by works but by faith. Luther writes, "When we are in volved in a discussion of justificati on, there is no room for speaking about the Law. " 24 Calvi n is even more em ph ati c: "We have to ascribe either nothing or everything to faith or to works. "25 The ca reful reader might notice that whereas Luther speaks of the la w, Calvin speaks of works, but sin ce Paul's phrase is "works of the law," either word co nn otes the same thing. Concerning 2: 19 there is also no significant difference. The text reads: "For I through the law died to the law, that I mi ght live to God." Luther loves the way the Apostle "opposes the Law to the Law" and desc ribes this as "most delicious language. " 26 Luther's understanding of the key phrase here is th at "To die to the Law means not to be bound by the Law but to be free from the Law and not to know the Law. ' '2 7 The pos itive sid e is that "I now li ve to Christ, where I am under another Law, namely the Law of grace, which rules over sin and the Law. "2X Calvi n comments: "Those who li ve to the law have never felt the power of the law or even tasted what it is all abou t; for the law, when truly understood, makes us die to itself. ''29 Luther would say "Amen!" to that. Luther wo uld also enthusiastically end orse Calvin 's later com ment : "The law bears within itse lf the cu rse which slays us. Hence it follows that the death brought about by the law is truly deadly. With it is co ntrasted another ki nd of death, in the life-giving fellowship of Ch ri st. "-11 ' Luther uses almost the same language. 'Thus against my death, which binds me, I have another death, that is life, which makes me alive in Christ. " J I Interes tingly, it is Luther rather than Calvin who makes a dist in ction in this context between the Law of the Decalog which "used to bind me," agai nst which"! now have another Law, [and] that of grace." This law of grace does not bind but liberates, it does not damn but frees ..i 2 Calvin is less di alectical and sim ply concludes, "We are delivered fr om the yoke of the law on ly when we are made one with Christ, as the shoot draws its sap from the root only by growing into one nature. " J.i Thus far the differences in interpretation betwee n Luther and Calvin ha ve been almost nil. Calvin appears to be as much in harmony with the thrust of the apost le in this ep istle as

72 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 diverge nce whatsoever. This comes out again in the reformers' interpretation of 3:2-5. When the question is justification "there can be no middle ground" (nullum medium) Luther maintains, for "there are only two ways to justifics tion: either the Word of the Gospel or the Law. "34 Calvin adds, "there are not many ways to righteousness," i.e., to justification, but only one, the way of Abraham, the way of faith .3 5 "For faith, inasmuch (quatenus) as it contains the free goodness of God, Christ with all hi s blessings, the testimony of our adoption which is given in the Gospel, is universally contrasted to the law, the merit of works and human worth. "36 Calvin, however, makes an interesting distinction in his comments on 3: l 0: "For all those who rely on works of the law are under a curse." He begins with language typical of Luther: "It is an argument (in 3: 10) from contradictions, for the same fountain does not yield both hot and cold . The law holds alt men under its curse. From the law, therefore, it is useless to seek a blessing. " Then after condemning the "Papists," as Luther was also wont to do, for the "detestable doctrine" that men are capable, in some measure, of keeping the law, he makes a distinction which for him, is extremely important: "We conclude that when the law curses, it is accidental (accedentis), though perpetual and inse parable (sed perpetui et inseparabilis), for the bless in g which it offers is excluded by our depravity, so that only the curse remains. " 37 Calvin here and in other placesJB wants to guard against the possible mi sunderstanding that the law in and of itself is negative and destructive, and even an instrument of the devil. Hence he contrasts the original purpose of the law, which is "spiritual, holy, just and good" and its eventual- and inevitable- role due to sin (See Romans 7: 12- 16). This is how "that which is good" ends up bringing death to us (Romans 7: 13) : Those fami li ar with Calvin's general viewpoint on the matter of the law will recognize a familiar concern on Calvin's part here. With Luther one would not expect such distinctions in view of hi s usual polemic against the law. However, in this very context, where one might least expect it, Luther urges a similar caution. Luther, too, is always mindful, even in these Galatians Lectures, of Romans 7: 12: "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just and good." Accordingly, when Paul speaks here in Galatians 3: 10-13 so sharply of the curse of the law, Luther is sensitive to a seeming contradiction, namely, How can the Law be both holy and just and also be "the Law of the curse, of sin, of wrath and of death?" Luther adds, in langu.age characteristic of Calvin, that "except for faith," the Law "is the best, the greatest and the loveli est (pulcherrimum) among the physical blessings of the world, namely the Law of God."39 Note here how Luther distinguishes between a physical and a spiritual blessing,40 the law, in one se nse being a phys ical blessing. I say "in one sense" because a little later Luther speaks of the law and works in a "metaphysical sense (metaphysice). "41 By this he contrasts a superficial, legalistic understanding of the law with a spiritual understanding according to its divine intention. The occasion for making such a distinction is a passing reflection (in his Commen tary on Galatians 3: 10) on Romans 2: 13: "It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God but the doers of the law will be justified. "To "do the law" in aphysical sense is to attempt to satisfy God and his law by observance of various works. To "do the Law,"

73 however, in a metaphysical sense is to do what the law requires spirituall y, i.e., to believe. Then we receive C hrist and the Holy S pirit and "begin to keep the Law, to love God and our neighbo r ... T his is reall y keeping the Law; otherwise the Law remains permanently un kept. "42 T hi s, incidenta ll y, renects Luther's understanding of the first table of the decalogue. T hat is, the first commandment requires that God be "wo rshipped by believing and fearing Him. "4J To "do the law" then is impossible apart from fa ith anc! the gospel. T he distinctio n Luther makes here is not quite the same as Calvin's, but their concern and purpose are similar. They are both conscio us of the a pparent connict betwee ri the positive statements made a bout the law in the Old Testament and in other parts of the New and certain extremely negative strictures of the Apostle Paul. Calvin resolves the iss ue by contrasting the original intent of the law with its "accid ental" functio n due to sin . Luther a ppeals instead to the "metaphysical" o r "spiritual" intent of the law over against the misunderstanding of its true role by the sinner or "the self-righteous of a ll ages- J ews, papists, sectarians, etc. "44 T here appears to be some dive rgence, however, in the handling of Galatians 3:!9Jl Here we have a key passage concerning the law and its place in Hei/sgeschichte. " Why then the law?" asks the Apostle. The answer: It was added because of transgressions . . . Here Luther finds the " primary purpose of the Law of M oses" and "the true functio n and chief and proper use of the Law (verum officium et principalis acproprius usus legis), " i.e., "to reveal to man his sin, blindness, misery , wickedness, ignorance, hate, and contempt of God, death, hell , judgment and the well-deserved wrath of God . "45 Calvin agrees with Luther that when Paul refers to the law here he means not o nly the mo ral law but "the whole ministry of M oses (t oto Mosis ministerio). "46 T hen he explains that the ministry o r office of M oses also included "many promises concerning the free mercy of God and C hrist which belo ng to faith," but as fa r as the peculi ar office of Moses is concerned such promises are "accid enta l" (accidentale) .. . insofar as a compa rison is made between the law and the doctrine of grace. "47 Note that here the wo rd "accid ental" is used to ma ke quite another distinctio n than the o ne made earlier. T here the contrast was between an o riginal and accidental function of the law; here it is between Moses' proper role as a lawgive r and the "accid ental" inclusion of promises of grace. T he iss ue begins to be joined (with Luther) when Calvin comments on the phrase in 3: 19,. "was added because of transgressio ns": "The law has ma ny uses, but Paul confines himself to one which se rves hi s present purpose. He did not intend to inquire in how many ways the law is of ad vantage to men. "48 Then Calvin makes some remarks that o ne like Elert might conclude we re a direct rebuke of Luther. Readers must be put o n their guard o n this matter; fo r I see many make the mis take of acknowledging no other use of law than what is expressed !> ere. But elsewhere Paul himself applies the precepts of the law to teaching and exhorta tion (2 T im. 3: 16). Therefore this definition of the use of the law is not complete and those who acknowledge nothing else in the law are wrong. 49 Unfortunately, we have no clue as to who "the many" are who mistakenly think this Pauline statement represents the only use of the law and that there is "nothing else in the law. "49" Elert, had he known of this passage, wo uld have readily concluded that here Calvin is clearly attacking Luther. T hat is possible, for Calvin may have read Luther's commentary, which was published thirteen years before his o wn; but there is no reference to Luther

74 a nywhere in his commenta ry. That, admittedl y, is not conclusive evidence sin ce Cal vin often does not specify who his o ppo nents are. In this case they appear to be mo re radical tha n Luther (pe rh a ps the Libertines o r Antinomi ans, like Agricola), fo r Calvin says that these people acknowledge "no o ther use of the law than what is expressed here," i.e., to ma ke awa re of and deepen the conscio usness of sin a nd guilt. Luther, however, in this ve ry discussion (of 3: 19), explicitly notes that "here one must kn ow tha t there is a douhle use of the law. "50 T he o ne is a civic use, the other a spiritua l o ne, i.e., to increase transgressions. T his alone would seem to indicate that Calvin had someone else in mind , although the much debated questi on still remain s as to whether in fact Luther ta ught a third use of the law as a no rm or guide fo r the redeemed. " Is the law, then, against the pro mi ses of God?" asks the Apostle in 3:2 1. He himself answers, "Certainly not." " Why?" asks Luther. His chief a nswer is th at "altho ugh the Law discloses a nd increases sin , it is still not against the p romi ses of God but is, in fa ct, for them . For in its true and proper wo rk and purpose (invero et pe1fec10 opere et.fi'ne) it humbles ma n a nd prepares him- if he uses the La w correctl y- to yearn and see k fo r grace. "51 Cal vin is concerned here lest o ne conclude that there is a n inconsistency in God who is the a utho r of both the law and promises. " Whoever alleges a ny contradicti o n betwee n the m blasphemes against God," Calvin wa rns. T hey a re o nl y "contradictory if the law justifies," but the la w has no such power. There are not "two opposing methods of justifying a ma n," but o nly one, viz., that being condemned by the law we "betake ourselves" to C hrist. 52 Conce rning 3:24 Cal vin speaks very much like Luther. "The threatenings (of the law) urged and pressed them to seek refu ge from the wrath a nd curse of God and gave them no rest until they were constrained to seek the grace of C hrist. "53 Calvin concludes that "the who le law, in sho rt, was nothing but a manifo ld variety of exercises in which the wo rshippers were led by the ha nd to Christ. "54 In hi s discussion of Galati a ns 3:25 , however, Calvin ma nifests a concern lest someone imagin e that "the law is so a bo lished that it has nothing to do with us. " Calvin is o bviously concerned that Paul here see ms to be a bo li shing the third, and for Calvin the proper and princip al use of the law, when he says, " But now tha t faith has come, we a re no longe r under a custodian," i.e., under the law. Calvin quickly explains that "the law, insofar as it is a rule of li vin g well , is a bridle which keeps us in the fear of the Lo rd , a spur to correct the slackness of o ur flesh, in short, so fa r as it is profita bl e for teaching, correcting, reproving, that beli evers may be instructed in every good wo rk , is as much in force as ever, a nd remain s intact. "55 One find s nothing like this in Luther, at least not in his discussion of this verse. Nor does

Luther use a phrase which Calvin uses here- "a rule of living well (regula bene vivendi)56- which he uses again and again in hi s writings to suggest the normative functi o n of the law. For Luther it would appea r that there are indeed only two uses of the law- civil a nd pedagogical since when C hrist came, " He truly abolished the entire Law."57 When Luther adds that "according to our consci ence we a re completely free of the law, "58 that wo uld seem to settle the matter. Luther a nd Calvin, in the last a nalysis, seem to take diametrically o pposed views when it comes to a ny continuing function of the law in the life of believers. Such a conclusion, however, does not do justice to the subtlety a nd dia lectic in Luther's

75 thinking. Sometimes the id eali st in him imagined that as Christians we are virtua ll y freed fr om and dead to the law. But Luther was too much of a realist- and biblical scholar- to imagi ne that the C hristi an could get along without the law. He was no antimo ni an. Hence in this ve ry contex t- the discussion of Galatians 3:25- Luther, li ke Calvin, makes some significant qualifications. "If we could perfec tly take hold of C hrist, who has abrogated the Law and reconciled us sinners to the Father by hi s death, then that custodian (the Law) would have no jurisdiction whatever over us." Note the big i/! T herefore Luther is forced to add, "But the law in our members is at war with the law of our mind (Rom. 7:23), and it interferes so that we cannot take hold of Christ perfectly . ... So far as we are concerned , then, we are partly free of the Law and partly under the Law. With Paul we se rve the Law of God with our mind, but with our Oes h we serve the law of sin ." In short, "so long as the Oesh remains, there remains the Law .. .. ,,s9 So here, at least, Luther and Calvin are not so fa r apart after all ! Again, however, we must beware of facil e conclusions, fo r even though both reformers recognize the ne cessity of a continuing functi on of the law in the life of the Christi an, there are some significant differences . For Luther the law almost always has an accusatory function. "Lex semper accusal" (The Law always accuses) is the fa mous dictum of Melanchthon,6° and Luther would appear to concur.61 Calvin, on the other hand, can speak of the law in a much more positive and fri endly fashion because he sees the curse and threats of the law being fundamenta ll y a thing of the past for the C hristi an since in C hrist the accusa tory aspects of the law have bee n done away with. Calvin cites Augustine in this connec tion with approval: "If the S pirit of grace is absent, the law is present only to accuse and kill us. "62 But the Christian "lays hold not only of the precepts, but the accompanying promise of grace, which alone sweetens what is bitter. "6J For Luther the law tends to point back to the old man as sinner; fo r Calvin the law points fo rward to the Christian's renewal in C hrist. T he differences are there and they are not insignificant, but my contenti on is that they have often been bl own out of proportion. When one compares their res pective ex egesis of key passages in Galatians, the two reformers are much closer than most hi stori ans or theologians would imagine. This is particularly true in the place they assign to good works. A key text in this regard is Galatians 5:14: "The whole law is fulfilled in one word, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' " Here, at last, we have a text which would seem to be more congenial to Calvin than to Luther. (The same could be said of 6:2: "Bear one another's burdens and so fu lfill the law of C hrist.") But again we should not prejudge the issue. Commenting on 5: 13, for example- "Do not use yo ur freedom as an opportunity for the flesh"- Luther concludes on a surprising note: "Now Paul shows beautifully on the bas is of the Decalog what it means to be a servant of love. "64 Then on verse 14 he says that "this is the real way to interpret Scripture and the commandments of God." By this he means that good works are only good if they are built on the foundation of J esus Christ and his righteousness.65 Sectarians, on the other hand , "teach fanatical and superstitious works" because they "have abandoned Christ, chopped down the tree and subve rted the foundation. '~• 6

76 Those a rc truly good wo rks, then, wh ich issue from faith in C hrist and "Oow from this faith and joy conceived in the heart because we have fo rgive ness of sins freely through C hrist. "67 Calvin agrees, fo r he too hold s that good work s "which we perform by the guidance and directi o n of the Holy S pirit are the freely granted fruits of adop ti o n.''•' In relatio n to 5: 14, however, Calvin discusses primarily the relation of the two ta bles of the la w. Hi s argument is basica ll y the same as Luther's sin ce he stresses that the love of neighbor (second table) depends on and is deriva ti ve of the love of God (first table).''9 In other words, goc,ct works- acts of love- must be based o n faith in God . Interestingly, <1 ithough Calvin is kn own as the theologian of sanctificati o n and Luther th at of justification,7° in their Galatians Commentaries Luther shows more con cern fo r urging good works th an Calvin .71 T his appears to be a result of perverse notions of good wo rks as taught by certa in fa natics and also because Luther was d iscouraged by the equivalent of "cheap grace" as he saw it in his own churches. He complains that "if faith is preached as it must be preached , the majority of men understand the teaching abo ut faith in a neshl y way and transform the freedom of the spirit into the freedom of the fl esh. This can be o bserved tod ay," he o bserves, "in all classes of society both hi gh and low. " 72 Because of this proclivity of even evangelical C hristians to a buse their free dom, Luther is convinced that " it is as necessary that faithful preachers urge good works as that they urge the doctrine of fa ith. ''73 Thus Luther, the theologian of grace and freedom, exhibits a special concern for good works and a holy li fe . Calvi n, the man of law, seems mo re concerned in this con text a bout freedom and peace of conscience. For "where the Spirit reigns, the law no lo nge r has any dominion, ''74 writes Calvin.

IV. Conclusion

In this comparison and analysis of Luther's and Calvi n's exegesis of key passages relatin g to law and gospel as we ll as faith and wo rks in their res pecti ve Galatians Com menta ri es, it should be ·clear th at the sharp diffe ~·e nc es attributed to the two refo rmers are non-existent. Moreover, both of them, even by modern cano ns of interpretati o n, are remark ably percepti ve and faithfu l interpreters of Paul.75 To be sure, they bring thei r o wn hermeneutical and theological presuppositions, but when they stick to exegesis propel' - as over against their frequent polemics, especially in the case of Luther- they come to basicall y the same conclu sio ns. This is rather rema rkable in view of their respective dogmatic understandings of the law in contrast to their more strictl y exegetical or biblical expositi o ns. By "dogmatic" I mean the theological complex o r cluster of id eas evoked by the term " law" and then by inference how it relates to the term "gospel." For Luther the law connotes first and foremost a negati ve, hostile entity, even though he also speaks positi ve ly o f the enduring validity and wo rk of natural law and its summary in the decalogue, which in turn is sharp ened and deepened by J es us' interpretation in the Sermon o n the Mo unt. (Here Luther and Calvin take exactly the same approach.)76 Thus, when Luther is speaking in a general way about the law, he commonl y asso-

77 ciatcs it with the world, sin , death, the devil , and the wrilth of Godn Law, so conceived, connotes bondage to the elements of the wo rld from which we are freed by C hrist and the gospel. Calvin recognizes this meaning of the law but, give n hi s theological presuppositi on, is usua ll y careful to point out that when the Apostle Paul speaks of the law in a negati ve way as that which threatens, curses, and cond emns (as in Gal. 3: 19; Rom. 3:20; 4: 15; 5:20; and 2 Cor. 3:6-7), "he was sometimes compell ed to take the bare law (nuda lex) in a narrow sense" in order to refute " perve rse teachers who pretended that we merit righteousness by the works of the law." T he law conceived of more broadly and positi ve ly, the law which is a gift of God to his people for their welfa re, is what Calvin calls the law "clothed (vestita) with the covenant of free adopti on. "78 It is this law which is in the background of Calvin 's thinking when he refers to the law as "the perpetual rule of a good and holy life. ' '79 However, when the text requires it, as in the allegory of A braham's two sons (Gal. 4:22ff.), one of whom represents the covenant of sla ve ry (Hagar and Mount Sanai), the other the covenant of freedo m (Sarah and the .J erusalem from above), Calvin does not hesitate to set the two covena nts in the sha rpest oppositi on. But note that in doing so he again refers to "the bare law." "Those who cleave to the bare law (in nuda lege) and do not know it as a schoolmaster to bring them to C hrist, but rather make it a barrier against coming to him, are the lshmaelites born to slavery. "80 Luther, in discussing this passage (4:22ff.) , also makes a distincti on- one between the physical promises of the law in contrast to the spiritual promises about Christ and his kingdom- but Luther id entifies the !alter exclusive ly with the covenant of freed om, i. e., the gospel. "There was no promise of Christ added to the Law," maintain s Luther, whereas Calvin would say this was only true of the bare law, abstracted from the cove nant of grace. T hus the differences are there, reOecting their d ogmatic presuppositi ons, but they are fundamenta ll y one in understanding the message of Galati ans. They are also one in their convicti on that the law continues to pl ay a role in the life of the Christi a n, although the nuances are again different, as I noted earlier. In regard to the related and much debated q uesti on about whether Luther teaches a third use of the law, we saw that in his commentary he only explicitly teaches two uses of the law. As far as that goes, Calvin never specifi es either two or three uses of the law in his commen tary; but in both cases the reali ty is there. For "Luther saw the commandments not o nl y as a mirror [a favorite metaphor of Calvin 's] in which he [the C hristian] recognizes sin although they certainly are and remain that fo r the C hristi an- but beyo nd this as in structi on about the 'good wo rks' God wants, and such instructi on is necessary and wholesome for the C hristi an . ... Accordingly, Luther structured hi s Treatise on Good Works, which was designed to describe the Christi an life, as an interpretati o n of the Dec alog. '"' 1 T hus, if this very specific and lim ited piece of research yields any surprises, the first would be that the anti-law Luther does not do away with the law alt ogether and stresses the importance of good wo rks. x2 T he second surprise is the fact that Calvin , the so-ca ll ed man of law, the alleged "Gesetzlehrer,"83 teaches in hi s Galatians Commentary and else where not only a relative difference but also an a111ithesis between the law and the gos-

78 pet, whe n the former is po rtrayed as letter, as a bare law, a nd the latte r is equated with the new dispensati o n of the S pirit. For Calvin, no less than Luther, recogni zes this form of the law which can be eq uated with "the tyranny of si n, Satan a nd death. "85 These conclu sions, it must be pointed out again, a re based largely on a limited sampling of the expositions of onl y one epistle. However, if the reformers a re to be tak en seriously in their attempts to be theologians of the Word, this is where we must begin in a ttempting to gain a ny fresh a nd fair a ppraisal of their views on this fundamental theme.K<>

FOOTNOTES 1 Francois Wendel, Calvin. Origins and Development of His Rl'ligious 1/iought (New York: Harper and Row, E. T.. 1963), pp. 19, 38, 41 , 13 1ff; and T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin. A Biography (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976). pp. X IVff., 23, 30. 2 An English translati o n is available in the Library of Chris1ii111 Classics, Vol. XX JJ·: Calvin: 7/1eological Trea tises (Philadelphi a: Westmi ns ter Press, 1954). pp. 140ff. 3 Wend el. op. cit .. p. 133. On 1he foll owing page Wendel quotes a passage from Calvin 's " Last Warning lo W es tphal" in wh ich Calvin writes: "I wo uld wish th at whateve r fa ults may have bee n mingled among the great virtues or Luther might rather ha ve bee n buried; and in truth to kee p me from touching upon th em, more lhan the grcal honor and reverence I bear toward s the many excellent gi fl s with which he was end owed. But to wish 10 embrace the vices fo r !he virtues, that would indeed be contrary to a ll good." (The ori ginal version of this 1reatisc is in the Calvini Opera, Vo l. 9, p. 238.) 4 S in ce World War II significant discussions have laken place betwee n Lutheran and Reformed theologians conce rning !heir respecti ve views of the Lord 's S upper. The result of dialogue in Germany in the 1950s was a consensus of a sort expressed in the Arno ldshain Thcscn (Theses). See Paul C. Empie and J ames I. McCord , editors, Marhurg Revisited. A Ree. .r: mnination of Lutheran and Reformed Tradition.,· (Minnesota : Augsburg Publishing House, 1966); and Gegemvart Christi. Beitrag zum Abendmahlsge'JHiich in der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutsch/and (Got1i nge n: Vanderhoeck and Ru prcclll , 1960) . s lnstitwes

10 The issue is complicated, however, by 1he fa ct that the "enemy" for many Luthera ns today is not so much Calvin as Karl Barth. The latlcr's fa mous 1935 trca1i sc Evangeliwn um/ Gesell (Go.1pel and La w) not onl y reverses 1hc 1rad itio nal order but also represents the culmination of various atlacks by Barth against the Luth erans on this issue. An English translati on of this monograph appears in Community, State and Church (Garden Ci1y: Doubleday and Co.- "Anchor Books"- 1960). 11 Three dissertations have been writlen aboui Calvin's concept of the law, but none of them has been published. The three are: G. Racke, Gesell wul Evangeliwn bei Calvin (Mainz U., 1953); I. J ohn Hess.clink , Calvin 's Concept and Use of the Law (Basel U., 1961); and Ralph R. Sundquist, Jr., 711e 711ird Use of the Law in the Th ought o( John Calvin: An Interpretat ion and Evaluation (Colu mbia U., 1970). 12 Sec, e.g., Paul Althaus, The Theologv of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966); and Philip S. Watson, Let God Be God. An /111erpretatiu11 of the Theology o( Martin Luther (Londo n: Epworth Press, 1947). There are also many specia li zed sutdies of this Iheme: Two examples: Gerh ard Heintzc, Luthers Predigt von Geset z um/ Evangelium (Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1958); and Thomas M. McDo nough, The Law and the Go.1pel in Luther. A Swdy u( Luther 's Confessional Writings (London: Oxford University Press, 1963). 79 1.1 This is true of Wendel's Calvin, op. tit.; Wilhelm Niescl's 711e 111eolof(y of Calvin (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956); A. Mitchell Hunter's 77ie Teaching of Calvin (Wes twood, N.J .: Fleming H. Revell Co., second revised ed .. 1950). The one exception is Wilhelm Nicsel's Reformed Sy111bolic.1 (British title) published in th e Un ited Stales under the title T11 e G1J.1pel and the Churches. A Comparison of Catholicis1n , Orthodoxy and Protestr111ti.1m (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962). Herc he has a chapter, "Gospel and Law" (note the o rd er; Nicscl is a faithfu l Barthian) in which he compares the Lutheran and Reformed views. 14 In English we have a one vo lume ve rsion of an ea rli er lwo-volumc edition in German: n~xtbook of the Histo ry of Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1952). is The closest one comes to a spccilic treatment of this theme is in such trea ti ses as Two Kinds of l?ighteousness (1 5 18); 7/w Freedom of a Christian ( 1520); Treatise 0 11 Good Works ( 1520); and Against th~ Antinomirms (1539). "The bes t Engli sh translation is th at by Wi lhelm Pauck in 'The Library of Christian Classics, " Vo l. XV (Phila delphia: Westminster Press, 1961) . " In 15 16- 15 17 Luther first lectured on Galatians. Luther's own copy of these lectures has not survived, but fortunately we have a copy taken down by one of hi s students (WA. Vo l. 57). For an analys is see Rupp. op. cit .. pp. 194ff. He lectured again o n Galati ans in 151 9 (WA. Vol. 2). These lectures, translated by Richard Jungkunlz, arc found in the second half of Volume 27 of Luther '.\· Works (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1964). As Jaroslav Pelikan, the editor of this vo lume, points out. "The term 'Luther's Galatians' could conceivably be taken to refer to any one of five (or even six) comment aries on the Epistle 10 the Galatians by Martin Luther," p. IX. " Others wo uld give pride of place to The Bondage of the Will ( 1525), hi s lengthy and carefully done res ponse to Erasmus' Diatribe on Free Will ( 1524). 19 I have already referred to Vol. 27 in footnote # 17. Jaroslav Peli kan is the translator of the Lectures on Gala- tians 1535, the ex position of the first four chapters appearing in Vol. 27 of Lwher ;· Works (1963). 20 In the Torrance ed ition of Calvin '.1· New Testament Commenrnries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965). " Lot. l'it .. p. 122 (WA 40, 2 18). 22 Ibid.. p. 123 (WA 40, 2 18). " Loe. tit .. p. 39 (CO 50, 196). " Loe l'it .. p. 137 (WA 40, 240) . If-justification happens through the Law, then it does not happen through grace," O n 2: 17, p. 146 (WA 40, 253). " Loe cit., p. 40 (CO 50, 196).

26 P. 155 (WA 40, 266). " P. 157 (WA 40, 270). " P. 158 (WA 40, 27 1). 2• P. 4 1 (CO 50, 198). '° P. 42 (CO 50, 198). 31 P. 163 (WA 40, 278). l2 Ibid (WA 40, 278). n P. 42 (CO 50, 198) . " P. 203 (WA 40, 329). " On 3:6. p. 49 (CO 50, 204). 36 Ibid.. pp. 50-5 1 (CO 50, 206). 37 Ibid.. p. 53 (CO 50, 208). Translati on mine. 38 Sec hi s lnstitwes 11. 7.2,7, and particularly his discussion of 2 Cor. 3:6, Comm. foe. tit. (CO 50, 40f.); and Comm. Acts 7:38 (CO 48, 151) . 39 P. 25 1 (WA 40, 396). "' Luther illustrates this distinction earlier by designating such things as a kingdom, political ordinances, a wife and children, as physical blessi ngs in contrast to "righteousness in the sight of God" which is a blessing of a "theological" o r spiritual nature. The aforementioned phys ical blessings are divine but temporal, spiritual bless ings arc eternal (p. 250; WA 40, 394). 41 P. 253 (WA 40, 398). Philip Watson, in hi s translation based on the Middleton text, translates "m etaphysice acceptis" as "in respect to their essence," A Comme111m y on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: James Clark e & Co .. 1953), p. 245. " P. 2S5 (WA 40, 401). " P. 253 (WA 40, 399). 44 P. 25 1 (WA 40, 395).

80 " P . .\09 (W/\ 40, 48 1). "The proper and abso lute use o f the I.aw (/1roprius er ai>.w/1111 1s lei;is us11s)." p . .\ 10 (W/\ 40, 482). C L simi la r languagc- "true and proper use," "true functi o n and use" - on pp. 3 12 a nd 3 15 (W/\ 40, 484, 489). " P. 60 (CO 50 , 2 15). Later, in reference to verse 2.1 he makes a simila r explanatio n. Paul here (i n 3:23). " is spea king not onl y of th e ccrcrn oni cs or of the moral la w. but embraces th e whole eco nom y (uecu 11 umia111) by which the Lo rd governed his people under the o ld covenant," p. 65 (C O 50, 2 19).

47 /hit/. Translation min e. " P. 6 1 (C O 50 , 2 15). " /hid. 4 1 ' a It i!-1 quite poss ib le that "they" arc members of th e Libertine sect (cf. Ca lvin 's Collln' la secte plw111<1 .vtique des Liheni11.\ ) or John Agri cola, ori ginally a fo ll ower of Luther who se parat ed from him and bega n th e Antimoni an Controve rsy in 1537. Ford Baltlcs id ent ifies th em as probably th e "ce rt ain ignorant persons" who "rashl y cast o ut the who le o f Moses, a nd bid farewe ll to the two tables o f the Law," /11srirwes 11. 7. 13 a nd note 1120. p. 36 1. " Pp . .108-9 . er. Luther on Gala ti ans 3: 12, pp. 274-5 (W/\ 40, 429), and on 3:24, p. .14 8 (W/\ 40, 53.1 ). " P . .128 (WA 40, 508). " P. 64 (CO 50. 2 17). " P. 66 (C O 50, 220). " On 3:24, p. 67 (C O 50 , 22 1). Professor A nd rew J . Bandstra of C a lvin Seminary. in a n essay, "Law and Gospel in Calvin and in Paul ," is cri ti cal of thi s int erpretation because it "understand s Paul to be speaking of the la w in a pos itive manner of bringing peo ple to C hrist. . . . But this more posit ive view of the law is prec ise ly not in view here: for bond age being shut up under sin and th e curse of th e la w, is Pau l's co nce rn in thi s co nt ext," Expluri11!( 1/Je llerirai;e of Juh11 Calvin. Essays in Him ors of" Juh11 /Jra11. Da vid E. Hulwerrla. Edito r (Ci rand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 25. Bandsll'a has a poin t here. but in the quotati on immediately preceding this one Calvin spoke more negati ve ly of th e role of the law as a "schoolm aster. " M oreover. th e same eriticism could be levelled against Luther. des pite his more negative structures. E.g., on the Jaw as custodian Luther. apparently speak in g from ex pe rien ce. obse rves that the Law is not like a teacher who is a tyrant who co ntinually whips his stu denb, but drives th em to C hrist "just as a good teacher whips, trains. and disc iplines his pupils in reading and writ ing with the purpose o f bringing thc rn to a knowledge of the liberal arts and o f o ther good things, so that eventu a lly they may d o with pl easure what initially, when they were fo rced to it by their teacher. they did in voluntar ily," p. 346 (C O 40. 532). " P. 67 (C O 50 , 22 1). S<• Bot h th e older Pringle translation and th e rece nt Parker translation are in acc urate here a nd simply have " rule of life." T his type of phrase is anathema to Elcrt. The law, he in sists. "can never be onl y a rule for li fe," OJJ . cit ., p. 11 . Cf. pp. 7. 45. E lert d oc' no t rea lize that for Calvin the law, even for the C h ri stian, is "never o nly a rule for life." but also co ntinu e ~ to remind the believer o f hi s sin and failure. See the Institute.\· 11. 7. 12 where C alvin e x p l ain ~ th e third use or th e law: "Even for a spi ritual man not ye t free of the we ight of th e llcsh. th e law remains a con stant sting that will not let him stand still. " " On 3:25, p. 349 (C O 40, 535). "The entire law has been a brogated for believers in C hrist," o n Galatians 4:27, p. 447 (C O 40. 672). '" P . .149 (C O 40, 536). 59 /hid (C O 40. 535 1".) . "T o the extent that take ho ld o f C hrist by fa ith, therefo re. to that extent the Law has been abrogated for rn e. But m y fl esh. the wo rld , and the d ev il do not permit faith to be perfect," pp. 350- 1 (C O 40. 5.1 8).

" 1 From hi ' "Apo logy to the /\ugsbu rg C onfe ssio n." T his is fo und in 7lle /Jook of Cunnml. edited by Theod o re G. Tap pert (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg. 1959). p. 150.

<• 1 " In it s highest use and force th e I.aw ca nn ot do anything but accuse : frighten, condemn and kill ... Even in it s best USC , therefore, the Law ca n o nl y produce a knowled ge or sin and terro r or death," Luther on Galatians 4:3, p. 363 (C O 40. 554L).

r..2 Institute.\· 11. 7.7.

OJ f n.V!ifllfl'S lf .7. 12. "" P. 5 1 in Volume 27 of L111/wr\ Works w hich co ntai n the ex position of C hapters Five a nd S ix (WA 40. 64). A ll references to chapters fi ve and six in the critical Weimar Ausgabe (WA) will be from Band 40, Zweire Abtcilu ng. " /hit!. (WA 40. 64). "'' P. 52 (WA 40, 66). " On 2: 16. p. 133. in Vol. 26 (WA 40, 234). "The sound o f the promise to /\braham (in 3: 10 ff) brings C hrist; a nd w he n He has been g rasped by faith, the n the Ho ly S pirit is granted on C hrist's account. Then G od and

81 our neighbor arc loved. good wo rk s arc perfo rm ed. and Ille cro ss is borne. This is reall y keepin g the Law . ... p. 255 !CO 40. 40 1). ''' On 6:8. pp . I 13- 1 14 (CO 50. 262 ). ,,, Co111 111 cntary O il 5: 14. pp . 100- 1 (CO 50, 25 1). "God " " llllS to make trial of our love to Him by that love or our brothc.:r which He com mamb to us. This is why not onl y here but also in Roman s 18:8 and 10 love is ca ll ed th e lui filli ng of th e law. n OI hct:a usc it is superio r to the worship of God. bu t becau se it is proof of it. " p. IOI. Cf. !1wit///e.1· 11.8.53. 55.

10 So Karl Barth . Church Dox111atiD. IV.2, p. 509.

11 Ca lvi n\ bcsl disc ussio n of good works in relation to justification is in chapter 16 of Bo ok Ill of th e !t1s1i1wes. " On 5: I .1. p. 48 (WI\ 40, 60). " P. 5.1 (CO 40. 67). " On 5:2.1. p. 106 (CO 50. 2511 ). "Now it is clea r that the members of Christ arc injured if they arc still held in bondage to the law. from which all who have bee n regenerated by hi s love have been se t free." on 5:24. p. 106. 1s Sec /\. Ganoc7y, ··Calvin als pau lini sc hcr Theologe." in Culvinu.\· 711('0/ogicus, hrsg. vo n W. H. Neuse r (Neu kirchcn: Nc uk irchcncr Verlag. 1976). pp . .191T. Ganocly conce ntrates on Calvin 's ex position of Romans. whic h provid e' th e hermcncuti cal key for Calvin's theology as Galatians docs for Luther's theology, pp. 48, 60.

7" For Luther see the di sc ussion by Althaus. 1he 7/1eolog•' of Martin Lwher, pp. 25 1-2; for Calvin sec the lnsti- 1L1tes, 11.8. 1. 7. " Sec hi s Galati ans Commentary on 5: I. pp . 5-6 (WA 40, 4.5) where such characteri stic combinations occur fi ve · times in two pages!

18 Institute.\ 1 1. 7.2~ cf. 111. 7.7. The Battl e:-. lra nslati on of th is phrase reads "graced with the covenant. .. " Sin ce th e co ntras t is betwee n th e bare (11uda) law and the clo thed (veslita) law. I prefe r the mo re literal translati on in order to hring out the force of th e co ntrast. In an oth er place in the lnstit111es where the wo rd vestilll is used Battles trnn slates it as "c loth ed": "Thi s. th en. is th e true knowledge of Christ. if we rece ive him as he is offered by th e Father: namely as clothed (vestitwn) with hi s gospel," 111. 2.6. 79 Commentary on 4:4. p. 74 (CO 50. 227 ). Cf. on 3: 19. p. 61 (CO 50, 215), and the commentary on 3:25. p. 67. cited above. note 55.

• 1 On 4: 24. p. 86 (CO 50, 2J8). " Althaus. op. cit ., p. 272. /\lthaus adds in a foo tnote (ff l25) a most interest in g obse rvation: "U nde r no ci rcum stan ces th erefo re ma y one int erpret the Dcca log in Luther's ca tec hi sm as meaning that it has a place onl y befo re 'justi fi ca ti on.' And it is equally inco rrec t to asse rt that th e positi on of th e Deca log in the Heid elberg Catec hi sm aft er 'Redemption' and under 'Gratitude' is spec ifi call y Reformed rather than Lutheran. It is we ll known that the ord er of the chief parts of the Heid elbe rg Catech ism occurs in a Lutheran catech ism as early as 1547." It shoul d be obvious that /\lth aus be lieves that Luther docs in effec t teach a third use of the law and is thus opposed to Elcrt and other Lutherans such as Ragna r Bring who rega rd this as a Melanchthoni an and Re formed heresy even th ough it appea rs in a guarded form in the Formula of Conco rd , a Lutheran co nrcss ion ! (see Althaus. p. 273 ). Cf. the essay by th e Danish Lutheran ethicist, N. H. Sjle. "The Three ' Uses' of the Law," in Norm and Conte.rt in Christian Ethics, edited by Gene H. Outka and Paul Ramsey (New York : Charles Scribner's Sons. 1968), pp. 297ff. /\long with Helmut T hicli cke, in hi s 1/wuloximl Ethics. Vol. I. he obse rves that while Cal vin acce ntu ated the third use more th an Luther. "ac tu all y there was no esse ntial difference betwee n th ese two reformers oin this questi on," p. 3 10. 82 "He who want s to be a tru e C hristi an or to belong to the kingdo m of Christ must be trul y a believe r. But he does not truly beli eve if works of love do not fo ll ow his fait h. " on Gal. 5:6, p. 30 (WA 40, 37). Cf. the helpful ess ay by Robert Bertram ...Th e Radical Dialect ic Betwee n Faith and Works in Luther's Lcc tllres on Ga latians (1 535)," in L.wherfor an Ecw1wnirnl Axe. Carl Meye r. editor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1967). pp. 227ff.. 235 ff. ' ·'So Friedrich Brunstiid, 1heuloxie lier lwherischen Bekennt11i.rnhr!fie11 (GUiersloh, C. Bert elsmann. 195 1), p. 79. s4 This cru cial poi nt in understanding Ca lvin's view of la w and gospel is articu lated and deve loped in my doctor al dissertation. Calvin's Co11cep1 and Use of the Lmv (llasel Unive rsi ty, 196 1), Chapter VI I, pp . 9f. . 421T. Cf. llandstra's essay, "Law and Gospel in Calvin and in Paul." pp. 12ff. " Com ment ary on Galatians 5: I, p. 92 (CO 50, 24.1). sti "The sixtee nth ce ntury was, above all things, th e age of the Bibl e. How strange. th en. that thi s area of hi story has. apart from so me we ll trodden paths. bee n neglec ted . ... It is. however. whe n we come to the comment ar ies, th at 1he dee pest pove rt y appea rs." T . J-1 . L. Parker, Calvin'.\· Ne \\· Testament Commentaries (London: SCM Press. G rand Rapids:, Ee rdmans. 197 1) pp . vi if. Cf. Ganoczy, op. l'it., pp . 45f. who points out that the first " hcrm cncutical circle" fo r Calvin combines both the lnstitwes and Paul's Epis tle to the RonH11 1' as the "key" to Scripture.