Study

4. Whose minds the god of this world He intimates, that no account should be made of their perverse obstinacy. “They do not see,” says he, “the sun at mid-day, because the devil has blinded their understandings.” No one that judges rightly can have any doubt, that it is of Satan that the Apostle speaks. Hilary, as he had to do with Arians, who abused this passage, so as to make it a pretext for denying Christ’s true divinity, while they at the same time confessed him to be God, twists the text in this way — “God hath blinded the understandings of this world.” In this he was afterwards followed by Chrysostom, with the view of not conceding to the Manicheans their two first principles. ⁴³⁷⁴³⁷     The Manicheans, so called from Manes their founder, held the doctrine of two first principles, a good and an evil, thinking to account in this way for the origin of evil. See Calvin’s Institutes, volume 1 — Ed. What influenced Ambrose does not appear. Augustine had the same reason as Chrysostom, having to contend with the Manicheans.

We see what the heat of controversy does in carrying on disputes. Had all those men calmly read Paul’s words, it would never have occurred to any one of them to twist them in this way into a forced meaning; but as they were harassed by their opponents, they were more concerned to refute them, than to investigate Paul’s meaning. But what occasion was there for this? For the subterfuge of the Arians was childish — that if the devil is called the god of this world, the name of God, as applied to Christ, does not express a true, eternal, and exclusive divinity. For Paul says elsewhere, many are called gods, (1 Corinthians 8:5;) but David, on the other hand, sings forth — the gods of the nations are demons. ⁴³⁸⁴³⁸     “Les dieux des Gentils sont diables;” — “The gods of the Gentiles are devils.” Calvin here, as in many other instances, quotes according to the sense, not according to the words. The passage referred to is rendered by Calvin — “All the gods of the nations are vanities,” (“ou, idoles,” “or idols,”) the Hebrew word being, as he notices, אלילים, (elilim,) mere nothings, (1 Corinthians 8:4,) instead of אלהים, (elohim,) gods. (See Calvin on the Psalms, vol. 4, pp. 50, 51.) There can be no doubt that Calvin, in quoting this passage here, has an eye to what is stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:20. — Ed. (Psalm 96:5.) When, therefore, the devil is called the god of the wicked, on the ground of his having dominion over them, and being worshipped by them in the place of God, what tendency has this to detract from the honor of Christ? And as to the Manicheans, this appellation gives no more countenance to the Manicheans, than when he is called the prince of this world. (John 14:30.) ⁴³⁹⁴³⁹     Calvin, when commenting on the passage referred to, remarks, that “the devil is called the prince of this world, not because he has a kingdom separated from God, (as the Manicheans imagined,) but because, by God’s permission, he exercises his tyranny over the world.” — Calvin on John, volume 2. — Ed.

There is, therefore, no reason for being afraid to interpret this passage as referring to the devil, there being no danger in doing so. For should the Arians come forward and contend, ⁴⁴⁰⁴⁴⁰     “Tant qu’ils voudront;” — “As much as they please” that Christ’s divine essence is no more proved from his having the appellation God applied to him, than Satan’s is proved from its being applied to him, a cavil of this nature is easily refuted; for Christ is called God without any addition, ⁴⁴¹⁴⁴¹     Calvin obviously means by this clause — without anything being added having a tendency to qualify or limit the appellation. In accordance with this he says in the Institutes, (volume 1,) that the “title,” God, “is not conferred on any man without some addition, as when it is said that Moses would be a god to Pharaoh.” (Exodus 7:1.) — Ed. nay, he is called God blessed for ever. (Romans 9:5.) He is said to be that God who was

in the beginning, before the creation of the world.
(John 1:1-3.)

The devil, on the other hand, is called the god of this world, in no other way than as Baal is called the god of those that worship him, or as the dog is called the god of Egypt. ⁴⁴²⁴⁴²     A variety of animals, besides the dog, were worshipped by the Egyptians, and even some vegetable substances, growing in their gardens, were adored by them as deities! Calvin, when commenting on 1 Corinthians 8:5, speaks of the Egyptians as having rendered divine homage to “the ox, the serpent, the cat, the onion, the garlic.” — Calvin on Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 277. — Ed. The Manicheans, as I have said, for maintaining their delusion, have recourse to other declarations of Scripture, as well as this, but there is no difficulty in refuting those also. They contend not so much respecting the term, as respecting the power. As the power of blinding is ascribed to Satan, and dominion over unbelievers, they conclude from this that he is, from his own resources, the author of all evil, so as not to be subject to God’s control — as if Scripture did not in various instances declare, that devils, no less than the angels of heaven, are servants of God, each of them severally in his own manner. For, as the latter dispense to us God’s benefits for our salvation, so the former execute his wrath. Hence good angels are called powers and principalities, (Ephesians 3:10,) but it is simply because they exercise the power given them by God. For the same reason Satan is the prince of this world, not as if he conferred dominion upon himself, or obtained it by his own right, or, in fine, exercised it at his own pleasure. On the contrary, he has only so much as the Lord allows him. Hence Scripture does not merely make mention of the good spirit of God, and good angels, but he also speaks of evil spirits of God. An evil spirit from God came upon Saul. (1 Samuel 16:14.) Again, chastisements through means of evil angels. (Psalm 78:49.)

With respect to the passage before us, the blinding is a work common to God and to Satan, for it is in many instances ascribed to God; but the power is not alike, nor is the manner the same. I shall not speak at present as to the manner. Scripture, however, teaches that Satan blinds men, ⁴⁴³⁴⁴³     “Les reprouuez;” — “The reprobate.” not merely with God’s permission, but even by his command, that he may execute his vengeance. Thus Ahab was deceived by Satan, (1 Kings 22:21,) but could Satan have done this of himself? By no means; but having offered to God his services for inflicting injury, he was sent to be a

lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.
(1 Kings 22:22.)

Nay more, the reason why God is said to blind men is, that after having deprived us of the right exercise of the understanding, and the light of his Spirit, he delivers us over to the devil, to be hurried forward by him to a reprobate mind, (Romans 1:28,) gives him the power of deception, and by this means inflicts just vengeance upon us by the minister of his wrath. Paul’s meaning, therefore, is, that all are possessed by the devil, who do not acknowledge his doctrine to be the sure truth of God. For it is more severe to call them slaves of the devil, ⁴⁴⁴⁴⁴⁴     “The god of this world. O that we could consider this, according to what it doth import and carry in it of horror and detestableness! It is a thing that we do not yet believe, that a world inhabited by reasonable creatures, God’s own offspring, is universally fallen into a confederacy and combination with another god, with an enemy — god, an adversary — god, against the living and true God! Men have changed their God. And what a fearful choice have they made! Fallen into a league with those wicked creatures that were weary of his government before, and that were, thereupon, thrown down into an abyss of darkness, and bound up in the chains thereof, unto the judgment of the great day. But doth the Scripture say this in vain? or hath it not a meaning when it calls the devil the god of this world? O with what amazement should it strike our hearts, to think that so it is, that the whole order of creatures is gone off from God, and fallen into a confederacy with the devil and his angels, against their rightful sovereign Lord.” — Howe’s Works. (London, 1834.) p. 1206. — Ed. than to ascribe their blindness to the judgment of God. As, however, he had a little before adjudged such persons to destruction, (2 Corinthians 4:3,) he now adds that they perish, for no other reason than that they have drawn down ruin upon themselves, as the effect of their own unbelief.

Lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine upon them. This serves to confirm what he had said — that if any one rejected his gospel, it was his own blindness that prevented him from receiving it. “For nothing,” says he, “appears in it but Christ, and that not obscurely, but so as to shine forth clearly.” He adds, that Christ is the image of God, by which he intimates that they were utterly devoid of the knowledge of God, in accordance with that statement —

He that knoweth not me knoweth not my Father.
(John 14:7.)

This then is the reason, why he pronounced so severe a sentence upon those that had doubts as to his Apostleship — because they did not behold Christ, who might there be distinctly beheld. It is doubtful whether he employed the expression, the gospel of the glory of Christ, as meaning the glorious gospel, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom; or whether he means by it — the gospel, in which Christ’s glory shone forth. The second of these meanings I rather prefer, as having in it more completeness.

When, however, Christ is called the image of the invisible God, this is not meant merely of his essence, as being the “co-essential of the Father,” as they speak, ⁴⁴⁵⁴⁴⁵     Calvin manifestly refers to an expression made use of by the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, to express unity of essence in the first and second persons of the Trinity, the Son having been declared to be ὁμοούσις τῷ Πατρὶ — co-essential with the Father. “It had been used in the same sense by some writers before the meeting of the Council. It is remarkable, however, that it had been rejected by the Council of Antioch, A.D. 263, on account of the inference which Paul of Samosata pretended to draw from it, namely, that if Christ and the Spirit were consubstantial with the Father, it followed that there were three substances — one prior and two posterior — derived from it. To guard against this inference, the Council declared that the Son was not ὁμοούσιος τῷ Πατρὶ (consubstantial with the Father.) “Paul” (of Samosata) “seems to have explained the term as signifying specific, or of the same species; and it is certain that this sense had sometimes been given to it. Thus Aristotle calls the stars ὁμοούσια meaning that they were all of the same nature. But in the creed of Nice it is expressive of unity of essence, and was adopted, after considerable discussion, as proper to be opposed to the Arians, who affirmed that the essence of the Son was different and separate from the Father.” — Dick’s Theology, volume 2. The reader will also find the same expression largely treated of by Calvin in the Institutes, volume 1 — 1. See also Institutes, volume 2, and Calvin on John, vol. 1, p. 417. — Ed. but rather has a reference to us, because he represents the Father to us. The Father himself is represented as invisible, because he is in himself not apprehended by the human understanding. He exhibits himself, however, to us by his Son, and makes himself in a manner visible. ⁴⁴⁶⁴⁴⁶     “Christ is the image of God, as a child is the image of his father; not in regard of the individual property which the Father hath distinct from the child, and the child from the father, but in respect of the same substance and nature, derived from the father by generation. Christ is here called the image of God, (2 Corinthians 4:4,) ‘not so much,’ saith Calvin, in relation to God, as the Father is the exemplar of his beauty and excellency, as in relation to us, as he represents the Father to us in the perfections of his nature, as they respect us and our welfare, and renders him visible to the eyes of our minds.” — Charnock’s Works, (Lond. 1684,) volume 2, p. 476. — Ed. I state this, because the ancients, having been greatly incensed against the Arians, insisted more than was befitting on this point — how it is that the Son is inwardly the image of the Father by a secret unity of essence, while they passed over what is mainly for edification — in what respects he is the image of God to us, when he manifests to us what had otherwise been hid in him. Hence the term image has a reference to us, as we shall see again presently ⁴⁴⁷⁴⁴⁷     See on verse 6. The epithet invisible, though omitted in some Greek manuscripts, I have preferred to retain, as it is not superfluous. ⁴⁴⁸⁴⁴⁸     Three manuscripts (as stated by Poole in his Synopsis) have ἀοράτου (invisible,) but it is generally believed to have been an interpolation from Colossians 1:15. — Ed.

5. For we preach not ourselves Some make this to be an instance of Zeugma, ⁴⁴⁹⁴⁴⁹     Zeugma is a figure of speech, in which two subjects are used jointly (the term being derived from ξεύηνυμι to join) with the same predicate, which strictly belongs only to one. — Ed. in this manner: We preach not ourselves to be lords, but God’s only Son, whom the Father has set over all things, to be the one Lord. ⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰     “Auquel le Pere a baillé superintendance sur toutes choses;” — “To whom the Father has given superintendence over all things.” I do not, indeed, find fault with that interpretation, but as the expression is more emphatic (εμφατικωτερα) and has a more extensive signification, ⁴⁵¹⁴⁵¹     “Comme ainsi soit que la facon de parler est de plus grand poids, et s’estend plus loin;” — “As it is a form of expression that has greater weight, and is more extensive.” when it is said, that one preaches himself. I am more inclined to retain this interpretation, especially as it is almost unanimously approved of. For there are other ways in which men preach themselves, than by arrogating to themselves dominion, as for example, when they aim at show, rather than at edification — when they are desirous in any way to have distinction — when, farther, they make gain of the gospel. Ambition, therefore, and avarice, and similar vices in a minister, taint the purity of his doctrine, so that Christ has not there the exclusive distinction. Hence, he that would preach Christ alone, must of necessity forget himself.

And ourselves your servants. Lest any one should mutter out the objection—”But in the mean time you say many things respecting yourself,” he answers, that he desires nothing farther, than that he should be their servant. “Whatever things I declare respecting myself (so loftily, and boastfully, in your opinion) have this object in view — that I may in Christ serve you advantageously.” It follows, that the Corinthians are excessively proud and ungrateful, if they reject this condition. Nay more, it follows, that they had been previously of a corrupt judgment, inasmuch as they had not perceived his holy affection.

Here, however, all pastors of the Church are admonished as to their state and condition, for by whatever title of honor they may be distinguished, they are nothing more than the servants of believers, and unquestionably, they cannot serve Christ, without serving his Church at the same time. An honorable servitude, it is true, this is, and superior to any principality, ⁴⁵²⁴⁵²     “Plus heureuse que toutes les principautez du monde;” — “Happier than all the principalities of the world.” but still it is a servitude, so that Christ alone may be elevated to distinction — not encumbered by the shadow of a single rival ⁴⁵³⁴⁵³     “N’estant nullement empesché par l’ombre de quelque autre qui luy seroit donne pour compagnon;” — “In no degree hindered by the shadow of any other, that might be given him as a companion.” Hence it is the part of a good pastor, not merely to keep aloof from all desire of domineering, but to regard it as the highest pitch of honor, at which he aspires — that he may serve the people of God. It is the duty of the people, on the other hand, to esteem the servants of Christ first of all on the ground of the dignity of their Master, and then farther on account of the dignity and excellence of their office, that they may not despise those, whom the Lord has placed in so illustrious a station.

6. God who commanded light to shine out of darkness. I see that this passage may be explained in four different ways. In the first place thus: “God has commanded light to shine forth out of darkness: that is, by the ministry of men, who are in their own nature darkness, He has brought forward the light of His gospel into the world.” Secondly, thus: “God has made the light of the gospel to take the place of the law, which was wrapt up in dark shadows, and thus, He has brought light out of darkness.” Those that are fond of subtleties, would be prepared readily to receive expositions of that sort, but any one, who will examine the matter more closely, will perceive, that they do not correspond with the Apostle’s intention. The third exposition is that of Ambrose: “When all things were involved in darkness, God kindled up the light of His gospel. For mankind were sunk in the darkness of ignorance, when God on a sudden shone forth upon them by his gospel.” The fourth is that of Chrysostom, who is of opinion, that Paul alluded to the creation of the world, in this way: “God, who by his word created light, drawing it, as it were, out of the darkness ⁴⁵⁴⁴⁵⁴     “Du profond des tenebres;” — “Out of the depth of darkness.” — that same Being has now enlightened us in a spiritual manner, when we were buried in darkness.” This transition, ⁴⁵⁵⁴⁵⁵     Anagoge. The Reader will find in the Harmony (vol. 1, p. 436, n. 1,) a lucid view of the import of the word anagoge, or rather ἀναγωγὴ as employed, on the one hand, by “divines of the allegorizing school,” and on the other by Calvin, whose reverence for the inspired oracles would not permit him to give way to mere fancy in the interpretation of them, even in a single instance. — Ed. from light that is visible and corporeal to what is spiritual, has more of elegance, and there is nothing forced in it. The preceding one, ⁴⁵⁶⁴⁵⁶     “La troisieme exposition;” — “The third exposition.” however, is not unsuitable. Let every one follow his own judgment.

Hath shined in our hearts. He speaks of a twofold illumination, which must be carefully observed — the one is that of the gospel, the other is secret, taking place in our hearts. ⁴⁵⁷⁴⁵⁷     “Interieurement en nos coeurs;” — “Inwardly in our hearts.” For as God, the Creator of the world, pours forth upon us the brightness of the sun, and gives us eyes to receive it, so, as the Redeemer, in the person of his Son, He shines forth, indeed, upon us by His gospel, but, as we are blind, that would be in vain, if He did not at the same time enlighten our understandings by His Spirit. His meaning, therefore, is, that God has, by His Spirit, opened the eyes of our understandings, so as to make them capable of receiving the light of the gospel.

In the face of Jesus Christ. In the same sense in which he had previously said that Christ is the image of the Father, (2 Corinthians 4:4) he now says, that the glory of God is manifested to us in his face. Here we have a remarkable passage, from which we learn that God is not to be sought out (Job 11:7) in His unsearchable height,

(for He dwells in light that is inaccessible, 1 Timothy 6:16,)

but is to be known by us, in so far as He manifests himself in Christ. Hence, whatever men desire to know respecting God, apart from Christ, is evanescent, for they wander out of the way. True, indeed, God in Christ appears in the first instance to be mean, but he appears at length to be glorious in the view of those, who hold on, so as to come from the cross to the resurrection. ⁴⁵⁸⁴⁵⁸     “Ceux, qui ont la patience de venir de la croix ... la resurrection;” — “Those, who have the patience to come from the cross to the resurrection.” Again we see, that in the word person ⁴⁵⁹⁴⁵⁹     The original expression is προσώπῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ — in the person of Jesus Christ. — Ed. there is a reference made to us, ⁴⁶⁰⁴⁶⁰     “Ce qui est dit de Dieu, c’est pour le regard de nous;” — “What is said respecting God, is in relation to us.” because it is more advantageous for us to behold God, as He appears in His only-begotten Son, than to search out His secret essence.

7. But we have this treasure. Those that heard Paul glorying in such a magnificent strain as to the excellence of his ministry, and beheld, on the other hand, his person, contemptible and abject in the eyes of the world, might be apt to think that he was a silly and ridiculous person, and might look upon his boasting as childish, while forming their estimate of him from the meanness of his person. ⁴⁶⁴⁴⁶⁴     “Ils le iugeoyent selon l’apparence de sa personne, qui estoit petite et contemptible;” — “They judged of him according to the appearance of his person, which was small and contemptible.” The wicked, more particularly, caught hold of this pretext, when they wished to bring into contempt every thing that was in him. What, however, he saw to be most of all unfavorable to the honor of his Apostleship among the ignorant, he turns by an admirable contrivance into a means of advancing it. First of all, he employs the similitude of a treasure, which is not usually laid up in a splendid and elegantly adorned chest, but rather in some vessel that is mean and worthless; ⁴⁶⁵⁴⁶⁵     “The term σκεῦος (vessel), from σχέω to hold, has an allusion to the body’s being the depository of the soul. ́̓Οστρακον properly signifies a shell, (of which material, probably, the primitive vessels were formed,) and, 2dly, a vessel, of baked earth. And as that is proverbially brittle, ὀστράκιος denoted weak, fragile, both in a natural and a metaphorical sense; and therefore was very applicable to the human body, both as frail, and as mean.” — Bloomfield. — Ed. and then farther, he subjoins, that the power of God is, by that means, the more illustrated, and is the better seen. “Those, who allege the contemptible appearance of my person, with the view of detracting from the dignity of my ministry, are unfair and unreasonable judges, for a treasure is not the less valuable, that the vessel, in which it is deposited, is not a precious one. Nay more, it is usual for great treasures to be laid up in earthen pots. Farther, they do not consider, that it is ordered by the special Providence of God, that there should be in ministers no appearance of excellence, lest any thing of distinction should throw the power of God into the shade. As, therefore, the abasement of ministers, and the outward contempt of their persons give occasion for glory accruing to God, that man acts a wicked part, who measures the dignity of the gospel by the person of the minister.”

Paul, however, does not speak merely of the universal condition of mankind, but of his own condition in particular. It is true, indeed, that all mortal men are earthen vessels Hence, let the most eminent of them all be selected, and let him be one that is adorned to admiration with all ornaments of birth, intellect, and fortune, ⁴⁶⁶⁴⁶⁶     “De tous ornamens, de race, d’esprit, de richesses, et toutes autres choses semblables;” — “With all ornaments of birth, intellect, riches, and all other things of a like nature.” still, if he be a minister of the gospel, he will be a mean and merely earthen depository of an inestimable treasure Paul, however, has in view himself, and others like himself, his associates, who were held in contempt, because they had nothing of show.