a prison house of riches: calvin’s theology of the …€¦ · 1margaret l. stiles, “theology,...

© 2012 Derek J. Brown 1

A PRISON HOUSE OF RICHES: CALVIN’S THEOLOGY OF THE HUMAN BODY

Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting November 14-16, 2012 – Milwaukee, WI

Derek J. Brown The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

[email protected]

Introduction

Margaret Stiles is correct when she suggests that a study of Calvin’s theology of the

body must be approached by first considering Calvin’s theological agenda and the context in

which he wrote his theology.1 This consideration is especially important in this case since

Calvin did not write a separate volume dedicated to a theology of the body, nor did he designate

a specific section of his major theological work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, to a

discussion of the human body. Thus, our study will draw upon statements made by Calvin about

the human body provided throughout the Institutes as they are given in the context of other

important topics. Nevertheless, this study will not be one of mere inference, developing a

theological formulation from a few isolated texts; Calvin, while not assigning a specific section

in his Institutes to a detailed discussion of the human body per se, does speak often of the human

body and its relation to the various facets of theology and the Christian life. 2

1Margaret L. Stiles, “Theology, Anthropology and the Human Body in Calvin’s Institutes of the

Christian Religion,” in The Harvard Theological Review 74.3 (1981), 303. 2Even in light of the fact that Calvin did not designate a section in his Institutes or set out to write a

separate volume on a theology of the body, it is somewhat surprising to find so little written on this topic. For example, in secondary works that broadly examine Calvin’s teaching, very little to no attention is given to Calvin’s theology of the body. Books in which you might expect such discussion yield meager results—if they offer any results at all. For example, John Leith’s John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox: 1989) says little about Calvin’s view of the body or the physical aspects of life. Paul Helm’s book, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 129-132, provides a brief discussion of the body in relation to Calvin’s view of the soul, but nothing beyond this short inquiry. A. Michael Hunter’s The Teaching of Calvin: A


The goal of this study, however, is not the sheer recitation of texts from the Institutes

related to Calvin’s view of the body, organized under their respective categories. The argument

of this essay is that Calvin, while demonstrating an appreciation for the beauty and goodness of

the human body and the physical nature of human life, is unable to fully divest himself of

Platonic influence and thus tarnishes his otherwise edifying and biblically faithful theology of

the body. In defense of this thesis, this essay will proceed in three stages. First, I will establish

Calvin’s general view toward the human body. In this section I will demonstrate the many ways

in which Calvin valued and exalted the human body and spoke positively about the physical

character of earthly life. Second, I will show the places in which Calvin appears to succumb to a

Platonic view of the human body, noting especially Calvin’s penchant for referring to the body

as a “prison house.” Finally, I will conclude the essay by discussing the ways in which Calvin’s

largely constructive and helpful theology of the body falls short of the biblical witness as a result

of Platonic influence.

The primary source for developing Calvin’s theology of the body in this essay will be

Calvin’s Institutes, although some reference will be made to his commentaries as well. The

method for choosing passages of Scripture upon which to concentrate in Calvin’s commentaries

will depend mainly on references made to Scripture in the text or footnotes of the Institutes.

Reference to Calvin’s commentaries will serve, in most cases, to clarify and expand on

observations already made in the Institutes in order to keep from drawing attention away from

the Institutes as the primary body of literature for this essay. With this methodology in mind, I

now turn to the first major section of this essay.

Modern Interpretation (London: James Clarke, 1950) says very little, and many biographies follow this same pattern. Mary Potter Engel confirms this observation when she notes that a study of Calvin’s general anthropology, to say nothing of Calvin’s view of the human body, “has been one of the doctrines most neglected by scholars” (John Calvin’s Perspectival Anthropology (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), ix. See also Jason Van Vliet, Children of God: The Imago Dei in John Calvin and His Context (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 16.


A Storehouse Overflowing with Inestimable Riches: Calvin’s Positive View of the Human Body

As we have noted above, Calvin’s view of the human body throughout the Institutes is

largely positive. He speaks explicitly of the beauty of the body and defends the goodness of

marriage and sex against the Roman Catholic Church’s insistence on singleness and celibacy for

all members of the clergy. Calvin recognizes the necessity of food and drink for the physical

sustenance and rejoices in God’s care for the body through the supply of its daily needs. Calvin

also condemns physical cruelty and exhibits compassion for those who are suffering persecution,

while decrying not only laziness and gluttony but any spiritual activity that suppresses the

impulse to serve others physically. Finally, Calvin exalts the humanity of Christ and the hope of

the resurrection of Christians. We will examine each of these ideas more thoroughly under their

proper headings.

The Beauty and Wonder of the Human Body

Calvin clearly recognized the magnificence of the human body and the divine wisdom

displayed in its configuration. To Calvin, the human body is a masterpiece—“a storehouse of

inestimable riches.”3 In a section where Calvin rejoices in the wisdom exhibited in the general

creation, he declares concerning the human body, “Likewise, in regard to the structure of the

human body one must have the greatest keenness in order to weigh, with Galen’s skill, its

articulation, symmetry, beauty, and use. But yet, as all acknowledge, the human body shows

itself to be a composition so ingenious that its Artificer is rightly judged a wonder-worker.”4

3John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion in Two Volumes trans. by Ford Lewis Battles and

ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), I.5.4. 4Calvin, Institutes, I.5.2. Footnote 7 on page 54 directs us to Calvin’s comments on Psalm 139:15,

where he ponders God’s immense wisdom in creating the human body, “David no doubt means figuratively to express the inconceivable skill which appears in the formation of the human body. When we examine it, even to the nails on our fingers, there is nothing which could be altered, without felt inconveniency, as at something disjointed or put out of place; and what, then, if we should make the individual parts the subject of enumeration? Where is the embroiderer who—with all his industry and ingenuity—could execute the hundredth part of this complicate [sic] and diversified structure? We need not then wonder if God, who formed man so perfectly in the womb, should have an exact knowledge of him after he is ushered into the world.” Calvin reminds us how fittingly the body has been made for the world in which we live! Any change in our bodily structure brings about serious inconvenience for life in this world, as we see in those who have suffered major physical injury, such as an amputation or paralysis. See


Indeed, Calvin views man as the pinnacle of God’s creation. In speaking of what humankind

should learn from contemplating God’s creation, Calvin suggests, “Finally, we shall learn that in

forming man and in adorning him with such goodly beauty, and with such great and numerous

gifts, he put him forth as the most excellent example of his works.”5 Man’s knowledge of the

creation in general and mankind in particular should, according to Calvin, lead to the worship of

the Creator; unfortunately, it usually leads to the creature’s exaltation without any reference to

the divine Architect.

The very complexity and wonder of the human body is, according to Calvin, a “[sign]

of divinity.”6 For this reason, Calvin strongly condemns unbelievers for not recognizing the

“workshop” of God’s creativity in their own bodies and for failing to praise God for his goodness

and manifold wisdom apparent therein. Calvin comments, “[Mankind] ought, then, to break forth

into praises of him but are actually puffed up and swollen with all the more pride. They feel in

many wonderful ways that God works in them; they are also taught, by the very use of these

things, what a great variety of gifts they possess from his liberality.”7 Furthermore, man is guilty

of suppressing the “seed of divinity” located in the complexity of his body when he substitutes

nature for God. Calvin chides man for not “finding God in his body,”8 observing, “They will not

say it is by chance that they are distinct from brute creatures. Yet they set God aside, the while

using ‘nature’ which for them is the artificer of all things. They see such exquisite workmanship

in their individual members, from mouth to eyes even to their very toenails. Here also they

John Calvin, Psalms 93-150 in vol. 6 of Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. and trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 217.

5Calvin, Institutes I.14.20. 6Calvin, Institutes, I.5.4. See also Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin (London: Lutterworth,

1956), 41-44. 7Ibid. 8Ibid.


substitute nature for God.”9 For Calvin, the refusal to recognize the hand of God in the intricate

complexity of the human body was inexcusable.10

Nevertheless, the body is not to be worshipped, despite its glorious complexity and

unfathomable intricacy; nor is it to become a representation for the invisible God. Calvin

condemned all idolatry—especially the worship of the human form.11 Calvin’s rejection of

idolatry, however, did not stem from disdain for the human body in and of itself, but from the

fact that God had rejected any attempt to domesticate his divine nature by use of a human form.12

On the whole, then, we can see that Calvin esteemed the human body as a stunning work of

divine creativity.

The Goodness of Marriage and Sex

Although Calvin says little in the Institutes about sex specifically, he does speak often

of marriage, upholding it as a sacred and honorable institution. For example, Calvin

acknowledges the kindness of the Lord in providing marriage for both companionship and for the

promotion of purity:

Man has been created in this condition that he may not lead a solitary life, but may enjoy a helper joined to himself . . . Therefore the Lord sufficiently provided for us in this matter when he established marriage, the fellowship of which, begun on his

9Ibid. 10Similar observations are made in Calvin’s commentary on Romans. Concerning Romans 1:20, Calvin

observes, “God is in himself invisible; but as his majesty shines forth in his works and in his creatures everywhere, men ought in these to acknowledge him, for they clearly set for their Maker. . . “ (John Calvin, Romans, in vol. 19 of Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. and trans. Rev. John Owen [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 70.

11Calvin, Institutes, I.11.1-2. 12Calvin, Institutes, I.11.2. Calvin has no problem with images and sculptures of the body as such—he

views these forms of art as gifts from God that can provide legitimate pleasure (see I.11.12). What Calvin is primarily concerned about here is the corruption of worship through the use of such images and sculptures. Calvin reaffirms this position in his commentary on the Decalogue. “It is necessary, then, to remember what God is, lest we should form any gross or earthly ideas respecting Him. The words simply express that it is wrong for men to seek the presence of God in any visible image, because He cannot be represented to our eyes. . . .There is no need for refuting the foolish fancy of some, that all sculptures and pictures are here condemned by Moses, for he had not other object than to rescue God’s glory from all the imaginations which tend to corrupt it.” See John Calvin, Commentary on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony Volume Second, in vol. 2 of Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. and trans. Charles William Bingham, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 107-108.


authority, he also sanctified by his blessing. From this it is clear that any other union apart from marriage is accursed in his sight; and that the companionship of marriage has been ordained as a necessary remedy to keep us from plunging into unbridled lust.13

Thus, both lust and fornication are condemned with the latter viewed by Calvin with stronger

disdain than the former because fornication “brands the body with its own mark.”14 While Calvin

in this context does not expound on what kind of mark fornication leaves on the body, he offers

some clarity in his comments on First Corinthians 6:18, where the apostle Paul exhorts the

Corinthian church to “flee fornication:”

Having set before us honourable conduct, he now shows how much we ought to abhor fornication, setting before us the enormity of its wickedness and baseness. Now he shows its greatness by comparison—that this sin alone, of all sins, puts a brand of disgrace upon the body. The body, it is true, is defiled also by theft, and murder and drunkenness. . . .Hence I explain it in this way, that he does not altogether deny that there are other vices, in like manner, by which our body is dishonoured and disgraced, but that his meaning is simply this—that defilement does not attach itself to our body from other vices the same way as it does from fornication.15

According to Calvin, fornication is most abominable since it is a sin committed against the body,

whereas, echoing Paul, other sins are committed outside the body. The “brand” or “mark” upon

the body, in this case, appears to be the shame that attends this unique sin. Marriage, then, acts

as a prophylactic, preventing men and women from indulging in sexual relations outside the

marriage covenant by providing the proper context for sexual expression and enjoyment.16

13Calvin, Institutes, II.8.41. 14Ibid. 15John Calvin, First Corinthians in vol. 20 of Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. and trans. John Pringle

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 221. 16Although there has been some speculation on whether or not Calvin himself enjoyed the sexual

component of marriage, John Witte Jr. and Robert M. Kingdom, set the record straight when they write, “Calvin’s first biographer Theodore Beza reports that Idelette [Calvin’s first wife] and ‘Calvin lived in marriage about nine years in perfect chastity.’ This has led some to speculate that they had a sexless spiritual marriage, as was occasionally practiced by earnest Catholic couples of the day. But the facts do not bear out such an austere picture, nor do they square with Calvin’s repeated advice that married couples should enjoy each other sexually. Calvin reports that he and Idelette had a ‘very happy honeymoon’ that was unhappily cut short by the plague.” See Sex, Marriage, and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva: Volume 1: Courtship, Engagement, and Marriage (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 99. Certainly such speculation about Calvin’s prudishness does not comport with Witte and Kingdom’s comments or with Calvin’s insistence on the goodness and usefulness of sex within marriage.


In his censures against the Roman Catholic Church and their view of marriage, it is

clear that when Calvin affirms the goodness of marriage, he includes sexual intercourse between

husband and wife within the scope of his blessing. For example, Calvin strongly disapproves of

the Catholic Church’s “rigid and inexorable”17 requirement of celibacy for priests. This

obligation for priests, according to Calvin, not only defies clear biblical teaching, it also

exasperates sin among Catholic priests and pitches souls “into a pit of despair.”18 In Calvin’s

day, fornication apparently thrived among some of the clergy—often times unpunished—as a

result of the Church’s requirement of celibacy for those who served the church in a clerical role.

The Catholic Church even went so far as to label marriage “uncleanness and pollution of the

flesh.”19 Calvin, on the other hand, elevated the institution of marriage to a place of high honor,

affirming the apostle Paul’s vision of marriage: that the earthly reality resembled the profound

heavenly reality of Christ’s relationship with his bride, the church (Ephesians 5:25-33).

Furthermore, Calvin chastises individual clergy for their injudicious willingness to

bind themselves to a vow of celibacy, reproving them for not only disregarding Scripture (e.g.

Genesis 2:18), but for the folly in thinking they are able to endure a celibate lifestyle. Those who

enter rashly into vows of celibacy have not adequately considered their propensity to sin and, as

a result, have developed an unrealistic view of their ability to resist temptation and remain pure.

The gift of celibacy, according to Calvin, was usually temporary in nature and provided by God

as particular occasions required it.20 To resist marriage or to place the yoke of celibacy upon an

17Calvin, Institutes, IV.12.23. 18Ibid. 19Calvin, Institutes, IV.12.24. 20Calvin, Institutes, II.8.43. Calvin offers similar remarks in his commentary on Genesis, strongly

reproving those who suggested that the celibate lifestyle is to be preferred above marriage: “Many think that celibacy conduces to their advantage, and, therefore, abstain from marriage, lest they should be miserable. Not only have heathen writers defined that to be a happy life which is passed without a wife, but the first book of Jerome, against Jovinian, is stuffed with petulant reproaches, by which he attempts to render hallowed wedlock both hateful and infamous. To these wicked suggestions of Satan let the faithful learn to oppose this declaration of God, by which he ordains the conjugal life for man, not to his destruction, but to his salvation” John Calvin, Genesis, in vol. 1 of Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. and trans. John King (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 128-129.


entire group of people (like the clergy) was to misunderstand both Christ and Paul’s teaching

about celibacy (see Matthew 19:12 and I Corinthians 7:7, respectively).21 According to Calvin,

marriage was not only to be held in high honor and viewed as a gift from God; it was a means by

which God helps his people to remain sexually pure. To oppose the gift of marriage for the sake

of celibacy could mean—and in Calvin’s opinion concerning the Catholic Church, did mean—

the refusal to accept God’s help in the fight against sexual immorality.

God’s Providential Care for the Body

Throughout the Institutes, Calvin makes many references to both the necessity of food

and drink for the nourishment of our bodies and to the kindness of the Lord in supplying these

provisions. For example, Calvin rejoices in the wisdom of God in endowing women with breasts

with which to feed their infants—the milk of which they partake is a gift from God and by their

very partaking in God’s provision they ascribe glory to God: “David exclaims that infants still

nursing at their mothers’ breasts are eloquent enough to celebrate God’s glory [Ps. 8:2], for

immediately on coming forth from the womb, they find food prepared for them by his heavenly

care.”22

In his lengthy discussion on the Lord’s Supper, Calvin establishes the reality of

Christ’s spiritual nourishment of the believer upon man’s need of bread and wine for bodily

sustenance, repeatedly reminding his readers of that very point:

21Calvin, Institutes II.8.42. In his comments on Matthew 19:12, Calvin strongly emphasizes the notion

that voluntary celibacy (those who had “made” themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God) was not something chosen or declined by one’s own free will (like the Papists had suggested), but was something given by God to certain individuals. It is folly, therefore, for a man to remain unmarried if he has not received this gift. See John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists: Matthew, Mark and Luke, in vol. 16 of Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. and trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 387.

22Calvin, Institutes, I.16.3. Calvin’s reference to the woman’s breasts and the wisdom of God in

bestowing upon women the ability to feed their children from their own body not only exalts God’s provision, but also demonstrates that Calvin had a holy respect for the female body. The body and its functions (like breast feeding) were not something repugnant to Calvin; they were something that, as we have already noted, displayed the kindness and wisdom of a sovereign God.


For this very familiar comparison penetrates into even the dullest minds: just as bread and wine sustain physical life, so are souls fed by Christ23. . . . Thus, when bread is given as a symbol of Christ’s body, we must at once grasp this comparison: as bread nourishes, sustains, and keeps the life of our body, so Christ’s body is the only food to invigorate and enliven our soul24. . . . In this way the Lord intended, by calling himself the “bread of life” [John 6:51], to teach not only that salvation for us rests on faith in his death and resurrection, but also that, but true partaking of him, his life passes into use and is made ours—just as bread when taken as food imparts vigor to the body.25

In other words, Calvin does not disregard the body’s need for physical sustenance or suggest that

man should forego such provision in favor of a severe asceticism. For Calvin, the very meaning

of the Lord’s Supper hinges on the reality that God created a universe in which man needed food

and drink to live—though he was not to live by bread alone (Matthew 4:4). The power of the

analogy in the Lord’s Supper was found in the fact that just as food and drink are necessary for

the flourishing of human life, so the body and blood of Christ is essential for the nurturing of

spiritual life.

Calvin also speaks of God’s providential care for the general physical welfare of his

creatures.26 Yet, God’s sovereign care for his creatures’ physical safety and wellbeing is often

expressed in the furnishing of secondary means by which man is able to guard and preserve his

own life: “For [God] who has set the limits to our life has at the same time entrusted us to its

care; he has provided means and helps to preserve it; he has also made us able to foresee

dangers; that they may not overwhelm us unaware, he has offered precautions and remedies.”27

23Calvin, Institutes, IV. 17.1. 24Calvin, Institutes, IV. 17.3. 25Calvin, Institutes, IV.17.5. 26Calvin saw the world as abundantly fitted for man’s flourishing. In his commentary on Psalm 8:6,

Calvin notes, “It is certainly a singular honour, and one which cannot be sufficiently estimated, that mortal man, as the representative of God, has dominion over the world, as if it pertained to him by right, and that to whatever quarter he turns his eyes, he sees nothing wanting which may contribute to the convenience and happiness of his life.” See John Calvin, Psalms 1-33 in vol. 4 of Calvin’s Commentaries, ed and trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 105-106. T. F. Torrance comments, “Thus we see in Calvin’s view the key to the whole doctrine of man in creation and destiny is the idea of thankful response to the unbounded grace of God. Nor can we understand the doctrine of creation unless we too are evoked to a grateful adoration of the perfections of God.” See Calvin’s Doctrine of Man (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1977), 25.

27Calvin, Institutes, I.17.4. See also, Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 75.


The refusal of these gracious provisions is folly. Indeed, human beings have the responsibility to

make use of the wisdom and other advantages God gives his creatures in order to protect one’s

life and welfare. Calvin continues, “Now it is very clear what our duty is: thus, if the Lord has

committed to us the protection of our life, our duty is to protect it; if he offers helps, to use them

if he forewarns us of dangers, not to plunge headlong; if he makes remedies available, not to

neglect them.”28 Calvin also recognized the respect that is due to the body by his affirmation of

the sixth commandment, “You shall not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Calvin saw within the sixth

commandment the desire of God for the safety of all people. He elaborates,

To sum up, then all violence, injury, and any harmful thing at all that may injure our neighbor’s body are forbidden to us. We are accordingly commanded, if we find anything of use to use in saving our neighbor’s lives, faithfully to employ it; if there is anything that makes for their peace, to see to it; if anything harmful, to ward it off; if their are in danger, to lend a helping hand.29

Calvin understood the underlying principle in this commandment to be God’s concern, not

merely for the safety of his creatures, but for the preservation of the image of God in man. He

also believed that God had implanted in man two guiding convictions in order to guard him from

unlawfully taking human life: Man was to reverence this image of God implanted in humankind

while also acknowledging the reality that he was one flesh with his fellow man.30

28Ibid. Calvin practiced what he preached by attending to the means God had given man to take care of

his body. Calvin himself diligently sought the help of physicians for his many physical ailments, which included cancer, hemorrhoids, gout, kidney stones, and several other serious problems. See John Calvin, The Letters of John Calvin (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1980), 242-246. While thankful for the remedies God had provided his creatures to aid their various ailments, Calvin also believed that physical disease was a result of sin. Davis Young, writes, “Calvin had quite a bit to say about disease, a phenomenon that he attributed to the presence of sin,” while also directing his readers to Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah 65:20. Here, Calvin draws a connection between sin and present suffering: “To our sins, therefore, it ought to be imputed, that we are liable to diseases, pains, old age, and other inconveniences . . .” See Calvin and the Natural World (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007), 146, and John Calvin, Isaiah 33-66 in vol. 8 of Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. and trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 400-401. See Young’s chapter, “Calvin on the Human Body, Medicine and Origins,” pages 147-149, for an interesting survey of Calvin’s discussion of various physical maladies in specific texts of Scripture.

29Calvin, Institutes, II.8.39. 30Calvin, Institutes, II.8.40.


Accordingly, man can freely give himself over to God’s care because God is

concerned with both his spiritual and physical welfare. Calvin comments, “We give ourselves

over to his care and entrust ourselves to his providence, that he may feed, nourish, and take even

our bodies under his safekeeping and guardianship in order to exercise our faith in these small

matters, while we expect everything from him, even to a crumb of bread and a drop of water.”31

Thus, by acknowledging and exalting God’s care and provision for man’s physical

welfare, Calvin demonstrates his own attitude toward the body: It is a gift from God, worthy of

nurture and protection. This is not to imply that Calvin condoned the preservation of life and

health at all costs. Certain sections in the Institutes suggest there were situations in which it was

both good and right to give the body over to harm—and, quite possibly, to death—in order to

fulfill God’s will.32 Calvin also observed that man tends to care more for his body than he does

for his soul,33 much like the Israelites did to their own spiritual peril, seeking “nothing but a full

belly, delights of the flesh, flourishing wealth, outward power, fruitfulness of offspring, and

whatever natural man prizes.”34 Hence, Calvin maintained that spiritual blessing was more

important than physical blessing35 and reminded his readers that their happiness did not consist

primarily in an abundance of physical blessings, but in the hope of a future heavenly life.36

Even so, we can safely conclude from the above excerpts that Calvin viewed the body as a gift

from God, precious and worthy of care and protection.

31Calvin, Institutes, III.20.44. 32Calvin, Institutes, II.15.4. See also I.8.13 where Calvin displays his admiration of the martyrs who

died for true Scripture doctrine. Calvin, however, did not accept the idea that martyrdom was somehow meritorious, or that it purchased the forgiveness of sins (III.5.3).

33Calvin, Institutes, III.20.44. 34Calvin, Institutes, II.9.23. 35Calvin, Institutes, III.20.44. We see this priority given to spiritual matters when Calvin notes, “Now

even though forgiveness is far more important than bodily nourishment, Christ placed the inferior thing first that he might bring us gradually to the two remaining petitions, which properly belong to the heavenly life” (emphasis added).

36Calvin, Institutes, II.15.4.


Calvin’s Compassion for Those Suffering Persecution And his Condemnation of Physical Cruelty

Calvin also demonstrates his esteem for the human body in his compassion for those

suffering persecution and in his condemnation of physical cruelty. His compassion for those

suffering persecution first arises in the Institutes, not from explicit statements, but in his appeal

to King Francis I in the introduction. One of the very reasons for writing the Institutes was to

promote the relief of suffering for persecuted evangelicals by quelling rumors about and

establishing the soundness of Christian doctrine.37 Inherent in the plea to King Francis to end the

persecution against French Christians was Calvin’s recognition of the legitimacy of a desire for

physical peace and health. Calvin’s attitude toward the bodily harm that inevitably arose from

persecution was not one of indifference—he did not resort to mere spiritual categories and flaunt

the notion that Christians need not fear pain (although he did remind King Francis Christians

were frightened by neither death nor the judgment seat).38 Instead, Calvin sought reprieve from

physical suffering for his brothers and sisters in Christ. Calvin also demonstrated his regard for

the human body by his disapproval of physical cruelty.

Calvin’s condemnation of physical cruelty is found most overtly in his discussion of

government toward the latter half of the second volume of the Institutes. Although he

maintained the government’s divine right to exercise vengeance upon wrongdoers, he objected to

cruel and unfair use of force. To Calvin’s mind, the utmost attention was to be given by rulers to

the issue of retributive justice so that they neither failed to exercise appropriate constraint when

they executed punishment nor neglected their duty to castigate lawbreakers out of misdirected

kindness.39 Governments, according to Calvin, were also allowed to engage in lawful war (e.g.

for the protection of one’s people). In the pursuit of just war, however, magistrates were to

37See Calvin’s “Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France,” sections 1 and 2. For more on this, see

T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin: A Full Scale Life of the Controversial Reformation Leader and Influential Theologian (Batavia, IL: Lion, 1975), 40-43.

38See Calvin’s “Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France,” section 3. 39Calvin, Institutes, IV.20.10.


watch over themselves to ensure they acted with restraint and mercy toward their enemy. He

explains,

But it is the duty of all magistrates here to guard particularly against given vent to their passions even in the slightest degree. Rather, if they have to punish, let them not be carried away with headlong anger, or be seized with hatred, or burn with implacable severity. Let them also (as Augustine says) have pity on the common nature in the one whose special fault they are punishing. Or if they must arm themselves against the enemy, that is, the armed robber, let them not lightly seek occasion to do so; indeed, let them not accept the occasion when offered, unless they are driven to it by extreme necessity.40

Thus, by his approval of just war and his call for rulers to conduct themselves with appropriate

civility toward enemies, Calvin exhibited the value he bestowed upon the human body and

physical life.

Criticism of Monastic Orders41

In Calvin’s criticism of the monastic orders, we find that he disapproved of laziness

and gluttony as well as any spiritual practice that led devotees away from service to others.

According to Calvin, the present-day monastic order had degenerated from ancient practices—

practices that Calvin, for the most part, respected. In order to compare the present-day monastic

order to the ancient practices, he quotes Augustine at length. According to Augustine, the early

monastics were an example of true piety. In order to escape “the allurements of the world,”42

they had gathered together into a “most chaste and holy common life,”43 devoting themselves to

the monastic community, to prayer, to readings, and to theological discussion. These men were

40Calvin, Institutes, IV.20.12. 41In criticizing the monastic orders, Calvin has in mind the present-day monasticism. As we will see, he

quotes with approval Augustine who warmly commends the monastic practice at his time. In this way, the present-day monastics could not ground their practices in the ancient model because—as Calvin argues—they had departed so thoroughly from it. Calvin concludes: “By this comparison of ancient and present-day monasticism I trust I have accomplished my purpose: to show that our hooded friends falsely claim the example of the first church in defense of their profession—since they differ from them as much as apes from men” (Institutes, IV.13.16).

42Calvin, Institutes, IV.13.9. Quoted from Augustine’s, Morals of the Catholic Church. See Calvin,

Institutes, IV.13.9. 43Ibid.


not guilty of pride, laziness or materialism. They lived together, holding everything in common

and feeding themselves only by what they had provided by their own hands. In their eating, they

would only take what was necessary for nourishment and health, avoiding sumptuous fare, and

would use the rest of what they had to feed the poor. And although these men approved of

fasting, they did not require those who were physically sick to abstain from food, nor did they

advocate severe ascetics in order to attain holiness—indeed, they rebuked those who promoted

such restrictions. Augustine explains,

Therefore, they who, while well, restrain themselves [from food], if reason compels them, in sickness have not qualms about taking food. Many do not drink wine, yet they do not think themselves defiled by it; for they most humanly provide it for the weaker brethren, and those who without it cannot attain bodily health; and they fraternally admonish some who foolishly refuse it lest out of vain superstition they become weaker rather than more holy.44

The present day monastics were, according to Calvin, guilty of legalism, laziness and gluttony.

In their observances and requirements, the contemporary monks had departed from Augustine—

although they claimed him as their predecessor—by obligating men to abide by extra-biblical

constraints and by perverting the underlying purpose of the monastic lifestyle. Calvin explains,

For they count it an unforgiveable crime for anyone to depart even in the slightest degree from what is prescribed in color or appearance of clothing, in kind of food, or in other trifling and cold ceremonies. Augustine stoutly contends that it is not lawful for monks to live upon others in idleness. In any well-ordered monastery of his day he denies that such an example existed. Our present-day monks find in idleness the chief part of their sanctity.45

The present-day monks had also failed to recognize that brotherly love and church unity were

essential components to the monastic life—monasticism was not, as Calvin put it, a “conspiracy

by which a few men, bound together among themselves, are separated from the whole body of

the church.”46 They had also fallen into the temptation of equating true spirituality with

indolence—masking their laziness with appeals to meditation and other non-physical activities.

44Ibid. 45Calvin, Institutes, IV.13.10. 46Ibid.


Moreover, they had also bound themselves to vows of perpetual virginity—a practice (as we

have seen already) Calvin considered both dangerous and presumptuous.47 On the whole, the

existing monastic institution had drifted so far from the ancient practice that it left no room for

any genuine comparison.

Nevertheless, Calvin did not fully endorse the ancient practices. While

acknowledging many of the positive aspects of the ancient monastics, he disapproved of their

overly rigid lifestyle and other significant elements of their praxis. Calvin noted that although

their lifestyle was not motivated by superstition, the ancient monks exhibited an “immoderate

affectation and perverse zeal.” Calvin notes further,

It was a beautiful thing to forsake all their possessions and be without earthly care. But God prefers devoted care in ruling a household, where the devout householder, clear and free of all greed, ambition, and other lusts of the flesh, keeps before him the purpose of service God in definite calling. It is a beautiful thing to philosophize in retirement, far from intercourse with men. But it is not the part of Christian meekness, as if in hatred of the human race, to flee to the desert and the wilderness and at the same to forsake those duties which the Lord has especially commanded.48

According to Calvin, the ancient monks had misunderstood the call to holiness insofar that they

attempted to pursue piety detached from the world in which they lived. It was God’s design that

devotion to Christ, the pursuit of holiness, and the practice of Christian meditation would occur

within the greater community of believers and the world. Thus, although Calvin did not note any

other practices among the ancient monastics that were liable to correction, he does go so far as to

say their example in this respect was both useless and dangerous.49 Here, in his critique of the

47Calvin, Institutes, IV.13.17. Calvin has little patience for the vow of chastity. In rebuking the

present-day monastic order for their vow of perpetual virginity, Calvin appeals to the same principles he had used in his criticism of Catholic Church’s rule for priests and other clergy. By denying themselves marriage, the monastics had refused God’s means by which they might defend themselves from sexual sin. While Calvin does not condemn singleness as such, he does encourage those who are currently without a wife to seek one if they find they cannot control their passions (see Calvin, Institutes, IV.13.17).

48Calvin, Institutes, IV.13.16. 49Calvin, Institutes, IV.13.16.


ancient and contemporary monastic order, Calvin demonstrated an attitude toward the body and

to overall physical life that rejected unnecessary rigidity and pseudo-spiritual sloth.

Calvin’s Defense of Christ’s Humanity

We learn much about Calvin’s value of the human body from his discussion on the

humanity of Christ. Calvin exalted the fact that the eternal Son of God had come to earth, not by

taking on the appearance of human flesh as the Marcionites claimed, but by engrafting himself in

a fully human nature. Nor did Christ take upon himself “heavenly flesh,” as the Manichees

asserted; on the contrary, he was truly human, susceptible to all the infirmities to which

humankind is, by nature, disposed.50

Calvin goes to great length to defend the notion that Christ was fully human. He

appeals to several biblical texts (e.g. Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:14, 16; 4:15; Rom. 8:3) while affirming

Christ’s human decent from the line of David and, ultimately, the line of Adam (Luke 3:38).

Calvin sets his assertion of Christ’s physical decent alongside his discussion of the virgin birth in

order to demonstrate that Christ, though conceived miraculously, clothed himself in genuine

humanity. The Marcionites had argued that Christ took his body “out of nothing,” appealing to

the fact that Matthew’s genealogy only provided a list of Joseph’s ancestors and that Mary, being

a woman, was “without seed,” and therefore unable to contribute to Christ’s humanity. Calvin

dismisses their argument and reaffirms the reality that Christ was, in fact, “engendered by Mary

from her seed.”51 Thus Calvin concludes that Christ was not only true God, he was true man.

The significance of this point for our purposes is the acknowledgment that Calvin esteemed the

human body. It was, of all things, a suitable telos for the Son of God who will be embodied for

all eternity.52

50Ibid. 51Calvin, Institutes, II.13.3. 52Calvin, Institutes, IV.17.29.


The Resurrection of Our Bodies

Finally, Calvin’s understanding of the resurrection confirms the notion that he greatly

valued the human body. To Calvin, Christian practice was incomplete unless the resurrection

was the object of regular reflection. “Accordingly, [the Christian] alone has fully profited in the

gospel who was accustomed himself to continual mediation upon the blessed resurrection.”53

Thus, Calvin pondered the truth of the resurrection at length in the Institutes, arguing for its

biblical basis and defending it against both denial and misunderstanding.54

The resurrection from the dead was an appropriate hope for Christians: they were to

look forward to it, following the lead of the Holy Spirit who was, “in Scripture . . . continually

urging us to hope for the resurrection of our flesh.”55 Against those who could not countenance

the idea of resurrection because they regarded the flesh to be “consumed with rottenness,” or

who imagined that the resurrection would provide Christians with new bodies unlike our current,

earthly bodies, Calvin argued for a resurrection not only of our flesh, but of the same flesh in

which we were embodied while on earth. In defending this last point, Calvin again countered the

Manichaeans and defended the inherent value of the body, speaking in no uncertain terms: “The

Manichaeans gave a worthless reason for this notion [that we receive new bodies at the

resurrection], holding it utterly inappropriate that the flesh, being unclean, should rise again. As

if there were no uncleanness in souls, which they nevertheless did not debar from the hope of

heavenly life!”56 While Calvin admitted that our bodies were not, in their fallen state, fit for

heaven, he nonetheless recognized the intrinsic goodness of God’s design and creation of the

body by his assertion that we will receive the same bodies we once had (albeit glorified) at the

resurrection.57

53Calvin, Institutes, III.25.1. 54Calvin, Institutes, III, 25.3. 55Calvin, Institutes, III.25.8. 56Calvin, Institutes, III.25.7. 57Ibid.


Resurrected bodies, however, are not given only to believers so that they might enjoy

the presence of God for all eternity; unbelievers are also provided with glorified bodies so that

they might endure everlasting punishment. While our natural instincts are repulsed by this

notion, Calvin grounded his teaching squarely in the Bible, arguing from Christ’s statements

concerning a resurrection to both life and condemnation (John 5:29), God’s ability to destroy

soul and body in hell (Matt. 10:28), and the final judgment (Matt. 25:31-46). Calvin’s

understanding of the resurrection of the ungodly does not, however, contradict the multitude of

statements mentioned previously that affirm the inherent worth, beauty, and magnificence of the

human body. Quite the opposite, the doctrine of the eternal bodily punishment held by Calvin

underscores the significance of physical life, for not only are both groups of people (believers

and unbelievers) eternally engrafted in physical bodies, they both receive their reward in,

through, and with those same bodies.

From this brief survey, therefore, we can clearly see that Calvin valued the human

body as marvelous work of divine creativity, worthy of care, protection and, finally, resurrection.

Earthly life is blessing, while physical enjoyments—especially those found in food and

marriage—were to be received with thanksgiving; abuse of the body through gluttony and

neglect of the body through laziness were to be avoided.

Nevertheless, Calvin’s theology of the body is not entirely positive. Although he

remains tethered to Scripture throughout the Institutes, thus forming a generally positive view of

the human body, Calvin fails to separate himself completely from Platonic ideas about the body.

It is to this issue I now turn.

Longing for Escape from this Prison: Platonic Influence on Calvin’s View of the Body

Calvin clearly discerns two essential components in man: body and soul.58 To Calvin,

this is an issue to which Scripture and reason so clearly testify that it should be “beyond

58Paul Helm notes rightly that Calvin was a “substance dualist.” He understood Plato as the only one

among the philosophers to accurately understand that man was made of two distinct substances. In this way, Calvin


controversy.” Scripture’s repeated references to an immaterial component of man59, together

with man’s ability to reason, to discern good and evil, and to conceive of abstract concepts like

justice and honor, “clearly [show] that there lies hidden in man something separate from the

body.”60 Thus, Calvin saw the image of God residing in the composite man—not exclusively in

either body or soul, but in the whole person.61

There is, however, a tendency in Calvin to value the soul over the body and, at some

points, to view the body with contempt. This inclination is astonishing for the simple fact that

Calvin, throughout much of the Institutes, holds the human body in such high esteem. For

example, in the introduction to the section in which Calvin aptly defends the notion that man

consists of two essential components, he also, in passing, ascribes greater honor to the

immaterial part of man. “Furthermore, that man consists of a soul and a body ought to be beyond

controversy. Now I understand by the term ‘soul’ an immortal yet created essence, which is his

nobler part” (emphasis added).62 In the following discussion on the image of God in man,

Calvin designates the soul as the primary seat of the imago: “For although God’s glory shines

forth in the outer man, yet there is no doubt the proper seat of his image is in the soul.”63 Calvin

continues a few paragraphs later,

rejected the Aristotelian notion that the soul was a form of the body. See John Calvin’s Ideas, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 129-132; see also John Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 13-14 for the idea that Calvin cited with approval Plato in his affirmation of dualism. For Calvin’s own statements about Plato, see Institutes, I.5.11, I.15.6.

59Eccl. 12:7; Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59; James 1:17; Job 4:19; II Corinthians 7:1; I Peter 1:9; 2:11; 2:25;

Hebrews 13:17; Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:5. 60Calvin, Institutes, I.15.2. 61See Torrance, Calvin’s Doctrine of Man, 38-39; David Vandunren, “The Content of Natural Law:

Calvin’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms,” in Journal of Church and State 46 (2004), 511. According to Vandunren, the placement of the divine image in the body in addition to the soul was a “remarkable move” for Calvin’s day. See also Engel, Perspectives, 43-47.

62Calvin, Institutes, I.15.2.

63Calvin, Institutes, I.15.3.


Accordingly, the integrity with which Adam was endowed is expressed by this word, when he had full possession of right understanding, when he had his affections, kept within the bounds of reason, all his senses tempered in right order, and he truly referred his excellence to exceptional gifts bestowed upon him by his Maker. And although the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and heart, or in the soul and its powers, yet there was not part of man, not even the body itself, in which some sparks did not glow (emphasis added).64

Although Calvin does recognize that the image of God can be found in man’s body as well as his

soul, he is leery of ascribing to man’s physical nature any primacy of place in expressing the

imago Dei.65

Calvin further strengthens a disjunction between the body and soul with statements in

which he classifies the body as a “prison” or “prison house.” The influence here in the use of

this phrase is clearly Platonic. Paul Helm explains, “Whatever Calvin thinks about what can and

cannot be proved about the soul by reason, he clearly affirms a Platonized dualism, claiming that

the soul dwells in a body ‘as in a house’ a ‘prison house.’”66 Calvin first uses these designations

64Ibid. See also Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 42. 65In addition, in his discussion of the sixth commandment (“You shall not murder”—Ex. 20:13), Calvin

uses the fact that God has established rigorous laws for the protection of the body to infer that the soul is valued higher than the body in God’s economy. He writes, ”But if there is so much concern for the safety of his body, from this we may infer how much zeal and effort we owe the safety of the soul, which far excels the body in the Lord’s sight.” (Calvin, Institutes, II.8.40). Although Calvin, in this passage, ties the image of God to both man’s material and immaterial aspects, he, like elsewhere, appears to place greater worth upon the immaterial part of man. See also Engel, Perspectival Anthropology, 162-163, where she quotes from Calvin’s remarks on Job 37, that “our souls are more precious to [God] than our bodies.”

66Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 131. According to Francois Wendel, Plato’s influence on Calvin,

appears to have come during subsequent publications of his Institutes. Wendel explains, “Plato, whom he seems hardly to have known before, now becomes one of the writers to whom he most often refers, although he generally avoids doing so by name.” See Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 115. Randall Zachman confirms the notion that Plato’s influence on Calvin came later in his life, and did not appear until the 1539 edition of the Institutes. See Image and Word in the Theology of John Calvin (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007), 15. Charles Partee, suggests that Calvin’s view of man is “perhaps more indebted to the insights of the philosophers than any other area of his thought. . . .It is not surprising that Calvin, like almost every other Christian thinker, adopts the soul-body dualism and that he exalts the soul’s relation to God.” See Calvin and Classical Philosophy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 51. Partee, however, wants to avoid the conclusion that Calvin’s anthropology is philosophical in its entirety. In this we are agreed: Calvin does depart from the Plato in significant areas and tethers his doctrine of man to the Scriptures. The argument of this paper, however, is not primarily concerned with demonstrating that Calvin’s anthropology was basically biblical, but that it retained some unhelpful vestiges of Platonism, especially in Calvin’s discussion of the human body. See also Henri Blocher, “Calvin’s Theological Anthropology,” in John Calvin and Evangelical Theology: Legacy and Prospect, ed. Sung Wook Chung, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 75-76.


of “prison” and “prison house” in reference to the body in his discussion and defense of man’s

immaterial nature:

For even when these terms [soul and spirit] are joined together they differ from one another in meaning; yet when the word ‘spirit’ is used by itself, it means the same thing as soul; as when Solomon, speaking of death, says that then the ‘spirit returns to God who gave it [Eccl. 12:7]. And when Christ commended his spirit to the Father [Luke 23:46] and Stephen to his to Christ [Acts 7:59] they meant only that when the soul is freed from the prison house of the body, God is its perpetual guardian.67

He continues in the same section,

[The fact that man has an immaterial component] is expressed even more clearly in Christ’s words, when he bids us be afraid of him who, after he has killed the body, can send the soul into Gehenna of fire [Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:5]. Now when the author of the Letter to the Hebrews distinguishes the fathers of our flesh from God, who is the one ‘Father of Spirits [Heb. 12:9], he could not assert when freed from the prison house of their bodies, it would be absurd for Christ to induce the soul of Lazarus as enjoying bliss in Abraham’s bosom, and again, the soul of the rich man sentenced to terrible torments [Luke 16:22-23] (emphasis added)68

In these two examples, Calvin appears to access the phrase “prison house” primarily as a passing

reference in his defense of the existence of the soul. Nevertheless, the very terminology of

“prison house” and Calvin’s attachment of this phrase to the human body is somewhat

unexpected, given what we have seen of his generally positive view of the human body.

Moreover, he continues in the latter paragraph to suggest that, “we journey away from God so

long as we dwell in the flesh, but that we enjoy his presence outside the flesh [I Cor. 5:6,8].”69

In other words, not only did Calvin utilize the phrase “prison house” to defend the notion that

man possesses an immaterial nature; he also viewed this “prison” as something from which to

escape in order to fully enjoy God’s presence. Calvin’s meaning behind this phrase will become

clearer as we examine more passages from the Institutes.

67Calvin, Institutes, I.15.2. 68Ibid. 69Ibid.


Calvin uses the label of “prison house” in reference to the body primarily in his

discussion of the Christian’s pursuit of holiness. Christians, though called and exhorted to

pursue genuine purity of life, are unable to fully apprehend perfection this side of glory.

Nevertheless, they are to strive earnestly to mortify sin and pursue their spiritual duty, keeping

their mind “free from guile and feigning, [which is] the opposite of a double heart.”70 In

Calvin’s judgment, the origin of righteous living was spiritual, located in the desires of the inner

man. The body, on the other hand, was an encumbrance, hindering one’s spiritual progress and

obedience. He writes, “But no one in this earthly prison of the body has sufficient strength to

press on with due eagerness, and weakness so weighs down the greater number that, with

wavering and limping and even creeping along the ground, they move at a feeble rate.”71 Thus,

Christians should not despair when they find incongruity between their desires and their actual

progress; they must continue on their course, keeping their eye upon the goal—not giving into

pride nor attempting to excuse one’s sin, reminding themselves that perfection will never be

attained until they “cast off the weakness of the body, and [are] received into full fellowship with

[Christ].”72

These passages seem to indicate that Calvin, while demonstrating great reverence for

the body throughout the Institutes, also appears to attribute, in some measure, spiritual inability

and lethargy to the body; this inclination to view the body as impediment to spiritual progress

increases Calvin’s desire to break free from his prison so that he might enjoy unencumbered

worship and enjoyment of God. Calvin is explicit at this point in his discussion of our inability

to fulfill the law. Calvin asserts,

We have said that the observance of the law is impossible. . . . I call ‘impossible’ what has never been, and what God’s ordination and decree prevents from ever being. If we search the remotest past, I say that none of the saints, clad in the body of death [cf.

70Calvin, Institutes, III.7.5. 71Ibid. 72Ibid.


Rom 7:24], has attained to that goal of love so as to love God ‘with all his heart, all his mind, all his soul, and all his might’ [Mark 12:30 and parallels]. . . . I further say that there will be no one hereafter who will reach the goal of true perfection without sloughing off the weight of the body (emphasis added)73

While we are incarcerated in our bodies, we cannot wholly fulfill the law; it is not until we put

off the weight of our bodies in death that we can do so. Nevertheless, our inability to fulfill the

law in its totality should not drive us to reject God’s commandments—the law is good and useful

for Christian living. Even here, however, in his affirmation of the law’s worth for Christian

practice, Calvin suggests that complete fulfillment of the law is unattainable in this life, due to

our current state of embodiment.

We ought not to be frightened away from the law or to shun its instruction merely because it requires much stricter moral purity than we shall reach while we bear about with us the prison house of our body. For the law is not now acting toward us as a rigorous enforcement officer who is not satisfied unless the requirements are met. But in this perfection to which it exhorts us, the law points out the goal toward which throughout life we are to strive (emphasis added)74

Thus, in light of these passages that suggest our current embodied condition provokes sin and

hinders us from fulfilling the law in its entirety, it is not surprising to find Calvin, several

sections later, instructing us to set their eyes upon their spiritual inheritance and to “betake

themselves wholly to mediate upon that eternal life to come.”75 Given their current state of

suffering and misery, we should look to their heavenly future for hope and encouragement.

Calvin explains,

When it comes to a comparison with life to come, the present life can not only be safely neglected but, compared to the former, must be utterly despised and loathed. For, if heaven is our homeland, what else is the earth but our place of exile? If departure from the world is entry into life, what else is the world but a sepulcher? And death? If to be freed from the body is to be released into perfect freedom, what else is the body but a prison (emphasis added)?76

73Calvin, Institutes, II.7.4. 74Calvin, Institutes, II.7.13. 75Calvin, Institutes, III.9.4. 76Ibid.


Calvin also admits that our current bodily condition disposes us to a situation in which we need

to fight vigorously against our sinful flesh. “Accordingly, so long as we dwell in the prison

house of our body we must continually contend with the defects of our corrupt nature, indeed

with our own natural soul” (emphasis added).77 Deliverance from the body, then, was a welcome

event.78

A Failure to Integrate: An Evaluation of Calvin’s Theology of the Body

As we saw in the first section of this paper, Calvin highly esteemed the human body as

a work of wonder—a “storehouse of inestimable riches.” Earthly life was a blessing from the

Lord to be received with gratitude and joy.79 The body was a gift to be used profitably and

protected appropriately. Nevertheless, as we observed in the second section, Calvin not only

considered the soul in some ways superior to the body, he also viewed the body as an

impediment to spiritual progress and something that rendered Christians unable to fulfill the law

of God. Here, in many instances, Calvin followed Plato in designating the body as a “prison

house,” from which escape was a welcome event.80 In his classification of the body as a

77Calvin, Institutes, III.3.20. 78Calvin’s attitude here is further illustrated in a section from his sermon on Job 3: “Here, I say, is the

reason why we must long and seek and desire death: because when we are cleansed of this body, which is like a house full of stench and infection, we will be fully reformed to the image of God, and that image will reign in us and all that is corrupt in our nature will be annihilated” (quoted in Engel, Perspectival Anthropology, taken originally from Ionnis Calvini opera quae supersunt Omnia, ed. Wilhelm Baum, Edward Cunitz, and Edward Reuss, 59 vols. (Brunsvigae: C.A. Schwetscke, 1863-1900). In the following section I note how Calvin would have done better to integrate his view of the resurrection with his current fallen condition and longing for redemption so that he longed for a new body, not mere escape from the body.

79Calvin, Institutes, III.9.3. 80Charles Partee, in his article, “The Soul in Plato, Platonism and Calvin,” admits that “It might be

argued that Calvin had a ‘spiritualizing tendency’ and that Luther was more sensitive to the biblical antithesis of flesh and spirit as distinct from body and soul. . .”, yet Partee wants to see this as “a criticism of emphasis rather than of ignorance.” Partee desires to protect Calvin from the charge that he endorsed the entire Platonic tradition by noting the areas in which Calvin differed strongly with Plato and even qualified his overall commendation of Plato. (See also David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context, for another affirmation that Calvin did not endorse Platonism in its entirety.) While Partee is correct to suggest that Calvin departed from Platonism in significant portions of his theology—not the least of which was his teaching on the resurrection of the body and his rejection of the notion that the soul was self-perpetuating—it must still be maintained that Calvin’s continual reference to the body as a “prison house” from which escape was welcome, reflects a failure to fully correct Plato’s view of the body. Nevertheless, both Partee in the aforementioned article (292) and David Steinmetz in his article, “Calvin as the Biblical Interpreter


“prison” or “prison house,” Calvin’s theology of the body falls slightly short of the biblical

witness by failing to synthesize statements about the dignity of the human body with statements

concerning the our inability to fulfill the law and his focus on the resurrection as the ultimate

goal of redemption.81

Given the multitude of comments regarding the dignity, wonder, and beauty of the

human body throughout the Institutes, it is surprising that Calvin refers to the human body so

often as a “prison.” As we noted, many of these references are made in the context of Calvin’s

discussion of the Christian’s inability to completely fulfill the law—often times, these comments

are given as a comfort to Christians who are struggling with sin and suffering. Certainly, Calvin

follows the biblical model as he groans for a change in our current fallen condition; indeed the

heart of a regenerate Christian pulses with the desire to be free from sin and in the Lord’s

presence. But is this groaning for deliverance from our fallen state best expressed by classifying

the body as a prison, especially in light of countless passages in Scripture that ascribe to the body

great honor and designate the body an object of final redemption? Second Corinthians 5:1-10—a

passage of Scripture to which Calvin often appeals82—at first glance appears to suggest that

flight from the body is an appropriate desire. Closer examination of this passage, however,

demonstrates that the apostle Paul did not rejoice in the fact that he will be without his body, but

Among the Ancient Philosophers,” remind us that Calvin endured terrible physical suffering throughout his life. While we cannot approve of his repeated references to the human body as a “prison house,” we can sympathize with his desire for relief from his many bodily ailments. See Charles Partee,“The Soul in Plato, Platonism and Calvin,” The Scottish Journal of Theology 22 (1969), 291; David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 237; David Steinmetz, “Calvin as the Biblical Interpreter Among the Ancient Philosophers,” Interpretation 63 (2009), 145. Bruce Gordon reminds us that even by 1541 Calvin was suffering from “punishing migraines and serious stomach and bowel disorders.” Gordon continues, noting that Calvin was “Highly conscious of possessing a brilliant mind in a failing body,” and that “the disparity between the two was a recurring metaphor in his writing.” See Calvin, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 144.

81As the subject matter of the first section of this essay affirms what William Davis asserts in his article,

“Calvin’s Legacy in Philosophy,” in Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview, (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2010), 131n53, Calvin should not be accused of “passing along an uncritically platonic hatred of the physical body.” Calvin did value the human body and did not imbibe the whole of Plato’s teaching concerning the body as seen in Calvin’s arguments for the resurrection and for the goodness of marriage and sex.

82We have already seen where Calvin refers to II Corinthians 5:1-10 in the institutes, and he maintains a

similar viewpoint in his commentaries when he says that there is “nothing better than to quit the body that we may attain near intercourse with God, and may truly and openly enjoy his presence” (Calvin, I Corinthians, 222).


in the reality that he would be with the Lord (2 Cor 5:6-10). An unembodied state was not ideal,

however—Paul longed for the resurrection so that he could be reunited with his body. Paul

considered the intermediate state, although better than his current condition (Phil 1:21), far from

ultimate. To remain this state was, in a sense, to be naked.83 Paul writes,

For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life (II Corinthians 5:1-5).

Paul explicitly counters any thought that the shedding of the body was, in and of itself,

something to be finally desired. The apostle recognized that we do groan in our current fallen

state—our groaning, however, is not a longing for an eternal immaterial existence, but for an

eternal embodied existence.

Paul’s discussion of his endeavor for perfection and Christlikeness in his letter to the

Philippians further emphasizes this fact. In Philippians 3:1-21, Paul confesses his supreme desire

to know Christ and to have some taste of the power of Christ’s resurrection so that the apostle

might attain to his own resurrection from the dead (3:9-11). Paul explains to his Philippian

brethren that he has not yet achieved perfection in his current state, but that he continues to press

on “toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (3:14). The goal

Paul has in mind is most likely the resurrection.84 This interpretation is confirmed by Paul’s

return to the subject of the resurrection only a few sentences later (vv.18-20), where he contrasts

the earthly focus of unbelievers with the heavenly hope of believers. Paul writes,

83See Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in the New International Commentary on the

New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 255-267, esp. 262-263; Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hanger (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 365-386.

84See Moises Silva, Philippians in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Moses

Silvia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 174-177; Contra Gordon D. Fee in Philippians in the New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 348, who does not see the “goal” as the resurrection specifically. Although the goal Paul has in mind may include more than the resurrection, (e.g. Christ himself, fellowship with Christ, freedom from sin) it seems safe to say it would not include less. The resurrection appears to be one of the main themes running through Philippians 3:9-21.


For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, but the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself (3:18-20).

Accordingly, Paul did not set his desires on an escape from the body in and of itself—he longed

for the resurrection of his body.85

Even Paul’s cry of despair in view of his sin in Romans 7:24 does not necessarily

buttress Calvin’s view that release from the body per se was something to be preferred. Though

at first glance the lament—“Who will deliver me from the body of this death”—appears to

support the idea that the body is to blame for sabotaging one’s efforts at sanctification,86 such is

not the case. There is no doubt that Paul saw our fallen condition as a hindrance to

sanctification—this is affirmed not only in the immediate context (Rom 7:13-25),87 but in other

85Calvin comes close to integrating his desire for release from his current fallen condition with the hope of the resurrection in his comments on Philippians 3:21. “By this argument [Paul] stirs up the Philippians still farther to lift up their minds to heaven, and be wholly attached to Christ—because this body which we carry about with us is not an everlasting abode, but a frail tabernacle, which will in a short time be reduced to nothing” (John Calvin, Philippians in vol. 21 of Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. and trans. William Pringle [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 111. In this passage, it appears to me that Calvin is more careful to tie the solution to our current troubles to the hope of the resurrection, not merely our departure from our bodies.

86Calvin is somewhat hard to follow in his discussion of Romans 7:24. In certain places in the

Institutes, he seems to liken the struggle illustrated by Paul in Romans 7:13-24 to being stuck in a prison (see IV.15.12). In other places, Calvin appears to connect Paul’s distress in Romans 7:24 to his desire for full redemption, thus keeping with the context of Romans 7-8, while at the same time complaining the he is held in the “bonds of his body” (see III.9.4). In yet another context, Calvin, after arguing that man cannot completely fulfill the law while being “clad in a body of death,” finally concludes, “I further say that there will be no one hereafter who will reach the goal of true perfection without sloughing off the weight of the body” (see II.7.5). In his commentary on the text of Romans 7:24-25, Calvin suggests that “body of sin” refers to the “whole mass of sin, or those ingredients of which the whole man is composed . . .” and “body” referring to the “external man and members” (John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries: Romans, 272, emphasis original). He ends his comments on this passage, however, by asserting that, “the faithful will never reach the goal of righteousness as long as they dwell in the flesh, but that they are running their course, until they put off the body” (274), thus appearing to locate the Christian’s sanctification troubles primarily to the physical body while welcoming escape from this body.

87I take Paul’s description of his battle with sin in Romans 7:14-25 to be a description of his current

experience as a believer, not an account of a religious Jew or of Paul’s experience prior to his conversion to Christ. For a defense of the view I take in this essay, see C. E. B. Cranfield, International Critical Commentary: Romans 1-8 (New York: T & T Clark, 1975). For a defense of the view the Paul is not describing a Christian’s experience in this paragraph, see Douglas Moo, NICNT: The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 441-467. One’s decision on how to interpret Romans 7:14-25 in this regard, however, does not affect the overall argument that Paul, in Romans 7:24, is not condoning the idea that the body in and of itself is the source of our sanctification troubles. Tom Schreiner, in his Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 378, helpfully observes that our understanding of the word “body” used here should “not be abstracted from


Pauline texts as well (e.g. Gal 5:16-26). Even so, he does not advocate the mere sloughing off of

the body in order to remedy his fallen condition and his struggle with sin.88 Rather he grounds

his hope of deliverance in the redemption of his body. Paul even links our current suffering and

groaning to this final redemption.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself would be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for the adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (Romans 8:18-23, emphasis added).

Paul, in Romans 7:24, then, is not looking for escape from the “prison house of his body,” but for

the redemption of his body through the resurrection. Although Calvin adequately describes the

resurrection as the ultimate Christian hope,89 he fails to fully synthesize his understanding of the

resurrection with his statements about the dignity of the human body and the reality of our fallen

condition. Rather than appealing to the Platonic notion of a “prison house” in order to articulate

the tension Christians feel in their current fallen state and the longing for heaven, Calvin would

have been better served to place the resolution of this tension more squarely in the resurrection of

the body, rather than in an escape from the body as such.90 Calvin’s misstep, here, mars slightly

what is an otherwise a robust and edifying theology of the human body.

the whole person, with the result that it is separated from it.” Thus, it is incorrect to lay blame on the body per se for one’s sanctification troubles.

88Calvin seems to imply this in II.7.5 when he writes, “I further say that there will be no one hereafter

who will reach the goal of true perfection without sloughing off the weight of the body.” See footnote 78 of this essay.

89Calvin, Institutes, III.25.3,8. 90Dennis E. Tamburello insists that contra Plato, it was sin that Calvin hated, not the body per se. See

Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard, (Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 14-16. Certainly we can affirm Tamburello’s contention that Calvin’s theology allowed for a distinction between the physical body as such and the reality of indwelling sin. Nevertheless, Calvin’s reliance on the phrase “prison house,” and his repeated assertion that release from this prison was a welcome event is, in my judgment, an example of a lack of precision.


Conclusion

Although Calvin never set out to develop a formal theology of the body, we have

found that the subject matter covered in his Institutes leaves us with more than enough material

with which to draw significant and weighty conclusions about what Calvin actually believed

about the human body. Calvin exalted the human body as a work of magnificent creativity and

wisdom. He promoted its care and welfare and he condemned its neglect and abuse. Calvin

esteemed the humanity of Christ and extoled the hope of the resurrection. Calvin, however, was

unable to fully dissociate himself completely from the Platonic notion that the body was a prison

house from which the soul needed to escape. Consequently, he did not adequately integrate his

affirmations about the excellence of the human body with the reality of our fallen condition and

the hope of the resurrection. Although this oversight does not render Calvin’s theology of the

body useless (far from it!), it could serve to perpetuate an unhealthy disjunction between the

body and the soul already apparent in some corners of evangelicalism.91 The biblical vision of

redemption is not consummated at death when we enter into an immaterial existence; the very

fact that we must suffer this separation is not natural, but a result of the fall. Rather, the work of

God begun in our initial regeneration will find its completion in the resurrection of our bodies, in

91See for example Gregg Allison’s article, “Toward a Theology of Human Embodiment,” in The

Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (2009), 4-17. Allison begins this article with a story I suspect is far too common among evangelicals. Allison tells a story of a student who scheduled a meeting in order to discuss the spiritual causes behind some recent physical ailments with which the student was suffering. The student’s physical problems were clearly due to the neglect of his body (he did not eat well, sleep much, or exercise), so Allison’s counsel moved in that direction. The student objected and eventually left frustrated, however, since Allison’s line of questioning focused too much on the physical aspects of life; a “spiritually minded” evangelical like himself saw the body like a shell to be cast off at death and something that did not require much attention in this life. One wonders how evangelicals have imbibed this kind of mistaken view of the human body and its vital connection to our spiritual health. James K. A. Smith observes a kind of “dominant dualism” in much of evangelicalism and appears use Calvin’s employment of the Platonic notion of “prison house” as an example of such dualism. See The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 142-143. In a more popular work, John Koessler, under the heading, “The Biblical View of the Body,” asks, “But does the body have anything to do with life in the spirit?” He answers: “In one sense, life in the body might be seen as an antithesis to life in the spirit.” He immediately references Calvin, noting, “Reformation theologian, John Calvin, referred to the body as a ‘prison house of the soul.’ In his view, the soul was the more noble part of man.” The point here is not to evaluate the validity of Koessler’s interpretation of Calvin, but only to note Calvin’s influence here with reference to the body, sanctification, and an evangelical tendency toward strong dualism. See True Discipleship: The Art of Following Jesus, (Chicago: Moody, 2003), 88-89. Koessler does, however, note later that Calvin and the other reformers were responsible for reclaiming a more biblical, holistic view toward physical life generally and the human body in particular (92-93).


which we will live for all eternity as composite creatures. Accordingly, the Christian hope is not

for an escape from our bodies, but for the resurrection of our bodies. Unfortunately, Calvin did

not adequately assimilate this hope of resurrection with the reality of our current fallen condition

and, consequently, succumbed to some illegitimate Platonic influence in his understanding of the

human body.

a prison house of riches: calvin’s theology of the …€¦ · 1margaret l. stiles, “theology,...

Documents