Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2.pdf

<strong>Commentary</strong> on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2
with darkness. 346 They are compelled to admire him, whether they will or not; and yet they treat
him with contempt. And what is this but to reject a prophet whom God has taught, because he has
not been educated by men? They cut their throat by means of their own acknowledgment, when
they render so honorable a testimony to the doctrine of Christ, which after all has no influence on
them, because it does not take its origin, in the usual way, from the earth. Why do they not rather
lift their eyes to heaven, and learn that what exceeds human reason must have come from God?
Besides, the miracles, which were added to the doctrine, ought to have affected them the more
powerfully, or at least to have aroused them from their excessive carelessness and stupidity to
glorify God; for certainly, when God adopts unwonted methods of procedure, so much the more
clearly does he display the power of his hand. And yet this was the very reason why the inhabitants
of Nazareth maliciously drew a veil over their eyes. We see, then, that it is not mere ignorance that
hinders men, but that, of their own accord, they search after grounds of offense, to prevent them
from following the path to which God invites. We ought rather to argue in the opposite way, that,
when human means fail, the power of God is clearly revealed to us, and ought to receive undivided
praise.
55. Is not this the carpenter’s son? It was, we are aware, by the wonderful purpose of God, that
Christ remained in private life till he was thirty years of age. Most improperly and unjustly, therefore,
were the inhabitants of Nazareth offended on this account; for they ought rather to have received
him with reverence, as one who had suddenly come down from heaven. They see God working in
Christ, and intentionally turn away their eyes from this sight, to behold Joseph, and Mary, and all
his relatives; thus interposing a veil to shut out the clearest light. The word brothers, we have
formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever;
and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had
many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned. 347
57. A prophet is not devoid of honor. I have explained this statement at considerable length,
where it occurs in the Gospel of John, 348 (4:44.) It may, no doubt, be a general proverb, that those
who are distinguished by eminent gifts are nowhere held in less estimation than in their own country;
and this manifests the ingratitude of men, who, in proportion to the greater familiarity with which
God exhibits himself to them, are the more bold to reject him in the influences of his Spirit. I readily
agree, however, with Chrysostom, who thinks that this proverb was applied in a peculiar manner
to the Jews. But what was usually spoken against the whole nation, Christ now asserts with special
346 “Mais par leur ingratitude ils se sont eblouis l’entendement, a fin de ne faire leur profit de ce qu’ils voyoyent devant leurs
yeux;” — “but by their ingratitude their understanding was dazzled, so that they did not derive advantage from what they saw
before their eyes.”
347 Jerome replied to Helvidius in a work entitled, Contra Helvidium de Beatoe Marioe Virginitate CAVIN has formerly alluded
to the controversy between these two authors, (Harmony, vol. 1. p. 107.) — Ed.
348 Our Author’s Preface to his <strong>Commentary</strong> on John’s Gospel is dated 1st January 1553; while the Preface to the Harmony
is dated 1st August 1555. This accounts for the former being always referred to as an earlier work. — Ed.
148
John Calvin