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

<strong>Commentary</strong> on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2
speaks according to the ordinary perception of the flesh; for, although Christ by his divine Spirit
foresaw what would happen, yet so far as he was the minister and ambassador of the Father, he
kept himself, as his human nature might have led us to expect, within the limits of that calling which
God had given him; and in that respect it is said that what he wished, as man, he was unable to
accomplish. Meanwhile, this occurrence, as I have said, tends powerfully to condemn the Jews,
who—though they boasted that they were the heirs of the covenant of the Lord, his peculiar people,
and a royal priesthood—were blind and deaf when Christ, with a loud voice and with the addition
of miracles, offered to them the promised redemption; while this woman, who had no relationship
with the children of Abraham, and to whom, at first sight, the covenant did not at all belong, came
of her own accord to Christ, without having heard his voice or seen his miracles.
Matthew 15:22. Have compassion on me, O Lord. Though this woman was an alien, and did
not belong to the Lord’s flock, yet she had acquired some taste of piety; 416 for, without some
knowledge of the promises, she would not have called Christ the Son of David. The Jews indeed
had almost entirely departed, or at least had greatly turned aside, from the pure and sound doctrine
of the Gospel; but a report of the promised redemption was extensively prevalent. As the restoration
of the Church depended on the reign of David, whenever they spoke of the Messiah, it was customary
for them to employ the name, Son of David; and indeed this confession was heard from the lips of
all. But when the true faith had died out amongst them, it was an amazing and incredible display
of the goodness of God that the sweet savor of the promises reached the neighboring nations.
Though this woman had not been regularly educated by any teacher, yet her faith in Christ was not
a notion adopted by her at random, but was formed out of the law and the prophets. It was therefore
not less absurd than wicked in that dog, Servetus, to abuse this example for the purpose of proving
that faith may exist without promises. I do not deny that, in this sense, there may sometimes be a
sort of implicit faith, that is, a faith which is not accompanied by a full and distinct knowledge of
sound doctrine; provided we also hold that faith always springs from the word of God, and takes
its origin from true principles, and therefore is always found in connection with some light of
knowledge.
23. But he made no reply to her. In various ways the Evangelists bestow commendation on the
faith of this woman. Here they bring before us her unshaken constancy; for the silence of Christ
was a sort of refusal, and there is reason to wonder that she was not cast down by this trial, but her
continuance in prayer was a proof of her perseverance. This appears, however, to be inconsistent
with the nature of faith and of calling upon God, as it is described by Paul, who assures us that no
man can pray aright till he has heard the word of God.
How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
(Romans 10:14.)
416 “Quelque goust de piete et vraye religion;” — “some taste of piety and true religion.”
183
John Calvin