한국개혁신학회(www.reformedth.com)에서 발췌

The Relationship between the Holy Spirit and
Christ as the Bearer of the Holy Spirit
in John Calvin

Yoon-Bae Choi, Dr. theol.
(Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary,
Associate Professor of Systematic Theology)

I. Introduction

Calvin’s pneumatology may be discussed from a variety of perspectives. We may, however, divide his doctrine of the Holy Spirit into two main areas, i.e. the nature and the work of the Spirit. I have previously contributed an introductory essay on the study of Calvin’s pneumatology and another one specifically on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the threefold office of Christ (triplex munus Christi). In this essay, I intend to investigate the work of the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ. It is needless to say that in pneumatology the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ takes an extremely important place in both theological and historical fields. Hendrikus Berkhof (1914‐1995), a well‐known modern Reformed dogmatician from the Netherlands, was one who took a deep interest in this area of study. This interest in the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Christ is not exclusive to the claims of modern biblical theology and dogmatics. Calvin, in the modern eye, did not attempt a systematic investigation in this topic, but his various writings show us clearly that he had as much interest as his modern successors.

Yoon-Bae Choi, De verhouding tussen ≫pneumatologie en christologie≪ bij Martin Bucer en Johannes Calvijn(Diss., TH van CGK in Nederland, Apeldoorn)(Leiden : Uitgeverij J.J. Groen en Zoon, 1996); Yoon-Bae Choi, “Der Heilige Geist und dreifache Amt Christi bei Martin Bucer(1491-1551) und Johannes Calvin(1509-1564),” 『Yonsei Review of Theology & Culture』 Vol. V (Dec. 1999), 81-89.

Yoon-Bae Choi, De ontwikkeling van de verhouding tussen Pneumatologie en christologie buj H. Berkhof(Doctoraalscriptie, Theologische Universiteit van de GKN, Kampen, 1993).

How is the mutual relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ treated in Calvin’s theology? E. Emmen argues that Calvin gives no special consideration for such a relationship. On the other hand, S. van der Linde’s emphasis on the importance of the Spirit to Christ is quite valid. It was not that only in his childhood did Christ receive the Spirit; the Spirit was received already at conception. Christ on earth was directed by the Spirit not only in his life but also in his suffering and resurrection. W. Krusche agrees on this point. As the Son of God, Jesus Christ became not only the bearer of the Holy Spirit through his incarnation but also the sender of the Spirit after the resurrection and ascension.

E. Emmen, De Christologie van Calvijn, Amsterdam 1935, 7: “Het zal wellicht opvallen, dat over Christus en den Heiligen Geest niet afzonderlijk wordt gehandeld. Voor Calvijn sprak dit verband vanzelf, zoodat hij er geen speciale omschrijving van gaf, evenmin een verdeling van shreef.”

S. van der Linde, De leer van den Heiligen Geest bij Calvijn, Wageningen 1943, 85: “De beteekenis van den Heiligen Geest voor de Christologie is een zóó centrale, dat ze wel de dragende grond mag heeten.”, cf. footnote 3: “In de dissertatie van Dr. E. Emmen, De Christologie van Calvijn, Amsterdam 1935, wordt terloops vermeld de betrekking van Christus en de Heiligen Geest, maar de beteekenis van den Heiligen Geest voor het Chritusbeeld komt O.I. zeer tekort.”

CO 45, 15(= Comm. Ev. Lk. 1:15).

S. van der Linde, op. cit., 85.

W. Krusche, Das Wirekn des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin, Göttigen 1957, 127: “E. Emmen hat dem auch in seiner Christologie Calvins von vornherein auf den Versuch einer Erörterung des Verhä.ltnisses von Christus und Geist verzichtet mit der Bergündung, Calvin habe keine spezielle Bestimmung dieser Verbindung gegeben, da sie für ihn von selbst gesprochen habe. Aber wir werden uns durch diesen generellen Verzicht nicht davon abhalten lassen dürfen zu versuchen, ob  sich nicht vielleicht doch bei Calvin einiges im Hinblick auf unsere spezielle Frage ausmachen läßt, was dann für die genauere Bestimmung des Verhältnisses von Pneumatologie und Christologie überhaupt von Bedeutung sein könnte.”, cf. footnote 4: “E. Emmen, De Christologie van Calvijn, Amsterdam 1935, S. 7. VAN DER LINDE hat a.a.O. S. 84ff. das Verertthältnis von Hl. Geist und Fleischwerdung des Wortes dargestellt.”

W. Krusche, op. cit., 129.

II. The Holy Spirit and Christ as the Bearer of
the Spirit

1. The Holy Spirit and Christ’s Incarnation

For Calvin, the motive and purpose of Christ’s incarnation are very important. The motive for Christ’s incarnation is for the sake of our sin, and its purpose is for our salvation. Calvin already adumbrates such a thought in the first edition of the Institutes (1536): “We confess moreover that we believe Christ, sent by the Father out of divine kindness and mercy, descended to us for our sake release us from the devil’s tyranny, to which we had been bound; from the bonds of sin, by which we were held tied; from the bondage of death, both of body and soul, into which we had been thrust; from eternal punishment, to which we had been given over (since our ability was not equal to releasing and extricating us from it). We confess that he, sent by the Father out of divine kindness and mercy, descended to us to take on our flesh, which he joined to his divinity. Thus it was for our benefit that he who to become our Mediator was true God and man.”

CO 1,  64f(= OS I 77f), cf. CO 1, 517; OS III 437(= Inst. 1559, II xii 1).

Regarding the true humanity and sinlessness of Christ, Calvin argues against Manichaeans, Marcionites, Anabaptists, and the Roman Catholic Church. Against Manichaeans he vehemently upholds the true humanity of Christ. Calvin’s criticism of Manichaenism and Marcionism regarding this problem continues to appear in the succeeding editions of the Institutes. Marcionites’ docetism claims that Christ came not in the true human form but only appeared as one. Manichaeans argued that Christ took not the earthly body from Mary but the “heavenly body” from above. Calvin criticized that the Manichaeans were mere daydreamers.

CO 1, 67(= OS I 80f), cf. CO 1, 68(= OS I 81); CO 1, 69(= OS I 182).

CO 1, 519f, cf. OS III 447f(= Inst. 1559, II xiii).

Calvin regards seriously the phrase in the Apostle’s Creed, “Conceived of the Holy Spirit” (conceptus de spiritu sancto), and meticulously argues against all strains of docetism, both the ancient formulation and the reformulation in the sixteenth‐century Anabaptism, especially in the teachings of Menno Simons. A Dutch by origin, Simons belonged to the Anabaptist movement and led that camp of the Reformation movement. Calvin’s critiques of Simons are especially abundant in the final edition of the Institutes (1559).

W. Krusche, op. cit., 131.

OS III 448-450, footnote 1; Contra Mennonem(1556), in: CO 10a, 167-176; RE3 XII, 591f; G. Gloede, Theologia naturalia bei Calvin, Tübingen 1935, 6, 173.

Calvin attacks Menno Simons’ misconstrued understanding of Christ’s virgin birth:

“And Matthew does not here describe the virgin as a channel through which Christ flowed. Rather, he differentiates this wonderful manner of generation from the common sort in stating that through her Christ was begotten of the seed of David. In the same way that Isaac was begotten of Abraham, Solomon of David, Joseph of Jacob, Christ is said to have been begotten of his mother. For the Evangelist so arranges the order of his words.”

OS III 456(= Inst., 1559, II xiii 3).

Likewise, Calvin argues for the true humanity and sinlessness of Christ in Against Anabaptists.

Brieve instruction pour armer tous bons fideles contre erreurs de la secte commune des Anabaptistes(1544), in: CO 7, 109: “Car ce que le sainct Esprit est intervenu, a esté pour le sanctifier des le commencement, et en le sanctifiant, le preserver à ce qu’il ne fust entaché d’aucune pollution du genre humain.”

Apollinarius, whose Christology was declared heretic by the ancient church, argued that Christ was only half human since the Holy Spirit remained as the soul in Christ. Calvin, on the other hand, insists that the formulation “conceived of the Holy Spirit” can be rightly understood only when the acting function of the Spirit is viewed at the same time as the sanctifying function. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the acting agent not only in the conception but also in the sanctifying and preparing work.

OS II 499(=Inst. 1559, II xvi 12); CO 49, 558(= Comm. 1 Cor. 15:45): “Hoc ideo ntandum ne quis putet Spiritum in Christo fuisse loco animae: quod olim putavit Apollinaris.”

W. Krusche, op. cit., 132.

The Roman Catholic Church depended heavily on its philosophical tradition and reasoned that since only the male “seed” contributes to an effective procreation, Jesus Christ is without sin for the lack of male intervention in his conception. Against such reasoning, Calvin emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the entire process of the birth of Christ:

“The apostle [Paul] teaches the same thing in another passage, that Christ was sent ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ to satisfy the law [Rom. 8:3‐4]. Thus, so skillfully does he distinguish Christ from the common lot that he is true man but without fault and corruption. But they babble childishly: if Christ is free from all spot, and through the secret working of the Spirit was begotten of the seed of Mary, then woman’s seed is not unclean, but only man’s. For we make Christ free of all stain not just because he was begotten of his mother without copulation with man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit that the generation might be pure and undefiled as would have been true before Adam’s fall. And this remains for us an established fact: whenever Scripture calls our attention to the purity of Christ, it is to be understood of his true human nature, for it would have been superfluous to say that God is pure.”

OS III 457(= Inst. 1559, II xiii 4).

In the Commentaries on the Gospels, Calvin calls the Holy Spirit the agent of miracles. He regards a heretic whoever mistreats the two natures of Christ (his divinity and humanity) and the sinlessness of Christ. Against Servetus, he also argues that the Holy Spirit is the force in the formation of the body of Christ. The error of Servetus was the confusion and the subsequent lack of distinction between the Word and the Spirit. According to Calvin, those who fell to heresy in the ancient church and during the Reformation either held only to the human attributes of Christ at the expense of his divinity, or accepted only the divine attributes without the humanity of Christ. Calvin opposes such heretic claims by resorting to Scripture and to the ancient church, which taught the doctrine of “one person in two natures (una persona in duae naturae).”

CO 45, 30f(= Comm. Lk. 1:35), cf. CO 45, 54f.

CO 45, 31f(= Comm. Lk.1:35).

Defensio orthodoxae(1554), in: CO 8, 542: “Fatemur quidem in formanda Chriti carne spiritus virtutem fuisse loco seminis. Sed hoc nihil ad phantasma Serveti, quod verbum fuerit semen generationis.”

CO 8, 501: “Item Dialogo, non esse inter Verbum et Spiritum realen differentiam.”; “Omitto nunc quod spiritum cum sermone confundit, cui distinctam hypostasin alibi coactus assignat.”(idem., 564); “Interea de spiritu sancto tacet, quem alibi cum verbo confundit.”(idem., 581); OS III 470(= Inst. 1559, II xvi 8): “Spiritum interea miscet cum ipso Sermone, quia Deus invisibile verbum et Spiritum dispensaverit in carnem et animam.”

OS III 458-471(= Inst. 1559, II xiv 1-8).

Especially against Lutherans, Calvin emphasized the true humanity of Christ at the administration of sacraments, which came to be widely known as extra‐Calvinisticum. “For none will ever come to Christ-God who neglects the man. Wherefore, if you want to have anything in common with Christ you must especially take care not to despise His flesh.”

CO 1, 121(= OS I, 140); CO 5, 452; CO 7, 103, 736; CO 8, 22;

CO 47, 156(= Comm. Joh.6:56): “Neque enim ad Christum Deum unquam perveniet qui hominem negligit. Quare si tibi vis aliquid cum Christo esse commune, cavendum imprimis est ne carnem eius fastidias.”; cf. CO 50, 150(= Comm. 2 Cor. 13:4): “Quodsi facimus humanam Christi naturam ita nostrae dissimilem, eversum est praecipuum fidei nostrae fundamentum.”

In the Geneva Catechism (1545), what is important to Calvin in his interpretation of the formulation “conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary” is nothing other than the soteriological motif, i.e. the miracle of the Spirit and the true humanity and sinlessness of the Mediator.

CO 6, 23-26(= OS II 81f).

2. The Holy Spirit and the Baptism of Jesus Christ

It has been generally recognized that Calvin relates very closely the baptism of Jesus Christ in the Jordan River to the Holy Spirit in his Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels and the Sermon on the Gospels. Calvin discusses Christ’s baptism in the Commentary on the Gospel according to John (1553). “I have beheld the Spirit as a dove. This is an unliteral and figurative expression; for with what eyes could he see the Spirit? But as the dove was a sure and infallible sign of the presence of the Spirit, it is called the Spirit by metonymy; not that is really the Spirit, but it shows Him in a way man can grasp.”

CO 45-CO 47.

CO 47, 27f(= Comm. Joh.1:32).

CO 47, 27(= Comm. Joh. 1:32).

Calvin proceeds to ask why the Spirit appears in the form of a dove. His answer is as follows: “We must always hold that here is an analogy between the sign and the reality. When the Spirit was given to the apostles, they saw fiery and cloven tongues (Acts 2.3) because the preaching of the Gospel was to be spread abroad throughout all tongues and was to have the power of fire. But in this verse God wished to represent openly that gentleness of Christ which Isa. 42.3 praises: ‘The smoking flax shall he not quench, and a bruised reed shall he not break.’ This was the first time that the Spirit was seen descending upon Him. Not that before this He had been empty of the Spirit, but now He is, as it were, consecrated with a solemn ceremony. For we know that He remained hidden like a private individual for thirty years, because the time of His manifestation was not yet come. But when He wished to make Himself known to the world, He began with Baptism. He therefore received the Spirit on that occasion visibly that we may know that in Christ dwells the abundance of all gifts of which we are destitute and empty.”

CO 47, 28(= Comm. Joh. 1:32).

It becomes clear from the above that Christ’s baptism has Christological and ecclesiological aspects in relation to penumatology. In other words, Christ has no need to be baptized or be anointed by the Spirit because he already possesses his own Spirit according to his divine nature. Due to his humanity, however, Christ can be neither the Mediator nor the Savior without a preparation by the Holy Spirit.

CO 45, 125f(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 3:16), cf. CO 45, 103f(=Comm. Ev. Lk. 2:40); CO 45, 141(= Comm. Ev. Lk. 4:17f); CO 47, 28 etc.

As kings, priests, and prophets were anointed for their respective offices in the Old Testament, Christ was anointed for his threefold office (king, priest, and prophet). As the Mediator, Christ needs the Spirit, but he accomplishes salvation and grace not for himself but for his people, i.e. his children and the church. Precisely at this point it becomes evident that Calvin understands Christ’s baptism in Christological and ecclesiological ways. Christ subjected himself to the anointing of the Holy Spirit not only for himself but also for the benefit of his people.

Sermons sur l’Harmonie évangélique, in: CO 46, 371.

In the Commentary on Isaiah (1550), Calvin understands the descent of the Spirit on Christ at his baptism within the Old Testament background of the preparation for Messiah’s role: “Now, hence we infer that the spiritual kingdom of Christ was formerly promised to the ancient people, because his whole strength, power, and majesty, is here made to consist in the gifts of the Spirit. Although Christ was not deficient in gifts of this kind, yet as he took upon our flesh, it was necessary that he should be enriched with them, that we might afterwards be made partakers of all blessings of which otherwise we are destitute; for out of his fullness, as John says, we must draw as from a fountain. (John I. 16; and vii. 37, 38).”

CO 36, 235(= Comm. Jes. 11:2).

Calvin continues to explain why Jesus is called “Christ” (Messiah) and why we “Christians.” By becoming a human Christ has offered us all the gifts from the Father: “And this is the anointing from which he receives the name of Christ, which he imparts to us; for why are we called Christians, but because he admits us to his fellowship, by distributing to us out of his fullness according to the measure (Eph. iv 7) of undeserved liberality? And undoubtedly this passage does not so much as teach us what Christ is in himself, as what he received from the Father, that he might enrich us with his wealth.”

CO 36, 235f(= Comm. Jes. 11:2).

Regarding this point Calvin criticizes the doctrine of spiritual gifts taught by the Roman Catholic Church: “The Prophet does not here enumerate all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as some have thought. Out of this passage the Papists have foolishly and ignorantly drawn their sevenfold grace, and some of the ancients fell into a similar blunder. He enumerates only six kinds; but they have added a seventh out of their own head. … He shows that they dwell in Christ, in order that they may be communicated to us. We are also called his fellows, (Ps. xlv. 7) because strength proceeds from him as th head to the individual members, and in like manner Christ causes his heavenly anointing to flow over the whole body of his Church. Hence is follows that those who are altogether barren and dry have no interest in Christ, and falsely glory in his name. Whenever therefore we feel that we are in want of any of these gifts, let us blame our unbelief; for true faith makes us partakers of all Christ’s benefits.”

CO 36, 236f(= Comm. Jes. 11:2).

Calvin’s thoughts on Christ’s kingship and priesthood and also on the priesthood of all believers are already well expressed in the first edition of the Institutes (1536) and the Geneva Catechism (1537). In fifth chapter of the former work, he rejects the heavily ritualistic and automatic aspects of the Roman Catholic teaching on “anointing,” especially in the doctrines of offices and sacraments. Here, working from the pneumatological perspective, he focuses on the twofold office of Christ (king and priest). In the next edition of the Institutes (1539), however, Calvin, under the influence of Martin Bucer, adds the office of prophet and makes it the threefold office of Christ. In the final edition of 1559, he laments that papists merely use the terminology of Christ’s threefold office without an interest or an adequate understanding of the meaning of each office.

CO 1, 69(= OS I 82).

CO 22, 53[= OS I 397 = CO 5, 338, Latin(1538)], cf. Geneva Catechism(1545/1548), in CO 6, 19-21(= OS II, 79f).

CO 1, 141-195(= OS I, 162-223); CO 1, 190(= OS I 217): “Scilicet rem ingeniosam conantur: ex Christianismo et Iudaismo et paganitae, velut consutis centunculis, religionem unam conficere. Foetet igitur eorum unctio, quae sale, id est, vero Dei destituitur.”

CO 1, 514f, cf. Yoon-Bae Choi, “Martin Bucer(1491-1551) und Johannes Calvin(1509-1564) im Umgang miteinander,” Yonsei Journal of Theology Vol. 5(Dec. 2000), 349-362;

OS III 472(= Inst. 1559, II xv 1), cf. OS III 471-481(= Inst. 1559, II xv 1-6).

“We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ [Acts 4:12]. We should therefore take care not to derive the least portion of it from anywhere else. If we seek salvation, we are taught by every name of Jesus that is ‘of him’ [I Cor. 1:30]. If we seek any another gifts of the Spirit, they will be found in his anointing.” Christ receives the Holy Spirit according to his humanity and imparts the Spirit for the dual purposes―for himself and also for his children and the church as his body.

OS III 508(= Inst. 1559, II xvi 19); OS III 477f(= Inst. 1559, II xv 5).

OS III 473(= Inst. 1559, II xv 2), cf. OS III 450(= Inst. 1559, II xiii 1); OS IV 2(= Inst. 1559, III i 2);; S. van der Linde, op. cit., 92ff.

3. The Holy Spirit and the Life and Resurrection of
Jesus Christ

W. Krusche makes a valid argument that all the words and acts of Christ must be understood in light of pneumatology, for Christ did all deeds through the Holy Spirit. Through the Spirit did Christ proclaim, teach, intuit, heal, struggle, suffer, die, and rise again. This is why Calvin’s Christology is defined pneumatologically.

W. Krusche, op. cit., 135, cf. S. van der Linde, op. cit., 86f: “Zoo geldt het van al Zijn woorden en daden. Zijn woorden waren aangenaam en krachtig.”

W. Krusche, op. cit., 151; S. van der Linde, op. cit., 92.

In order to understand the Scripture correctly, not only Christ but we ourselves are in need of the Spirit. In the first edition of the Institutes, Calvin mentions the role of Christ as a “teacher” but does not yet connect this insight to the idea of Christ’s threefold office. He claims that the Roman Catholic Church refuses to learn the proper doctrine of sacraments in the school of the Holy Spirit, who alone is the greatest teacher. As argued above, in every revision thereafter Calvin makes the connection between Christ’s anointing and his office of prophet.

OS III 60-105(= Inst. 1559, I v-xii); OS III 241-320(= Inst. 1559, II ii-v).

CO 1, 99(= OS I 115); CO 1, 207(= OS I 236).

CO 1, 125(= OS I 144f): “Nos e converso, ne in eandem incidamus foveam, aure, oculos, corda, mentes, linguas, penitus defigamus in sacra Dei doctrina. Est enim ea spiritus sancti, optimi magistri, schola, in qua sic proficitur, ut nihil sit asciscendum, ignorandum vero libenter quidquid in ea non docetur.”

“We see that he was anointed by the Spirit to be herald and witness of the Father’s grace. And that not in the common way-for he is distinguished from other teachers with a similar office. On the other hand, we must not this: he receives anointing, not only for himself that he might carry out the office of teaching, but for his whole body that the power of the Spirit might be present in the continuing preaching of the gospel. This, however, remains certain: the perfect doctrine he has brought has made an end to all prophecies. All those, then, who, not content with the gospel, patch it with something extraneous to it, detract from Christ’s authority. … This is very true, because it is not lawful to go beyond the simplicity of the gospel. And the prophetic dignity in Christ leads us to know that in the sum of doctrine as he has given it to us all parts of perfect wisdom are contained.”

OS III 473(= Inst. 1559, II xv 2).

Christ offered himself as the sacrifice through the eternal Holy Spirit.  He suffered in the weakness of flesh but was resurrected by the power of the Spirit. “Paul also teaches in another place [Col. 3:4] that God raised his Son from the dead, not to make known a single working of the Spirit, but to show toward us believers the same working of the Spirit, whom he calls ‘life’ while he dwells in us because he was given, to the end that he may quicken what is mortal in us[cf. Rom. 8:11]. … He was raised by the Father, inasmuch as he was Head of the church, from which the Father in no way allows him to be severed. He was raised by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Quickener of us in common with him. Finally, he was raised that he might be ‘the resurrection and the life’[John 11:25].”

OS III 490f(= Inst., II xvii 6), cf. CO 55, 111(= Comm. Heb. 9:14).

OS III 500(= Inst. 1559, II xvi 13); CO 1, 59(= OS I 71f).

OS IV 435f(= Inst. 1559, III xxv 3).

In his Commentary on Romans (1540), Calvin calls the Spirit the one who resurrects. Christ had once succumbed to death due to the weakness of flesh, but he overcame it not by any dubious and uncertain power but by the work of the Spirit. The one who resurrected Christ was the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Christ rose from death, for his people and his church.

CO 49, 10(= Comm. Rom. 1:4).

CO 49, 146(= Comm. Rom. 8:11).

With the issue of Christ’s resurrection in the center, Calvin critiques Apollinarius of the ancient church and his contemporaneous so‐called libertines (les Libertines) and Servetus. His criticism appears in the Commentary on Corinthians (1546). The libertines tried to understand the resurrection allegorically.  Calvin refuses the allegorical interpretation and understands the resurrection as natural and real. He cites as his evidence Paul’s claim that the eye‐witnesses made no testimony about any spiritual resurrection. “But we must take notice that Christ was also a living soul like ourselves, but over and above His soul, the Spirit of the Lord was poured out upon Him, that by the power of the Spirit He might rise from the dead, and raise up others. Attention must be paid to this, so that no-one might think that the Spirit took the place of the soul in Christ, as Apollinarius once imagined.” Servetus argued that the Spirit turned into a person through Christ’s resurrection, for he thought that another person of God rose from the death of Christ.

CO 49, 537(= Comm. 1 Cor. 15:1).

CO 49, 539(= Comm. 1 Cor. 15:5ff).

CO 49, 558(= Comm. 1 Cor. 15:45).

Defensio orthodoxae(1554), in: CO 8, 594.

In the Commentary on the Gospel according to John (1553), Calvin writes that Christ spoke through the Spirit and acted through the Spirit. “Christ indeed discharged the office of Teacher; but in order to make known the Father, He used the secret revelation of the Spirit and not only the sound of His voice. He therefore means that He taught the apostles efficaciously. Moreover, as their faith up till then was very weak, He promises greater progress in the future and thus prepares them to hope for more abundant grace of the Spirit.” Calvin says that “I readily acknowledge that all Christ’s affections were guided by the Spirit; but the Evangelist means something different, that Christ’s suffering was inward and unfeigned.” Therefore, Christ’s resurrection by the power of the Holy Spirit is a strong evidence for his divinity. As the one who resurrects, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

CO 47, 390(= Comm. Joh. 17:26).

CO 47, 314(= Comm. Joh.13:21).

CO 47, 48(= Comm. Joh. 2:19).

The same idea can be found in his Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (1554). When the Spirit carries out his role as the internal teacher, the ministry of preaching the Word becomes effective. The reason is that since Christ gave the Spirit of understanding to his people, he speaks effectively through the Word for bearing fruits. Christ penetrates into hidden corners by his divine Spirit.

CO 45, 817(= Comm. Ev. Lk. 24:46), cf. CO 45, 142.

CO 45, 246(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 9:4), cf. CO 45, 336(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 12:25).

By what other than the Holy Spirit, who searches the depth of hearts, would Christ have been able to obtain such knowledge? Calvin says that “we should pray Christ to guide us with the Spirit of discernment, that what was His by nature and by right may be ours by His free gift.”

CO 45, 601(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 22:18).

People in the Roman Catholic Church believe that healing takes place by faith in saints. Calvin calls such faith a superstition and refutes it in the following manner. Christ heals the woman, who has continuously bled for twelve years, by the power of the Spirit. Christ heals by the Spirit the two blind men who were moved by the Spirit. By the Spirit he saves Zacchaeus, who was led by the Spirit. “But if Christ was tempted as the Representative of all the faithful, we should realize that the temptations that strike us are not fortuitous, or the turn of Satan’s whim, without God’s permission, but that the Spirit of God presides in all our trials, that our faith may be the better tried.”

CO 45, 256f(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 9:20-22).

CO 45, 561(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 20:32).

CO 45, 563(= Comm. Ev. Lk. 19:5).

CO 45, 130f(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 4:1), cf. CO 46, 596.

“When the trial came on Christ in this form, that He was now against God and doomed to ruin, He was overcome with dread(which would have been enough to swallow up all mankind a hundred times over) but He came out Victor, by the marvellous power of the Spirit.” According to Calvin, Christ was trained under divine courage, and the power of the Spirit enabled Christ to overcome fear and surpass all human emotions.

CO 45, 779(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 27:46).

CO 45, 551(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 20:180.

What captured the eyes of those who came to visit Christ’s tomb was the weakness of their flesh. Before Christ’s resurrection they were not able to see the divine power of the Holy Spirit. God used this as a sign for what he was about to do―raise up the Son heavenward in glory and victory. “Now we come to the closing passage of our redemption. This is the source of our lively confidence in our reconciliation with God, that Christ came forth from hell as Victor over death, and showed that the power of the new life was in His hands. As Paul rightly says (I Cor. 15:14), there would be no Gospel and the hope of salvation would be vain and trifling, unless we held that Christ is risen from the dead. Thus our righteousness came to be won, and our access to heaven laid open. Then was our adoption assured; Christ in resurrection exerted the power of his Spirit and proved Himself Son of God. Though He displayed His resurrection otherwise than our fleshly sense would have looked for, yet the means that pleased Him should also seem best to us.” Christ rose from the dead for his people.

CO 45, 787(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 27:57-61 Preface).

CO 45, 792(= Comm. Ev. Mt. 28:1-7 Preface).

CO 45, 813(= Comm. Ev. Lk. 24:39).

In the Sermons on the Suffering and Death of Christ, Calvin does not often mention the Spirit in relation to Christ’s suffering and death. “In fact, it is impossible that we should arrive at this knowledge, unless we are illumined by the Holy Spirit … until we are touched within by His Holy Spirit (that is where faith come from!), and then we are good and true disciples of Jesus Christ, to experience the fruit of this doctrine. This is what is here shown us by the Prophet. … But as to Jesus Christ, though He suffered in the weakness of His flesh, He was always supported by the power of the Spirit Who was given to Him. That is how He triumphed even upon the cross, as Saint Paul speaks of it to the Colossians.” “Everything came to its completion at His resurrection. Christ’s resurrection, however, is related to the death and passion. We know that as Christ suffered in the weakness of His flesh, He rise from death through the power of the Holy Spirit. We also know that He suffered for our sin and for us to be free before God, He was resurrected for our righteousness.”

Sermons sur le 53. Chap. d’Isaïe, in: CO 35, 581-688; Sermons de la passion, in: CO 46, 955-968.

CO 35, 673(= Serm. Jes. 53:11), cf. CO 46, 843, 850f, 879, cf. John Calvin, The Gospel According to Isaiah(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 112-113.

CO 46, 914(= Serm. Mt. 27:27-44), cf. 843, 850, 879.

Calvin emphasizes pneumatological, ecclesiological, and eschatological perspectives on the resurrection of Christ in the Commentary on the Acts (1554). The fruit of Christ’s resurrection is the gift of the Spirit. Christ performs great miracles. He was resurrected not for himself but for the entire church to participate in his life. “He is therefore said to have entered into the Kingdom of God so that, being alive for ever, He may endow His own also with eternal felicity. For seeing that Christ rose for us rather than Himself, the perpetuity of life which the Father conferred on Him is extended to all us, and is ours.”

CO 48, 47(= Comm. Act. 2:25).

CO 48, 302(= Comm. Act. 13:34).

Calvin teaches us the following fact in his Commentary on Psalms (1557): “Besides, we know that the grave of Christ was filled, and as it were embalmed with the life-giving perfume of his Spirit, that it might be to him the gate to immortal glory.”

CO 31, 157(= Comm. Ps. 16:10).

III. Conclusion

What is the mutual relationship between the Holy Spirit and Christ in the theology of Calvin? In short, the two are in a mutually inseparable relationship. The life of Christ from conception to resurrection is defined pneumatologically. All the words and acts of Jesus Christ remained within the relationship with the Spirit. By the Spirit Christ was conceived, baptized, and led to temptation. By the Spirit he preached the Word, healed the sick, suffered, bore the cross, sacrificed himself to the Father, and was risen from the dead.

Calvin meets a few groups of opponents on this issue. Centered on the problem of true humanity of Christ, Calvin was faced with dualistic and docetic thinkers who generally disregarded the created world. Among them were Manichaeans, Marcionites, and Apollinarius of the ancient church, and Anabaptists who were Calvin’s contemporaries. Marcionism totally denied the true humanity of Christ; the Manichaeans and Anabaptists claimed that Christ wore a “heavenly flesh” from above. Apollinarius sided with a “soul” (nous) from heaven that Christ took and hence failed to secure a complete humanity of Christ.

Servetus could not make a distinction between Christ the Word and the Spirit when regarding Christ as the Word.

Above all, Calvin focused his criticism mainly on the Roman Catholic Church (the so‐called papists). The Roman Catholic Church argues as follows on the immaculate birth of Christ. Borrowing from Aristotelian metaphysics, the papists thought only men contributed to procreation. Since only a woman was involved in the birth of Christ, he must have been immaculate from birth. Against such reasoning, Calvin argued that it was the Holy Spirit who prepared, bore, and sanctified. On the preaching of the Word and the efficacy of sacraments, Calvin objected to the doctrine of ex opera operato, and instead emphasized the role of the Spirit as the teacher who guides through the sign and reality of God’s promise.

Calvin also casts a critical view on Lutherans directly concerning sacraments but also indirectly regarding the dual natures of Christ, especially his humanity. As we know well, Lutherans were intent on establishing the ubiquity of Christ in sacraments and hence strongly emphasized communicatio idiomatum. This usually resulted in a tendency to humanize the divinity in the case of historical Jesus and to divinize the humanity in the case of risen Christ. From a pneumatological perspective, Calvin criticized the divinization of Christ’s humanity.

Considering the relationship between the Spirit and historical Jesus, we reach with Calvin a conclusion that Jesus is the bearer of the Spirit. Christ is the second person of Godhead. Due to his divinity, there is no need to be anointed by the Spirit. For his humanity, however, Christ had to receive the Spirit in order to carry out the roles of Mediator and Savior. The motive and purpose of his incarnation are for our salvation from our sin. Herein lie the dual reasons for Christ’s anointment, one Christological and the other ecclesiological.

Generally church history and history of theology have emphasized Christ as the sender of the Spirit after the resurrection and ascension took place. Much has been neglected on the aspect of historical Jesus as the bearer of the Spirit. Fortunately, recent biblical studies, especially those on the synoptic Gospels, have cast much light on Christ the bearer. Some biblical scholars, however, have veered to a kind of adoptionism by denying the preexistence of Christ, and others have rejected Logos‐Christology and taken on Pneuma‐Christology. Calvin’s persistent argument, that Christ needed to be anointed by the Spirit for his human nature and to be the Mediator for his people, should provide a sound basis for a critique on such arguments.

Calvin clearly maintains that Christ received the Spirit prior to birth and not after youth. The presence of the Spirit carried out through his entire life, suffering, death, and resurrection. The Son of God came in flesh and became the bearer of the Spirit, but he does not return in or under flesh. Following the resurrection, Christ becomes the sender of the Spirit.

The trinitarian coherence between the Old and New Testaments is important. The two testaments relate to the same God, same Mediator, and the same grace. There are differences and distinctions in degree between the two, but the later Calvin’s emphasis falls heavily on the continuity. In other words, he opposed the Marcionites of the ancient church who almost totally denied the continuity and the Anabaptists and the enthusiasts of his own day.

In the beginning Calvin only mentioned Christ’s twofold office, his kingship and priesthood. Later, however, he developed a systematic treatment of Christ’s threefold office. Regarding this matter, we can argue that Bucer and Calvin were in agreement and that the former left an influence on the latter. Bucer, unlike the late Calvin, did not develop the threefold office as a systematic expression of Christ’s redeeming work. Due to the historical circumstances, Bucer emphasized the office of prophet less and less whereas Calvin did the opposite. For both reformers, however, the office of prophet was always less stressed than the other two. Calvin generally related the office of prophet to Christ’s humiliation and justification and that of king to his glorification and sanctification. Christ’s priesthood is related to humiliation and glorification. As with Bucer, Calvin especially emphasized the kingship of Christ as found in Melchizedek, not Aaron. As king Christ keeps his priesthood through the Holy Spirit. As with Bucer, Calvin understood pneumatology in the perspective of Christ’s threefold office and his kingship above all.

Calvin relates closely church and the kingdom of Christ. Christ the king reigns over his people and church through his Spirit. For Calvin, this means that Christ reigns through the Spirit and through all possible means. Calvin speaks of two kinds of reign. The first places itself in the heart and the second controls only the external morals.

Calvin’s opponents were mainly the Roman Catholic Church on the right and the Anabaptists and enthusiasts on the left. Calvin discusses two kinds of ministers under one king. For Calvin, a government is called to create space for the kingdom of Christ. Authority on all things on earth depends on kings and lords based on divine providence and sacred law. The office of leaders of civil governments belongs to the general grace of God and the Holy Spirit.

In conclusion, we can look at the Christological Pneumatology under three headings in John Calvin: 1. the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ in the old and new covenants 2. the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ as the bearer of the Spirit.

【참고문헌】

Calvin’s Commentaries

CO(Calvini opera)

CR(Corpus Reformatorum)

OS(Opera Selecta)

【Abstract】

The Relationship between the Holy Spirit and Christ as the Bearer of the Holy Spirit
in John Calvin

Yoon-Bae Choi, Dr. theol.(Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary)

This thesis treat of the relationship between Pneumatology and Christology in John Calvin. What is the mutual relationship between the Holy Spirit and Christ in the theology of Calvin? In short, the two are in a mutually inseparable relationship. The life of Christ from conception to resurrection is defined pneumatologically. All the words and acts of Jesus Christ remained within the relationship with the Spirit. By the Spirit Christ was conceived, baptized, and led to temptation. By the Spirit he preached the Word, healed the sick, suffered, bore the cross, sacrificed himself to the Father, and was risen from the dead.

【Key Words】

Calvin, Holy Spirit, Christ, Bearer, pneumatology, Ascension

【국문초록】

칼빈의 성령과 성령의 담지자로서의
그리스도의 관계성

최윤배 교수 (장로회신학대학교, 조직신학)

깔뱅의 경우, 그리스도는 성령을 그의 출생 이전에 성령을 받으신 것이지, 청년 때 비로소 받으신 것이 아니다. 이 같은 영적인 시작은 그의 전(全) 생애, 고난, 죽으심과 부활을 통해서 계속 되었다. 하나님의 아들은 성육신하여 성령의 담지자가 되시지만, 그는 육신 안에 또는 육신 아래에 오시지 않는다. 그의 부활 이후 그리스도는 성령의 파송자가 되신다.

구약과 신약의 일치성과 관계하여 두 언약 사이에 존재하는 삼위일체론적 일치성이 중요하다. 두 언약은 동일한 하나님, 동일한 중보자, 동일한 은혜 등과 관계된다. 신약과 구약 사이의 구별과 차이와 관련하여, 정도면의 차이가 있다. 후기 깔뱅은 두 언약 사이의 일치성을 강조했다. 우리는 이것을 신학적 배경에서 이해할 것이 아니라, 역사적 배경에서 이해해야 한다. 다시 말하면, 깔뱅은 구약과 신약의 일치성을 거의 부정하는 고대교회의 마르시온주의자들과 그의 당시 재세례파와 열광주의자들 등과 논쟁했다.

초기에 깔뱅은 신자들의 왕직과 제사장직과 관련하여, 그리스도의 이중직, 즉 왕직과 제사장직만을 언급했다. 그러나 후기에 그는 체계적으로 그리스도의 삼중직을 언급했다. 그리스도의 삼중직과 관련하여 우리는 부처와 깔뱅은 서로 일치하며, 깔뱅이 부처로부터 영향을 받았다고 주장할 수가 있다. 부처와 후기 깔뱅과는 달리 그리스도의 구원 사역이 표현되는 그리스도의 삼중직을 조직체계를 사용하지 않았다. 부처는 역사적인 정황 때문에, 그리스도의 예언자직을 점점 덜 강조한 반면, 깔뱅은 점점 더 강조했다. 그러나 두 종교개혁자들에게 그리스도의 예언자직은 다른 두 직분들보다 덜 강조되었다. 깔뱅의 경우 그리스도의 예언자직이 일반적으로 그리스도의 겸비와 칭의와 관계된다면, 그리그도의 왕직은 그리스도의 고양과 성화에 관계된다. 그리스도의 제사장직은 그리스도의 겸비와 고양상태와 관계된다. 부처와 마찬가지로 깔뱅은 아론에게서가 아니라, 멜기세덱에서서 특별히 발견하는 그리스도의 왕직을 다른 두 직분보다도 더욱 강조했다. 왕으로서 그리스도는 성령을 통해서 그의 제사장직을 유지한다. 부처와 마찬가지로 깔뱅은 성령론을 그리스도의 삼중직의 관점에서 이해하고, 여기서 그리스도의 왕직이 가장 우세하다.

깔뱅은 교회와 그리스도의 나라를 서로 밀접하게 관련시킨다. 왕으로서 그리스도는 그의 영을 통해서 그의 백성과 교회를 다스리신다. 깔뱅의 경우, 이것은 다름 아니라, 그리스도께서 말씀과 성령을 통해서 그리고 처분 가능한 수단들을 가지고 통치하신다는 것을 뜻한다. 깔뱅은 두 가지 통치에 대해서 말한다. 첫째 통치는 마음속에 그 자리를 가지고, 둘째 통치는 외적 도덕만을 규제한다.

깔뱅의 논쟁자들은 주로 오른쪽으로는 로마 가톨릭교회가 있었고, 왼쪽으로는 재세례파들과 열광주의자들이 있었다. 깔뱅은 한 왕 아래에 있는 두 종류의 사역자들에 대해서 말했다. 깔뱅의 경우, 정부는 그리스도의 나라를 위한 공간을 창조하기 위해 부름을 받았다. 지상에서 모든 일에 대한 권위는 신적인 섭리와 신적인 거룩한 제도에 근거하여 왕들과 군주들에게 달려 있다. 시민 정부의 지도자들의 직책은 하나님과 성령의 일반은사에 속한다. 하나님의 보좌우편에 앉아 계시는 성령의 파송자로서 예수 그리스도는 자신이 파송하신 성령과 성령의 도구들, 특히 말씀을 통해서 다스리신다.

【핵심어】

칼빈, 성령, 그리스도, 담지자, 성령론, 승천