Seeing and Believing in the Commentaries on John by Martin Bucer and John Calvin.

PITKIN, BARBARA

Nevertheless, all Lutherans, compelled by the arguments of the faithful, begin to distinguish concerning faith.

John Eck.(1)

John Eck's allegation that those advancing justification by faith alone were themselves finding it necessary to distinguish different types of faith describes accurately the reality in the evangelical movement in the 1530s-1550s. The Reformers' initial clarity and optimism about saving faith is seen, for example, in Article 20 of the Augsburg Confession (1530), which describes the scriptural view of faith as a confidence in God and a certain assurance of God's grace. Moreover, the Confession carefully distinguishes this true faith from both mere knowledge of historical events concerning Christ and from virtuous actions that spring from faith, and does not deign to designate these latter legitimate types of faith. However, subsequent dissension within the Protestant camp over the Law (Johann Agricola, for example), justification (Andreas Osiander, for example), and the sacraments, combined with the continued criticism of those Catholic opponents designated by Eck as "the faithful," forced the magisterial Reformers to defend and, in some cases, refine their understandings of faith. Missing from Eck's assessment, however, is an indication of how exegetical activity in addition to polemical exchanges might attest and even contribute to this reevaluation. In this regard, the Gospel of John constitutes an especially important area for investigation. Protestant understandings of faith were drawn from and bolstered by Pauline texts, especially Rom. 1:17, 3:2.8, 4:3-9, and 10:17; Gal. 4:6; and Heb. 11:1 (not universally acknowledged as Pauline, but read through Pauline eyes). Nevertheless, the Fourth Gospel's extended treatment of faith, its emphasis on faith in Christ, and traditional, Augustinian readings of key passages such as John 6:35 as referring to faith all suggest that any description of faith claiming to be based on Scripture needs to attend to John's witness.

Two key Protestant commentaries, one nearly contemporary with the first edition of Eck's Enchiridion and one written several years after the Council of Trent closed the door on any further discussion of the nature of faith, provide initial orientation to the question of Protestant treatments of faith in John. Written by an adherent to and a disciple of what has been described as a distinctive Rhineland school of biblical interpretation, the commentaries of Martin Bucer (d. 1551) and John Calvin (d. 1564) exemplify a common exegetical approach that emphasizes the intent of the human author and the literal or historical sense as avenues to meaning.(2) Moreover, Bucer and Calvin share key theological convictions about true faith that they have in common with Wittenberg theologians: faith comes through hearing the gospel, faith contains certain assurance of salvation, faith is a divine gift, faith embraces Christ as Savior. Some of these assumptions emerge, for example, in their comments on John 1:12. In the first "Protestant" commentary on John, which appeared in 1523, Philip Melanchthon (d. 1560) had argued that to believe in Christ's name means to believe that Christ is truly the one who justifies and saves.(3) Bucer likewise comments that to believe in Jesus (in Iesum vel Iesu) is to be certain of him and persuaded that he is the one whom the prophets and also he himself have said he is. Calvin, complaining that many have confused the understanding of faith, explains faith as knowledge of Christ from hearing the gospel.(4) Elsewhere, however, tension arises between exegetical and theological commitments, between the view of faith put forth by the evangelist and the assumptions held by these two interpreters. The Gospel frequently implies and even states that in certain cases faith results from seeing a miracle or involves an incomplete knowledge of Christ. While earlier interpreters also found it necessary to "distinguish concerning faith" to explain these passages, the new, evangelical understanding of faith seemed to rule out distinctions altogether, or at least distinctions that were previously satisfactory.

In their commentaries on the Gospel of John, Bucer and Calvin articulate similar understandings of faith and the purpose of Jesus' miracles. They also exhibit a common concern to distinguish the vision of faith from physical sense perception. Their elaborations of these themes frequently draw on the preceding exegetical tradition, which also sought to relate the idea of faith as "the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1), and Jesus' statement in John, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe" (John 20:29), with the same Gospel's frequent statements that people believed because of the signs that Jesus was doing.(5) Medieval exegetes might account for this by exploiting the various scholastic distinctions of implicit and explicit, unformed and formed, and demons' faith. For example, Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) was concerned to speak about faith formed by love in his comments on John 3:18 and 6:29, and Denis the Carthusian (d. 1471) mentioned both explicit belief and formed faith in his comments on John 2, formed faith and faith with works in commenting on 3:15 and 7:38.(6) This avenue was not one that the Reformers could openly pursue, given their rejection of the scholastic distinctions and their restriction of faith to firm and certain knowledge, persuasion, and embracing of Christ. Thus Bucer and Calvin make different exegetical moves, offering their own distinctions and explanations. These differing strategies led them, despite apparent theological agreement on the nature and character of faith, to opposing exegetical conclusions, and revealed further indebtedness to, as well as divergence from, the exegetical tradition.(7)

One way of mapping these strategies is to compare Bucer's and Calvin's treatments of John 2:11 and 23-25, 3:1-21 and 7:50-51, and 6:1-59, all of which suggest a faith in Jesus based on seeing a miracle. Consideration of these passages is especially appropriate, since John 2 has been of perennial interest to Christian exegetes, and the other passages, while certainly important to traditional interpreters, also played key roles in sixteenth-century debates. Moreover, John 3 and John 6 underwent a key reorientation of focus in Protestant exegesis. Following Luther's lead, Melanchthon summarized the main points of these passages so as to exclude the topics of baptism and Eucharist, focusing instead on faith and mortification of the justified sinner.(8) As I will show, Calvin and Bucer follow this shift in emphasis, but in contrast to Melanchthon devoted greater attention to the traditional concern with the relationship between faith and seeing. There are, no doubt, other passages that provided occasion for these two exegetes to reflect on this relationship (for example, John 4:46--53, John 11:45, and especially John 20:24-29). However, for the reasons just listed and because in some of the other cases it is difficult to compare their discussions (Bucer, for example, offers no sustained analysis of the episode with Thomas in John 20), the selections from John 2, 3, and 6 offer the most solid basis for comparison.

I. JOHN 2:11 AND 23--25

John 2:11 says that Jesus' "disciples believed in him" in conjunction with the water being turned into wine. Similarly, the end of chapter 2 relates that many in Jerusalem for the Passover "believed in his name because of the signs that he was, doing" but adds that "Jesus ... would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people." John 2, and especially the Cana pericope, particularly exercised the talents of traditional exegetes, who frequently mined the story for its allegorical significance and sought to explain the difficult exchange of words between Mary and Jesus.(9) Some exegetes also found in the passage occasion for a discussion of marriage. Certain sixteenth-century Protestants adopted similar strategies. For example, Melanchthon pursued an allegorical interpretation of the Cana pericope, and Wolfgang Musculus (d. 1563) included in his commentary a long digression on marriage.(10) In contrast, Calvin and Bucer focus on the historical sense. Although each offers a passing critique of contemporary practice (Calvin polemicizes against veneration of Mary, Bucer against monastic celibacy and Anabaptist views on drinking), the clear theme of the passage for both is the awakening of faith in Christ among those present.

Discussing the episode of turning water into wine, Calvin and Bucer put forth nearly identical and traditional definitions of "miracles" as manifestations of divine power "intended for the confirmation and progress of faith."(11) Both advance the dominant, traditional view that the disciples already had faith, which was strengthened by the miracle.(12) Calvin's choice of terms to describe this faith--non certa et explicita and tam pusilla--combined with his statement that the disciples now acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah, certainly leave one wondering if Calvin has truly gotten beyond the medieval distinctions.(13) Significantly, not the miracle per se but the fact that it manifests Christ's glory, "by which it could be established that he is the Son of God," leads to this new recognition concerning Jesus. Calvin concludes by stressing that this refers to progress in already existent faith, such that "they who already believed begin to believe since they daily make greater advances toward [faith's] goal [scopus]."(14)

Bucer also indicates in his annotations on the passage that the design of this occurrence is "that [Christ's] power might become known opportunely and that faith in him as Savior might be had." He later clarifies, in his observations, that this meant that the disciples were confirmed in their perception of Jesus as the Christ.(15) Unlike Calvin, however, Bucer does not speculate on the character of the disciples' faith prior to the miracle. He mentions Mary's faith twice and, like Melanchthon, stresses Mary as an example of faithful prayer. However, throughout his discussion of the wedding pericope, Bucer is more concerned than Calvin with such traditional topics as Mary's motives and the significance of the six large water jugs and the wine, questions that Calvin also discusses. Although Bucer stresses again at the end of his comments that the point of the story is not to provide a basis for allegory, but rather to relate how Christ exercised his power and caused his disciples to believe in him, he seems less concerned than Calvin, Thomas, or Denis to dwell on the character of their belief.

The statements at the end of John 2 concerning the alleged faith of the masses in Jerusalem are so provocative that no exegete seemed able to avoid explaining why Jesus would not trust (credere) himself to those whose faith arose out of the signs. John Chrysostom (d. 407) and Augustine (d. 430) provided the two main solutions. Augustine argued that those to whom the Evangelist attributes faith really believed, yet Jesus did not trust them because they were not yet baptized.(16) Chrysostom advanced a somewhat less charitable view, arguing that the Evangelist refers here to those who are like the seed cast upon the surface of the earth. Chrysostom attributed the weakness of their faith to the fact that it was based on miracles rather than teaching. Although he did not specifically condemn a faith based on miracles, he insinuated that it is less steadfast and potentially transient.(17) While most interpreters, including Calvin and Bucer, followed Chrysostom's route, many reported Augustine's view, if only to qualify it (Denis), harmonize it with Chrysostom's (Thomas), or reject it (Calvin, in his comments on John 2:24). Although Calvin and Bucer travel the same road, once again Calvin delves into greater detail concerning the character of the faith described.

The faith of the masses is, for Calvin, of a different order than the early faith of the disciples. The masses conceived only a "cold faith," a "shadowy faith," perceived by the understanding only without true feelings of the heart. "Directed exclusively to the world and earthly things," this fruit born of the signs might, he admits, ultimately break forth into true faith, but from his description this seems unlikely, especially since Calvin links it with the faith that James calls "dead." It appears more probable that when those who so believe "perceive that God's doctrine is opposed to their flesh and to their perverse desires," they will be "offended and draw away from the faith received [concepta]."(18) He stresses that this faith is not pretended or simulated, but as it has no root in the gospel and lacks the Spirit of regeneration, it is not true faith.(19) Here he expands the role of miracles to include assisting "the children of God in arriving at faith." But this assistance alone, he states, "does not amount to true believing, when they admire God's power so as simply to believe that [God's] teaching is true but do not subject themselves to it completely."(20) Jesus, moreover, is not merely wary but actually contemptuous of them. Thus we see Calvin here admitting but treating with suspicion a credence born of the physical seeing of a sign, which, because it remains bound to the realm of the senses, must be sharply distinguished from true faith.

In his annotations on these verses, Bucer notes that faith is duplex. He resembles Calvin in his criticism of the faith of the masses and, like Chrysostom, alludes to the parable of the sower to illustrate this temporary faith. Bucer writes that the signs led the crowd to recognize that Jesus was a prophet and the Son of God, but "apart from the mind's renovation and the certain expectation of salvation from him."(21) Their reason was convinced by the present miracles but would turn away when it sensed that he was opposed to their desires, like those who are compared to the seeds cast upon rocky soil in Luke 8. Bucer says that this is just like the mind that recognizes in the Lord first what it has determined would be profitable for itself and only then embraces him, as do, for example, the crowds miraculously fed in John 6. But, he notes, these later take offense when Jesus opposes them, and then they reject and damn him. He derives from these observations a distinction between "true faith" and the faith held by the masses and their sixteenth-century counterparts. As I will discuss later, Bucer finds pious believers also among the crowd following Jesus in John 6.

In their comments on these sections of John 2, Bucer and Calvin advance similar definitions of miracles and allow that seeing a miracle can both prepare for faith and confirm already existing faith. Because both also hold that faith must be certain and must truly embrace Jesus as Christ, they cannot attribute "true faith" either to the disciples prior to the revealing of Jesus' glory at Cana or to the masses in Jerusalem. Nonetheless, both contend that the disciples already had a faith that was confirmed by the manifestation of Christ's glory in the sign. Hence, they do not begin to have faith because of the sign. Furthermore, both deny that the masses in Jerusalem had true faith simply because they saw the signs. They do not seem to share even the guarded optimism toward this faith expressed by Thomas Aquinas, who saw the crowd's faith as imperfect but genuine, or Erasmus (d. 1536), who found their faith "unformed and hesitant," not yet ready for deeper mysteries.(22) Instead, both advance a virtually identical argument that this "faith" conceived through the signs will likely dissolve when Jesus opposes the people's desires, causing the people to take offense. Calvin, more strongly than Bucer, identifies the problem as a "faith" based solely on the miracle apart from the word and Spirit. While Bucer too recognizes that there is no renovation of mind, he does not explicitly fault the miracle itself.

This subtle difference aside, Bucer and Calvin advance such similar portraits of this other faith as to suggest reliance on and deviation from common exegetical traditions. The two issues addressed by nearly every interpreter of John 2:23-25 were the nature of the crowd's faith and Jesus' response. Chrysostom contrasted those attracted by Christ's miracles to those attracted by his prophecies and teaching, comparing the former to "the seeds not deeply sown" and saying they are less steadfast; he did not comment on whether they are genuine in their motivations or not, but explains that Jesus knew that their fervor was transient and therefore did not feel confident in them, nor did he entrust all his teachings to them.(23) Augustine, as noted earlier, held that their faith was true and not feigned, but that it was the faith of recent converts.(24) Following this charitable line of thought, Thomas observed that the conversion of believers was the "abundant" fruit of the sign. At the same time, he adopted Chrysostom's distinction (implied also by Cyril of Alexandria [d. 444]), arguing that some believed because of the sign, while others (whose faith is more commendable) believed because of the revelation and prophecy of hidden things. Thomas held their faith to be genuine, and cited both Chrysostom's and Augustine's interpretations for why Jesus did not entrust himself to them. Denis also cited Augustine's catechumen theory, but argued that this applies to the moral sense of the passage. For Denis the literal meaning was that Jesus did not commit himself to them as true disciples because they did not have a "formed or stable faith," a more technical formulation of Thomas's statement that they believed imperfectly.(25) Erasmus built on these assumptions, seeing their faith as "unformed and hesitant" and, embracing Augustine's optimism, suggesting that Jesus does not entrust himself to them as a matter of gentle pedagogical strategy, since he sees that they are not yet ready for the mysteries of the gospel.(26)

With such interpreters, Calvin and Bucer share the traditional assessment of the temporary and unstable nature of the crowd's faith, but depart from even a guarded optimism concerning the faith of at least some of the people described in John 2:23. Calvin argues, with Augustine and Thomas, that their faith is not feigned, while explicitly rejecting Augustine's catechumen theory in his comments on John 2:24. Bucer, like Chrysostom, focuses on the temporary character of this faith, without saying whether or not it is genuine, but seems to assume that in this case all would fall away. He does not speculate about Jesus' attitude toward the crowd, repeating merely the view that Jesus knew that their faith in him was not true and firm. Calvin's harsh suggestion of Jesus' contempt flies in the face of the neutral or even positive reasons for Jesus' reservations advanced by earlier and contemporary exegetes.

II. JOHN 3:1-21 AND 7:50-51

The beginning of John 3 and John 7:50-51 deal with Nicodemus, who initially recognized Jesus as a teacher from God because of his signs (John 3:2). This exchange had been a favorite locus for a discussion of baptism. In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther (d. 1546) and Melanchthon saw in this exchange the opposition between faith and free will or between justification by works and justification by faith.(27) Calvin also, while recognizing that the greater part of the tradition referred John 3:5 to baptism, cannot bring himself to believe that Christ speaks here of the sacrament. Bucer, however, follows the course set by Chrysostom and the tradition. In addition, both exegetes attend also to the figure of Nicodemus and to the character of his faith.

Having pursued a common path regarding the treatment of faith and seeing in John 2, Bucer and Calvin part ways in their discussions of the figure of Nicodemus. Traditional interpreters, such as Chrysostom and Augustine, often treated the masses in Jerusalem and Nicodemus in the same sermon, probably because of Nicodemus's inquiry about the signs that Jesus is doing. Like their predecessors, Bucer and Calvin relate Nicodemus to those who believed because of the signs. However, Bucer follows the dominant stream of argument and places Nicodemus among those who apparently use the signs well. Calvin, while keeping an eye to the fact that Nicodemus will ultimately come to true faith, sees in him the prime example of a cold and shadowy faith based on seeing. Throughout their interpretations of this passage, we see Bucer advancing a more optimistic view of the extent to which signs lead to faith, whereas Calvin, in contrast, becomes even more suspicious and critical of the role of signs.

Bucer's optimism is evident in his characterization both of Nicodemus's motives and of Jesus' response to Nicodemus's questions. He notes that from the signs and wondrous deeds in chapter 2, Jesus' divinity could be clearly discerned (dignosci). Nicodemus, apparently drawn by this, comes to Jesus in order to be better informed, or, literally, to be made more certain, about the doctrine of life.(28) There was a zeal for God (studio Dei) and a seed of God (semen Dei) in Nicodemus that conquered all the obstacles in his way, especially the fact that he was a Pharisee. As a result, he was persuaded by the signs that the Lord had come from God in order to be heard as teacher and master to everyone. Following a traditional argument, Bucer admits that Nicodemus came at night because of his fear of the Pharisees and his present inability completely to hold heavenly doctrine above things of the flesh. Nonetheless, he adds that Nicodemus had undoubtedly recognized this heavenly doctrine. Following a line of interpretation stemming from Chrysostom, manifest also in Thomas and Denis, Bucer characterizes Jesus' instruction of this pious but weak seeker of truth as not contemptuous but rather gentle and familiar, which shows the mildness and patience that we ought to exhibit toward those like Nicodemus.(29)

Nicodemus appears again briefly in John 7, where he asks his fellow Pharisees, "Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?" Though Bucer admits, again following Chrysostom, that Nicodemus does not dare to support Jesus openly, nevertheless he says that this question functions positively to derail the discussion among the Pharisees. Bucer describes how this is an example of the seed of God bearing fruit in its own time, for we see how "in this dangerous situation even by his weak faith Nicodemus nonetheless bore some fruit."(30) This positive assessment of Nicodemus's action has a broad foundation in the tradition. Augustine, Chrysostom, Thomas, and Denis all argued that Nicodemus really believed or had been converted. Hence the claim of the Pharisees that none of the rulers believed in Christ was incorrect. Some acknowledged that Nicodemus's fear made his faith imperfect, others saw him speaking with caution. All these interpreters also stressed, like Bucer, that Nicodemus's question served some commendable aim: Nicodemus hoped to convert his fellow Pharisees and rulers, or gain a hearing for Christ, or at least "hinder their unspeakable purpose" (Chrysostom).(31)

Calvin, of course, was no fan of those he called "Nicodemites," so one is perhaps not surprised that he follows a much more negative avenue of interpretation of this figure.(32) In his opening comments on John 3, the contrast to Bucer is immediately evident: "In the person of Nicodemus the evangelist now exhibits to our view how vain and fleeting was the faith of those who, having been excited by miracles, suddenly professed to be disciples of Christ."(33) Calvin will subsequently admit, like Bucer, some seed of piety, and also that Nicodemus had profited from the miracle preparing his mind for faith. Nevertheless, Nicodemus's mind was "filled with many thorns and choked with noxious herbs so that there was hardly any room for spiritual doctrine."(34) He thus rejected what Christ said as a fable. Therefore, Christ had to deal harshly with him: "Since Christ sees that he is spending his time and pains to no purpose in teaching so proud a man, he begins to reprove him sharply.... Christ censures his ignorance .... But still Nicodemus, with all his magisterial haughtiness, is ridiculous because he hesitates more than childishly about first elements."(35) Augustine, too, had argued that Christ was taunting Nicodemus in order to put down his pride. He also perceived, however, that Nicodemus was making spiritual progress through the Lord's instruction.(36) In his overwhelmingly negative characterization of Nicodemus, Calvin breaks with the dominant exegetical tradition. While nearly all interpreters comment on Nicodemus's fear, weakness, and dullness, only Cyril of Alexandria even approaches Calvin's harsh depiction.

Calvin's strikingly negative portrayal manifests itself again in his exegesis of John 7:50. Whereas Bucer argued that Nicodemus's faith, though still weak, bore fruit in this instance, Calvin cannot see any progress. He follows Chrysostom and Bucer and nearly everybody in between in arguing that Nicodemus does not make an open defense. He also acknowledges that some "small spark of godliness" is evident in his remark.(37) But Nicodemus is still excessively timid, and, Calvin concludes, "Thus the evangelist means that he has still a hankering after the concealment of the night, and is not a true disciple of Christ."(38) Moreover, Nicodemus's question does not point to any noteworthy sentiment about Christ: "the same thing might be said of a robber or assassin."(39) "What," Calvin asks, "shall we find here worthy of a pious or faithful man? Thus the seed of the gospel, which afterwards bore fruit, was still concealed [and] choked in him."(40) Again, only Cyril of Alexandria rivals the extremity of Calvin's criticism and the charge of willful dissimulation: "For being still sick of an harmful shame, he permits the faith that is in him to be not seen uncovered, but casting about it dissimulation like a darksome cloak, he as yet conceals that he is on Christ's side."(41)

III. JOHN 6:1-59

John 6 tells about the crowds who are miraculously fed and recognize Jesus as "the prophet who is to come into the world" (John 6:14). When Jesus frustrates their suspected plans to make him king by stealing away, first to the mountain and then, miraculously, across the sea, they go looking for him in Capernaum and find him teaching in the temple. Initially, Jesus accuses them of looking for him not because of the signs but because they ate their fill of the loaves (John 6:26). His discussion of the bread of life leads the Jews to fall into complaining and disputation. This discussion, a traditional favorite for exposition of eucharistic teaching as well as moral and allegorical interpretation, also led sixteenth-century theologians to, among other things, much disputation and polemic over the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist.(42)

Consistent with their concern for the literal sense, neither exegete allegorizes the feeding miracle, although Bucer especially derives from it moral encouragement and lessons for contemporary readers. In assessing the faith of the crowd in John 6, both Bucer and Calvin continue in their different directions in explaining how the crowd can be said to have recognized Jesus as "the prophet who is to come into the world" (John 6:14), and yet misunderstand his kingship and later be chastised by him for following not because of the sign but because of the food (John 6:26). Despite his earlier negative reference to the faith of those fed and aided by Christ, Bucer sees in the crowd some who are led to true faith through the signs. Calvin, in contrast, is extremely hesitant about ascribing faith to anyone in the crowd.

In his comments, Bucer does not offer any distinctions about different kinds of faith or concern himself with the question of whether the crowd really believes. Discussing John 6:1-15, Bucer reports without further comment that John, unique among the Gospel writers, testifies that the crowd follows because of the signs more than the word of God. He mentions in passing that the crowd sought virtually only carnal things from Jesus.(43) Those familiar with Bucer's reputation for verbosity may be surprised by his seemingly uncharacteristic brevity. The reason for this conciseness lies in the fact that he had treated the feeding miracle in his earlier commentary on Matthew (1527), to which he directs his readers. Surprisingly, perhaps, he does not reflect on the incident reported in John 6:14-15, where the crowd concludes from the sign that Jesus is the prophet to come into the world and apparently seeks to make him a king. As Craig Farmer has shown, medieval exegetes in particular raised the question of whether the proclamation of Jesus as a prophet constituted a true confession of faith.(44) Bucer, however, does not discuss here the kind of faith that the crowd has in John 6:14, although it subsequently becomes clear that those that recognize Jesus as the prophet are on the right track. Later he makes several comments about Jesus using the miracles of the feeding and walking on the sea to exercise the minds of his disciples (who had not sufficiently recognized the power of the Lord from the miracle of the bread). Presumably, the crowd's faith is also exercised, albeit indirectly--the multitude is led through Jesus' absence to assume that a new miracle has taken place, and, Bucer writes on John 6:25, "seeing so many miracles, the crowd desired always to be with the Lord; from this point on they earnestly sought him and followed." Like Nicodemus, they desired to be informed or made certain, even though they inquired with vain curiosity how he got across the water.(45)

To distinguish among those in the crowd who used the signs well and those who would ultimately turn from Jesus, Bucer advances the traditional explanation that different people were following Jesus for different reasons. First are those who were drawn after Jesus by desire for him as a prophet and herald of the divine will. Second are those who were attracted by the signs, but for the wrong reasons, either out of curiosity or utility for the flesh rather than zeal for religion. Finally, there are the people attracted to Jesus by the stomach alone. These latter ask what sign Jesus will do and put forth the question about manna (John 6:30-31), which met with a harsh response from Jesus.(46) Bucer observes that this group made up a large part of the crowd. But these, he cautions, are not the same as those people "who a little earlier, having seen the miracle of the bread, said, 'This is truly the prophet who is to come into the world' and want to make him king." Thus it appears that the people mentioned in John 6:14-15 belong to Bucer's first group, though, as he immediately observes, even these did not understand that Jesus would reign in the Spirit.(47)

Throughout the chapter, Bucer continues to speak as if the signs ought to lead people to genuine faith, but it is also clear that it is not the sign itself but rather divine election that leads some from the sign to true faith. In his annotations on John 6:36 ("But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe"), he suggests that those who have seen the miracle have seen much indeed. He observes that from the signs the crowd had seen who Jesus was, namely, the Son of God. While this suggests a close connection between seeing the sign and true knowledge of Jesus, those whom Jesus addresses in this context do not have true faith, since they have not been given to him by the Father (cf. John 6:37).(48) The elect, however, do appear to have used the sign wisely. Bucer interprets John 6:41 and 52 as escalating verbal battles between the reprobate and the pious elect among the crowd. These who are standing by the Lord are called pious and are explicitly identified as those who had recognized him as the Messiah and wanted to set him up as a king.(49) While it is not clear that all who recognized Jesus as such will come to full faith, it nevertheless appears that some of these will indeed arrive at a firmer conviction of Christ.

Whereas Bucer distinguishes between elect and reprobate in the crowd to account for the laudable faith of some and Jesus' harsh words to others, Calvin treats the multitude as a single body and directs Jesus' condemnation to them all.(50) This tactic also has exegetical precedent in Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, who, however, offered opposed assessments of the crowd's character: Chrysostom says that their following Jesus to the mountain "was not an indication of a very stable mental attitude," whereas Cyril, who appears to assume that the multitude in verses 1-15 consists entirely of Gentiles, commends the crowd as "very pious."(51) Calvin does admit, in his comments on John 6:2, that they exhibit a "great ardor" in following Christ. He holds up for imitation their desire and their willingness to forsake their own comfort in this "desert place."(52) Moreover, he says that they obtain proper knowledge of Christ through the feeding miracle, for "they confess the author of it to be the Messiah."(53) Yet, he argues, they apply their knowledge to an improper purpose. Calvin ventures quite detailed criticism of the crowd's desire to make Jesus a king, whereas Bucer merely noted in passing and without criticizing that they did not understand that his was a spiritual kingdom.

Calvin's criticism of the crowd is evident also in his comments on John 6:26, 28, and 30. The evangelist's own condemnation of the crowd's indolence makes it difficult for even the most charitably minded interpreter to put forth a favorable interpretation of their questioning. In fact, Cyril, who offered such a positive reading of the multitudes of Gentiles fed with loaves and fishes, circumvented this problem by assuming an entirely different group of people, composed of Jews, following Jesus to Capernaum. He then offered a scathing criticism of their behavior, as did Chrysostom. Other interpreters, such as Thomas, stressed Jesus' patience and kindliness with the dull-witted crowd, and even Chrysostom attributed Jesus' severity to his overarching pedagogical aim, saying that he attacked them, but with restraint.(54) Calvin echoes the harshness of Cyril and Chrysostom toward the crowd's motives and questions, characterizing the people as obstinate and contemptuous. Moreover, he portrays Jesus as feeling profound resentment at their remarks and responding by reproaching and accusing them. Calvin does not underscore as Bucer does the crowd's praiseworthy desire for Jesus but says instead that Jesus "chides them for throwing themselves forward without consideration."(55) In contrast to Bucer's argument that some in the crowd were drawn by true desire for Jesus as a prophet and herald of the divine will, he finds that they did not profit from the miracle as they ought to have done. Moreover, they "manifest their ignorance of God's grace" and "murmur disdainfully" in asking "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" (John 6:28).(56) Finally, Bucer argues that the question "What sign do you do?" (John 6:30) was not put forth by those who had said "This is truly the prophet who is to come into the world" and wanted to make him king. Calvin, however, contends the opposite: "This wickedness abundantly proves how truly it is said elsewhere, `This wicked generation seeks a sign' (Matt. 12:39). They had been at first drawn to Christ by the admiration of his miracles or signs, and afterwards, through amazement at a new sign, they confessed Christ to be the Messiah, and, with that conviction, wished to make him a king; but now they demand a sign from him, as if he were unknown to them."(57) Hence, Calvin finds that the statement in John 6:34, "give us always this bread," is spoken ironically in order to "accuse Christ of vain boasting."(58)

The tradition of assigning various motives to those in the crowd may have grown out of the plurality of assessments of the multitude's character in patristic commentary. Aligning himself with this tradition, Bucer, like Thomas, Denis, and Erasmus before him, can restrict Jesus' severity to certain carnally minded questioners. He can and does therefore leave room for progression from a faith arising out of the sign to a firm and solid faith of the sort expressed by Peter in his confession at the end of the chapter. Commenting in his observations, Bucer underscores that hypocrites are always present among the true disciples; these also saw so many miracles, from which (if they had been born of God) they would have been able to recognize with no difficulty that Jesus was greater than a man.(59) While Calvin would agree with this in principle, his interpretation of this chapter underscores his deep-seated suspicion of any progression from seeing to believing.

IV. CONCLUSION

The exegesis of these passages demonstrates something of the exegetical variety, despite common theological convictions and exegetical assumptions, among interpreters within the Rhineland school of interpretation and under its sphere of influence.(60) In their interpretations of these passages, Bucer cautiously advances a more optimistic view of the extent to which signs lead to faith, whereas Calvin, in contrast, becomes increasingly suspicious and critical of the role of signs. Calvin finds the relationship between faith and seeing in the Gospel of John more problematic than Bucer does, or, in fact, more than any of the other exegetes consulted did. He also seems to view the statements in the Gospel about faith and miracles as a more direct challenge to the understanding of faith that, for all intents and purposes, he and Bucer share.(61) Bucer does not appear to perceive these as problematic, though he does want to distinguish, as earlier exegetes did, between the incomplete or weak character of such faith and full faith in Christ. Still, he is less concerned to stress or delineate the proper limits of seeing, especially when the faith of the elect, such as Nicodemus and certain members of the crowd in John 6, is concerned.

For the elect, Bucer perceives more of a continuum than Calvin does between the way miracles prepare for faith and the arrival at complete faith. Therefore he sees Christ dealing mildly with Nicodemus's weakness and rebuking only those in the crowd who were not elect, not those who were aroused through the feeding to recognize him as prophet and Messiah and seek to make him king. The elect, who recognized him and sought him in order to be informed or made more certain, are educated by his words. In a sense, this aspect of Bucer's exegesis shares much with the dominant stream of Johannine interpretation. Yet his disinclination to focus on distinctions concerning faith or to speculate much on the character of faith in the narratives, combined with his general assumption throughout the commentary that there is simply one type of faith conforming to the evangelical understanding, signal a turn from some of the principal concerns of certain medieval interpreters.

Calvin, in contrast, seems uneasy about any progression from the signs to faith, and although he shares with Bucer an evangelical understanding of faith, he is far more interested in distinguishing different stages to believing. Calvin admits, as did earlier interpreters of the Gospel of John, a lower type of faith based on miracles as well as a higher, more complete, or true faith. Elsewhere in his commentary Calvin's nervousness with the potential for misunderstanding the relationship between faith and signs, other externals, and knowledge of Christ as anything other than Savior leads him to claim that the evangelist, at times, uses the word "believe" improperly.(62) Calvin, more than Bucer, wants to distinguish clearly true faith from these other ways of believing. At the same time, in conceding that these other ways could be designated as "faith" of some sort, he enriches the evangelical understanding of faith with these distinctions and admits, if grudgingly, at least the reality of these other types of faith, if not all of the terminology, such as implicit, unformed, and demons' faith. Calvin's commentary on John represents a refinement of the understanding of faith he expresses in the Institutes through the 1550 edition. The fact that he incorporated some of these exegetical insights into his edition of 1559 and included a long discussion of the proper understanding of the implicit character of faith demonstrates clearly the importance of exegesis, and not merely polemic, for the development of his evangelical view of faith.

Lest Calvin's concern to distinguish concerning faith seem to link him too firmly with the earlier traditions, I ought to stress that the whole tone of Calvin's discussion of seeing and believing stands out from that of earlier exegetes. While he allows in principle that one might be drawn from lower to higher faith, in fact he barely admits such a possibility, seeking to avoid all appearance that it is a miracle or anything other than Christ himself that effects this transition.(63) He is thus harsh in his interpretation of Nicodemus and the crowd in John 6 and sees Christ as rebuking their lack of faith rather than leading them from a lower to a higher faith. And when he does admit a connection between a miracle or some other external and the arrival at true faith, as he does with the Samaritans and the royal official in chapter 4, Calvin carefully distinguishes what he considers to be a preparation for faith from faith proper. Perhaps underlying his concern is his perception that some of his own contemporaries clamored for miracles to confirm the truth of the evangelical position. He thus concludes his comments on John 4:48 by complaining about many such persons in his own day.(64) Bucer notes in his comments on this same passage that the weakness of the royal official's faith is a more dangerous disease than that of his child; nevertheless, he contends that the official's faith (like that of the centurion in Matthew 8) was confirmed by the miracle. In contrast to Calvin, he concludes by underscoring that the purpose of miracles is to advance faith in Christ.(65)

Though Bucer and Calvin claimed to hold only one understanding of faith, for neither theologian was faith the clear and simple reality so often asserted in evangelical writings. And while both insisted that faith comes through hearing the gospel, they also acknowledged, to varying degrees, the relationship between seeing and believing. We are not likely to be able to determine why Bucer was not as troubled as Calvin by this relationship. Nor will we ever know whether Calvin's greater attention to the distinctions between full faith in Christ and preparatory faith based on seeing or on an incomplete knowledge of Christ or his word are a function of his historical distance from the clarity and optimism of the first generation of Reformers, or whether this reflects more his personal fascination with the problems of knowledge and perception. Whatever the motivating factors, Bucer's and Calvin's treatments of faith in their commentaries on John signal at once a Protestant taking up of a traditional problem connected with the exposition of the Fourth Gospel, and individual directions taken from the starting point of a common, evangelical conviction.

(1.) John Eck, Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae (1525-1543), ed. P. Fraenkel, vol. 34 of Corpus Catholicorum (Munster: Aschendorff, 1979); English trans. Enchiridion of Commonplaces: Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1970), 61. Eck is speaking specifically about the fact that Lutherans allow for a faith that is rich in love and good works, even if they reject the traditional term "formed faith."

(2.) For more details about this "school," see Bernard Roussel, "De Strasbourg a Bale et Zurich: Une 'Ecole rhenane' d'exegese (ca. 1525-ca. 1540)," Revue d'Histoire et Philosophie Religieuses 68 (1988): 19-39. The exegetical treatment of the Samaritan woman from John 4 by several members of this school of interpretation, including Bucer and Calvin, is discussed by Craig S. Farmer, "Changing Images of the Samaritan Woman in Early Reformed Commentaries on John," Church History 65 (1996): 365-75. See also Irena Backus, "The Chronology of John 5-7: Martin Bucer's Commentary (1528-36) and the Exegetical Tradition," in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 141-55; and eadem, "Polemic, Exegetical Tradition, and Ontology: Bucer's Interpretation of John 6:52, 53, and 64 before and after the Wittenberg Concord," in The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, ed. David Steinmetz (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990), 167-80.

(3.) Philip Melanchthon, Annotationes in Evangelium Ioannis, vol. 14 of Philippi Melanchthonis opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. C. G Bretschneider and H. E. Bindsell, vol. 14 of Corpus Reformatorum (Halle: Schwetschke and Sons, 1847), 1060; hereafter abbreviated CR. On Melanchthon's commentary see Timothy J. Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to its Predecessors and Contemporaries, Travaux d'Humanisme et Renaissance 220 (Geneva: Droz, 1987).

(4.) Martin Bucer, Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528, 1530, 1536), ed. Irena Backus, vol. 2 of Martin Buceri Opera Latina, Martin Buceri Opera omnia, series II (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 36; John Calvin, In Evangelium secundum Iohannem (1553), vol. 47 of Iohannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Wilhelm Baum, Edward Cunitz, and Edward Reuss, vol. 75 of Corpus Reformatorum (Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke and Son [M. Bruhn], 1892; hereafter abbreviated CO), 12. In English, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, in Calvin's Commentaries, vols. 17-18 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1989).

(5.) Biblical citations are taken from the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, New Revised Standard Version, ed. Bruce M Metzger and Roland E. Murphy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).

(6.) Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in Matthaeum et Joannem Evangelistas, vol. 10 of Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici Ordinis Praedicatorum opera omnia (1861; reprint, New York: Musurgia Publishers, 1949), 350, 409; in English, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, part 1, trans. J. A. Weisheipl with E R. Larcher, vol. 4 of Aquinas Scripture ,Series (Albany, N.Y.: Magi, 1980), 203, 360 Denis the Carthusian, Enarratio in Evangelium secundum Joannem, vol. 12 of Opera omnia (Monstrolii: S. M. De Pratis, 1901), 316, 321,331, 419. Furthermore, both Thomas and Denis relate the faith mentioned in John 1:12 to faith formed by love. Patristic exegetes also distinguished different types or degrees of faith in their interpretations of John; see Maurice Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 50, 87-91.

(7) For a concise summary of the connections between medieval and early modern biblical exegesis, see Richard Muller, "Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from the Middle Ages," in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, ed. Muller and Thompson, 3-22. On Bucer's use of traditional exegesis of John, see the introduction to the critical edition and the notes to the commentary.

(8) Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes, 187. Most traditional interpreters understood John 6 to refer to the sacrament of the Eucharist. However, as noted by Wengert, Thomas Aquinas had offered both a sacramental and a nonsacramental interpretation of John 6:51-58. His interpretation was taken up in the sixteenth century by Thomaso de Vio (Cardinal Cajetan), which "caused some consternation at the Council of Trent." For Thomas's explanation, see Commentum in Johannem, 419. In his 1520 treatise, Babylonian Captivity, Martin Luther denied that John 6 referred to the sacramental eating.

(9.) For an overview of these issues, see Craig S. Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 11-28; cf. the literature cited in Farmer's notes and bibliography.

(10.) On Musculus, see Farmer, Musculus, 24-26.

(11.) Calvin, CO 47:42; cf. Bucer, Enarratio, 114; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3a q. 43, a. 3; Denis the Carthusian, Enarratio, 316, 321.

(12.) Chrysostom remarks in passing that: the disciples believed upon seeing the miracle, when before they had merely admired him. He stresses that the disciples had a "right disposition" and their minds were "well-affected" toward Jesus (Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist, The Fathers of the Church, vols. 33, 41 [New York: Fathers of the Church, 1957, 1960], 33:224). Other interpreters, however, acknowledge that the disciples believed in some way even prior to the miracle. Cyril of Alexandria states simply that the disciples were confirmed in faith by the miracle (Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, [Oxford: James Parker, 1874], 1:157). Thomas says that the sign was to strengthen the disciples and lead the people to believe, commenting later that either the disciples were not yet disciples prior to the working of the sign, or that before they had believed in Jesus as a good man, but afterwards believed in him as the Son of God (Commentum in Johannem, 330, 334; Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:149, 159). Denis suggests that the disciples believed, but not as perfectly as they did after seeing the miracle, when they believed firmly that Jesus had been sent by God, taught true and saving doctrine, and acted out of divine power. However, Denis is not ready to say for sure whether they believed explicitly that he was true God, only-begotten of the Father (Enarratio, 316). Erasmus says that the faith of the disciples concerning Jesus was strengthened, but offers no further explanation of the status of their faith (Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrase on John [1523, 1524, 1534, 1535], trans, and ann. Jane E. Phillips, vol. 46 of Collected Works of Erasmus [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991], 40).

(13.) Calvin is part of a general sixteenth-century trend claiming to transcend traditional medieval distinctions and classifications with respect to faith. On these developments, see Susan E. Schreiner, "Faith," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans Hillerbrand (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 2:89-93. Calvin appears to have qualified this early position somewhat with the admission of a kind of implicit faith and the idea of temporary faith in the 1559 edition of the Institutes; see Barbara Pitkin, What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvin's Doctrine of Faith in Its Exegetical Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 134-39. Further details on Calvin's relationship to medieval understandings of faith can be found in Richard A. Muller, "Fides and Cognitio in Relation to the Problem of Intellect and Will in the Theology of John Calvin," Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 207-24; cf. Heribert Schutzeichel, Die Glaubenstheologie Calvins, ed. Heinrich Fries Beitrage zur Oekumenischen Theologie 9 (Munich: Max Hueber Verlag, 1972), 85-88.

(14.) CO 47:42.

(15.) Bucer, Enarratio, 112, 114.

(16.) Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 11-27, trans. John W. Rettig, vol. 79 of Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1988), 9-12, 30. This position was also advanced by Cyril of Alexandria; see Commentary on John, 1:165.

(17.) Chrysostom, Commentary on John, 33:232.

(18.) Calvin, CO 47:49.

(19.) On Calvin's idea of a temporary faith, see David Foxgrover," 'Temporary Faith' and the Certainty of Salvation," Calvin Theological Journal 15 (1980): 227; Randall A. Zachman, The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 182; Werner Krusche, Das Wirken des heiligen Geistes nach Calvin (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1957), 249-50; E. David Willis, "The Influence of Laelius Socinus on Calvin's Doctrines of the Merits of Christ and the Assurance of Faith" (1965), rpt. in Richard C. Gamble, ed., Articles on Calvin and Calvinism (Hamden, Conn.: Garland, 1992), 5:59-67.

(20.) Calvin, CO 47:50.

(21.) Bucer, Enarratio, 123.

(22.) Discussing John 2:23, Thomas says that John "sets forth the fruit that resulted from the signs, namely, the conversion of certain believers" (Commentum in Joannem, 340; Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:175). Some believed because of the miracles they saw and some because of the revelation. The latter were more commendable since they, like the disciples, believed on account of the doctrine. Aquinas holds that the belief of the crowds was genuine, if also imperfect: "Jesus did not entrust himself" means that he did not reveal his heavenly doctrine, with the result that they believed imperfectly (Commentum in Joannem, 341; Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:176). Erasmus argues in his paraphrase at the beginning of chapter 2 that Jesus was performing miracles "to prepare the way for faith in his spiritual teaching by physical signs in an unbelieving nation" (Paraphrase on John, 38). Ultimately, he has an exceedingly charitable view of the pedagogical value of miracles; see his observations in his paraphrase on John 6:23-26 (Paraphrase on John, 80). Hence he has; a positive reading of the faith of the masses in John 2:23-25; see Paraphrase on John, 44.

(23.) Commentary on John, 33:232.

(24.) Tractates on the Gospel of John 11-27, 11-12, 30.

(25.) Enarratio, 321.

(26.) Paraphrase on John, 44.

(27.) On Luther and Melanchthon, see Wengert, Melanchthon's Annotationes, 160; cf. Melanchthon, Annotationes in Evangelium Ioannis, CR 14:1079-82.

(28.) A footnote in the Backus edition gives references to the similar point made in the exegesis of this passage by Bede, Thomas, and Lyra (Bucer, Enarratio, 126 n. 5-5). Compare also the high estimates of Denis the Carthusian (Enarratio, 324) and Erasmus, who sees Nicodemus as weak and fearful but not evil and perverse, "promptly revealing how much he had gained from seeing Jesus' miracles" in appealing "to his listener's goodwill" in his opening remark (Paraphrase on John, 45).

(29.) Bucer, Enarratio, 135; cf. Chrysostom: "But the mercy of God, even so, did not reject him, or censure him, or deprive him of His teaching, but even discoursed with him very kindly and revealed to him the most sublime teachings, obscurely, to be sure, but nevertheless revealed" (Commentary on John, 33:234). See also Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:184, and Erasmus, Paraphrase on John, 44-50. Later in his comments Thomas does note that Jesus rebukes Nicodemus (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:195).

(30.) Bucer, Enarratio, 306; cf. Chrysostom, Commentary on John, 41:46-48. Thomas argues that Nicodemus believed, but with an imperfect faith. Moreover, "Nicodemus said what he did because he believed in Christ and wanted to convert them to Christ," though he did not speak candidly, because he was afraid (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:441).

(31.) Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 28-54, trans. John W. Rettig, vol. 88 of Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 52; Chrysostom, Commentary on John, 41:45-48; Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:440-41; Denis, Enarratio, 422.

(32.) Apparently it was Calvin who coined the term "Nicodemites" for adherents of the evangelical faith in France who, because of the fear of persecution, hid their religious loyalties through pretended conformity to the Roman church and justified such actions by appealing to the example of Nicodemus. Perez Zagorin argues that Calvin's neologism, which he employed for the first time in 1544, was not widely used in the sixteenth century. For a discussion of Calvin's polemics against dissimulators in matters of evangelical faith, which occurred largely in the 1540s, see Eugenie Droz, "Calvin et les Nicodemites," in Chemins de l'heresie (Geneva: Slatkine, 1970), 1:131-71; and Perez Zagorin, Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990), 63-82.

(33.) Calvin, CO 47:51.

(34.) Calvin, CO 47:54. In discussing how the miracles had prepared Nicodemus, Calvin repeats his stance on the twofold advantage of miracles, namely, to prepare for and confirm faith (CO 47:53); he repeats this information in his comments on John 11:45.

(35.) Calvin, CO 47:60; cf. Calvin's comments on 6:12, 13.

(36.) Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 11-27, 33-34; cf. the similar judgment in Denis the Carthusian, Enarratio, 328.

(37.) Here again we see Calvin choosing similar words to those used by Bucer; cf. "Evangelista Nicodemum nobis describit quasi hominem medium, qui neque serio piae doctrinae patrocinium suscipere audeat, nec tamen sustineat veritatem opprimi" (Calvin, CO 47:186), and "Non volebat hic Christo palam adhaerere, apud hostes eius sedebat, neque patrocinari ipsi aperte audebat, attamen in totum eum deserere non potuit" (Bucer, Enarratio, 306).

(38.) Augustine, too, designates Nicodemus as timid in this instance, but also says that he was not unbelieving (Tractates on the Gospel of John, tractate 33); cf. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:440-41.

(39.) Erasmus had made the same observation, but not with such sarcasm (Paraphrase on John, 104).

(40.) Calvin, CO 47:187.

(41.) Commentary on John, 1:559.

(42.) On the sixteenth-century interpretation of various aspects of John 6, see Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes, 114; Farmer, Musculus, 48-108; W. P. Stephens, "Zwingli on John 6:63: 'Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro nihil prodest,'" in Biblical Interpretation in the Reformation, ed. Muller and Thompson, 156-85; Ferdinand Cavallera, "L'Interpretation du chapitre 6 de saint Jean: Une Controverse exagetique au Concile de Trente," Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique 10 (1909): 687-709.

(43.) Bucer, Enarratio, 228.

(44.) For an overview of medieval solutions to this question, see Farmer, Musculus, 65-66.

(45.) Bucer, Enarratio, 230.

(46.) Bucer, Enarratio, 234; cf. 233. Earlier exegetes, such as Thomas Aquinas, Hugh of St. Cher, Lyra, Denis, and Erasmus, also distinguished various motives among the crowd. Like Bucer, Erasmus sees three groups: "some drawn by a desire for miracles because they had seen him take away people's diseases with his strange power; some, who were incurably ill, to be healed by him; some thirsting for his teaching" (Paraphrase on John, 75). However, he speaks as if all fell away from this initial enthusiasm by the following day (Paraphrase on John, 80) and argues that even the statement in John 6:14 was spoken from their full bellies (Paraphrase on John, 78). Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:341,370. On this, see Farmer, Musculus, 55-56.

(47.) Bucer, Enarratio, 236.

(48.) Bucer, Enarratio, 238, cf. 286.

(49.) Bucer, Enarratio, 243.

(50.) Here Calvin is the more traditional exegete; cf. Chrysostom, Commentary on John, homilies 43-45.

(51.) Chrysostom, Commentary on John, 33:424; Cyril, Commentary on John, 1:318.

(52.) Bucer, too, mentions the "vast desert" (Enarratio, 667). Both exegetes also aver that Jesus roused the disciples' minds prior to the feeding, both refer to Bude's computation of the finances involved in verse 7, and both argue that the miracle of walking on and calming the water was intended to confirm the faith of the disciples and, indirectly, to be of advantage to the people.

(53.) Calvin, CO 47:134.

(54.) Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 1:371, 391; Chrysostom, Commentary on John, 33:442.

(55.) Calvin, CO 47:138.

(56.) Calvin, CO 47:140. Erasmus also describes the crowd as ignorant, but nonetheless argues that Jesus is not offended by their questions but rather draws them gradually toward a fuller understanding (Paraphrase on John, 81).

(57.) Calvin, CO 47:142.

(58.) Calvin, CO 47:144.

(59.) Bucer, Enarratio, 286.

(60.) For more detailed exploration of the question of exegetical influence see Joel Edward Kok, "The Influence of Martin Bucer on John Calvin's Interpretation of Romans: A Comparative Case Study" (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1993).

(61.) For further discussion of these issues in Calvin's exegesis of John (especially his discussion of John 20:24-31), see Pitkin, What Pure Eyes Could See, 90-95.

(62.) See, for example, Calvin's comments on John 7:31 and 8:30; cf. his comments on 11:45.

(63.) Note that in the 1559 Institutes Calvin is more optimistic about the transition from a genuinely implicit faith to true faith (see 3.2.2-3.2.3), and to support this he uses examples from John 4.

(64). "I wish that there were not many persons in the present day affected by the same disease; but nothing is more common than this saying, `Let them first perform miracles, and then we will led an ear to their doctrine.' As if we ought to despise and disdain the truth of Christ, unless it derive support from some other quarter! But though God were to overwhelm them by a huge mass of miracles, still they speak falsely when they say that they would believe. Some outward astonishment would be produced, but they would not be a whit more attentive to doctrine" (CO 47:101).

(65.) Enarratio, 198.

Barbara Pitkin is visiting assistant professor of religious studies at Stanford University.