No one is making anything disappear. Just as the best interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, the best interpretation of Calvin is Calvin. If there is a question about the true and full sense of anything Calvin wrote, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. Consider, too, that Calvin's sermons were often recorded and transcribed by others. While Calvin's sermons were preached orally, many were transcribed by assistants or fellow pastors, then later edited and published, not necessarily by Calvin. His commentaries are much more likely to have been written, edited, and published under Calvin's direct supervision. So, whatever your AI translation of the Calvin's “Sermon 22” on the Harmony of the Gospels in Corpus Reformatorum states, it should be reconciled with what Calvin writes elsewhere. Consider, for example, his commentary on Luke 1.34 (my emphasis added):
"The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.
"We must reply, however, to another objection, that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is, that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment. When she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, How shall this be? And so God graciously forgives her, and replies kindly and gently by the angel, because, in a devout and serious manner, and with admiration of a divine work, she had inquired how that would be, which, she was convinced, went beyond the common and ordinary course of nature. In a word, this question was not so contrary to faith, because it arose rather from admiration than from distrust."
Yes, but if we are to look at something in light of their other writings, what do we do when it seems overwhelmingly he holds a certain position even contrary to a single instance elsewhere?
"We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called 'brethren.' Still Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself to be ignorant of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as 'brethren' of Christ." (
Commentary on Matthew 13:55)
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {
Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. {
Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
"There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to foolish subtleties would be to abuse holy scripture...." (
Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)
"Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel says nothing...certainly it is a matter about which no one will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a pig-headed and fatuous [i.e. foolish and stupid] person." (
Commentary on Matthew 1:25)
“In the first place, he brings forward the Apostles He then adds, “Nay, even the brethren of the Lord themselves also make use of it without hesitation — nay more, Peter himself, to whom the first place is assigned by consent of all, allows himself the same liberty.” By the brethren of the Lord, he means John and James, who were accounted pillars, as he states elsewhere. (Galatians 2:9.) And, agreeably to what is customary in Scripture, he gives the name of brethren to those who were connected with Him by relationship.” (
When addressing 1 Corinthians 9:5)
“Who this James was, deserves inquiry. Almost all the ancients are agreed that he was one of the disciples, whose surname was “Oblias” and “The Just,” and that he presided over the church at Jerusalem. Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by another wife, and others (which is more probable) that he was the cousin of Christ by the mother’s side: but as he is here mentioned among the apostles, I do not hold that opinion. Nor is there any force in the defense offered by Jerome, that the word Apostle is sometimes applied to others besides the twelve; for the subject under consideration is the highest rank of apostleship, and we shall presently see that he was considered one of the chief pillars (Galatians 2:9). It appears to me, therefore, far more probable, that the person of whom he is speaking is the son of Alpheus.” (
Regarding Galatians 1:19)
Regarding the Luke 1:34 Commentary, this is an auto-translation of the text. I am out of my league here as I do not know French, but I will add the auto-transcribed French Text Below. It seems to differ a tad from the one previously posted. But a question? Could this possibly be dealing with the thought that Mary
pre-vowed celibacy within a marriage
prior to the Lords appearing to her? (As contrasted with the idea that she was looking to the future.) Notice how he goes on to say that the mockery would arise by having done so and at the same time confessing she was betrothed. If so, this would align better with Calvin's other comments. And if so, is there room to say that this is not directly dealing with if she had relations post-Jesus' birth? Maybe also possibly in light of Calvin's continued use of "Virgin & Holy Virgin" to describe her.
"34. How will this happen?
It seems here that the Holy Virgin limits and lowers God's power just as Zachariah had done, for she considers impossible what she sees as beyond the natural order of things. And here is how she concludes: "I do not know a man; how, then, could I believe that what you announce to me could happen?" Now, we must not torment ourselves too much to fully justify her reaction: for it is certain that she ought, by faith, to rise immediately to the infinite power of God, which is not bound by natural means but surpasses all. Yet, instead of doing so, she focuses on the common and natural way of conception. ... conceive. However, it must be understood that she did not doubt or reply as if she wished to diminish or measure God’s power according to the capacity of her natural senses: she was merely surprised and struck with sudden admiration, and thus moved to ask this question. And indeed, that she received the promise in humility is clear, for although many things could have prevented her from believing or taken away her faith, she nevertheless does not doubt in any way. She could not immediately think in her mind to ask where David’s throne was, seeing that she did not find the majesty of that reign, which was abolished, and all the grandeur and excellence of the royal estate as if buried. There is no doubt that, had she judged according to the flesh, she would have regarded all that the Angel said as a fable. Yet it must have been that she was quite certain and assured in herself of the restoration of the Church, which caused her to believe quickly and not as something incredible according to the flesh. And then it is true, as the prophecy said, just as then, that God promised to bring forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, which was so abased and almost unknown, Isa. 11:1. Thus, faith and assurance in God’s grace imprinted on the Virgin’s heart caused her to believe without difficulty what the Angel told her—that David’s throne would be rebuilt. If someone objects that there was indeed a prophecy explicitly saying that a Virgin would bear a son, I respond that the understanding of this mystery was still rather obscure at that time. It is true that the Fathers were awaiting the birth of a King under whom the people of God would flourish and prosper greatly, but the manner by which this would be accomplished remained hidden from them, as if a veil obscured it. It is therefore not surprising that the Holy Virgin hesitated over something that was still unknown to her.
As for what some have thought of these words, that she had in herself had taken a vow of perpetual virginity, it is too weak a conjecture, indeed entirely absurd: for if this had been the case, it would have been deceitful and an act of confessing that she was promised to a husband; and it would have been a contempt for the sacred bond of marriage, which cannot occur without mocking God. Whatever barbaric tyranny may have reigned in the papacy in this matter, they have never gone so far as to allow married women to live as they please. Moreover, it is too childish and implausible a fantasy to imagine a vow of celibacy among the Jews. It is necessary to answer this objection, namely, that the Virgin was looking to the future, and thus seems to say that she will never have the company of a man. Now here is a conjecture that is both plausible and simple: it is that the greatness, or rather the majesty, of this matter so astonished the Virgin that all her senses were as though bound and enclosed in admiration. When she heard it said that the Son of God would be born, she immediately imagined that this would be some great masterpiece: and this is why she excluded the company of a man. And being entirely astonished, she said to herself, How will this happen? For this reason as well, the Lord supports her with great kindness and responds to her gently and lovingly through the Angel, given that, in all reverence and sobriety, and with admiration for such a divine work, she had asked how what she heard—which was above the natural order—would come to pass. In sum, her question was not contrary to faith: rather, it arose from great admiration, not from doubt."
“34. Comment se fera ceci?
Il semble ici que la sainte Vierge restreint & abaisse la puissance de Dieu aussi bas qu’avait fait Zacharie : car elle prend pour impossible ce qu’elle voit être outre l’ordre commun de nature. Et voici comme elle conclut, Je ne connais point d’homme : comment donc croirais-je que la chose que tu m’annonces puisse avenir? Or il ne nous faut pas beaucoup tourmenter à trouver façon de la justifier entièrement : car il est certain qu’elle devait par foi monter incontinent jusques à la puissance infinie de Dieu, laquelle n’est point liée aux moyens naturels, mais surmonte tout le monde. Mais en lieu de faire ainsi, elle s’arrête à la façon commune & naturelle d’engendrer. ... engendrer. Combien qu'il faut cependant entendre qu'elle n'a point douté ou répliqué, comme si elle eût voulu abaisser ou mesurer la puissance de Dieu selon la capacité de ses sens naturels : seulement elle est surprise & dépourvue d'une admiration soudaine, & ainsi transportée à faire cette demande. Et de fait, qu'elle ait reçu la promesse en humilité, il apparaît par ce que combien que beaucoup de choses pouvaient l'empêcher de croire ou lui ôter cette foi, toutes fois elle ne fait douter ni en aucun point. Il n'y pouvait incontinent venir en l'esprit, de demander où est le trône de David, vu en quoi elle ne trouvait pas la majesté de ce règne étant abolie, & toute cette grandeur & excellence du royal état comme ensevelie. Il n'y a point de doute que si elle eût pris les choses selon le jugement de la chair, elle eût tenu pour fable tout ce que l'Ange dit. Et pourtant il faut qu'elle ait été bien certaine & bien assurée en foy-même de la restauration de l'Église : ce qui était cause de lui faire croire vite & non incroyable selon la chair. Et puis il est vray, d'autant que la prophétie l'a dit ainsi, toute comme lors, par laquelle Dieu promettait de faire sortir un surgeon de la souche d'Isaï, qui était tant abaissée, & quasi inconnue, Isaï. 11.1. Ainsi donc, la foy & l'assurance de la grâce de Dieu impute au cœur de la Vierge, a été cause de lui faire croire sans difficulté ce que l'Ange lui dit que le trône de David serait derechef réédifié. Si quelqu'un allègue qu’il bien y avait-il une "Pro" prophétie, laquelle dit nommément qu'une Vierge enfantera un fils : je réponds que la cognition de ce mystère eût bien été forte obscure lors. Vray est que les Pères respectaient la naissance d’un Roy, sous lequel le peuple de Dieu devait fort & prospérer : mais quand au moyen par lequel cela s'accomplirait, il leur était caché, comme s'il y eut un voile entre eux qui leur en ôtât la claire cognition. Ce n'est donc point merveille si la sainte Vierge faisait douter sur une chose qui lui était incongnue encore. Quant à ce qu'aucuns ont pensé par ces paroles, qu'elle avait en foy-même ... ... fait vœu de perpétuelle virginité, c’est une conjecture trop légère, voire du tout absurde : car si ainsi eût été, c’eût été tromperie & acte de confesser qu’elle fût promise à un mari : & c’était mépriser la sainte alliance de mariage : ce qui ne se peut faire sans moquerie de Dieu. Quelque barbarie tyrannique qui ait régné en la papauté en cette matière, il est-ce que jamais ils ne se sont de désordre jusques-là, de permettre aux femmes mariées de vivre contenues à leur plaisir. Davantage, c’est une rêverie trop puérile & sans apparence, d’imaginer un vœu de monière entre les Juifs. Il faut toutefois répondre à cette objection, c’est à savoir que la Vierge regarde au temps à venir, & pourtant semble dire qu’elle n’aura jamais compagnie d’homme. Or voici une conjecture qui est & vraisemblable & simple : c’est que la grandeur, ou plutôt la majesté de cet affaire a tellement étonné la Vierge, qu’elle a eu toutes ses sens comme liés & enfermés d’admiration. Quand elle ouït dire que le Fils de Dieu naîtra, soudain elle imagine bien que ce sera quelque chef d’œuvre : & voilà pourquoi elle exclut la compagnie d’homme : & étant toute étonnée, elle se fier dit disant, Comment se fera ceci ? Pour ce aussi le Seigneur la supporte d’une grande débonnaireté, & lui répond par l’Ange doucement & amiablement, d’autant qu’en toute révérence & sobriété, & avec admiration d’une telle œuvre de Dieu, elle avait demandé comme se ferait ce qu’elle avait ouï être plus haut que l’ordre commun de nature. Somme, sa demande n’était point repugnante à la foi : car elle procédait plutôt d’une grande admiration, que de défiance. »
