COMMENTING ON THE COMMENTATOR: A CONTEXTUAL AND CRITICAL EXPOSITION OF ANDREW WILLET'S COMMENTARY ON LEVITICUS PDF Free Download
1 / 101/101
100%
Please HONOR the copyright of
these documents by not
retransmitting or making any
additional copies in any form
(Except for private personal use).
We appreciate your respectful
cooperation.
___________________________
Theological Research Exchange Network
(TREN)
P.O. Box 30183
Portland, Oregon 97294
USA
Website: www.tren.com
E-mail: rwjones@tren.com
Phone# 1-800-334-8736
___________________________
ATTENTION CATALOGING LIBRARIANS
TREN ID#
Online Computer Library Center (OCLC)
MARC Record #
Digital Object Identification
DOI #
036-0485
921852846
10.2986/tren.036-0485
COMMENTING ON
THE
COMMENTATOR:
ACONTEXTUAL AND CRITICAL EXPOSITION OF ANDREW WILLET'S
COMMENTARY ON LEVITICUS
by
RICHARD HAGAN
AThesis Submitted to the Faculty
of
WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
in Partial Fulfillment
of
the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OFTHEOLOGY
2015
C
/'\
\.AIM '
Faculty Advisor: tV
~
Dr. Gry Williams
/1
/;
~J
~~~~
Second Faculty Reader:
t~r-i
/
'\
/
r,--~""~~.........-.
Dr. Carl Trueman
____
Chairman
of
the Field Committee:
~
/
~
Dr. Carl Trueman
Librarian:
-h~-_'='-:----==--'H--"-«------;;~"-----
CONTENTS
CHAPTER ITHE LIFE OF ANDREW WILLET 1
The Significance
of
Our Author 1
Minister's Son 3
Cambridge Scholar. 4
Country Pastor 4
National Leader 5
Prolific Author 7
CHAPTER 2THE CONTEXT OF WILLET'S COMMENTARY: AHISTORY OF INTERPRETATION
UP TO THE REFORMATION 9
The Biblical Period 9
The Alexandrian School
of
Exegesis: Allegory 12
The Antiochene School
of
Exegesis: Typology 16
The School ofExegesis
in
the Middle Ages: The Fourfold Method 17
CHAPTER 3THE DISTINCTIVES OF REFORMED EXEGESIS 22
Introduction 22
Martin Luther's Christocentrism 24
John Calvin's Triune Theocentrism
27
CHAPTER 4SUMMARY OF SECONDARY SCHOLARSHIP ON REFORMATION EXEGESIS 32
CHAPTER 5WILLET'S HERMENEUTICAL METHOD 40
The Text with its Diverse Readings 42
Arguments and Method 45
The Questions Discussed
46
Doctrines Noted 48
iii
Places
of
Confutation 50
Moral Uses Observed 50
CHAPTER 6CASE STUDY FROM LEVITICUS CHAPTER 752
Arguments, Contents and Parts 52
The Diverse Readings 52
The Questions Discussed 53
Questions That Show the Text
of
Scripture ItselfGoverning Exegesis 53
Questions That Show the Context
of
Scripture Governing Exegetical Conclusions 56
Examples
of
the Avoidance
of
Eisegesis in Favour
of
Exegesis 60
Examples
of
Christology Governing Willet's Overall Exegesis 62
Examples
of
Willet's Wide Interaction with Historical Commentators 65
Reflections on the Questions Section 72
Places
of
Doctrine 73
Reflections on the Doctrines Section 77
Places
of
Confutation 78
Reflections on the Confutation Section 82
Moral Observations 82
Reflections on the Morals Section 84
CHAPTER 7WILLET'S PLACE
IN
THE HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION 85
The Source
of
Doctrine- Sola Scriptura 85
CHAPTER 8WHAT
WE
CAN LEARN
FROM
WILLET
TODAy
87
Sound Doctrine Arising from Sound Exegesis 87
The Exegete as Catholic Reformer not Lone Revolutionary 87
The Place
of
Commentary Writing 90
BIBLIOGRAPHY 93
CURRICULUM VITAE
iv
v
CHAPTERl
THE LIFE OF ANDREW WILLET
The Significance
of
Our Author
Andrew Willet lived between two giants
of
Reformed theology. He
was born in 1562, two years before John Calvin died. Willet himself died in 1621,
two years before the birth
of
Francis Turretin. These Genevan theologians are well
remembered in history, with their respective Institutes being circulated by successive
generations right up to the present day. Yet the Englishman Andrew Willet lies
almost forgotten. He is little known except as an outspoken writer against the
papacy, an accomplished poet and an emblem writer.IHis massive exegetical
labours have been almost entirely overlooked, much to the poverty
of
the church in
recent centuries.
So why should we remember Willet? As we shall see later, his
commentary on Leviticus demonstrates the continuity and development
of
Biblical
exegesis after the Reformation period. This period is one which has been the subject
of
scholarly debate concerning an apparent move away from exegesis to mere
dogmatism. Yet Willet demonstrates this thesis to be flawed: exegesis is the sole
foundation
of
all his dogmatic assertions, fully in line with his Reformation
predecessors.
1These were collections
of
poetical statements for instruction and edification. See Andrew
Willet, Sacrorum Emblematum Centuria Una (Cambridge: T. Legate, 1592).
1
As we study his Leviticus commentary we shall see Willet's
understanding
of
the exegete's task. Rather than being arevolutionary, the exegete
was to be areformer, evaluating the conclusions
of
past exegetes since the church
began. In this sense Willet
is
both Reformed and catholic, aman who sees the task
of
the commentary writer to engage with all views past and present, true and false,
under the authority
of
Sola Scriptura. No historian
of
exegesis can afford to neglect
Willet's labours, even though many have.
Yet Willet is no mere academic. His commentary on Leviticus is arare
jewel: one which shows exegesis, doctrine and application in perfect balance and for
the purpose
of
deeper devotion to Christ. Its preface ends with an invitation to the
reader that cannot be surpassed:
But why doe Ihold the studieous Reader thus with unnecessary talke at the
doore, and not bring him into the house, and into this pleasant garden,
of
the
which it may be sayd, as the Spouse
is
brought in speaking in the Canticles, I
have gathered my Myrrhe whith my spice, Ieat
my
hony combe with
my
hony, I
drank
my
wine with my milke: Here is both the bitter myrrhe
of
camall Rites,
and the fragrant spice
of
the Gospell, the hony combe
of
Ceremonies, but the
sweet hony
of
faith thence distilling, the pearcing wine
of
the Law, and
nourishing milke
of
the Worde
of
life: and so Iconclude with the words
following: 0friends, drink
and
make you merry: God grant that we may so eate
and drinke Christ by faith in this world, that wee may eate and drinke at his
table, in his everlasting kingdome, to whome be praise for ever. Amen.2
2Andrew Willet and Peter
D.
D.
Smith, Hexapla Leviticum; That
Is,
aSix-Fold Commentarie
Upon the 3rd Book
of
Moses, Called Leviticus (London: Aug. Matthewes for Robert Milbourne,
1631). Quotations from Willet will be verbatim, except where individual letters need to be changed to
make modern sense, such
as
changing some
'f's
to
's's,
making 'frrft' into 'frrst' and 'conclufion' into
'conclusion'.
2
Minister's Son
Andrew Willet was born in Ely near Cambridge, the son
of
Thomas
Willet, Subalmoner to Dr Richard Cox during the reign
of
Edward VI. His father's
job gave him responsibility to assist in distributing alms money to the poor. To avoid
persecution for his protestant faith during the subsequent reign
of
Queen Mary,
Thomas was forced into hiding and lived apart from his wife, only able to meet her
in secret. With the accession
of
Elizabeth to the throne, Thomas's old boss, Dr. Cox,
was made Bishop
of
Ely and invited Thomas to become aMinister initially in
Thurkiston, Leicestershire, and then in Barley, Hertfordshire. Thomas' continued
concern for the poor was seen in how he used his new influence to improve the lives
of
the poor.
It
is written
of
Thomas Willet: "The whole revenue
of
Thurkiston,
which, as Ihear, is aliving
of
good value (besides the stipend
of
his curate), he spent
amongst his neighbours there, relieving some way or other
everyone
of
them; the
better sort
of
them by hospitality and entertainment, the poorer by his alms.,,3
The young Andrew Willet grew up with his brother and four sisters in
ahome where the Christian faith was seen, experienced and enjoyed.
3From the biography by Willet's son
in
law, Peter Smith, found condensed in Clement
Barksdale, The Lives
ofTen
Excellent Men (London: Mark Pardoe, 1677),43-44. The complete
biography by his son-in-law, Peter Smith, can be found
in
his introduction to Andrew Willet's,
Synopsis Papismi, That
Is,
aGenerall View
of
Papistrie Vvherein the Whole Mysterie
of
Iniquitie, and
Summe
of
Antichristian Doctrine Is Set Downe, Which Is Maintained This Day by the Synagogue
of
Rome, against the Church
of
Christ (London: John Haviland, 1634).
3
Cambridge Scholar
As achild, Andrew showed such 'intemperancy' in his pursuit
of
knowledge while at the collegiate school in Ely that they were forced to 'invent some
Ludicra to take him
off
from his eagerness
of
his Book.'4
It
is
no surprise, therefore,
that we find him entering Cambridge University when he was fifteen, and becoming
aFellow
of
Christ's College at twenty-one (where the prominent puritan William
Perkins was Fellow at the same time).
Country Pastor
While at Cambridge, Willet took holy orders and became aPrebendary
at Ely Cathedral in 1587. Ayear later he left the university and resigned his
fellowship, marrying Jacobine Goad. After serving initially in parishes in
Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, he spent the greater part (23 years)
of
his
ministerial life in the parish at Barley. This was where he had grown up, and where
his father had previously served until his death in 1598. Andrew was instituted on 29
January 1599.
Like his father, Andrew had atender heart towards those in his parish.
He was ahumble servant
of
those who came to him for assistance whether for
advocacy and arbitration or for finance. His son-in-law Dr Peter Smith wrote:
Had they jarres and janglings amongst themselves, he would call both parties,
and handle them so with milde and courteous speeches, that he would soone
4Ibid.,56-57.
4
compose their differences. And such was his humilitie, that hee would
condescend to any office for their good: himselfwould sometimes write their
bils and bonds, and other instruments, to save them expenses, and to keepe
them from acquaintance with cunning Scriveners, and such kinde
of
men.5
With others, Willet bought atenement in Barley for the poor
of
the town. He also
encouraged educational philanthropy, seeing afree school set up in Barley and
influencing Thomas Sutton to set up Charterhouse School. Smith includes alengthy
and beautiful description
of
the generosity
of
his father-in-law, testifying as one who
had stayed under Willet's roof, he testified:
His chiefest aime for wealth was to
be
rich
in
good works, rich for God, for
the poore, and first for those
of
his owne household. Hee entertained two
of
his nearest Allies, being fallen into some want, at his owne table many years,
and maintained for the most part, asonne
of
either
of
them at Universitie. And
although fourteen children living had been afaire pretence to withhold his
bountie, yet Iam verily perswaded he was
of
the minde
of
S.Cyprian; The
more children the more charitie.6
Willet's extensive teaching to his parishioners is preserved for us in Thesaurus
Ecclesiae, which contains afternoon lectures on John
17
to his parishioners at Barley.
National
leader
When he was younger, he was selected to give distinguished lectures
for three successive years in Ely Cathedral, followed
by
aone year preaching
ministry in
8t
Paul's Cathedral in London. One
of
his
81.
Paul's
sermons remains. Its
title in print is Afruitful and godly sermon preached
at
Paules cross, before the
honourable audience
and
assemblie there, this present yeare 1592. Willet saw
5Found
in
Smith's introduction to Willet, Synopsis Papismi, 1634.
6Ibid.
5
himselfas aherald
of
the gospel to all classes in society, as can be seen in his
concluding appeal:
Let every man leave his wicked waies and depart from iniquitye: the theefe
from stealing, the crafty man from deceiving, the covetous man from
oppression, the judge from corruption in judgement, the Lawyer from dealing
unfaithfully: the officer from extortion: the idle pastor, from his careless and
sinful life: corrupt patrones from Churchrobbing.7
This set the course for what was to follow. Willet was chaplain-in-
ordinary and tutor to Prince Henry, and afrequent preacher to the Royal Court,
where he was much admired by King James. Despite such prominence, Willet was
unashamed to stand up even to royalty. He was imprisoned in 1618 for his
opposition to the proposed marriage between Prince Charles, son
of
James Iand the
Infanta Maria Anna
of
Spain, the daughter
of
Philip
III
of
Spain, though the
circumstances
of
this remain unknown.8
Though Willet has not been well remembered in history, perhaps what
he
is
best known for is his five volume polemic against the errors
of
the Roman
Catholic Church, Synopsis Papisimi, which covers 1,352 folio pages. Its fifth edition
was published by special commendation
of
King James
1.
9He watched the national
scene eagerly and was unashamed issue the clarion call
of
aprophet. He dedicated
many
of
his works to royalty; at the start
of
his commentary on Daniel, for example,
the dedication was to Henry, Prince
of
Wales.
10
Synopsis Papisimi was dedicated
7Andrew Willet, AFruitfull and Godly Sermon, Preached at Paules Crosse before the
Honourable Audience andAssemblie There, This Present Yeare 1592 (London: R.B. for Thomas
Man, 1592),39.
8"Andrew Willet", ACambridge Alumni Database, accessed 1August, 2014,
http://www.venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/Documents/acad.
9Barksdale, The Lives
ofTen
Excellent Men, 60.
to Andrew Willet, Hexapla
in
Danielem, That
Is,
aSix-Fold Commentarie Vpon the Most
Diuine Prophesie
of
Daniel (Cambridge: Leonard Greene, 1610).
6
both to Prince James and Queen Elizabeth, with clear charges to both to stay true to
the Biblical, protestant faith. After showing the Queen her place in the broad sweep
of
history and
of
the present need to fight for the truth, he ends his dedication to her:
Iknow not whether ever Imay have the like occasion to speak unto your
highnesse, and therefore Ihave been bold thus to write: from the Lord we do
hope yet for ablessing, and
of
your Majesty we are perswaded all good: and
we nothing doubt, but that you are resolved both to do and say with that
Christian Emperor Justinian
...
Whatsoever
it
is to God's glory, we are ready
by our
Lawes
to will,
and
in our works tofulfil.
Willet 'understood the times' and the significance
of
the ruler in preserving the
Christian prosperity
of
anation.
Prolific Author
In
1621 Willet was returning home from London after meeting with the
printer about his commentary on Leviticus, HexapLa in Leviticum. His horse
stumbled, and Willet's right leg was broken when he fell. Having somehow managed
to ride to the next inn, his leg was reset by alocal bonesetter, and Willet fully
expected to recover. Instead, on the tenth day he deteriorated rapidly. He
commended himselfto God, encouraged his wife, sang Psalm 146, and fainted. His
last words were "Letme alone, Ishall be well, Lord Jesus."u He died aged 59.
When the Leviticus commentary was finally published, it contained in the preface a
list
of
all but three
of
Willet's forty three works.
It
included books in Latin and
English, Synopsis Papismi and commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Samuel, Psalm 122, Daniel, John
17,
Romans and Jude.
11
Barksdale,
The
Lives
OfTen
Excellent Men, 70.
7
Willet made it his aim to write anew commentary or theological work
every six months.12 How did the country pastor achieve so much? Willet's
contemporaries spoke
of
him as a'walking library' noting that he
'must
write while
he sleeps, it being impossible that he should do so much waking.'
13
His secret was
found in his daily disciplines:
His manner was to arise early in the morning, and to get halfway on his
journey before others could get out; he came down at the hour
of
prayer, taking
his family with him to church...there service was publicly read, either by
himselfor by his curate, to the great comfort
of
his parishioners, before they
went out to their daily labours. Prayers being ended, he returns to his task,
again until near dinner time: then he would recreate himselfawhile, either
playing upon alittle organ, or sporting with his young children; and sometimes
he would use cleaving
of
wood to exercise his body. At his table he was always
pleasant to his company, telling some pretty apothegm or facet tale, and
seasoning it with some profitable application. After dinner his custom was to
refresh himselfalittle, sometimes sitting in discourse, sometimes walking
abroad, and now and then taking some view
of
his husbandry: after which
straightaway to his better employments again till supper time: so that
commonly (without extraordinary avocations) he spent no less than eight hours
aday in his study.14
12 Anthony Milton, "Willet, Andrew (1561/2-1621)" in Oxford Dictionary
of
National
Biography, accessed
18
Aug 2014, http://www.oxforddnb.com.
13
Ibid.
14 Barksdale, The Lives
ofTen
Excellent Men, 58-60.
8
CHAPTER 2
THE CONTEXT OF WILLET'S COMMENTARY: AHISTORY OF
INTERPRETATION UP TO THE REFORMATION
Our first task is to locate Willet in the context
of
the history
of
exegesis
as whole. Within the context
of
this broad sweep, we shall see that Willet's method
continues in the line
of
what preceded him, rather than departing from it. There was
no sharp move from exegesis to dogma when Willet and his generation began to
write.
To do this we will begin with what can be said to be the first example
of
hermeneutics in human history: Deuteronomy.
The Biblical Period
Gerald Bray rightly sees the book
of
Deuteronomy, where the Law
from Sinai is restated and expanded, as the first example
of
exegesis: "its appearance
in the Torah enshrines the principle
of
hermeneutics in the most basic
of
all
scriptural documents.,,'5
We then see amore developed hermeneutic within Scripture in the
exilic and post-exilic period. Books such as Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah look
15
Gerald Lewis Bray, Biblical Interpretation :Past &Present (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP
Academic, 1996),47.
9
back, giving acareful interpretation
of
all that has gone before. Agood example
of
this is the prayer in Nehemiah 9where the misfortunes to fall upon the people
of
God are seen
as
the direct consequence
of
disobedience and idolatry.
The Translations
of
the Hebrew Scriptures, such as the Septuagint into
Greek and the Targumim into Aramaic, themselves take important interpretive steps.
Hauser and Watson see the Targums
as
translations that evolved over time to help
their audience understand the Scriptures in the best way possible.!6 They cite Neh
8:7-8
as
an example
of
how they were mostly likely used. Ezra helped the people to
understand the law
by
reading from it with interpretation, and giving the sense so
that the reading was understood. The Palestinian Targum, for example, readily
expands on Lev
23
:29 "who is able to fast" by stating that this excludes the sick and
infirm.!7
The Inter-Testamental Period gave rise to different schools within
Judaism. The best known are the Pharisees, who paid careful attention not only to the
Scriptures themselves, but also to the body
of
interpretation handed down by former
generations. Yet their care over these interpretations sometimes led them to negate
what the Scriptures actually said.
It
is the scribal concept
of
Midrash
('interpretation') that dominated exegesis, which involved paying close attention to
the content and purpose
of
atext. Flowing from their convictions
of
inerrancy and
consistency came the principle
of
harmonisation and acareful search for true
meaning. The school
of
Hillel had seven principles
of
interpretation (called 'middot')
which included the importance
of
comparison and context. Their rivals were the
16
Alan
J.
Hauser and Duane Frederick Watson, AHistory
of
Biblical Interpretation: Volume
1:
The Ancient Period (Grand Rapids, MI: William
B.
Eerdmans, 2009), 23.
17
Ibid., 25.
10
Sadducees, and on the fringes were the Essenes. Their Qumran community preserved
scrolls that were discovered as the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. We can be grateful for
their deep concern for the preservation
of
the biblical text. Willet stands in along
tradition
of
Biblical interpretation that has sought to do this across the centuries. Yet,
unlike Willet, in this early period, principles
of
interpretation were driven more by
personal inspiration than the text itself. The Qumran community assumed the
biblical text was amystery (called 'raz'), which required interpretation (called
'pesher') by aTeacher
of
Righteousness. This 'pesher' was the hermeneutical key
that unlocked the text and was gained by charismatic and divine revelation.
Christians believe that the true Teacher
of
Righteousness was Jesus
Christ himself, who gave authoritative interpretation
of
Old Testament mystery. Bray
writes
of
Christ: "His own exegesis seems to reflect much more the pesher type,
focusing very strongly on the fulfilment
of
prophecy."
18
In the Gospels we find Jesus beginning his public ministry as he
continued: reading from the scroll at Isaiah
61
and announcing that the Scripture has
been fulfilled in his own person. He saw himself as the key, the centre and the
fulfilment
of
the Old Testament Scriptures.
As Longenecker has shown, the early Christians seemed to make no
distinction between literalist, Midrash, Pesher or simple application
of
predictive
prophecy. What united them was their Christocentrism, in line with their founder's
hermeneutic. Christ's apostle Paul employed literalism (e.g. quoting Genesis 2:24 in
1Corinthians
6:
16), Midrashic pearl-stringing
of
texts to support his case (e.g.
Romans
3:
10-12) and Hillel's middot (e.g. in Galatians 3:8 using comparison to join
18
Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 63.
11
Genesis 12:3 and Genesis 22:18, and Romans 4:10 employing context). Paul even
uses allegory in Galatians 4:21-31, revealing asymbolism not at all apparent in the
original references to Hagar and Sarah in the Book
of
Genesis.
As the centuries passed, variations developed over how to do
hermeneutics. But before looking at the differences, we see from Bromiley what
united them:
"a
cursory acquaintance with the Fathers quickly reveals that for all the
exegetical variations, they undoubtedly shared the same basic understanding The
Old Testament and the New Testament were seen together in indissoluble unity as
the one book
of
the one God inspired by the one Spirit and testifying to the one
Son."
19
The Alexandrian School
of
Exegesis: Allegory
The dominant method
of
exegesis all the way from the 3rd to the
16
th
century was allegory: the quest to go beyond the literal, historical meaning to find a
non-literal, deeper sense. Griedanus asserts that it probably arose in the church to
defend the Old Testament's Christian character against the literalism
of
the 2
nd
century heretic Marcion who saw such inconsistencies between Old and New
Testaments (see his Antitheses), that he rejected the Old entirely.2o Allegory had
already been used in 3rd century Greece to make sense
of
Homer and Hesiod and was
19
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The Church Fathers and Holy Scripture
in
Scripture and Truth, ed.
D.A. Carson and John
D.
Woodbridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), 195-220, quoted
in
Sidney Griedanus, Preaching Christfrom the Old Testament: AContemporary Hermeneutical
Method (Grand Rapids, MI: William BEerdmans, 1999), 71.
20 Ibid., 70.
12
now being put to use in the church. Embarrassing literal elements could be glossed
over by an appeal to asecret, hidden meaning. This method spread to Philo in
Alexandria and then on to Clement with his twofold method (the literal sense and the
spiritual sense), and Origen with his threefold sense (literal, moral and spiritual
which were analogous to body, souls and spirit and justified on the basis
of
Prav
22:20-21 "describe these things in athreefold way").
Origen was the most influential exegete
of
antiquity. He was the first
Christian to write commentaries on biblical books
21
,wrote anumber
of
short
exegetical notes (called Scholia), including on Leviticus, and wrote 574 homilies,
186
of
which survive today. Origen's care as an early textual critic can be seen with
his compilation
of
the Hexapla, aparallel six-column text
of
the Old Testament
which included the Hebrew Masoretic text, the Hebrew text in Greek letters, the
Septuagint, and the Greek versions
of
Aquila, Summachus and Theodotion.
Danielou sees the reason for this Hexapla as twofold: to debate with the Jews, and to
write his commentaries.22 We shall see the same principles at work in Willet's
Hexapla built on asimilar foundation: care to find the authentic text and then only
after this, commentary. Though there appears to be no evidence
of
Willet's reason
for choosing the name Hexapla, it must have been to continue in this line. Willet
took great care in establishing the authentic text before exegesis was built on this
foundation alone. Already,
just
in the use
of
atitle, we see hints that Willet saw his
task as doing good exegesis built on Scripture rather than dogma.
21
Bray., 84.
22
Origen and Gary Wayne Barkley, Homilies on Leviticus (Washington, D.C.: Catholic
University
of
America Press, 1990),
6.
13
Yet upon establishing the text, this is where Willet and Origen were quite different.
Origen's theory
of
Scriptural interpretation is most clearly laid out in Book Four
of
his De Principiis, his major summary
of
Christian doctrine. Origen's Homilies on
Leviticus provide examples
of
these principles in practice. They were delivered in a 3
year cycle sometime between 238 and 244. Being given towards the end
of
his life
(he died in
2531254),
they are agood place to see the maturation
ofOrigen's
method,
as well as the most obvious point
of
comparison with Willet's hermeneutics.
Origen's opening homily begins with the incarnation as his model for
interpretation, where the Divine Word
of
God was covered with the veil
of
flesh. In
that same fashion, the divine spiritual meaning
of
Leviticus is concealed in the veil
of
the letter.
It
is 'wicked presbyters', he states, who force the church to be
subservient to the historical sense, which only compels people to sacrifice calves and
lambs and offer flour with incense and oil.
In this same homily he later examines the text
of
Lev
1:
13
where the
priest takes
of
the skin
of
the burnt offering in dismembering the animal. Origen sees
this as he who takes the veil offthe letter
of
the word
of
God and lays bare internal
organs
of
spiritual understanding: "the priest who removes the hide
"of
the
calf'
offered as
"a
whole burnt offering" and pulls away the skin with which its limbs are
covered is the one who removes the veil
of
the letter from the word
of
God and
uncovers its interior parts which are members
of
spiritual understanding.',23
Origen is famous for seeing three levels
of
understanding in Scripture, and his fifth
homily, looking at Lev 7:9 gives us opportunity to see this. The text shows that every
23
Ibid., 35.
14
grain offering cooked in an oven, pan or griddle belongs to the priest who offers it.
Origen states:
Ithink that "the oven", by reason
of
its form,
si
gnifies some things more
profound which are unmentionable in divine Scriptures. "The gridiron" is those
which,
if
they are frequently and often thought upon, can be understood and
explained. But "the frying pan" is those which are well known and are
understood without any covering. For often we have said that atriple mode
of
understanding is to be found in divine Scriptures: the historical, the moral, the
mystical. From this we understood the body, the soul, and the spirit. This
threefold method
of
preparation
of
the sacrifices shows the threefold form
of
this understanding.24
The Scriptural justification for this allegorical approach can be found in his ninth
homily on the Day
of
Atonement. He quotes Heb 9:24 as authority for showing a
higher sense: "lest the hearers think we take the Law
of
God in apreconceived sense
and pervert it violently, as
if
apostolic authority sets no precedent in these things
which we affirm."
In other words, Origen believed the Old Testament to be Christian, and
not merely Jewish Scripture. This is demonstrated in his understanding
of
the
sanctuaries
of
the Tabemacle- the first representing the church and the second
representing the heavenly sanctuary where Christ continues to serve as high priest.
Later we shall see how frequently Willet interacted with Origen. Willet was often
critical
of
the detail
of
Origen's seemingly haphazard method, though the desire to
bow to the authority
of
the Scriptures and then to see Christ in all they contained was
what united them as exegetes.
24
Ibid., 100.
15
The Antiochene School
of
Exegesis: Typology
Responding to the Alexandrian allegorical method came the
Antiochenes, such as Diodore, Theodore and Chrysostom. They saw how allegory
had left Origen and his followers open to interpret Scripture in an uncontrolled way
that disregarded the historical sense. Instead they opted instead for amore literal and
scientific method. Diodore
of
Tarsus, the founder
of
the Antiochene school, admitted
that though the Scriptures knew the term 'allegory' (the Apostle Paul used the word
itselfin Gal 4:24), its use and application was different from that
of
the Greeks who
used it to mean that something could be said one way and meant in another.
Diodore's hermeneutical first principle was different to that
of
Origen: any spiritual
sense was to be located within the historical sense itself.
In
other words, the
hermeneutical key was found in Scripture itself, and not in the mind
of
the
interpreter. Furthermore, not all passages
of
Scripture had aspiritual sense. This era
could be said to mark the beginning
of
biblical theology: the desire to place any part
of
Scripture within its overall metanarrative
of
salvation.25
We
shall see later that
Willet broadly follows this approach.
Theodoret
of
Cyrus (c393-c466) was the last
of
the great Antiochene
exegetes who not only exemplified use
of
the typological method, he also stands in a
mediating position between Alexandria and Antioch. His commentary on the
Octateuch (the Pentateuch plus Joshua, Judges and Ruth) is where we find his
writing on Leviticus.26 The commentary is structured around 38 questions on
25
Griedanus, Preaching Christ, 91.
26
Theodoret
of
Cyrus, Robert C. Hill, and John Petruccione, The Questions on the Octateuch
(Washington, DC: The Catholic University
of
America Press, 2007).
16
Leviticus, and follows asimple question and answer format. On the question raised
by chapter 8on why the priest's right ear, hand and foot are anointed with blood and
oil, Theodoret answers with straightforward typology: 'these are atype
of
our good
things: the blood
ofthe
Saviour's blood, and the oil
of
the most holy chrism.' Yet
this is not where he ends. Next, he moves to aspiritual interpretation more
characteristic
of
the Alexandrian school: 'The right ear is asymbol
of
praiseworthy
obedience, and the hand and foot
of
good actions- hence the anointing
of
the right
hand and right foot. There is, after all, such athing as asinister action and aharmful
obedience.,27 Elsewhere, Theodoret notes that the two small birds offered for the
purification
of
the leper in ch
14
'present atype
of
the saving passion'.28 Andjust
before, Theodoret argues that Christians who enter Jewish synagogues become
unclean because they are leprous houses.
The School
of
Exegesis in the Middle Ages: The Fourfold Method
The schools
of
Antioch and Alexandria continued to exist side by side,
yet from the time
of
Augustine, the major hermeneutical principle was the fourfold
sense. Adding to Origen's threefold sense
of
literal, moral and spiritual, Augustine
added afourth sense which looked for the eschatological meaning.
Before he became aChristian, Augustine belonged to the Manicheans,
asect which, like the Marcionites before him, rejected the Old Testament because
of
its apparent crudity and immorality. When he moved to Milan, he came to favour the
27 Ibid., 25.
28 Ibid., 43.
17
allegorical approach
of
Ambrose, who broadly followed Origen's threefold method.
Allegory was to be carefully constrained in two ways: the allegorical interpretation
was not to deny the historicity
of
the Biblical account, and it was not to contradict
the 'rule
of
faith' (the doctrine
of
the church).
It
was not only Augustine who saw afourth sense in Scripture. John
Cassian lived at asimilar time to Augustine (360 to 435 compared to Augustine who
lived from 354 to 430) and was trained in the hermeneutics
of
Origen. He classified
the four senses in away which became standard in medieval writing.
In
addition to
Origen's three senses, he added afourth, the so-called 'mystagogical' or mystical
sense, which, according to Bray, soon became the most important
of
all the senses. 29
Bray reconstructs an example
of
how in the Middle Ages the 'spiritual'
sense
of
Origen disappeared and was replaced instead with the 'allegorical' sense
which was identified as typological. On the meaning
of
the city
of
Jerusalem, he
states that Origen would have interpreted
it
thus:
Literal: acity in Palestine; the capital
of
Israel.
Moral: the soul
of
the believer.
Spiritual: the church (militant and triumphant).
The hermeneutic that evolved after Cassian was different. Bray reconstructs the city
of
Jerusalem in this way:
Literal: acity in Palestine; the capital
of
Israel.
Allegorical (typological): the church militant here on earth.
Moral (tropological): the soul
of
the believer.
29 Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 133.
18
Mystagogical: the heavenly city; the church triumphant.30
At this point we see the exegete's application loosened from the moorings
of
Scripture itself, with each layer
of
interpretation burying the plain sense underneath.
Perhaps this is why Willet interacts less with those from this period. Though
Augustine continues to stand as akey historical pillar in hermeneutics, he only
features once in Willet's commentary on Lev 7, which is the chapter from Willet's
commentary that we shall focus on later.
When we move on to the early Middle Ages, the main hermeneutical
development was the glossa (gloss). From about 1000 AD there was arevival
of
interest in understanding the Bible which took the form
of
notes written beside or
within the Biblical text as an aid to understanding difficult parts. Sometimes the
gloss was written as acolumn alongside the text, and in other cases it was aseparate
document entirely. The best example
of
this practice is the Glossa Ordinaria which
was the work
of
several authors and became aset school text in about 1150. Bray
argues that the effect
of
this approach was to remove mysteries in the text and also to
lower the authority
of
the fathers
of
the church. To have two
of
them placed side by
side contradicting each other showed their fallibility compared to the infallible word.
As this method developed, theological questions (quaestiones) were also included as
monks and nuns were puzzled by the text and wanted deeper questions answered.
It
became cumbersome to include these within the ordinary glossa and it was Peter
Lombard who extracted these quaestiones from his Magnum glosatura ('Great
Gloss'), and rearranged them systematically. This became his work called Sentences,
awork used to teach systematic theology (on the foundation
of
exegesis) for the rest
30 Ibid., 147.
19
of
the Middle Ages. Several times on Leviticus chapter 7we shall see Willet quote
from the Glossa Interlinearis, asecond gloss that was the work
of
Anselm
of
Laon.
This is no surprise, because from the twelfth century onwards copies
of
the Latin
Vulgate had the Glossa Ordinaria inserted in the margin at the top and the sides, and
the Glossa Interlinearis between the lines
of
the text itself.
In the High Middle Ages (1150-1300), Hugh
of
St Victor, and his
followers the Victorines displayed abalanced hermeneutical method. Secular and
Jewish authors were consulted, and acareful method was followed. In his prologue
to Ecclesiastes Hugh writes: "all Scripture,
if
expounded according to its own proper
meaning, will gain in clarity and present itselfto the reader's mind more easily.
Many exegetes, who do not understand this virtue
of
Scripture, cloud over its stately
beauty with irrelevant comments. When they ought to be disclosing what is hidden,
they obscure even what is plain. Imyselfblame those who superstitiously strive to
find amystical sense and adeep allegory where there is none, as much
as
those who
persist in denying it, when it is there."
31
The thirteenth-century leads us to the high point in late mediaeval
hermeneutics. Even though the theologian Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) is best
known for his systematic theology, he also taught homiletics after joining the Order
of
Preachers (Dominicans). His hermeneutical principles are found in Summa
Theologica 1.1.10. He emphasised that the literal, or historical, sense is the
foundation and hermeneutical control to any passage:
All the interpretations are founded on
one-the
literal-from
which alone any
argument can be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine
says. Nevertheless, nothing
of
Holy Scripture perishes on account
of
this, since
31
Ibid., 149.
20
nothing necessary to Faith is contained under the spiritual interpretation which
may not elsewhere put forward by the Scriptures in its literal interpretation.32
He maintained four senses, but grounded the three spiritual senses firmly in the
historical sense. Even though in favour
of
allegorical interpretation, he was very
cautious, seeing how susceptible it was to deception and confusion.
Nicholas
of
Lyra (c1270-1340) also avoided allegorical errors
by
dividing the literal sense into the literal-historical sense and the literal-prophetic
sense. His Postilla was the first commentary to be printed, and his comments were
placed as footnotes in editions
of
the Vulgate from the fourteenth century onwards.
To conclude, though much had improved since Origen, imagination
still played alarge part in the principles
of
interpretation. Instead
of
becoming
servants
of
the Word, theologians were in danger
of
being masters over it, sometimes
ignoring altogether the author's intention. Even Aquinas' revisions could be seen as
too little too late to prevent the church from needing asignificant hermeneutical
reformation three centuries later. Yet all was not bleak: the careful preservation
of
the Scriptures, the desire to understand the meaning
of
Scripture and the continued
quest for overarching principles
of
interpretation all became fertile soil for the
flowering
of
the Reformation.
32 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. accessed 7April 2014,
http://www.ccel.org/cceVaquinas/summa,
18.
21
CHAPTER 3
THE DISTINCTIVES OF REFORMED EXEGESIS
Introduction
The Reformation came upon awave
of
learning and enquiry which
originated in the Renaissance. As Erika Rummel notes:
Two features
of
Renaissance Humanism had adirect bearing on the course
of
biblical studies in early modem Europe: the privileging
of
classical antiquity
over the "dark" Middle Ages and apreference for rhetoric and language studies
over the traditional academic core subject, Aristotelian logic.
In
their efforts to
recover the legacy
of
Antiquity, humanists turned from historical
interpretations to the sources themselves.
Adfontes
"back to the sources,"
became their watchword.
33
Using humanist techniques for working on texts, Desiderius Erasmus produced the
first printed edition
of
the Greek New Testament in 1516. This Greek edition was
revised several times and circulated across Europe.
By
putting the true source back
into the hands
of
scholars Erasmus laid the golden egg
of
Sola Scriptum. Once read,
the Scriptures themselves testified to its readers that they were all-sufficient.
It
fell
upon Martin Luther much later to see this doctrine hatched.
Alongside Renaissance Humanism came the exposure
of
the dubious
authority and integrity
of
the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther, for example,
noticed that indulgences, assurances from the Pope that particular sins had been
forgiven and would no longer need to be atoned for in purgatory, were being sold in
33
Erika Rummel,
'The
Renaissance Humanists" in AHistory
of
Biblical Interpretation:
Volume 2: The Mediaeval through the Reformation Periods, ed. Alan
J.
Hauser and Duane F.Watson
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,2009), 280.
22
exchange for money to build St Peter's Church in Rome. He attacked this view
publicly in his Ninety-Five Theses which he famously published on the door
of
the
church at Wittenberg on
31
October 1517. These turbulent times in history were
being stirred up by anew quest to go back to the source
of
Scripture itself.
Bray makes clear the key to understanding the Reformation: "To understand the
biblical interpretation
of
this period, it is necessary to grasp the implications
of
the
Reformed doctrine
of
Sola Scriptum. Only then can we proceed to particular types
of
exegesis, and to the system
of
theology which Protestants believed they could find in
the pages
of
the Bible itself. 34
Up to this point, Scripture and tradition were determinative. From the
Reformation onward aline was drawn in the sand. Scripture alone was to be the
authority. Its clarity meant that it could interpret itself (a principle stated in the Latin:
sui ipsius interpres) and did not need authoritative clarification from any Pope or
Minister. Those parts
of
the Bible which were not self-evidently clear were to be
interpreted according to what was called the 'analogy
of
faith' which Bray describes
in this way: "This meant that whatever was said about them should be in agreement
with what the clearer parts
of
Scripture already made plain, and that nothing should
be inferred from an unclear passage which could not be proved from another, more
obvious, text." 35
Muller catalogues the different methods
of
exegesis found in this
period.36Even though they shared the same convictions about Scripture, the
34 Bray, Biblical Interpretation,
191
35 Ibid., 192-193.
36 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation ReformedDogmatics: The Rise and Development
of
Reformed Orthodoxy,
Ca.
1520
to
Ca.
1725 (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academics, 2003),444-449.
23
Reformers varied in their approach. Some favoured acomparative approach
involving the text-critical use
of
ancient versions (e.g. Louis Cappel in Leiden), yet
others insisted upon the use
of
the Masoretic text
of
the Old Testament and the
received Greek
of
the New Testament (e.g. Johannes BuxtorfII in Basel). Some
commentaries were technical and involved detailed codices and careful comparisons
of
translations (e.g. Beza'sAnnotationes
in
Novum Testamentum) and others focused
more on theological and linguistic annotation (e.g. Ainsworth's Annotations).
Martin Luther's Christocentrism
Both Luther and Calvin give outstanding examples
of
this united, yet
varied approached to exegesis. Luther especially shows us the clear transition from
the medieval methods
of
interpretation. As amonk, Martin Luther was trained to
follow the medieval fourfold method. Yet he abandoned this method
of
allegorising
after lecturing on the epistle to the Romans and seeing there that Christ was no
allegory, he was historical reality. He also wrote: "Origen's allegories are not worth
so much dirt.", "Allegories are awkward, absurd, invented, obsolete, loose rags," and
"Allegory is asort
of
beautiful harlot, who proves herselfspecially seductive to idle
men." 37
Yet the old habits were hard to lose.
In
his lectures on the Psalms,
given at the start
of
the Reformation in 1518-21, he wrote:
"It
was very difficult for
me to break away from my habitual zeal for allegory. And yet Iwas aware that
37 Griedanus, Preaching Christ, 113.
24
allegories were empty speculations and the froth, as it were,
of
Holy Scriptures.
It
is
the historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound doctrine." 38
Bray notes, however, that his principle
of
the literal sense also being
the historical sense went too far in his doctrine
ofthe
Lord's Supper. Jesus' words
'this is my body' (Mat 26:26) could only mean for Luther the real presence
of
the
incarnate Christ at the Communion table.
Luther's hermeneutical method was firmly Christological. This was, as we have
seen, unexceptional in the medieval period. But the rigour with which this was
applied was new. At table he told his students that Christ was "the central point in
the Bible around which everything else in the Bible revolves." 39 The Scriptures had
asingle purpose: to show Christ. The Scriptures were to him the "swaddling cloths
in which Christ is to be found." Every exegete was to look for Christum treibet "that
which drives home Christ". 40
More interesting for our later discussion
of
Willet is what scholars
have called Luther's 'hermeneutical shift'. When he began his first series
of
lectures
on the Psalms in 1513 he worked solely with the framework
of
the four senses (the
Quadriga)
of
the Scholastic tradition. Thompson has studied these lectures and seen
how these senses were put under increasing strain by his new Christological
principle.
41
As early as reaching Psalm 4, he began not with David and Israel, but
with Christ, seeing all four senses as flowing into him as head. This was aradical
38
Quoted
in
Bray., Biblical Interpretation, 198.
39 Mark Thompson, "Biblical Interpretation
in
the Works
of
Martin Luther" in AHistory
of
Biblical Interpretation: Volume 2: The Mediaeval through the Reformation Periods, ed. Alan
J.
Hauser and Duane F.Watson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,2009), 305.
40
Ibid., 306.
41
Ibid., 305.
25
departure from the tradition he inherited.
By
1519, when he wrote his commentary
on Galatians, he said that the Quadriga is "not sufficiently supported by the
authority
of
the Scripture, the custom
of
the fathers or grammatical principles.,,42 For
centuries the main antithesis in Scripture was seen to be between letter and Spirit-
two levels
of
meaning in any text, the latter, more hidden meaning being more
edifying and fruitful. As time went on, Luther saw the central antithesis falling on a
different axis: between law and gospel (sometimes called promise). The law drives
us to Christ as we realise that we are sinners needing asaviour. The gospel is the
answer to the need the law exposes where we find in Christ forgiveness
of
sins and
new life. This antithesis is seen in salvation history (with Old Testament as Law and
New Testament as Gospel), within each book
of
the Bible (where commandments
are law and promises are gospel), and
is
to be applied in the life
of
every believer.
Luther's famous slogan simul iustus etpeccator (at the same time righteous and a
sinner) shows how Luther saw law and gospel in operation: we need to be confronted
by the law again and again so that we keep despairing
of
ourselves and fleeing to
Christ. We shall see that Willet is less antithetical in his approach to exegesis,
preferring to see more continuation than contrast in this matter.
Thompson concludes that Luther "played amajor role in the eclipse
of
medieval exegetical methods. The search for spiritual meanings in biblical passages
was replaced by an investigation
of
the theological import
of
the simple grammatical
sense and the contexts
of
biblical passages.,,43
42 Ibid., 308.
43
Ibid., 315.
26
We
shall also see echoes
of
Luther's Christological method in the
works
of
Willet, though it is never presented in the polemical way that Luther
presented it later in life. Instead there is more
of
the subtlety
of
Calvin's approach.
John Calvin's Triune Theocentrism
Though the doctrine
of
Sola Scriptum was common to all the
Reformers, their hermeneutical methods varied. Calvin was clear that Christ was to
be sought. In his preface to Olivetan's French
New
Testament he wrote: "This is
what we should seek in the whole
of
Scripture: truly to know Jesus Christ and the
infinite riches that are comprised in him and are offered to us by him from God the
Father.,,44
Yet Calvin's Christological interpretation
of
the Old Testament was
much more subtle than Luther's, arising from aframework that went beyond
Luther's narrow focus onjustification by faith. Calvin's hermeneutical scaffolding
was more complex: it was built upon Christology within the Trinity, salvation within
sovereignty and justification within covenant. This allowed Calvin to preach the Old
Testament without needing to find Christ in every single verse. This was because
of
his concern to expose the intention
of
the original human author in their original
historical context. Messianic Psalms such as Psalm 2were usually applied by the
Reformers direct to Christ. Yet Calvin first applied it to David at his coronation and
only then to Christ. And for Calvin, many other Psalms that historically have been
44
John Calvin, in Barbara Pitkin, "John Calvin and the Interpretation
of
the Bible", in A
History
of
Biblical Interpretation ": Volume 2: The Mediaeval through the Reformation Periods, ed.
Alan
J.
Hauser and Duane F.Watson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,2009), 355.
27
seen as Messianic, were not Messianic at all. In 1593 the Lutheran Hunnius attacked
Calvin in awork called Calvin the Judaizer. Richard Muller gives the reason why:
"angry Lutheran exegetes and theologians would refer to....judaising Calvin,
precisely because Calvin adamantly refused the wholesale Christologising
of
the Old
Testament and the Trinitarian reading
of
the plural form
of
Elohim." 45
Their concerns were not without substance. Harold Dekker, in
introducing Calvin's Sermonsfrom Job notes that Calvin's total Theocentricity left
the 159 sermons with almost no mention
of
Christ. Even the sermon on chapter
19
where Job says "I know that my redeemer lives" contains no reference to Christ.
Why was this?
We
have already seen that Calvin was with Luther in seeing the need
for Christocentrism. The difference seemed to be in that
of
practice rather than
theology. Veenhofhas even argued that, far from being aJudaiser: "Christ is for
Calvin so radically and totally the scopus
of
Scripture that this need not be repeated
over and over again.
,,46
Veenhof may have overstated his point here. Calvin could have
named Christ more in his exegesis
of
the Old Testament. As the leading exegete
of
the Reformation, others followed in this weakness, including Willet in places.
Muller notes that Calvin's tendency to de-emphasise Christological readings
of
the
Old Testament was followed later by exegetes such as Willet, Rivetus, Ainsworth,
Diodati and Poole.47
There has been much recent scholarship about whether Calvin builds
his hermeneutic upon his predecessors or in contrast with them. Pitkin gives auseful
45 Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 218.
46 C. Veenhof, in Griedanus, Preaching Christ,
147.
47 Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 449.
28
summary
of
recent research in Calvin studies. Conclusions depend on how diverse or
how unified the hermeneutical epochs are seen to be.
Calvin was, for example, ahuge admirer
of
the fourth century
Antiochene theologian John Chrysostom. He was distinguished for the consistent
way that he found the spiritual sense
of
Scripture in its literal, rather than allegorical
meaning. In introducing aFrench translation ofChrysostom's homilies, Calvin
wrote: "The outstanding merit
of
our author, Chrysostom, is that it was his supreme
concern always not to turn aside even to the slightest degree from the genuine,
simple sense
of
Scripture and to allow himselfno liberties by twisting the plain
meaning
of
the words." 48
Calvin interacted with his hermeneutical forbears critically. Like
Luther before him, he named and rejected Origen for all the damage he had done to
the church in placing allegory as the highest exegetical virtue.49
It
left "Many
of
the
ancients without any restraint playing all sorts
of
games with the sacred Word
of
God, as
if
they were tossing aball to and
frO.,,50
Yet he was not afraid to admit that
allegory was all he could use to explain Lev
lion
clean and unclean foods,
preferring the hoofto mean wisdom in understanding the mystery
of
Scripture and
chewing the cud to mean serious meditation.
51
The work
of
Raymond Blacketer on Calvin's allegorical interpretation
of
Deut 10:1-2 shows us that Calvin's hermeneutic was more nuanced than simple
48 John Calvin, in Griedanus, Preaching Christ,
127.
49 Ibid., 128.
50 Ibid., 128.
51
Ibid., 157.
29
caricature allows.
52
Far from rejecting all allegory and every spiritual interpretation,
Blacketer demonstrates that Calvin refines his heritage
of
the medieval spiritual
interpretation and allows for some allegory. Calvin's polemics against allegory in the
Institutes, Blacketer argues, all have acontext that explains his strong reactions: false
teaching. They occur in the context
of
the denial
of
the humanity
of
Christ
53
,
transubstantiation
54
,penance
55
,denial
of
the Trinity56, opposition to infant baptism5
?,
and the errors
of
the Anabaptists.
58
Allegory should not be the basis for any doctrine:
"allegories ought to be carried no further than Scripture expressly sanctions: so far
are they from forming asufficient basis to found doctrines upon.,,59
Blacketer gives Calvin's homiletical treatment
of
Deut 10:1-2 as a
remarkable example
of
free translation and allegorical interpretation. The
LORD
instructed Moses to chisel out two stone tablets for the Decalogue to be re-engraved.
Calvin's main application here is that the congregation should make themselves
teachable, having hearts that are smooth and ready to be written on.
Afruitful summary
of
Calvin's use
of
allegory may also be found in
his commentary work on Leviticus.
In
his comments on
1:
1he states that Leviticus
remains useful for the church as long as it is not used as the basis for farfetched
52 Raymond A. Blacketer, "Smooth Stones, Teachable Hearts: Calvin's Allegorical
Interpretation
of
Deuteronomy
10:
1-2," Calvin Theological Journal 34, no. 1(1999).
53
Calvin, Instil.,
2:
13:3.
54 Ibid., 4.17.15.
55 Ibid., 3.4.4-5.
56 Ibid., 1.13.22.
57
Ibid., 4.16.31.
58
Ibid., 4.16.15-16.
59 Ibid., 2.5.19.
30
allegories. Yet, Blacketer notes, when it comes to Lev
2:
13, the prescription
of
adding salt to meat sacrifices is interpreted allegorically. But here may be the
control: this is legitimate because Christ interprets it this way in
Mk
9:49.60 Like
Luther, Calvin seems to prefer to use allegory only where it is used in Scripture
itself, even though this principle is not slavishly followed.
This raises an important hermeneutical question that Calvin and Willet
both raise: are we allowed to use allegory only where Christ and the apostles use it in
Scripture, or does their use
of
allegory compel us to do the same with the Old
Testament generally? We will see that Willet's thoughts on allegory are as subtle as
Calvin's.
60 Blacketer, Smooth Stones, 61.
31
CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY OF SECONDARY SCHOLARSHIP
ON
REFORMATION
EXEGESIS
Now
we drive closer to the debates surrounding Willet's period in
history. Recent debate on exegesis in the Reformation period has focused on the
relationship between Calvin and those before and after him. The main scholar at
work on the Reformation and post-Reformation period is Richard Muller, who wrote
The Unaccommodated Calvin in 1990
61
,After Calvin in 200362 and his 4volume
magnum opus Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise
and
Development
of
Reformed Orthodoxy,
ca.
1520-1725.
63
Muller's many books and articles reflect a
simple concern: to place the teaching
of
the Reformation and the post-Reformation
period in their proper historical context and relation to one another. His two articles
on "Calvin and the Calvinists" clear the ground for the task in hand. 64 Here he
identifies five approaches to the issue
of
how these two periods relate, one
of
them
pitting Calvin against the "Calvinists", following Basil Hall's famous descriptive
phrase summarising the debate. He also challenges the loose definition
of
terms that
much scholarship is based on. Scholasticism, for example, was not aparticular
61
Richard A. Muller,
The
Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies
in
the Foundation
of
a
Theological Tradition (New
York;
Oxford: Oxford University, 2000).
62 Donald
K.
McKim, "After Calvin: Studies in the Development
of
aTheological
Tradition," Theological Studies 66, no. 1(2005).
63
Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development
of
Reformed
Orthodoxy,
Ca.
1520
to
Ca.
1725.
64 Richard A. Muller, ""Calvin and the "Calvinists" :Assessing Continuities and
Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy," Calvin Theological Journal 30, no. 2
(1995); Richard A. Muller, ""Calvin and the "Calvinists" :Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities
between the Reformation and Orthodoxy," Calvin Theological Journal 31, no. 1(1996).
32
theology, but amethod developed in the medieval period that examined opposing
views and made careful distinctions to establish right conclusions.
65
Also,
"rationalism" requires careful definition
if
we are not to make historical errors in
presuming that the men
of
this period believed in the supremacy
of
reason over
Scripture: "Like most
of
their medieval predecessors and, arguably, in acertain
degree
of
continuity with most
of
the Reformers as well, the Protestant scholastics
assumed an instrumental rather than aprincipal function
of
reason."
66
Muller's big concern is to avoid polemical historical research. We are
not to pit Calvin against his Calvinist successors. Calvin was just one
of
the
Reformers, who did not see himself, nor was he seen by others
as
the sole authority
for Reformation doctrine,
as
can be seen in consensual approach to doctrine found in
the Consensus Tigurinus. Calvin's successors did not slavishly follow his thought
either. The Reformation was amovement rather than about one man. Muller argues
that ever since Barth and the Barthians got involved in Reformation studies, Calvin
has been framed not in his own context but in the context
of
the critical theology
of
the nineteenth and twentieth-centuries. From this has come the predominant view
that the post-Reformation period recast and deformed Reformed theology. Muller's
book, The Unaccommodated Calvin, ambitiously seeks to rescue Calvin from such
accommodation and present him as he really is, unaccommodated. From his
research, Muller sees Calvin as part
of
along tradition going from Lombard to the
seventeenth century that drew dogmatic loci from the exegesis
of
Scripture. The
proper context to understand Calvin's theological work is within the history
of
65Ibid., 367.
66 Ibid.,374.
33
exegesis, and not simply systematic theology. His Institutes were only part
of
his
work alongside his exegetical commentaries and homilies.
In his subsequent book After Calvin, Muller deals with the post-
Reformation period. He writes:
"One
of
the erroneous contrasts often made between the theology
of
the
Reformers and that
of
their orthodox and scholastic successors presents the
theology
of
the Reformation as abiblical and exegetical theology and that
of
the Reformed orthodox as ahighly dogmatic and rational theology, largely
negligent
of
exegetical issues.
It
is important to remove this fiction explicitly
and entirely."
67
One such example is Frederic W. Farrar who wrote his History
of
Interpretation in
1886. In his introduction he wrote that the task
of
writing ahistory
of
precritical
exegesis was
'a
melancholy
one'
because through the centuries the interpretation
of
Scripture
had
been so 'dominated by unproven theories' and 'overladen by
untenable results' that the true meaning
of
Scripture was darkened instead
of
elucidated.
68
The medieval schoolmen were, in Farrar's opinion, 'paralysed by
vicious methods, traditional errors, and foregone conclusions' and their exegesis was
'radically defective -defective in fundamental principles, and rife
on
every page
of
it with all sorts
of
erroneous details.'69 These problems were only propagated
by
Reformation and post-Reformation exegetes
'who
developed elaborate systems
of
theology out
of
imaginary emphases, and
by
the aid
of
exorbitant principles
of
inference.
,70
67
Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies
in
the Development
of
aTheological Tradition
(Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003),
10.
68
F.
W. Farrar, History
of
Interpretation (London: Macmillan, 1886),8-9.
69 Ibid., 267, 302.
70 Ibid
..
,xi-xii.
34
VanKleeck notes how the later Cambridge History
of
the Bible echoed
Farrar's concerns 'with precision,.71 Volume 3covered the West from the
Reformation to the time
of
writing. Basil Hall, then Regius Professor
of
Ecclesiastical History in the University
of
Oxford, wrote the following about the
sixteenth century his essay in this volume entitled Biblical Scholarship: Editions and
Commentaries:
From now onwards Protestant dogmatic preoccupations increasingly controlled
linguistic study; for this is part
of
the reaction from the intransigence
of
the
decree on Scripture made by the Council
of
Trent. In the remaining half-
century biblical studies will be too often subjected to Catholic and Protestant
dogmatic concerns. The eagerness and hope
of
men like Lefevre, who early in
the century had looked for aworld renewed by the humanist study
of
the three
languages and biblically grounded faith in Christ, had declined into rival
orthodoxies
...
It
would not be too great an exaggeration to say that the
theological preoccupations and inhibitions among both Catholics prevented
much real advance in higher and lower criticism until the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries.72
In the introduction, the editor, S.L. Greenslade, writes his purpose: "The select
bibliographies are intended simply to direct attention to the principal works on each
subject and to indicate where it may be more fully studied." Yet there is no mention
of
Willet or any other Puritans as commentary writers or serious critical scholars.
The Puritans are grouped together simply as devotional, dogmatic preachers who
were nervous to preserve their own corpus
of
doctrine. Instead the focus goes to the
Frenchman Richard Simon, hailed as the 'father
of
biblical criticism' for his
triumphant use
of
grammar and philology as his sole authority to question the
authenticity and reliability
of
parts
of
the Bible. His 1678 Histoire critique du Vieux
71
Peter W.Van Kleek, "Hermeneutics and Theology in the 17th Century: The Contribution
of
Andrew
Willet"
(Th.M. diss. ,Calvin Theological Seminary, 1998),
6.
72
S. L. Greenslade, The Cambridge History
of
the Bible.
Vol.
3,
the West from the
Reformation
to
the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963),47.
35
Testament was translated into English four years later, and generated 40 refutations
of
his work from both Protestant and Roman Catholic camps.73
The appendix
of
this Cambridge History volume contains asection on
commentaries, beginning with those found at Qumran. The Reformation is viewed
positively, highlighting the contribution especially
of
Luther and Calvin. Greenslade
then steps into the post-reformation period with the following comment: "Post-
Reformation exegesis showed deterioration.
It
tended to be confessional, dogmatic
and scholastic.,,74 Alist
of
commentators is then included, including Osiander,
Grotuis, Henry and Hammond. But there is no mention at all
of
Willet.
Another example
of
how the history
of
interpretation has been skewed
is Henry Wansbrough's more recent work The Use
and
Abuse
of
the Bible: A
Brief
History
of
Biblical Interpretation. The sole representative
of
the Reformation is
Martin Luther, and then the chapter on the seventeenth century is entitled
'The
Bible
in the Politics
of
Early Seventeenth-century England'. Its seven pages detail
how
the
Bible was used for political ends in this period in the introduction
of
the English
Bible.
75
It
is not only Muller who has been amore careful historian
of
this
period. McKim has written his Historical Handbook
of
Major Biblical Interpreters,
where he writes: "Since it has so often been implied that the Reformation was atime
of
exegesis, virtually without dogma, and the era
of
orthodoxy was atime
of
dogmatic system without exegesis, it must be added that at no time before
or
since
73
Ibid., 194.
74 Ibid., 533.
7S Henry Wansbrough, The
Use
andAbuse
of
the Bible: ABriefHistory
of
Biblical
Interpretation (London: T&TClark, 2010),120-127.
36
the era
of
orthodoxy was systematic theology so closely wedded to the textual and
linguistic work
of
the exegete.,,76 Citing dozens
of
sources, McKim argues that the
exegete and the dogmatician worked closely with each other, and in some cases were
the same person writing different kinds
of
work.
We
will see how Willet helps
forward this argument later.
Muller gives us more detailed research in an area that McKim is only
able to outline briefly. He outlines distinct periods with distinct phases after the
Reformation: early orthodoxy (c1565-1618-40), high orthodoxy (c1640-l685-1725)
and late orthodoxy (ca. 1725-1770). High orthodoxy came in two phases: the earlier
developing the orthodoxy
of
the confessions and the latter phase being one
of
deconfessionalisation and transition.
For the period
of
early orthodoxy, Henry Ainsworth and Andrew
Willet are given attention. Chapter
10
of
After Calvin contains an essay entitled
"Henry Ainsworth and the Development
of
Protestant Exegesis in the Early
Seventeenth Century."
He concludes the chapter by writing:
Ainsworth's exegetical and interpretive efforts, together with those
of
Willet,
Whitaker, and Cartwright, moreover, defy the stereotype
of
adogmatising
Biblicism that looked away from the context and syntax
of
apassage towards
its use, out
of
context, in theological system. Instead, the exegesis
of
the period
evidences avariety
of
methods, some
of
them not at all dogmatic and some
of
them-like Willet's- moving from textual study and examination
of
the
exegetical tradition toward asense
of
the relationship and application
of
the
results
of
exegesis to other theological disciplines, not merely to dogmatics but
to preaching as well. 77
76
Donald K. McKim, Historical Handbook
of
Major Biblical Interpreters (Downers Grove,
IL: IVP, 1998), 135.
77
Muller, After Calvin, 173.
37
Henry Ainsworth lived at asimilar time to Andrew Willet (c. 1569-c1623) and was
head
of
the separatist congregation at Amsterdam. He wrote notable commentaries
on the Pentateuch, the Psalms and the Song
of
Songs. Bray states that Ainsworth is
"generally reckoned to be the most unjustly neglected scholar
of
his age." 78 Now
that Muller has given Ainsworth prominence, perhaps that comment should instead
be reserved for Andrew Willet. Muller helps us to see how Ainsworth showed adeep
interest in the Hebrew text and the root meanings
of
words. He was comfortable to
engage with rabbis as dialogue partners and Muller shows his full reliance on the
rabbis in his interpretation
of
the identity
of
Melchizedek as Shem. His annotations
on Leviticus begin each chapter with asummary
of
its contents, an English
translation, and then annotations upon the verses in note form.79 Later we will
examine Willet's coverage
of
Leviticus chapter
7.
Ainsworth's treatment
of
Lev 7
occupies
just
over seven pages compared to Willet's eighteen pages on the same
chapter, and exemplifies the approach found in the rest
of
the commentary.
Ainsworth takes care to establish the authentic text, quoting Chaldee (Aramaic) and
Greek translations where useful, and referring to the Hebrew text. Jewish scholars
are quoted, as well as the Talmud to aid proper understanding. And Ainsworth's
Christocentric approach is seen throughout. Ainsworth discusses what the skin
of
the
burnt offering refers to in Lev 7:8. Seeing links with the skins that covered Adam
and Eve, and the skin that covered Jacob's hands when he got the blessing, the
interpretation from Ainsworth is clear: 'This ordinance...may lead us to the gift
of
God, in bestowing upon us Christ and his righteousness, to be cloathed with him by
78 Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 187.
79 Henry Ainsworth, Annotations Upon the First Book
of
Moses (Amsterdam:
G.
Thorp,
1616).
38
faith, &sanctification, partaking in his death and sufferings; Rom
13:
13.14. Phil
3:9.10.,80
Willet's method continues in Ainsworth's line, intensifying and
expanding upon his approach, as we shall now see.
80 Ibid.
39
CHAPTERS
WILLET'S HERMENEUTICAL METHOD
The Preface to Willet's Commentary on Leviticus reveals his method.
He begins by telling his Christian readers
of
the different reactions there have been
to Leviticus in the history
of
the church. Muller notes that the most significant
contrast between the commentaries
of
Ainsworth and Willet are in their use
of
sources aside from the text itself. Ainsworth most often uses rabbinical sources, and
Willet tends to "survey the history
of
Christian comment", which Muller sees him
doing here.
81
The Marcionites, Gnostics and Manichees wanted Leviticus excluded
from the Old Testament altogether, even though it is cited and referred to in about
forty places in the New Testament. Others, such as Ptolomeus, had tried to argue that
only parts
of
Leviticus are written
by
God. And on the other side, states Willet, were
those such as Ebion and Cerinthus, who hold the ceremonies
of
the book to be
applied alongside the gospel, with Philastes who would have it all literally applied.
There are yet others, such as Origen and Hesychius who saw the mystical sense in
everything.
Willet wished in his commentary to steer amiddle course between them:
"Neither to wrest all things to amysticall sense: and yet where the
Scripture doth warrant, in the chiefest points, to search out the
mysteries
of
the Gospell."
81
See Muller, After Calvin, 169. It must be noted that it is not just Christian comment that
Willet surveys- he also looks to rabbinical interpretation.
40
Willet then goes on to highlight three benefits that can be reaped from studying the
book. First, to learn how God is to be served "not after atriviall or sleight, but
exactly, carefully, as hee hath prescribed in his Word".
Man's
purpose is to know
God and worship him. The second benefit is to know Christ better as he is shadowed
forth in the Ceremonies
of
the Law. The third benefit is "to teach Ministers
of
the
Gospel, by the exact description
of
the Leviticall Priesthood, what abilities
of
gifts,
what circumspect care and diligence, what holinesse
of
life is required
of
them."
Here is how the Victorian Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon explained
Willet's method: "Plodding along with his six-fold load, Willet gives us a
comparison
of
ten versions, "handles well nigh two thousand theological questions,"
and quotes "above forty authors, old and new." He sums up all preceding
commentaries, both Protestant and Romish." 82
The 'six-fold load' that Spurgeon referred to was Willet's system to examine each
Bible passage from six perspectives or categories: The Text with its Diverse
Readings; Arguments, Contents and Parts; The Questions Discussed; Doctrines
Noted; Places
of
Confutation; Moral Uses Observed. These categories will form the
structure
of
our discussion later in this chapter. Not all these categories were
employed in every case, nor were they employed in the order listed here.
We have already noted Willet's use
of
the word Hexapla and whether
it was aconscious attempt to follow in the line
of
Origen'swork
of
the same name.
Presumably it was, even though the six categories Willet referred to in the name
were not just text and translation, as they were with Origen's Hexapla.
82 Charles Spurgeon, "Commenting and Commentaries", The Spurgeon Archive, accessed 20
December 2013, http://www.spurgeon.org.
41
The Text with its Diverse Readings
Van Kleeck provides amasterful summary
of
the Reformed doctrine
of
Scripture at the time
of
Willet. He quotes Willet's Cambridge contemporary,
William Perkins, who wrote about Scripture more generally in his commentary on
Galatians. Commenting on Gal
1:
11, under the
heading'
The excellencies
of
the
Word
of
God',Perkins writes of: "The protection and preservation
of
it [Scripture],
from beginning to this hour, by aspecial providence
of
God."
83
Van Kleeck also
contextualises Willet's doctrine
of
Scripture by quoting William Whitaker (or
Whitacre), Regius Professor
of
Divinity at Cambridge who was fourteen years older
than Willet. Willet quotes him several times in Synopsis Papismi.84 In Whitaker's
treatise ADisputation
of
Holy Scripture Against the papists especially Bellarmine
and Stapleton he wrote that the Greek edition in his possession "is no other than the
inspired archetypical scripture
of
the new Testament, commended by the apostles
and evangelists to the Christian church." 85 Opposing Jerome's Latin translation he
also wrote: "Much more ought the Greek to be concluded authentic
aI,
which the
churches
of
the Greeks have always used from the apostles times in public liturgies,
homilies, commentaries and books." 86
Even though Willet and his contemporaries were early textual critics,
they did so upon the apographa (the name for the copies made by scribes
of
the
83
William Perkins, ACommentarie,
or,
Exposition Upon the Fiue First Chapters
of
the
Epistle
to
the Galatians (London: John Leggatt,1617) in Van Kleek, Hermeneutics and Theology, 42.
84
Willet, Synopsis Papismi, chapters
1,
168, 171, 173, 194.
85
William Whitaker and others, ADisputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists,
Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1849), 142.
86 William Whitaker, 142.
42
autographa- the original manuscripts) knowing that they were already the inspired
word
of
God. Muller writes that the Protestant scholastics:
"do not press the point made by their nineteenth-century followers that the
infallibility
of
Scripture and the freedom from error reside absolutely in the
autographa and only in aderivative sense in the apographa; rather, the
scholastics argue positively that the apographa preserve intact the true words
of
the prophets and the apostles and that the God-breathed ((theopneustos, q.v.)
character
of
Scripture is manifest in the apographa as well as in the
autographa."
87
Willet consulted awide range
of
alternative readings. Those listed in
his preface to Hexapla in Leviticum are: Arias translation, Chaldee, Cateri, Doway,
Geneva Bible, Hebrew, Junius, Latin, New English, Pagnin, Septuagint, and
Vatablus. Notes in the margin point to where another translation alters, adds or
detracts. The symbol
of
ahand with apointed finger notes 'some special place
differing in the translation'. This puts Willet in opposition to the textual
methodology
of
the Roman Catholic Church: "The Church
of
Rome holdeth the
Latine vulgar text to be Authenticall, and prefer it before the Hebrew in the old
Testament, and the Greek in the New."
88
Willet was keen to note that many errors had crept into the Latin text,
and the only way to expose them was to go back to the 'pure originals'.
It
was odd to
expect to find purer water in a'foul brook'
of
the Latin than in the 'clear springs and
fountain'
of
the original Hebrew and Greek texts. This was argued because
of
the
words
of
Christ himself:
87 Richard
A.
Muller, Dictionary
of
Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Carlisle:
Paternoster, 1985), 53.
88
Willet and Smith, Hexapla Leviticum; That
Is,
aSix-Fold Commentarie Upon the 3rd
Book
of
Moses, Called Leviticus (London: Aug. Matthewes, 1631).
43
It
is against all reason to give greater authority to atranslation compiled by
one, who was not aprophet or apostle, before the Originall which was penned
by the apostles and prophets. Our blessed Saviour saith, 'Moses wrote
of
me'
but Moses wrote in Hebrew; wee should then have recourse unto the Hebrew
writings
of
Moses,
as
being the fountaine, out
of
which all other translations
of
the old testament were derived.89
Van Kleeck notes that rather than giving adogmatic definition
of
the infallibility and
inerrancy
of
Scripture, Willet frequently compares Jerome's Latin Vulgate with what
is found in the Hebrew and Greek texts to show its errors.90 In the context
of
showing extensive evidence
of
this, Van Kleeck writes:
Before there could be doctrine or systematic theology, there was necessity for
exegesis to provide the exegetical boundaries for the limits
of
historic
Christian theology....Willet's commentaries are indicative
of
an era where
questions
of
exegesis and theology were still being rigorously debated to the
end that acodified body
of
orthodox doctrine could be articulated.
91
In other words, Willet's doctrine
of
infallibility arose from his exegesis
of
Christ's
view
of
Scripture, and
of
the text in its original languages, rather than as prior
dogma.
Willet's magnum opus Synopsis Papismi covers in much more detail
his focus on the original texts, interacting with the view
of
the Papists that the Latin
translation should be taken as authoritative before the Hebrew and Greek. Having
noted the many different editions
of
the Old Testament besides the Hebrew he
writes:
Yet
of
all the rest the Hebrew being the most ancient, and the mother
of
the
rest, and freest from corruptions, ought to bee received as most authenticke.
And for the new Testament, though there bee aSyriacke translation very
89 Ibid., 101.
90
Van Kleek, Hermeneutics and Theology, 49.
91 Ibid., 48.
44
ancient, yet the Greek ought to be preferred (being the tongue wherein the
Apostles and the Evangelists wrote) to be the only authentike copie. 92
We
have seen from this section that Willet
is
indeed in every way a
Protestant commentator. Though Greenslade and Hall argued that this period was
dominated by dogmatic rather than linguistic concerns, it cannot stand it the case
of
Willet. Our subject does not basis his exegesis on dogma, whether Catholic or
Puritan. The text itselfis his authority.
Arguments and Method
This section gives an overview
of
the contents
of
the particular chapter
in Leviticus, and provides aframework for subsequent discussion
of
it. There is a
breakdown
of
the structure
of
the chapter, as well as useful context, where relevant,
in the book as awhole. On Leviticus 16, for example, Willet writes: "Here beginneth
the third parte
of
this Book,
of
the actions both belonging to the sacred things
handled in the seven first Chapters, which was the first part, and to the persons,
of
whose purifying and cleansing this booke hath treated to c.15."
93
The content
of
this section depends very much on what each chapter
contains. The list
of
laws in Lev ch
18
are succinctly categorised as laws concerning
sanctity towards God and man, in contrast to the previous chapter which concerns
sanctity which aman 'should have in himselfe'.94 Narrative is summarised
92 Willet, Synopsis Papismi, 10.
93 Willet and Smith, Hexapla Leviticum, 366.
45
differently,
as
with the death
of
Nadab and Abihu in Lev ch
10.
There Willet
summarises the events themselves and sets them in the context
of
the laws
transgressed.
Willet gives running, contextually sensitive exegesis, dealing with the
text
as
it is, rather than imposing on
it.
The Questions Discussed
This is the longest part
of
Willet's Commentaries. This section on the
burnt offering in chapter
1,
for example, contains the following
17
questions 95:
1.
Of
the place from whence the Lord spoke to Moses, and the name
thereof
2.
Of
the differences betweene the giving
of
the Morall Law and
these Ceremonial Laws
3.
Why the Lord commanded the Sacrifices to be
of
Beastes, Sheepe,
or Goates, and not any other
4.
Why no fishes were commanded to be sacrificed
5.
Of
the divers kinds
of
sacrifices
v.3
6.
Of
the spiritual meaning
of
the Sacrifices
of
Bullockes, Sheepe,
Goates v.4
7.
Of
the qualities and properties required in the Sacrifices
of
Bullockes, Sheepe, Goates
94 Ibid., 450.
95 Ibid., 15-23.
46
8.
Why the sacrifice was to be brought to the door
of
the Tabernacle
9.
Why they are commanded to lay their hand upon the head
of
the
Holocaust
10.
Of
the Priestes duty about the Holocaust
11.
Of
the sprinkling
of
the blood round about the Altar v.5
12.
Of
the flaying
off
the Skinne v.6
13.
Of
the dividing
of
the parts
of
the burnt offering, and
of
the
ordering
of
them v.8
14.
Why the burnt offering
of
the Sheep
of
Goates was to bee killed
on the North side
of
the Altar.
15.
Of
other Rites and Ceremonies, belonging to the sacrifices
of
beasts, observed
by
the Hebrewes.
16.
Whether the high Priest onely was to offer Sacrifices, or the
inferior Priests likewise.
17.
Of
the burnt offering
of
Birds, and the rites thereunto belonging
v14.
Some questions are purely exegetical, as in question 1where the
location where Moses gave his instruction is discussed. There are also speculative
questions which serve the purpose
of
clarifying what the text actually says. Question
4on why no fish were commanded to be sacrificed is agood example: Willet sees
that fish were not as easy to obtain, being hidden in the water. Furthermore, they also
died when taken out the water, and dead animals could not be killed again in
sacrifice. Other questions are contextual, such as question 2where the location,
manner, time and audience
of
the giving
of
each type
of
law serve to distinguish
them. Other questions focus more on meaning and application, such as question 6on
47
the spiritual meaning
of
the sacrifices. Here Willet begins
by
discounting the
allegorical approach
ofthe
5th century theologian Hesychius
of
Jerusalem. Hesychius
is quoted, who bases his approach on the apostle Paul's use
of
allegory in Galatians
chapter 4. Willet disagrees: "we must bee sure we have the Apostles' Spirit before
we may take the like libertie in framing Allegories." 96 Instead Willet argues that we
are on safe ground by arguing that there is more than just what is literally expressed:
all the sacrifices prefigure Christ's sacrifice. In other commentaries, the question
section can run much longer. Romans
1,
for example generates no less than 77
questions. 97
All the questions arise from the text itself, rather than from any prior
dogma or theological framework. In this sense, we see Protest exegesis
par
excellence, not allowing any doctrinal considerations to smother exposure to the text
itself. Doctrine and dogma are shaped by the text, rather than vice versa.
Doctrines Noted
It
is
only at this stage that Willet considers doctrine. In this section
Willet summarises the main teaching
of
the chapter. Muller notes that he follows
here the 'locus' method
of
exegesis as found in the works
of
earlier Reformed
96 Ibid.,
18.
97 Andrew Willet, Hexapla: That
Is,
aSix-Fold Commentarie Upon the Most Divine Epistle
Of
S.
Paul
to
the Romans (Cambridge: Cantrell Legge, 1611),86.
48
theologians like Bucer, Musculus and Zanci. Muller writes that this section contains
'positive theological statement'.98
Leviticus ch 13, for example, contains laws on infectious skin diseases
and mildew. Willet sees 5doctrines flowing from the chapter:
1.
Of
the necessitie, and moderation
of
discipline in the Church.
2.
That the Discipline
of
the Church be advisedly exercised, not
rashly precipitated.
3.
Of
the wholesome power left to the Church,
of
binding and
loosing, and
of
obedience to be given there unto.
4.
The Law declareth men their sinnes, but healeth not.
5.
Of
the diversitie
of
censures in the Church
The first three sections
of
the Hexapla focus entirely on the
text itself. In this fourth section Willet looks more broadly. Some
of
Willet's
doctrines arise solely from the text in question. Other doctrines really serve
to define and refine doctrines that arise more obviously from other texts.
Willet's doctrines above concerning discipline are indeed better proved from
New Testament passages on the same subject, such
as
Mat ch
18.
But Lev
ch
13
confirms and defines the doctrines more precisely. Yet the important
point to see
is
that these doctrines arise from other parts
of
Scripture, rather
than dogma.
98 Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development
of
Reformed
Orthodoxy,
Ca.
1520
to
Ca.
1725,515.
49
Places
of
Confutation
This section deals with issues
of
theological dispute relating to the
main doctrinal points that Willet has already noted. Willet frequently uses this
section to challenge the papacy and any teaching contrary to the doctrine
of
the
Church
of
England. But his opponents are many and various: he includes Manichees,
Nestorians, Jews and Ubiquitarians, and early church fathers.
Moral Uses Observed
This final section applies the passage in question to the life
of
the
reader.
It
is however, far from an individualistic application. The entire world
of
the
reader, both past and present is brought under the scrutiny
of
Scripture. In this
section on ch 19, for example, Willet writes asection
entitled'
Against Lying'.
Giving source references for every assertion, he notes how the Egyptians
of
Moses'
day were cornmon liars, Artaxerxes made alaw that the tongue
of
aliar should be
pierced, that among the Indians the person thrice convicted
of
lying were told forever
to remain silent, that Epaminodas so hated lying that he would not use it in
jest
and
concludes with astory from Hierome (Jerome) about awoman in an adultery trial
who chose rather to die than tell alie.
It
is remarkable how widely read Willet was
when it carne to application, as well as exegesis.
50
We shall now sharpen the focus
of
our enquiry on just one chapter in
Willet's commentary to give us the opportunity to reflect more critically on Willet's
hermeneutical method.
51
CHAPTER 6
CASE STUDY FROM LEVITICUS CHAYfER7
Arguments, Contents
and
Parts
Willet begins with 'Arguments, Contents, and Parts' and explains the
structure
of
the chapter: first, the rites
of
certain sacrifices are set down to v35, and
then in the four last verses there is aconclusion for the whole section
of
chs
1-7
which is about sacrifices. The prescriptions for each sacrifice are laid out and what is
common and what is unique is noted, such as the regulation that the fellowship
offering is to be presented with the offerer's own hands and not the priest's (v30). In
this section, then, Willet gives us the bird's eye view
of
the chapter and begins to
focus in on some
of
the detail. This shows that it is the chapter itself and not any
prior dogmatic considerations that govern the exegesis that follows.
Prior to the Reformation, less consideration was given to context,
because
of
the practice
of
allegory which did not require any consideration
of
context at all. From the Reformation onwards, the 'original sense' was located by a
careful examination
of
textual context as seen by Willet in what follows.
The Diverse Readings
Right at ground level, his next section on 'The divers Readings' shows
where the Latin Vulgate and the Doway translation- in
16
of
the chapter's 38 verses
52
either leave phrases out or changes them. Here is an example: in the Latin and
Doway translation v 8 reads: "Shall have the skinne
thereof'
But looking at the
originals, Willet instead finds: "Shall have the skinne
of
the burnt offering which he
hath offered."
The Questions Discussed
We
have already seen how Willet laid the groundwork for his exegesis by
establishing the authentic text to work on. The 'Questions discussed' section
of
the
Hexapla then becomes the seed-bed for Willet's theology, and this section occupies
by far the most space
of
all
of
the six sections. Here we see very clearly how the text
itselfgoverned and shaped his theology. The section for Lev 7contains aweighty
twenty-five questions, most
of
which we will now consider. They are grouped
together to present more clearly the case against Willet being amere dogmatician.
Questions That Show the Text
of
Scripture
Itself
Governing Exegesis
Question
9:
Whether the offering for thanksgiving, for avow, and afree offering,
were three kindes, or onely two. ver
16
99
Here is adetailed question that arises out
of
the text. The way that
Willet deals with it demonstrates clearly where his answer comes from. Some other
99 The questions are quoted
as
they appear
in
the Willet's original edition.
53
commentators, Willet notes, merged the votive and free will offerings into one. But
Willet does not allow this on the basis
of
the meaning
of
the Hebrew words
themselves.
"p
(nder),
means
a
vow
and
il~l~
(ndabah) means afree offering,
and the Hebrew disjunctive
iN
(or) between them shows that they were distinct. The
meaning also shows adifference- what one vows he is tied to, but what is done
freely is without any such bond.
The three kinds can thus be distinguished: the thanksgiving was for
some special benefit received, such as health, victory over enemies or for procreation
of
children. The votive offering was the performance
of
some vow made. The
voluntary was
of
mere devotion, when one was not tied. Concerning the latter two he
writes: "these two are distinguished from the first, the Hebrew conjunction sheweth,
veath, but if, and that they differ the one from the other, the disjunctive particle
sheweth, as is said before: hereunto agreeth Junius, who makes them three kinds in
analys." 100 Thus the Hebrew words themselves decide Willet's answer to this
question.
Question
19:
Why it is said, The sacrifice
of
Peace offerings, v.29
When we think upon what the peace offering actually was- the gift
of
cakes, or the like, in what sense was it asacrifice? Pellican notes that though there
were three Hebrew words used for sacrifice:
n~!
(sacrifice),
i~li?
(oblation)
and
100 Willet and Smith, Hexapla Leviticum, 110.
54
ilQ~Q
(gift), here they were being confounded, and that beside the sacrifice in their
peace offerings, they were to bring other gifts and oblations. Willet thinks that here
they are being distinguished, although they are usually confounded. Whereas before
peace offerings referred
just
to things without life, here it included the sacrifice
of
living creatures,
n~!
(sacrifice)
and
lfli?
(oblation). In other words, apeace
offering could be made with what was needed for any other sacrifice. The use
of
these Hebrew words is intriguing:
N'Ii.-:
i11il'l7
1'1t?7'P
n~rn~
:J'I~i?QiJ
i~N?
'~l~:
wr'~
i?1
:W~7'P
n~:lQ
ilyi'l7
i~fli?-n~
Speak to the sons
of
Israel, saying: the one who is bringing near the
sacrifice
of
his peace-offerings to the LORD does bring in his offering
Clflm
to the LORD from the sacrifice
(n~!)
of
his peace-offerings
(ilnJo).101
T : •
Willet's view makes sense
of
the way these words appear in the Hebrew. There
seems to be flexibility in what sacrifice is offered.
Question 21:
Of
the Shake offering, and Heave offering, the manner and meaning
thereof, vers.34
101
WTT Hebrew text from BibleWorks 9, with my own English translation.
55
Origen, following the Septuagint, reads
CTTYj6uv!ov
(breast) as "putting
to, applying it to the putting to
of
the grace
of
the Spirit
of
God, to him that is truly
contrite." 102, and shoulder in asimilarly mystical way. These fanciful interpretations
are avoided by the plain sense
of
the Hebrew words which refer to agitation or
shaking, and elevating or lifting up. Those who think that such lifting up justifies the
performing the sign
of
the cross do not get the true sense
of
the action either- the
action (strictly speaking two actions, according to Willet) looked very different from
the Catholic practice.
The questions above illustrate how Willet's theological foundation was the text
of
Scripture itself. He counters other views not because they are disagreeable to his
theological framework, but because they contradict the meaning
of
the Hebrew
words themselves.
Questions That Show the Context
of
Scripture Governing Exegetical Conclusions
If
Willet's exegesis is built merely on the meaning
of
the Hebrew words in
the verse in front
of
him, there may well be room for his own views to assume
hidden importance. He could argue that aHebrew word means one thing
just
because
it does. Yet we see in this next group
of
questions how the context
of
Scripture
governed his exegetical conclusions:
102 Willet and Smith, Hexapla Leviticum, 116.
56
Question 3:
"How
there was one Law both for the sinne-offering, and trespasse
offering."
When
v7
states that the same law applies to both the sin offering and the guilt
offering, what is meant? Vatable and Genenens thought that this meant that they
were the same in rite and ceremony. Willet states that the phrase must be understood
only in its context, looking at the clause after it. The sacrifices are the same in this
respect: the priest was to have the remainder
of
both sacrifices.
Question
5:
Which were the dry Meate- offerings, verse 10
There is apeculiar distinction in grain offerings- one that was mixed
with oil, or dry. Willet rejects Glossa Interlinear's interpretation these were different
offerings for rich and poor on the basis
of
2:5 where the usual offering for all was to
be mixed with oil. Instead the offering made without oil is to show that sin is to be
mourned for, referring to
5:
11.
Question
13:
What it is, to be cut offfrom his people, v.20
Willet shows empathy towards those such as Bergens who objected
that aman could be sentenced to death for seemingly small offences. Also, how
could aman gathering sticks upon the Sabbath be sentenced to death (Num 15:32
[not v38, as in Willet]), when another who willingly ate leavened bread at the time
57
of
the Passover (Ex
12:
19)
was only cut offfrom his people? Here we see Willet's
Biblical harmonisation at work. Responding to Bergens' objection, Willet swiftly
responds with two distinctions from the wider context
of
Scripture: first, that the
man breaking the Sabbath was not sentenced by that law. Moses consulted with God
on this specific case and God gave the death penalty.
In
other words, it was case law
not statute law.
If
the law had been clear on this matter, there would have been no
reason to consult with God. What is more, breaking the Sabbath was abreach
of
a
moral, rather than aceremonial commandment, and therefore it was agreater
offence.
Some like Vatable think 'cut
off
means only being separated from the
earthly, visible congregation. Willet understands the phrase more starkly: to him it
concerns the judgement
of
God and not man.
It
is being left to divine judgement
which may involve sudden physical death, but can also refer to God'sjudgement in
the future, as is said in Ps 1:5: "Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation
of
the righteous." The context again determines the
more serious interpretation. At the end
of
v
18
"he who eats
of
it shall bear his
iniquity".
Question
14:
Of
the difference between the generall kinds
of
uncleannesse specified,
chap. 7.21 and these, chap. 5.2,3
Here again Willet finds in the context distinctions that are to be made.
The similarities are first noted: both agree materially, that mention is made
of
58
uncleanness which comes by touching any unclean thing. Then come his
distinctions: first in manner, secondly, in use and practice and thirdly, in the event.
For the kind
of
uncleanness in chapter 5, sacrifice is appointed, but here in ch 7he is
to be cut off,
as
with all others sinning presumptuously. Willet quotes Num
11
:30,
which should presumably be Num 15:30, which reads:
"But the person who does anything with ahigh hand, whether he is
native or asojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut
off
from among his people."
Question 25:
Of
the place and time, when and where these Laws concerning the
sacrifices where given, v.38
Lev
1:
Igives Willet asimple answer here but it is fleshed out with a
reference to Jer7:22 where burnt offerings and sacrifices are named. These Laws
were given to the people
of
God in the wilderness itself.
So we have seen how Willet follows the regular method
of
letting
Scripture interpret Scripture. The wider contexts
of
Leviticus, the Pentatech, the
Old Testament, and Scripture as awhole gave him all that was needed for sound
exegesis. There was no importing
of
prior dogma, as we shall now see in the next
group
of
questions.
59
Examples
of
the Avoidance
of
Eisegesis in Favour
of
Exegesis
Because Willet spends so much time interacting with historical commentators, we
have the opportunity to see how carefully he avoids reading into the text
of
Scripture
interpretations that are not there. To use his words from question
15,
we must seeks
what Scripture 'willeth' rather than what we 'thinketh
'.
We shall discuss more on
Willet's approach to allegory when we reach the first
of
his confutations.
Question
7:
How it was lawful to offer leavened cakes v.13
Why was it lawful to offer leavened cakes when in ch 2 v
11
it was
forbidden to offer any leaven in sacrifices? Origen sees aspiritual sense for leaven:
human doctrine, which is to be avoided. Yet secular learning such
as
grammar,
rhetoric and logic could be
of
use. Willet does not need to seek out 'any such
mysticall sense'. Leaven was not allowed to be burnt upon the altar. That was a
universal prohibition. But it was allowed to be offered for the Ministers later to eat.
Question
10:
Why in avotive oblation, that which remained might bee eaten the next
day, not so in the Eucharisticke offering.
Hesychius, in his preface to Leviticus gave this difference
as
an
example to prove that the book must be interpreted with a'higher' understanding.
60
Without this, it would be contradictory:
if
it was evil to have anything left the next
day that must apply in every case. Instead, Hesychius opts for amystical sense: the
present day stands for this life, and the next for the resurrection. Willet opts for a
more practical solution. The command not to eat yesterday's flesh was because it
would putrefy in such hot conditions.
It
was also to be shared with the poor rather
than stored up for the future. But this prohibition was not general, as can be proved
by what the Israelites would eat in their Sabbath year. Also, our Lord Jesus
compared the kingdom
of
heaven to awise householder who brings out
of
his
treasure house old as well as new. Along the way, Willet warns that "these mysticall
applications are very improper and impertinent."103
Question
15:
What fat was forbidden to be eaten
Augustine is mentioned, who reports that the Jews took Leviticus
3:
17
to mean that all fat whatsoever should not be eaten. Yet Willet follows Augustine in
letting Scripture interpret Scripture. Here in Lev 7:22 only 3kinds
of
animal are
referred to whose fat is not to be eaten: cattle, sheep and goats. Quoting Augustine
against the Jewish interpretation: "we must seeke what the Scripture willeth, not
what they thinke."lo4 The fat
of
the deer or roebuck could indeed be eaten and
enjoyed.
103 Ibid
..
,111.
104
Ibid., 114.
61
Question
23:
Why it
is
said, v.35, This is the annoynting
of
Aaron
It
does indeed seem to be apeculiar way
to
start the verse, one that has
been obscured by most modem English translations. Origen's spiritual sense,
Hesychius' mystical sense, and another sense from Lyra are all quoted before Willet
offers 'the better sense'. The phrase 'this is the anointing' means 'this is what
is
due
by reason
of
their anointing',in the same way that people were accustomed when
speaking
of
things due to the King as 'this is the crowne
of
the King'. Yet Willet is
not yet satisfied. The full sense is not made unless some word is supplied to
understand v36 with it. Calvin points to the fuller sense: the reason why it was
Aaron's portion was because they were anointed
of
God to draw near to the altar.
Examples
of
Christology Governing Willet's Overall Exegesis
We have already seen how Calvin and Luther approached Christ in the Old
Testament in different ways. Here Willet is less like Calvin's Theocentrism and
more like Luther's Christocentrism in the straight line he draws
to
Christ. Willet's
Christology,
as
we have seen already,
is
driven
by
letting other parts
of
Scripture
interpret the text rather than by any prior dogma:
Question
2:
"Of
the place, where they should kill the Trespasse offering, verse 2"
62
Willet concurs with Osiander that there is atypological reference to
Christ, who suffered outside the gate
of
Jerusalem just as the trespass/guilt offering
was made at the door
of
the tabernacle. Like Ainsworth, Willet finds references to
Christ in all manner
of
places in Leviticus, and this is an example
of
one which is
less obvious.
Willet categorises the distinctions and similarities between offerings:
all sin and guilt offerings were to be offered in the same place, except for the sin
offerings for the Priest and Congregation which were burned outside the camp (in
4:
12
and 21). Further clarification is given in stating that the altar in verse 2must
refer to the altar
of
burnt offering, not the altar
of
incense. This is because any
offering made at the altar
of
incense was not to be eaten (6:30). Here in verse 2the
priest was allowed to eat it.
Question
16:
Why the eating
of
the fat was forbidden
This question shows us the care that Willet made not to jump to Christ
without clear exegetical reasons.
In
this case Willet avoids aChristological
interpretation made by Origen. Why is fat singled out? Origen's mystical reason is
first stated and rejected: by the fat Origen understood the faithful for whom Christ
died, that ought not to be scandalised or offended. Another spiritualised meaning is
quoted from the Glossa Interlinear that the fat refers to the fatness
of
our soul, which
should be wholly offered unto God. Willet prefers one moral reason and two civil
63
reasons. Morally, prohibition on fat may be to teach Christians that they should not
be exquisite in their diet, or given to seek delicate meats, signified by the fat
(following Pellican). The civil reasons may be that it was to make the Jews unlike
the Gentiles, who did eat
of
the fat
of
their sacrifices, and also for the reverence
of
holy things, that they should abstain from those things which were holy, and
consecrated to God.
Question
18:
Why they were forbidden to eat blood
Willet sees that the reserving
of
the blood for expiation was afigure
of
the blood
of
Christ. Typology, rather than allegory, governs his conclusion.
Question 22: Why the Breast and right Shoulder were set apart for the Priest.
Again, Origen is given much attention here, as well as Jerome, though
interestingly here, spiritual interpretations are quoted without much disapproval.
Willet argues that the breast signifies wisdom and the right arm showing strength
and power referring to Christ. Where is this from? 1Cor 1:24 is quoted, where Christ
is described as the wisdom and power
of
God.
64
Examples
of
Willet's Wide Interaction with Historical Commentators
We have already seen that the text
of
Scripture itselfgoverned Willet's
exegesis. This, however, did not make him an isolationist with regard to other
commentators before and around him. Sola Scriptum did not mean that he was alone
in his task. The widest variety
of
commentators are brought into his discussions, as
we shall now see:
Question I:
"Of
the difference betweene sinne offerings, and the trespasse offering"
Willet begins by asking what the difference is between the sin offering and the
trespass (guilt) offering as found in verse
7.
The words for each are then quoted:
Hebrew
nN\;>n
T -
OWN
T T
Willet's Hebrew transliteration, Greek, Latin and English
translation
chataih,
Ct!Lap'rla,
peccatum, sin
asham,
7rAY}!L!LEA€la,
delictum, trespass
65
Difference considered
between
nNtm
and
OWN
Willet's response
T - T T
1.
Pellican and Vatable
lu
,see it as one
of
This is too general to make exegetical
degree- the one being greater, the other sense.
less
2.
Some such as Osiander
lUtl
think that
"to be adelictum, atrespasse, some
mulct (or compensatory payment) is
imposed, and that is asin when no such
thing was added.
3.Hesychius
lUI
makes atrespass as
something committed particularly
against God
But this would make atrespass greater
than asin.
By doing this he aggravates atrespasse,
as though it were greater than asin.
4. Some like Origen and Lyra
lUll
take the But even the committing
of
an evil thing
trespass to concern omission- failing to is called atrespass, as can be seen in
do what we ought to do and sin to
be
5: 16- the taking away
of
holy things.
commission- doing what we ought not to
105 Conrad Pellican (or Kiirscherer) lived from 1478-1556 in Germany and wrote awhole
Bible commentary, Commentaria Bibliorum. Francois Vatable was aFrench humanist scholar and
Hebraist who lived from the late
15
th century until 1547.
106 Andreas Osiander lived from 1498-1552 and was aGerman Lutheran theologian.
107 Hesychius was aJerusalem monk who died
in
455.His complete Latin commentary,
Patrologia Graeca, was hugely significant and was the foundation
of
the Glossa Ordinaria, which,
according to Elliot, became the foundation
of
most Western Latin interpretations
of
Leviticus. See M
Elliot, Engaging Leviticus: Reading Leviticus Theologically with Its Past Interpreters (Eugene: Wipf
and Stock, 2012), xxiv.
108 See previously for Origen's biography. Nicholas
of
Lyra lived from 1270-1349 and was
best known for his Postilla super totam bibliam.
66
do.
5.Some like CaietanlU'J saw the difference This makes the trespass greater than then
this: in the trespass offering Moses sin. This difference in any case
doesn't
valued the beast and in the sin offering hold because in
5:
18
no valuation is set.
Moses
didn't
6. Philo
IIU
sees the former as willingly See below
done the latter done in ignorance,
Hierome
III
sees the first in deed and the
second in thought and Lorinus
112
as
ignorance
of
the fact and ignorance
of
the
right.
Willet instead claims that trespasses are sins
of
infirmity
or
weakness
and he finds his exegetical answers here with the New Testament. He notes that the
actual word used in the Septuagint translation
of
Lev 7:7,
7rAYjILILD
..
ElCl,
is not used in
the New Testament at all, though another word for trespass is:
7rClP,t7rrwILCl.
When it
is used in Gal
6:
1,
Paul writes
of
someone being overtaken in trespass. Willet
observes here:
"he
meaneth such as fall
of
infirmitie,
or
weaknesse.,,113
109 Thomas Caietan (or Cajetan) lived from 1469-1534 and was an Italian theologian and
cardinal best known for his opposition to the teachings
of
Martin Luther and the Reformation
as
a
whole while he was the Pope's Legate
in
Wittenberg.
110 Philo was aHellenestic Jewish philosopher and theologian who lived from c20BC to
50AD. He is best known for his allegorical exegesis.
III
Hierome, better known as Jerome, lived from c.347-420. He translated the Bible into
Latin (the Vulgate) and wrote polemical letters and treatises, as well as commentaries
on
various
books
of
Scripture.
112 Joannes Lorinus lived from 1559-1634 and was aFrench Jesuit, born at Avignon.
113 Willet and Smith, Hexapla Leviticum, 106.
67
He then notes how closely related the two words are. In Eph chapter
2:
1and 2:5, sin
and
71'ctpct-lT'rwfLct
are taken to be the same: "And you were dead in the trespasses and
sins" and
"Even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with
Christ." 114
Then in conclusion to this question Willet writes:
But it is apparent, that they are distinguished here, because they are generally
handled, as in the former four and five Chapters, mention was made
of
sinnes,
so here
of
trespasses; and it is directly sayd,
verso
7
As
ther sinne offering; so
the trespasse offering; which showeth that they were divers; but because the
difference is not great, neither is there any great diversitie in the ceremonies
and rites
of
the sacrifices for both. 115
As we can see, in less than one page
of
his commentary, Willet was able to
summarise the arguments
of
major interpreters. The great variety
of
names is striking
in aperiod which is seen by some to be governed simply by prior dogmatic concerns
of
the writer. Yet not all major interpreters are mentioned here, and Augustine is an
important example. Augustine, for example, wrote in Quaestiones
in
Heptateuchum
that though the difference between peccatum and delictum is only slight, perhaps the
former is pursuing evil while the latter is lacking good, just as David in Ps 37:27
urges his hearer to turn from evil and do good. After all, he notes, delictum does
sound like derelictum, which
is
negligent omission. 116 Willet quotes Lyra and
Origen instead who followed Augustine's view, so perhaps Willet felt that he did not
114
ESV translation, which will be the English translation used in the rest
of
this dissertation.
115
Willet and Smith, Hexapla Leviticum, 106.
116 Quoted
in
Elliot, Engaging Leviticus, xxiv.
68
need to mention such an obvious interpreter
by
name, where the same doctrine was
espoused by later interpreters.
Question
8:
Whether one cake in all, or one
of
every kind, were to
be
offered for an
leave- offering. ver.14
Not
only is Willet's attention to detail here impressive, he also quotes
the views
of
no less than 6other commentators, opting for the view that only one
kind
of
cake needed to
be
offered to the priest.
Question 11:
Why
it is sayd, the sacrifice shall not be reckoned,
or
imputed to him,
vI8
Here Willet draws out apuzzle from the text. When the meat
of
the
fellowship offering is eaten on the third day, against the law, what does it mean in
Lev 7:
18
that
"he
who offers it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to
him. It is tainted, and he who eats
of
it shall bear his iniquity"? Quoting Iunius117,
Caietan, Vatable and Genenens approvingly along the way, Willet sees adouble
punishment in this verse.
Not
only does the sacrifice become
'lost
labour', a
worthless exercise, the offerer also continues to bear his own iniquity. This penalty
117 Franciscus Junius lived from 1545-1602 and was aReformed theologian who studied in
Geneva under Calvin and Beza and ministered in Antwerp and later became Professor
of
Theology
in
Heidelberg. His De Vera Theologia was at the time astandard text
in
Reformed theology.
69
came upon the offerer because it was by his own negligence that the flesh remained
to the third day and was not burnt up,
as
Caietan states.
Willet also draws attention an interesting theological point raised
by
the Hebrews (Jews). They note that, though the flesh might remain after it should be
eaten, the oblation
of
the sacrifice is nevertheless favourably accepted after the blood
is sprinkled because
of
Lev
17: 11:
"For the life
of
the flesh is in the blood, and I
have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood
that makes atonement by the life."
This makes good sense in seeing the efficacy
of
the atonement being in
the blood. But there is still verse
18
to deal with, which states that the benefit an
offering can be 'undone' by it not being performed correctly.
The Hebrews have another point about sacrifices, which Willet calls
"Idle conceits
of
the polluting
of
sacrifices by thought and purpose." 118
If
the offerer
mistook the name
of
the sacrifice when offering it, or made amistake in precisely
where the blood was sprinkled, then it would be polluted and unacceptable. Willet
argues that this rabbinical concept
of
the purpose
of
the priest is similar to the
Catholic doctrine
of
the priest's intention being highly significant.
Ifhe
has bad
intentions when saying Mass, the offering is marred. Quoting Psalm 5:7 and 1
Corinthians
11
:28 Willet corrects this view to note that the efficacy
of
the sacrifice
lay in the good intention
of
the offerer not the Minister, as seen in the
Lord's
Supper
where its virtue is in the 'faith and examination
ofthe
receiver', as found in Articles
25 and 28
of
the 39 Articles
of
the Church
of
England.
118 Willet and Smith, Hexapla Leviticum,
Ill.
70
Question
12:
Of
three kinds
of
uncleannesse, or impuritie, to be taken heed
of
in the
Peace offerings
Here Willet is dealing with the section in verses 19-21 on uncleanness.
The general rule was that meat from the peace/ fellowship offering could be eaten by
anyone ceremonially clean.
If
the meat touched anything ceremonially unclean,
however, then it was to be burned up.
In v21, there are 3kinds
of
touch that could make someone unfit to eat
the meat: with an unclean human, an unclean beast or any unclean detestable
creature.
Willet leaves the detail
of
how the uncleanness might come about for a
later discussion on ch
11
and following. Origen, and Pellican following him, is
quoted without judgement this time as one who moralises the three kinds
of
impurity. For example, as the sacrifice was unclean
if
it touched any unclean thing,
so the doctrine
of
the church is corrupted with heresy.
The reason for the burning
of
unclean meat is to Willet again a
practical one:
if
not burned up, they would stink and putrefy or be cast to dogs
or
other creatures which was inconvenient.
Willet was not so simplistic to think that with the Bible alone, the Holy
Spirit alone, and him on his own, he could exegete the Scriptures faithfully. Other
commentators are considered and rejected not because
of
their background, pedigree,
age or dogma, but because
of
what they bring to the text in question. Unlike Luther,
even Origen is not rejected outright. Willet avoids fallacies such as
ad
hominem, the
71
genetic fallacy and the part to whole fallacy, and instead considers the merits
of
each
argument from each commentator about each verse in question.
Reflections on the Questions Section
This questions section shows us
just
how extensive Willet's method
was, and how his theology rose up from the text.
It
may not be too strong to argue
that no other commentary on Leviticus in the history
of
the church has dealt with so
many questions.
We
have already seen how Ainsworth's approach was shorter. A
generation later, Matthew Poole published his famous Annotations upon the Holy
Bible in 1683.119 This work was frequently reprinted right into the twentieth century,
which shows its popularity in the church.120 He gives just 4columns spread over 3
pages to Lev
7.
No Christian commentator since Willet has taken such great care to
prosecute the text with so many questions that the reader cannot think
of
more to ask.
At times it can fee1like Willet uses ablunderbuss to fire his questions at the text: the
shot falls in the most unlikely places. Yet his hard work here makes his next section
on places
of
doctrine feel more like shots from arifle: they are clear, and brief, and
all from the text he has just considered.
The categorisation
ofthe
questions also reveal Willet's method here.
The text, its context, the Christological context and interaction with historical
exegesis reveal that Willet was no mere dogmatician.
If
there was no 'Questions'
section in Willet's Commentary, then our argument promoting his exegetical rather
119
Matthew Poole, Annotations Upon the Holy Bible (London: John Richardson, 1683)
120 Nicholas Keene, "Poole, Matthew (1624?-1679)" in Oxford Dictionary
of
National
Biography (2004), accessed 22 September 2014, http://www.oxforddnb.com.
72
than eisegetical method
may
well be weakened. Yet even in the 'Doctrines' section,
Willet labours to show that his doctrines arise from Sola Scriptura as we shall now
discover.
Places
of
Doctrine
Here we shall consider all
of
Willet's doctrinal conclusions, and consider
each in turn.
Doctrine
1:
Christ's blood asufficient satisfaction for all sinnes
Willet articulates the most obvious application first, focusing
of
Leviticus
7:
1:
by the trespass offering, as
by
the sin offering "was signified the
sprinkling
of
Christ's
blood.,,121
More specifically, this chapter shows that Christ's
sacrifice was sufficient for the remission
of
all sins, as is mentioned in 1John 1:7. In
this section one
or
two key New Testament references are placed separately in the
margin to aid proper interpretation. Here he lets Scripture interpret Scripture to
formulate doctrine. Willet continues to interact with theologians before him, this
time with Ambrose's devotional thoughts, translating him into English:
"If
thou
wilet
be
healed, he is aphysician;
if
thou burnest with diseases, he is afountain to
121
Willet and Smith, Hexapla Leviticum, 118.
73
refresh thee;
if
thou are loaden with iniquity, he is righteousnesse,
if
thou feareth
death, he is
life.,,122
Doctrine
2:
that the Ministers are to be maintained
Here Willet focuses on v.9 which states that every meat (grain)
offering belongs to the priest. Those that served at the altar should be partakers with
the altar as well. As Origen states: unless people give oil, the lamp will go out in the
temple. Willet adds that where maintenance is wanting, the ministry
of
the word will
fail. Willet's single
New
Testament reference in the margin is 1Cor
9:
14: that those
who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
Willet was comfortable to apply the teaching on the Levitical
priesthood to ministers today. Indeed, this whole commentary on Leviticus is
dedicated "to the whole church
of
England, especially to the holy tribe
of
Levi, the
Reverend clergy thereof.,,123
Doctrine
3:
Ministers maintenance not due to them that labour not
The previous doctrinal comment is then qualified by Willet's narrow
interpretation
of
which priest was to eat
of
the sacrifice made. As it was only the
122 Ibid., 118.
123 Ibid., second title page.
74
priest that offered the sacrifice who should benefit from it, so only the Minister who
labours is worthy
of
the reward due for labour. 2Thess
3:
10 is the marginal
reference which states that
if
aman shall not work, he shall not eat. Pelargius and
Gregory are quoted as supporters
of
this doctrine.
Doctrine
4:
That our spiritual sacrifices are imperfect
In v
12
provision is made for thanksgiving offerings that are without
yeast. Noting how the LORD allows this (presumably because unleavened cakes
were imperfect, quicker, and had something obvious missing), Willet sees that
"God
beareth with our infirmities in our prayers, and covereth them with the worthinesse
of
his Sonne and his righteousnesse.,,124 This is applied through Paul's teaching on
prayer in
Rom
8:26 where, even though
we
do not know how to pray as we should,
the Spirit helps us in our weakness.
Doctrine
5:
Of
the use
of
humane artes in Christian religion
Here the doctrine is alittle harder to read. In v13, cakes with yeast
could be presented to support the priest who made the offerings. They were not
themselves offerings, they were to keep the priest well fed. Here is Willet's logic:
just
as yeast could not be used in any sacrifice, but was allowable to support a
124
Ibid., 119.
75
minister, so the human arts
of
grammar, logic and rhetoric were
not
to
be
the source
of
doctrine, but could be decently used
by
the Minister.
'Congruity
of
speech',
'ornament
of
eloquence'
and
'skill
in
disputing' were useful tools for a
Minister's
profit. Origen argued this point from the Apostle
Paul's
example
of
quoting the
heathen. Augustine argued this from the life
of
Israel:
just
as the Israelites borrowed
jewels
and vessels
of
gold and silver from the Egyptians, so the profitable inventions
of
the heathen
"may
be challenged to our use, and taken from them, as unjust
possessors."125
As with doctrine 4, here Willet is eager to demonstrate the usefulness
of
Leviticus to the church.
Yet
it is
hard
to see
how
this point
on
the use
of
'human
artes' comes out
of
the
text
itself.
The
wisdom
and treasure
of
the Egyptian
appropriated
by
the
Israelites mentioned in Exodus and Acts 7:22
would
be abetter
place to go. One could even argue against this point that Willet makes
by
quoting the
Apostle
Paul's
opposition to mere human wisdom in 1
Cor
ch
1.
Doctrine
6:
The
prayer
of
the wicked turned into sinne
In v18,
the
person
who
ate any part
ofthe
sacrifice on the third day
was counted as impure, and bore his
own
sin. This provides the foundation
of
Willet's
doctrine
that
the
things ordained for
man's
comfort
can
hurt
him
like poison
if
his heart is corrupted. Origen is quoted approvinglyto make this point.
We
have
already
seen
Willet's
caution with regard to allegory- the 'mystical sense' is
not
the
125 Ibid., 117.
76
basis for faithful exegesis. Yet Willet finds himself at ease, sometimes in surprising
ways, with this approach.
Doctrine
7:
Human inventions not to be brought into the service
of
God
In the ESV v37 begins the conclusion
of
the chapter with the following
clause: "This is the law
of
the burnt offering." This verse shows to Willet that the
instructions come from God. Calvin's explanation is quoted: this laying down
ofthe
law was to prove to the people
of
God that they should not follow their own
inventions and corrupt their sacrifices. Moses was warned to make everything
precisely to the pattern received (Heb 8:5). The Apostle Paul also saw himselfonly
as one passing on what he had received from God himself
(1
Cor
11
:23).
Reflections on the Doctrines Section
We have seen then how Willet seeks to bring doctrines out
of
the text rather than lay
doctrines upon them. Even though some doctrines could be better taught from other
parts
of
Scripture, and his application
of
the Levitical priesthood to ministers today
is faulty, Willet's method confounds those who would argue that commentators
of
this period were mere dogmaticians rather than exegetical theologians.
Willet at points is surprisingly allegorical. Calvin and Luther on the whole had
principles against allegory and stuck to them. Willet instead seems to adopt amore
77
intuitive approach to allegory, using it where it seems to fit well, and rejecting it
where it went against the obvious Scriptural meaning.
This next section on places
of
confutation shows how Willet was concerned to purify
the church at large: he wanted in his commentary to reflect upon past errors and
speak to the errors
of
his day.
Places
of
Confutation
Confutation I: That there is but one proper sense
of
Scripture
In Willet's answer to Question
lOwe
have already seen an
unwillingness to accept mystical applications because they are
'improper'
and
'impertinent'. And it is at this first confutation that Origen's whole hermeneutical
method comes under closer scrutiny. Verse 9gives three ways
of
dressing the meat:
oven, gridiron and frying pan. These correspond to a'threefold
way'
of
understanding the divine Scriptures: historical, moral and mystical. Willet writes:
"the
1,
plaine and open, as that which is layd upon the gridiron; the 2. which sape
versando
by
often turning may
be
understood, as that which is tossed and turned into
the frying-panne; and the third more profound, as the oven or furnace, which is the
mysticall.,,126
126 Ibid., 120.
78
This, notes Willet, is similar to the Papists who have athreefold sense:
besides the literal there is the tropological or moral, the allegorical or spiritual, and
anagogical or heavenly. The Doway annotations on Genesis give examples
of
this.
Willet does not deny that Scripture can be applied in various ways, but that is
different from giving the Scriptures 'divers senses' or meanings. The 'proper sense'
of
Scripture is to Willet perpetual and general:
It
is therefore dangerous for men,
of
their owne braine, to picke out in
every place mysticall senses, it belongeth onely to the spirit whereby the
Scriptures were written, to frame allegories and mysteries: the Apostle
saith,
All
Scripture is given by inspiration,
and
is profitable to teach,
to
improve, to correct
and
instruct in righteousnesse, there are the foure
profitable uses
of
Scripture; to devise and frame allegories and mysteries
(where the Spirit intendeth them not)
is
none
of
them.
Before finishing he ends with Ambrose who argued for many meanings in atext.
Willet concludes that though atext may have diverse and varied applications, it
cannot have diverse, different and disparate senses. These comments may help us to
understand the ease with which Willet sometimes makes clear doctrinal points from
seemingly obscure verses. The sense
of
averse is singular, but when put together
with verses in other parts
of
Scripture, it can add weight to doctrines more firmly
made
by
those other verses.
We have already seen in our history
of
interpretation what aturning
point the Reformation was. We saw how Luther reacted sharply to the excess
of
allegories in his day, restricting their use to those already found in Scripture. Calvin
also remarked that Leviticus was useful for the church only as long as it was not used
as the basis for farfetched allegories. Yet Willet's approach to allegory was more
subtle and sensitive to its use in church history.
79
This was not an open door for mystery, however. Here in this first
confutation we discover aprinciple that would help the exegete even in postmodern
times. There are not many meanings
of
Scripture, as
if
the author had no clear
intention in what he was writing. But the applications may be many and varied, as
we will see in Willet's next section.
Confutation
2:
The sacraments not to be reserved
Here Willet targets the Catholic practice
of
reserving the sacrament.
This goes against verse
15
where the meat
of
his thanksgiving offering was to be
eaten on the same day, and, verse
18,
not to be eaten on the third day. This has been
the pattern
of
God's
dealings with his people- the manna was not to be reserved in
the wilderness, and our Lord Jesus Christ's words
of
institution are invitations
presently to receive the bread and wine, not to put them in ahapkin, carry them away
or hang them up. Origen saw this clearly, and referring to him adds weight to
Willet's effort to purify the church by driving out error.
Confutation
3:
Against unwritten traditions
The 'Popish' doctrine allows and indeed authorises unwritten traditions
besides Scripture which they call verbum Dei non Scripturum (the word
of
God not
written). Origen gives the right doctrine from afanciful source. In verse 18- the first
80
two days referred to the Old and New Testaments respectively, and the third day
referred to any extra- Scriptural source for doctrine which was forbidden. Origen's
method is ignored and his application applauded: "what could be more evidently be
spoken against traditions beside the Scripture
of
the Old and
New
Testament?" 127
Confutation
4:
That there is no remission
of
sinnes, or purging
of
the soule after this
life
This is further evidence
of
the time in which Willet lived. The errors
of
the Roman Catholic Church weighed heavily upon him. This life, before the grave,
should be the place where repentance and good fruit be seen. Bellarmine was wrong
to think that the souls which were not fully purged in this life could be cleansed and
purged in purgatory before being received into heaven. Where is this doctrine found
in Leviticus 7? Willet finds it in verse 15- the Israelites were to eat the flesh
of
their
offerings on the same day.
Confutation
5:
Against the works
of
Supererogation
The Papists, according to Willet, claimed that good works could not
only be profitable to the person himself, but also to others. In other words, one may
bear the burden, and discharge the debt
of
another.
127
Ibid., 121.
81
Cleverly, Willet quotes their own Glossa against them, where the notes on verse 30
state: "one mans righteousnesse then cannot helpe an other, onely Christs
righteousnesse is available for others: even for all that beleeve in him." 128
Reflections on the Confutation Section
While Willet begins each chapter by interacting with the broadest
sweep
of
historical interpreters, it is in the confutations that special focus is given to
the errors
of
his day. We have already noted at the beginning that Willet's best
known work is his polemic against Catholicism, Synopsis Papismi. Here we see that,
unlike the caricature
of
this period given by writers such as Hall and Wansborough,
Willet was refuting error on the firm foundation
of
sound exegesis. In other words,
we do not find dogma against dogma.
Moral Observations
Moral
1:
The fatnesse and grossnesse
of
the carnal heart is to be remooved, and
taken away
Just as the fat
of
the kidneys and inner parts were to be burnt up, so we
should remove carnality and grossness from our hearts when we come to offer
128
Ibid., 121.
82
spiritual sacrifices. This is the dullness that makes us unfit to hear anything and learn
any good thing,
just
as Isaiah spoke
of
in Isa
6:
10.
Origen is quoted with approval.
Moral
2:
God requireth the heart
Using similar analogical technique, Willet argues that as the inner parts
were to be offered to God in vv 3and 4, so we should give to God our heart and
inward powers. Cross references is made to Prov 4:21 where the word
is
to be kept
on our hearts and
In
4:24 where Christ states how God is to be worshipped in Spirit
and in truth. Again, Origen is quoted with approval.
It
is striking how often Origen is quoted with approval, even at this late
stage in the process
of
exegesis. Even though we have seen that Luther had little time
for the 'dirt'
ofOrigen's
allegories, Willet used them in moderation. As we have
already seen, he was not alone among Reformers and Puritans. Tyndale, in his
Prologue into the Third Book
of
Moses, approved
of
allegories, similitudes and
examples because they 'opened Christ' in avivid way to the hearer. He wrote:
,Allegories prove nothing; but the very use
of
allegories is to declare and open atext,
that it may be better perceived and understood.'129 Perhaps this is why Willet at
times was at ease with using allegory. No doctrine rested on them: they simply
served to 'open Christ' in Leviticus.
129 Quoted approvingly by Andrew Bonar in Andrew Bonar, ACommentary
on
Leviticus (London:
Banner
of
Truth, 1966), 4.
83
Moral
3:
Against the covetousnesse
of
Ministers and others in heaping up many
livings, and ingrossing tithes, while others are in want
Willet reminds us how in vI0 the meat offerings, whether mixed with
oil or dry, were to be shared equally between all ministers, even though the high
priest and priest had their own special parts and portions. Those who took on more
churches than they could feed with the Word could reap atidy profit and leave their
poor curates on meagre stipends. Those that laboured least could therefore go away
with the greatest profit. Bernard is quoted, giving examples
of
this in his own time.
Moral
4:
To receive the Sacraments reverently and with due preparation
Ceremonial cleanness was essential to eating the peace offering
acceptably.
If
this was not the case, the worshipper was to be cut off. This is applied
by quoting Chrysostom's comments on I
Corll
:29. Holy things cast to dogs do not
sanctify them.
Reflections on the Morals Section
We
have seen that Willet builds his house on the foundation
of
Scripture,
shaping above only on the shape
of
the foundations beneath. Exegesis is aprocess
that begins with the text alone, upon which theology is shaped and moral uses found.
84
CHAPTER 7
WILLET'S PLACE IN
THE
HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION
The Source
of
Doctrine- Sola Scriptura
We have already examined the debate surrounding the period after the
Reformation. Some have tried to argue that this period was more about the defence
of
dogma than serious exegesis. We can see the work
of
Andrew Willet gives strong
evidence to the contrary. His whole hermeneutical system was founded upon careful
attention to the Hebrew and Greek texts, and he was unafraid to oppose those from
his own camp as well as those from outside where interpretation was in error.
Writing about Ainsworth, Muller makes the following comment:
"The study
of
Henry Ainsworth's work as an exegete also underlines the
broader currents
of
thought in which the British theologians
of
the seventeenth
century were involved. His exegesis certainly had explicit doctrinal overtones
but, in the line
of
Calvin and other sixteenth-century exegetes who emphasized
the literal sense
of
the text, Ainsworth devoted less
of
his energy to allegorical
and typological expression
of
doctrinal points than to an exposition
of
the more
direct teaching
ofthe
text.
Nor
does Ainsworth's exegesis evidence the shift,
supposed by many
of
the older discussions
of
seventeenth -century
Protestantism, from
an
interpretation
of
the literal sense
of
the text to a
dogmatizing model intended to provide
"proof
texts", to scholastic theologians
of
the era. Rather, Ainsworth insisted on examining the entire text, verse by
verse, in order to ascertain the meaning
of
the whole text." 130
Muller is right to make these comments on Ainsworth. Yet the contribution
of
Andrew Willet would make his case stronger, especially given the length and number
of
commentaries that Willet has left
us
with. Our briefexamination
of
one chapter in
130 Muller, After Calvin: Studies
in
the Development
of
aTheological Tradition, 20.
85
only one
of
his commentaries demonstrates beyond doubt that this post-reformation
period only expanded upon the Reformation doctrine
of
Sola Scriptura.
86
CHAPTERS
WHAT
WE
CAN LEARN
FROM
WILLET
TODAY
Sound Doctrine Arising from Sound Exegesis
We have already seen how Calvin's Institutes can only be seen in the
context
of
his commentary writing. Calvin's commentaries contain exegesis with
briefdoctrinal comments, and his doctrinal comments in the Institutes were revised
several times
as
his exegesis developed. Willet's commentaries contain both
exegesis and doctrine together in clear and logical order. What Willet did was an
improvement on Calvin. Had others followed him, the debate about doctrine coming
from dogma rather than exegesis may have never have arisen, because he kept the
two together, developing his doctrinal reflections in the immediate context
of
his
exegesis. Instead, today we have works
of
systematic theology and commentaries.
The Exegete as Catholic Reformer not Lone Revolutionary
Some preachers and theologians today apply the doctrine
of
Sola
Scriptum in adifferent way to Willet. They apply the doctrine to mean that we can
and possibly even should ignore the way the Spirit
of
God has inspired people to
understand the Scriptures in the past. Their doctrine
of
illumination is direct, personal
and contemporary.
87
Keith Mathison, in his book The Shape
of
Sola Scriptura, critiques this
view by showing how the doctrine has been interpreted in history. Heiko Oberman's
prior categorisation
of
different views is used throughout Mathison's work, where
Tradition Irefers to the only position held for the first three centuries
of
the church,
and what was restored by the Reformers.
131
Scripture alone was indeed then the sole
authority, but it had to be understood according to the rule
of
faith
of
the apostolic
preaching. The magisterial Reformers reacted against aview
of
Sola Scriptura which
had developed alongside this view in the centuries that followed.
It
saw two equal
sources
of
divine revelation: the teaching
of
Scripture and the teaching
of
the church
(Tradition II, using Oberman's terms). This became official Roman Catholic doctrine
at the Council
of
Trent in reaction to what the Reformers had taught. Mathison
argues that the Roman Catholic Church in recent centuries has move further to a
Tradition
III,
notably when the doctrine
of
papal infallibility was enshrined at the
First Vatican Council in 1870.
132
Mathison argues that much
of
modern evangelicalism follows the line
set by the Anabaptist Reformers, which could even be called solo Scriptura
(synonymous with nuda Scriptura, another term used in this debate). This term,
originally coined
by
Douglas Jones, describes the subtle move from seeing Scripture
as
the sole infallible authority it being the sole authority at all, excusing any need to
consider creeds, confessions or commentators from other times in the church's
131
Keith Mathison,
The
Shape
of
Sola Scriptum (Moscow, 10: Canon Press, 2001), 32.
132 Ibid., 216.
88
history.133
Such 'evangelical individualism' relies merely on the Bible and the
personal, contemporary illumination
of
the Holy Spirit for sound exegesis.
So let Andrew Willet enter into this debate. We have seen that Basil
Hall, in the Cambridge History
of
the Bible claimed that in Willet's period, Protestant
dogmatic concerns 'increasingly controlled' linguistic study, and that rival
theological preoccupations prevented any advance on the exegetical gains
of
the
Reformers until higher and lower criticism developed in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. This view can now be soundly rebutted now that we have
considered Willet's work, alongside the excellent work done by Muller on Ainsworth
in the same period.
In
no sense was Willet Tradition II. He did not begin his quest
with the Bible and another source
of
revelation. The Scriptures were his only
foundation.
Yet Willet wasn't Tradition 0either, and this is where Willet can help
us in modem debate too. Before forming his own views, Willet took enormous care
to understand interpretations in the past and present. Even though he wrote awork as
forceful as Synopsis Papismi against the Roman Catholic Church, he was catholic
with asmall
'c'.
The church had been in existence long before the Reformation, and
the Holy Spirit had been giving understanding to those who had been interpreting the
divine Scriptures before Willet was born. Much modem evangelicalism reacts against
the Roman Catholic view
of
Scripture and tradition by throwing the baby out with the
bathwater. Willet as acommentary writer gives us the corrective we need: someone
who was humble in his
task-to
consider his interpretation only after those who have
gone before him, avoiding the errors
of
history.
133
Ibid., 238.
89
Willet interacts with those not from within his camp such as Catholics
and Jews. Rather than ignoring all that they wrote, he evaluates and sometimes
incorporates their exegesis. Despite
Ongen's
obvious failings in method, Willet
often approves
of
his interpretations.
The Place
of
Commentary Writing
The Victorian preacher Charles Spurgeon may well have called Willet
laborious as well as learned in his list
of
recommended commentaries. But
comparison with modern commentaries shows how briefthey now are. One useful
contrast is with Gordon Wenham's 1979 Commentary
on
Leviticus, which is part
of
amainstream evangelical series, The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament, published by the mainstream evangelical house, Eerdmans. Lev ch 7
occupies abrief six pages. Only some
of
Willet's questions are raised. There is very
little interaction with pre-critical commentators, with only Calvin and Keil being the
exceptions. There is no mention
of
any pre-Reformation or Puritan commentaries.
The New Testament and moral applications are more general to the whole book,
rather than specific to the chapter. For example, Wenham notes that we should
worship God under the direction
of
acareful minister acceptably with reverence and
awe, following Heb12:28-29.134 Wenham's method is not six-fold, but four-fold:
preliminary observations, structure, running commentary and New Testament
application. The time spent exegeting the text itself is sparse compared to Willet.
134
Gordon
J.
Wenham, The Book
of
Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1979),
127-128.
90
The contemporary application is brief, broad and alittle vague compared with
Willet's. For example, Wenham concludes: "Audiences expect performers to aim at
perfection in the concert hall. Worship is also aperformance, aperformance in
honour
of
Almighty
God.,,135
Allen Ross's more recent commentary on Leviticus,
Holiness to the LORD, illustrates similar concerns.
136
In his select bibliography at
the beginning, his earliest work is that
of
Andrew Bonar, who wrote in 1846. Liberal
critical scholarship is occasionally engaged with, but no place is given to the
church's treatment
of
Leviticus throughout the ages. We move quickly from the Jews
at the time
of
Leviticus to today. Eleven pages are given over to Leviticus chapter
seven. His method follows an interesting order: Theological ideas, Synthesis
(summarising and outlining the passage), Development
of
the Exposition, and then
Concluding Observations, with asummary sentence
of
what the section is about.
Ross shows why he follows this order in his introduction:
'One
the theological
principle has been determined, in apassage, then it will be easier to formulate a
meaningful exposition.'137 While this may well be easier, is this method right? To
have the theological ideas stated before the exegetical work is in the wrong order.
Theology and preaching must arise and be proved from the text itself.
We
can see that Willet needs to be reintroduced to the church. His
method is needed for the sake
of
future generations, to preserve the church from
error and keep it pure. His insights as well as summary references to so many other
135 Ibid., 134.
136 Allen
P.
Ross, Holiness to the LORD (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker, 2002).
137 Ibid., 66.
91
interpreters would guide any present Minister, demonstrating what Sola Scriptura
really means for this present generation.
92
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ainsworth, Henry. Annotations Upon the First Book
of
Moses. Amsterdam:
G.
Thorp, 1616.
Barksdale, Clement. The Lives
ofTen
Excellent Men. London: Mark Pardoe,1677.
Blacketer, Raymond A. "Smooth Stones, Teachable
Hearts:
Calvin's Allegorical
Interpretation
of
Deuteronomy 10:1-2." Calvin Theological Journal 34, no. 1
(1999).
Bray, Gerald Lewis. Biblical Interpretation: Past &Present. Downers Grove, ill.:
IVP
Academic, 1996.
Calvin, Jean. Commentaries on the Four LastBooks
of
Moses, Arramged in the
Form
of
aHarmony. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852.
Elliot, MEngaging Leviticus: Reading Leviticus Theologically with Its Past
Interpreters. Eugene:
Wipf
and Stock, 2012.
Farrar,
F.
W. History
of
Interpretation. London: Macmillan and Co., 1886.
Greenslade,
S.
L. The Cambridge History
of
the Bible.
Vol.
3,
the Westfrom the
Reformation to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1963.
Griedanus, Sidney. Preaching Christfrom the Old Testament: AContemporary
Hermeneutical Method. Grand Rapids, MI: William BEerdmans, 1999.
Hauser, Alan J., and Duane Frederick Watson. AHistory
of
Biblical Interpretation:
Volume 1: The Ancient Period. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans,
2003.
Hauser, Alan J., and Duane Frederick Watson. AHistory
of
Biblical Interpretation:
Volume 2: The Medieval through Reformation Periods. Grand Rapids,
MI
:
William B. Eerdmans, 2009.
93
McKim, Donald
K.
Historical Handbook
of
Major Biblical Interpreters. Leicester:
InterVarsity Press, 1998.
____
."After Calvin: Studies in the Development
of
aTheological Tradition."
Theological Studies 66, no. 1(2005): 225-226.
Milton, Anthony. Catholic andReformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in
English Protestant Thought, 1600-1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995.
Muller, Richard
A.
Dictionary
of
Latin andGreek Theological Terms. Carlisle:
Paternoster, 1985.
____
."Calvin and the "Calvinists" :Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities
between the Reformation and Orthodoxy." Calvin Theological Journal 30,
no. 2(1995): 345-375.
____
."Calvin and the "Calvinists" :Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities
between the Reformation and Orthodoxy." Calvin Theological Journal 31,
no. 1(1996): 125-160.
____
.
The
Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies
in
the Foundation
of
a
Theological Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
____
.After Calvin: Studies
in
the Development
of
aTheological Tradition.
Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
____
.Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development
of
Reformed Orthodoxy,
Ca.
1520 to
Ca.
1725. 2nd ed. ed. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academics, 2003.
Origen, and Gary Wayne Barkley. Homilies on Leviticus. Washington, DC: Catholic
University
of
America Press, 1990.
Perkins, William. ACommentarie,
or,
Exposition Upon the Five First Chapters
of
the Epistle to the Galatians. London: John Leggatt, 1617.
Poole, Matthew. Annotations Upon the Holy Bible.
London:
John Richardson, 1683.
Ross, Allen P. Holiness
to
the
Lord:
AGuide
to
the Exposition
of
the Book
of
Leviticus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.
94
Theodoret
of
Cyrrhus, Robert C. Hill, and John Petruccione. The Questions on the
Octateuch: Washington: Catholic University
of
America, 2007.
Van Dixhoom,
Chad
B. "After Calvin: Studies in the Development
of
aTheological
Tradition." Westminster Theological
Joumal66,
no. 1(2004): 227-230.
Van Kleek, Peter W
..
"Hermeneutics and Theology in the 17th Century: The
Contribution
of
Andrew
Willet"
Th.M.
,Calvin
Theological Seminary, 1998.
Wansbrough, Henry. The Use
and
Abuse
of
the
Bible:
A
Brief
History
of
Biblical
Interpretation. London ,New York: T & T Clark, 2010.
Wenham, Gordon J. The Book
of
Leviticus. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans,
1979.
Whitaker, William, ADisputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, Especially
Bellarmine and Stapleton. Cambridge: Parker society, 1849.
Willet, Andrew. Sacrorum Emblematum Centuria Una. Cambridge: T. Legate:
1592.
____
.AFruitfull and Godly Sermon, London: R.B., 1592.
____
.Hexapla in Danielem. Cambridge: Leonard Greene, 1610.
____
.Hexapla: That
Is,
aSix-Fold Commentarie Upon the Most Divine Epistle
Of
S.
Paul to the Romans. Cambridge: Cantrell Legge, 1611.
____
.Synopsis Papismi, That
Is,
aGenerall View
of
Papistrie Vvherein the
Whole Mysterie
of
Iniquitie, and Summe
of
Antichristian Doctrine Is Set
Downe, Which Is Maintained This Day by the Synagogue
of
Rome, against
the Church
of
Christ.
London:
John Haviland, 1634.
Willet, Andrew, and Peter D. D. Smith. Hexapla Leviticum; That Is, aSix-Fold
Commentarie Upon the
3rd
Book
of
Moses, Called Leviticus. London: Aug.
Matthewes, 1631.
95
CURRICULUM VITAE
R~HARDTHOMASHAGAN
5
Queen's
Avenue
Canterbury
Kent
CT28AY
UK
richardhagan75@gmail.com
07932 173904
EDUCATION
B.A. (Hons)
Theological
and
Pastoral
Studies,
2005
Oak Hill Theological College, London
M.A.
Jurisprudence,
1996
Wadham
College, University
of
Oxford
MINISTRY EXPERIENCE
Minister
2009-present
Emmanuel Church Canterbury, Kent,
UK
Assistant
Minister
2005-2009
Christ Church, Westbourne, Dorset,
UK
LANGUAGES
Greek-basic level
of
reading proficiency
Hebrew- basic level
of
reading proficiency
French- basic level
of
reading proficiency
96
