John Calvin Commentary Hebrews 13

Let brotherly love, et cetera. Probably he gave this command concerning brotherly love because a secret hatred, arising from the haughtiness of the Jews, was threatening to tear apart the Churches. But this precept is still generally very necessary, for nothing slips away so easily as love; when everyone thinks more of himself than he should, he will grant to others less than he should; and then many offenses happen daily that cause separations.

He calls love brotherly, not only to teach us that we should be mutually united by a special and inward feeling of love, but also so that we may remember that we cannot be Christians without being brothers. For he speaks of the love that the household of faith should cultivate toward one another, since the Lord has bound them more closely together by the common bond of adoption.

It was therefore a good custom in the primitive Church for Christians to call one another brothers. However, now the name, as well as the practice itself, has become almost obsolete.

The monks are an exception, having appropriated its use for themselves, though it is neglected by others. Yet, at the same time, they show by their internal discords and factions that they are the children of the evil one.

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, etc. This duty of humanity has also nearly ceased to be properly observed among people; for the ancient hospitality, celebrated in histories, is unknown to us, and inns now provide accommodation for strangers. But he is not speaking so much about the practice of hospitality as it was then practiced by the rich; rather, he commends entertaining the miserable and the needy, as at that time many were fugitives who had left their homes for the name of Christ.

And to commend this duty further, he adds that angels have sometimes been entertained by those who thought they were receiving only men. I have no doubt that this refers to Abraham and Lot; for, being in the habit of showing hospitality, they, without knowing or thinking of any such thing, entertained angels; thus their houses were honored in no ordinary way. And undoubtedly, God proved that hospitality was especially acceptable to him, when he rendered such a reward to Abraham and to Lot. If anyone were to object and say that this rarely happened, the obvious answer to this is that not mere angels are received, but Christ himself, when we receive the poor in his name. In the words in Greek there is a beautiful alliteration that cannot be expressed in Latin.

Remember those who are in bonds, or, Be mindful of those who are bound, etc. There is nothing that can give us a more genuine feeling of compassion than to put ourselves in the place of those who are in distress; therefore he says, that we should think of those in bonds as if we were bound with them.

What follows the first clause, as being yourselves also in the body, is variously explained. Some take a general view thus: “You are also exposed to the same afflictions, according to the common lot of humanity;” but others give a more restricted sense: “As if you were in their body.” I can approve of neither, for I apply the words to the body of the Church, so that the meaning would be this: “Since you are members of the same body, it is fitting for you to feel in common for each other’s afflictions, that there may be nothing disunited among you.”

Marriage is honorable in all, etc. Some think this is an exhortation to married people to conduct themselves modestly and in a becoming manner, so that the husband should live with his wife temperately and chastely, and not defile the conjugal bed by unbecoming wantonness. Thus, a verb is to be understood in the sense of exhorting, “Let marriage be honorable.” And yet the indicative is would not be unsuitable; for when we hear that marriage is honorable, it should immediately come to our minds that we are to conduct ourselves in it honorably and becomingly.

Others take the sentence by way of concession in this way: “Though marriage is honorable, it is still unlawful to commit fornication.” But this sense, as all must see, is rigid. I am inclined to think that the Apostle sets marriage here in opposition to fornication as a remedy for that evil. The context plainly shows that this was his meaning, for before he threatens that the Lord would punish fornicators, he first states what is the true way of escape, which is to live honorably in a state of marriage.

Let this then be the main point: that fornication will not go unpunished, for God will take vengeance on it. And undoubtedly, as God has blessed the union of man and wife, instituted by Himself, it follows that every other union different from this is condemned and accursed by Him.

He therefore denounces punishment not only on adulterers but also on fornicators, for both depart from the holy institution of God. Indeed, they violate and subvert it by promiscuous intercourse, since there is only one legitimate union, sanctioned by the authority and approval of God. But since promiscuous and wandering lusts cannot be restrained without the remedy of marriage, the Apostle therefore commends it by calling it “honorable.”

What he adds, and the bed undefiled, has been stated, it seems to me, for this purpose: that married people might know that not everything is lawful for them, but that the use of the legitimate bed should be moderate, so that nothing contrary to modesty and chastity is allowed.

By saying in all men, I understand him to mean that there is no order of men prohibited from marriage; for what God has allowed to mankind universally is fitting for all without exception—I mean all who are fit for marriage and feel the need for it.

It was indeed necessary for this subject to have been distinctly and expressly stated in order to counter a superstition, the seeds of which Satan was probably even then secretly sowing—namely, that marriage is a profane thing, or at least far removed from Christian perfection. For those seducing spirits, forbidding marriage, who had been foretold by Paul, soon appeared.

So that no one then might foolishly imagine that marriage is only permitted to the people in general, but that those who are eminent in the Church ought to abstain from it, the Apostle takes away every exception. He does not teach us that it is conceded as an indulgence, as Jerome sophistically says, but that it is honorable.

It is very strange indeed that those who introduced the prohibition of marriage into the world were not terrified by this very explicit declaration. But it was necessary then to give free rein to Satan, in order to punish the ingratitude of those who refused to hear God.

Let your conversation be without covetousness, etc. While he seeks to correct covetousness, he rightly and wisely instructs us at the same time to be content with what we presently have; for true contempt for money, or at least true greatness of mind in its right and moderate use, is evident when we are content with what the Lord has given us, whether it be much or little. For certainly, it rarely happens that anything satisfies a covetous person; on the contrary, those who are not content with a moderate amount always seek more, even when they enjoy the greatest abundance. This was a doctrine Paul declared he had learned: to know how to abound and how to suffer need. Therefore, whoever has set limits to their desire, so as to accept their lot with resignation, has expelled the love of money from their heart.

For he has said, etc. Here he quotes two testimonies. The first is taken, as some think, from Joshua 1, but I am more inclined to think it is a statement drawn from the common teaching of Scripture, as if he had said, “The Lord everywhere promises that He will never fail us.” From this promise, he infers what is found in Psalm 118: that we have the power to overcome fear when we are assured of God’s help.

Indeed, here he plucks up the evil by its very roots, as is necessary when we seek to free people's minds from it. It is certain that the source of covetousness is distrust. For whoever has this conviction fixed in their heart—that they will never be forsaken by the Lord—will not be excessively anxious about present things, because they will depend on God’s providence. Therefore, when the Apostle seeks to cure us of the disease of covetousness, he wisely calls our attention to God’s promises, in which He testifies that He will always be present with us. From this, he later infers that as long as we have such a helper, there is no reason to fear. For in this way, no depraved desires will trouble us; for faith alone can quiet human minds, whose restlessness without it is all too well known.