John Calvin Commentary Isaiah 6:2

John Calvin Commentary

Isaiah 6:2

1509–1564
Protestant
John Calvin
John Calvin

John Calvin Commentary

Isaiah 6:2

1509–1564
Protestant
SCRIPTURE

"Above him stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." — Isaiah 6:2 (ASV)

And the seraphim stood upon it. Having declared that God appeared to him full of majesty and glory, he adds that God was attended by angels, whom the Prophet calls seraphim on account of their fervor. Though the etymology of this word is well known, various reasons are cited. Some think that they are called seraphim because they burn with the love of God; others, because they are swift like fire; others, because they are bright. However that may be, this description presents to us, as in sunbeams, the brightness of God’s infinite majesty, so that we may learn from it to behold and adore His wonderful and overwhelming glory.

Many think that there were two seraphim, as there were two cherubim that surrounded the ark of the testimony. I willingly adopt this opinion, though I do not venture to make any assertion where Scripture is silent. As sacred writers customarily adapt their descriptions of God to those outward signs commonly used and familiarly known among the godly, it is possible that the Prophet saw a representation of this kind. While I hold this to be a probable conjecture, I leave room for other interpretations which some may be inclined to prefer; for Daniel saw not two angels only, but thousands of thousands of angels (Daniel 7:10).

Each one had six wings. This representation is instructive, for those wings thus arranged contained some mystery which the Lord willed should not remain entirely unknown. The two wings with which the angels fly mean nothing other than their ready and cheerful performance of the commandments of God.

On this point the resemblance is so clear and evident that it will be immediately admitted by all who do not take delight in controversy. The two wings with which they cover their face show plainly enough that even angels cannot endure God’s brightness, and that they are dazzled by it in the same manner as when we attempt to gaze upon the radiance of the sun.

And if angels are overwhelmed by the majesty of God, how great will be the rashness of men if they venture to intrude so far! Let us, therefore, learn that our inquiries concerning God ought never to go beyond what is proper and lawful, so that our knowledge may soberly and modestly taste what is far above our capacity.

And yet the angels do not cover their face in such a way that they are not favored with beholding God to some degree, for their flight is not at random. Similarly, we too ought to look at God, but only as far as our capacity enables us.

As to the remaining two wings, which were placed lower, the difficulty is somewhat greater. Some think that the angels covered their feet, so that they might not touch the earth and contract any defilement from it, as human beings like us are accustomed to do; for in walking we gather filth and dust, and accordingly, as long as we dwell on earth, we are always tainted by some kind of contagion. This reminds believers that they will have no interaction with angels until they raise themselves high and are no longer fastened to the earth.

Such is the interpretation given by some interpreters. But I rather agree with those who think that the use of those wings was opposite to that of the upper wings; for, as by the upper wings they cover their face, so that they may not be overpowered by God’s brightness, so they also have lower wings to conceal them from our view. Now, if it is true that we cannot behold the small and feeble rays of the Divine brightness without being completely overpowered, how could we gaze upon that unspeakably bright and glorious majesty which lays prostrate all our faculties? Let people learn, therefore, that they are far distant from a perfect knowledge of God, since they cannot even attain to the angels. The latter appears to me to be the more correct interpretation, but I do not disapprove of the former.