Exodus 21-24 provides commentary and amplification on what God intended for the law. The Lord here, like a merciful parent, takes the 10 commandments and expands them; he applies them, taking the time so the original and subsequent audiences would not miss the message. He provided instructions almost like a long suffering parent gives rules to a group of teenagers, who very soon they act like they do not know what you mean. They rapidly begin to look for loopholes. They may even take the letter of what a parent has said and ignore the spirit of the law.

Calvin’s view of business and property matters will be most clearly detected when he comments on an amplification of the 8th commandment. Other glosses from his commentary in this section will also, however, delineate his views further. Calvin, in a format that is somewhat sophisticated compared to most commentaries, provides a harmonization of the pentateuchal commentary by collating verses from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as they amplify each of the commandments.

Exodus 21:2-11 contains laws applying to Hebrew servants/workers. This is largely an amplification of property laws. Not surprisingly, neither Calvin nor these authors advocate slavery. Neither Calvin nor Scripture treats persons, slaves or others, as sub-human or lacking the image of God. Abuse or murder of slaves or any other persons was wrong and excluded by the 6th commandment. However, this and other OT passages do allude to a pattern of working relationships that allowed servanthood for ancient Israel. No passage from the Hebrew Scriptures later outlaws slavery. It was an accepted practice. What the Bible does, however, is to show how God wanted humane treatment, and this issue rests at the intersection of business and property matters.

There is a Sabbath-pattern to this servanthood. The Lord did not want Hebrew slaves to be forced to slavery indefinitely. A person could buy a Hebrew for up to 6 years (v. 2), but in the 7th year, the worker was to be freed. Verse 3 of this passage also illustrates how God wanted the society to respect the family. If the indentured servant came alone (even if he got married during this 6 year period), then he would leave alone. Or if he came with a wife, when freed, she would be freed with him.

However, v. 4 says, if his master provided a wife and she bore children, then the wife and children could remain with the owner. Why? Because each worker was valuable and essential to the estate. This case law was given to prevent this scenario: Suppose a worker became a temporary slave and he married a girl. When he was freed, he would take something of value/earning potential away from the owner. Of course, if he brought his own wife with him and left in year 7, he would not take away something that the Owner originally had. But if the worker came in, took an asset, and then claimed “we’re family,” someone was out of an asset. This casuistry illustrated how loss of property, even if a human resource, could decrease one’s assets.

Obviously, “you shall not steal” is not only about physical property but also about things that had value and earning potential. God, in his law, knew that human beings would look for and quickly find loopholes—we are ingenius about finding ways to sin—so the Lord gave some protection to those who needed it. God seems serious about fairness to those who have farms, vineyards, and flocks. To allow workers to be taken away would hurt the farmers, vintners, and shepherds. So while foreign to our working relationships, please note that this is God’s attempt to provide fairness to those who owned and worked. Early on, at least, God is not a practicing socialist.

Similarly, if a man bought her for his son, then once married, she was no longer under slave laws but to be viewed as a daughter, part of the family. (v. 9) And those rights to care, including food and clothing, were permanent—they could not be cancelled even if a man took on other wives. The principle that is being supported here: Don’t diminish an estate but at the same time, treat people fairly that work for you or that are part of your family. When the Owner benefited from work, that gave him an obligation to care for the worker. It was a two-way street. “If the owner does not provide her with these things,” the contract is nullified, (v. 11) and she “is to go free without any payment” back to the owner. There are mutual burdens in the marketplace.

All of these the Lord gave in order to protect workers and owners. Calvin understood the divine law or the moral law as anticipating depravity and treated these OT precepts as moral stringents against the theft of property. His presupposition of human depravity, along with its tendency to seek to circumvent the law, led him to many other conclusions, one of which was a groundbreaking view of usury.

The next chapter of Exodus deals with the 8th commandment in more detail. There, “thou shall not steal” means that physical property is under private ownership and is to be protected. Indeed, Exodus chapter 22 shows how the Lord wisely protects personal property by a series of fines.

In the first instance, if a man steals a farm animal, and either slaughters it for personal consumption or sells it for profit, since he has taken someone else’s property, then he must pay back 5 times the amount, certainly a stiff penalty. Note that this penalty is not one-for-one, as in accidents or liability cases (habitual goring). In a case of theft, the thief must repay 5 times the amount he stole. That is not only to keep the owner from losing, but also to deter him from future crimes.

Verse 2 requires that if a thief is caught breaking in at night, and is struck and dies, that is classified as legitimate self-defense, not intentional murder, and the defender is not deserving of the death penalty. God does not mind if we protect our property. However, v. 3 provides the balanced fairness: if the home invasion occurs in daylight, then the owner could be chargeable with a capital crime. He can, in other words, use lesser measures and avoid killing the thief.

What if the thief pleads bankruptcy or claims not to be able to pay? The end of v. 3 teaches that he must make restitution; and if he cannot, he can pay with his own service—he will be sold into slavery. See how God closes and anticipates so many loopholes?!

Verse 4 has a slightly different case and sentence. If a stolen animal is found alive in a thief’s possession, that animal is returned to the owner and the thief has to pay back 2 times the cost of the animal. Thus, he is restored, and a 200% damage claim is assessed. Calvin and his followers see in these statutes additional support for private property ownership.

There are very many ways to steal, too. V. 5 envisions two neighboring farms. If cattle or sheep stray from their field, and graze on the neighbor’s land, then the offender must repay “from the best of his own field or vineyard.” Not the fringe grass but the best of the offending neighbor’s field could be confiscated.

In v. 6, if a fire breaks out and destroys a neighbor’s grain, the one who started the fire must make restitution. God holds us responsible and does not want our neighbor’s to suffer our irresponsibility. If harm is done, someone has to make it up. That, God knew, is how life works.

Note how sophisticated vss. 7-9 are. This was not an unenlightened society. If a person places some goods with a neighbor for safekeeping, and a thief steals those, once the thief is caught he must pay back double. Notice again, the disincentive legislated.

However, what is to keep an owner from faking such a loss? After all, a lot of money can be made off of fraud. If the thief is never found, the safekeeping neighbor must appear before the judges to determine if there is a real theft or if the holder of goods is profiting (v. 8). This is early fairness, and God knew that human beings would take from others if not properly legislated.

Moreover, as v. 9 shows, in any claim of illegal possession, both parties must appear before judges. This assumes an early legal system. And when the trial is over, the guilty person must repay double. That was the deterrent.

In verse 10, the Lord also provided for a case in which an animal is entrusted for safekeeping to a neighbor. And if that animal dies, is injured, or disappears, then the two parties must appear before the Lord (via judges) and swear by oath that “the neighbor did not lay hands on the other person’s property.” (11) In this case, a man’s word is his bond; and his oath must be accepted. If he is later found to be untruthful, other consequences will follow.

However, if it is determined that the animal was stolen, then the thief must make restitution. (12) Still, if it was a genuine accident, then the remains are to be presented as evidence, and he will not be required to make restitution.

Finally, in this section, if a neighbor borrows an animal, and it is injured or dies during his loan, he is responsible to repay the owner. Again, the owner would be harmed by the loss; so the borrower is responsible. All of these and other similar verses unite to form the Calvinistic (and capitalistic) view of free markets and private ownership. Calvin’s commentaries on this subject consistently support these ideas and do not undermine the major aspects of private property ownership.

The next rung of charity was, surprising to some, personal security. By that, one was responsible to provide for his own life and for his dependents. Calvin and other Reformers broke with the previous Medieval pattern of alms-giving. Instead, they endorsed a personal-responsibility ethic. Commenting on 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Calvin noted that while there are “different ways of laboring,” each person should aid “the society of men by his industry, either in ruling his family, or by administering public or private affairs, or by counseling, or by teaching, or in any other way . . . [to] not be reckoned among the idle.” (Paul’s Commentaries to the Thessalonians, vol. 2, 355). He also could not resist stating that “indolence and idleness were cursed by God,” explaining:

Besides, we know that man was created with this view, that he might do something. Not only does Scripture testify this to us, but nature itself taught it to the heathen. Hence it is reasonable that those who wish to exempt themselves from the common law should also be deprived of food, the reward of labor. . . . [Paul] forbade that the Thessalonians should encourage their indolence by supplying them with food.

Calvin, thus, through his teachings on vocation and through the work ethic he cultivated, expected that a charitable outlook would lead individuals to eschew being drains on others. To expect others to support oneself, when one was capable, was hardly loving. Again, Calvin applied 1 Tim. 5:8 generally, claiming that those who did not support their own family not only had “no piety towards God,” but also denied the faith, rendering them “worse than brute beasts.” For Calvin, the “criminality of this conduct” is based both on nature itself, in which even “infidels are so prone to love their own” and on the higher expectations rightly given to those who profess to follow Christ’s commands. The work ethic was applied within the family of God.

A few verses earlier he noted the biblical distinction (on 1 Tim. 5:5) between a widow with a real need as opposed to one who could care for her own needs or have family assistance. Simultaneously, he cautioned against widows who gave themselves over to “pleasant idleness,” “convenience,” or “excessive mirth.”

A later Calvinist work expressed that if charity was taken out of the hands of the private sector and given to an invisible, “Big Government,” then it would become easy for the recipients “to think that some goods and services, such as healthcare and prescription medicines, have no cost. The costs are still there, but the people who pay those costs often are out of sight and mind for those who not only take the result of government’s redistribution of property but begin to act as though they are entitled to an increasing amount of such benefits.”

Each person has a divine calling to work-to use his time and resources for the glory of God and for the furtherment of one’s neighbor. One cannot give as charitably as possible if his own bills were passed to someone else. The essential building block for genuinely charitable giving could be laid only after a secure base is set. Moreover, if consistency in charitable giving is desired, the more secure those personal bases, the more consistent planning may occur in long term charitable projects. For example, if a group wishes to begin a denominational college or adopt a multi-year charitable effort, sustained giving is needed; that will normally come from mature and established giving units who have first secured their own financial security.

In his sermon on 1 Tim 6:17-19, Calvin noted that one remedy to “correct a depraved attachment” to the world’s wealth is “the right use of our possessions. A man’s opportunities to do good to others increase with the abundance of his riches, and because we are always more reluctant than we should be to give to the poor, he [Paul] uses many words in commending this virtue.” In another sermon on the Gospels, Calvin called for “contentment with what has been allotted to us,” so that even those with means may see their greater responsibility. Similarly, those who are poor are called, under the Doctrine of Contentment, to accept their station and condition, without coveting or stealing. Calvin wrote,

When a person has the means to increase his wealth, let this be done without doing an injury to others-and also without being consumed with envy. What is more: not only should the rich man be contented with what he has but he should also have the spirit of a poor man-that is, each and every day he should be ready to abandon all that God has given him, and not torture himself on that account; and if God wants to make him richer, he should take the blessing he is offered. If God wishes to give him less, he should realize that this is to his advantage.

Calvin, in what may be curious to some, even described the materially poor as having a unique ministry to serve as “messengers” to probe the faith and love of those around them; they are “proxies” to test the compassion of the wealthy. Calvin referred to the wealthy who failed to care for the poor as “murderers,” who deprived others of what they should have: “For otherwise they are like murderers if they see their neighbors wasting away and yet do not open their hands to help them. In this, I tell you, they are certainly like murderers.” While interpreters of Calvin may differ on applications of this teaching, it seems that his point is to condemn the callous wealthy not so much advocate for some other agency to take their wealth and redistribute it to preclude the wealthy from being murderers.

Calvin noted the prophetic denunciation of hoarding, particularly by Isaiah, as a manifestation of discontent. Those who “never have enough, and whom no wealth can satisfy” were keenly covetous to “have everything just for themselves and reckon everything which others have to be something they are missing.” Calvin cited Chrysostom’s opinion that the avaricious would confiscate the sun from the poor if possible. Those whose only “care is to swallow up a great deal” never have enough and never model moderation. He applies this hoarding even to “the size and spaciousness of houses”:

For Isaiah points out the ambition of those who are desirous to inhabit magnificent palaces or spacious houses. There is nothing reprehensible if someone who has a large family has a large house; but when people, swollen with ambition, make superfluous additions to their houses, only that they may live in greater luxury . . . this is empty ambition and out justly to be blamed. Such persons act as if they were to be the only ones that enjoyed a roof, and others should only have the sky for a blanket or must go somewhere else to find an abode.”

Another topic that was once troubling-and that changed at the time of Calvin’s Reformation-was the subject of lending with interest. Prior to Calvin, a hyper-literalism on this point prevailed. John Calvin had a good bit to say about the subject of interest-bearing commerce. He and the other Protestant Reformers both clarified and revolutionized how profit could be used to restrain theft. Usury is an old term, and it may be defined in one of two ways: (1) charging any interest at any time on a loan; or (2) charging such a high percentage of interest that it amounts to stealing or exploiting the poor.

Calvin commences his discussion of the 8th commandment with this axiom: “Since charity is the end of the Law, we must seek the definition of theft from thence.” Rooting himself firmly in the Golden Rule he calls for each person’s rights to be safeguarded and to treat others as one wished to be treated. Applied to the 8th commandment, that view of the law classified thieves as not only those who secretly stole property but also those who sought “gain from the loss of others [and] accumulate wealth by unlawful practices and are more devoted to their private advantage than to equity.”

Typical of Calvin’s approach to applying the law, many different sins fell under the heading of a single sin (theft in this case), and the reformer warned about the crafty ways that depraved thinkers might seek to cheat the system, while still reducing another’s property. From the outset, he warned against “false pretexts,” “craft,” “rapine,” and “cunning.” God’s law, in contrast, “pronounces all unjust means of gain to be so many thefts.” Moreover, by his hermeneutic of the law in which “an affirmative precept . . . is connected with the prohibition,” Calvin calls for stewards to utilize liberality and kindness as vaccines/antidotes for theft. In short, each person “should safely keep what he possesses, and our neighbor’s advantage should be promoted no less than our own.” Those preliminary principles would dictate Calvin’s view of usury and defend the propriety of lending to capitalists for business.

His commentary on Exodus 22:25 contains some of his fullest explanation that viewed usury in the second sense above. Calvin warned that the goal of profit was generally sought in lending, and that not only were exorbitant rates wrong but also that if lending was restricted only to the wealthy who could repay, then “we neglect the poor.” In addition, he noted that lending without interest depended on the “rule of charity” more than on the Jewish political law. He also recognized that Jewish law itself permitted interest-based profit to the Gentiles. The transcultural absolute, however, for Calvin was “that our brethren who need our assistance are not to be treated harshly.” Calvin was savvy enough to note that many kinds of commerce could be a “mode of extortion.” Further he wrote that “crafty men are for ever inventing some little subterfuge or other to deceive God.”

Calvin understood the market well enough to realize that “no creditor could ever lend money without loss to himself”, if usury meant an absolute prohibition of charging interest. What kept him from endorsing the definition of “usury-as-any-interest” was his view of human beings who would “cheat” under this scheme, or use “false pretences . . . to inconvenience the creditor.” Creditors could be victims, too, Calvin knew. His argument was that if interest were absolutely forbidden, then loss of property would occur in some cases, and that was a violation of the 8th commandment. Still he interpreted Ex 22:25 to apply only to the poor, and noted that usury was freely permitted for those able to repay.
On this verse, Calvin stated that not all usury was condemned. He argued:

If the debtor have protracted the time by false pretences to the loss and inconvenience of his creditor, will it be consistent that he should reap advantage from his bad faith and broken promises? Certainly no one, I think will deny that usury ought to be paid to the creditor in addition to the principal to compensate loss. If any rich and monied man, wishing to buy a piece of land, should borrow some part of the sum required of another, may not he who lends the money receive some part of the revenues of the farm until the principal shall be repaid? Many such cases daily occur in which, as far as equity is concerned, usury is no worse than purchase.

Calvin’s argument, in short, was this: the ethic of love called for us to value and protect our neighbor’s property and estate. To borrow from him, if one had the resources to pay interest, was to use part of his wealth for one’s own benefit with no repayment. “I win, he losses” (if no interest is charged), was a violation for Calvin of the “thou shall not steal” commandment. Or if I win and the neighbor’s children lose-by a reduction in estate-the charging of interest actually has an instrumental value to curb property loss.

Calvin continued his exposition on Exodus 22:25 to note that if one lends money to a fellow believer who is needy, money lenders still need to keep in mind the call to compassion. These OT laws-contrary to many misapprehensions of them-call for charity. The poor should, if possible, be helped by people with resources. Similarly, if a poor person tenders his cloak as collateral, it should be returned to him for the night: for that might be all the cover he has (Ex. 22:27). Holding on to the little that the poor has and needs could be abusive, if for no purpose.
Calvin consistently plied this interpretation, even calling for other OT verses to be harmonized with “the rule of charity.” On this verse in Exodus, he concluded that “usury is not now unlawful, except insofar as it contravenes equity and brotherly union.” Love for neighbor was the standard, and “how far it may be lawful to receive usury upon loans, the law of equity will better prescribe than any lengthened discussions.”

In sum, Calvin construed that a person violated the 8th commandment (whether by theft or usury) when “another is made poorer.” He called both for restraint and also for people to respect and protect the property of others. The purpose of the 8th commandment, therefore, was that “no one should suffer loss by us, which will be the case if we have regard to the good of our brethren.”

While profit and monetary gain are not condemned, Calvin also issued this stern and balanced warning on the difficulty of a wealthy man entering heaven: “[I]t is an evil almost common to all to trust in their riches. Yet this doctrine is highly useful to all: to the rich, that being warned of their danger they may be on their guard, and to the poor, that being satisfied with their lot they may not so eagerly desire what would bring more damage than gain. It is true, indeed, that riches do not, in their own nature, hinder us from following God, but in consequence of the depravity of the human mind it is scarcely possible for those who have a great abundance to avoid being intoxicated by them.”

The Scriptures consistently discuss economic matters without revealing an expectation that all will yield the same results. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians summons competitors to run the race in such a way as to get the prize (1 Cor. 9:24). Even in that illustration, all do not win a prize but neither is competition unfair. Every instance of plowing, sowing, farming, or investing is not depicted as succeeding. There are failures in the Bible. Competition and the rough-and-tumble of the markets appear to be economic realities if not sanctioned altogether.

Many OT passages imply that making more wealth or adding to one’s estate is a good activity. While charity is commended in the OT, wealth is not condemned in the Hebrew Scriptures. When the NT has opportunity to advocate either the redistribution of wealth or equal incomes, it does not. Several of Jesus’ parables allude to this.

In one well known parable, Jesus spoke of units of currency given to servants to use or invest (Mt. 25:14-30). One servant took 5 units, put it to work, and yielded 5 more units. The second servant was given or loaned 2 units to be put to work in the market (which seems to have been assumed to be fairly unhindered or regulated), and his labor and investment yielded 2 more units. This profit was accepted, approved, and praised by the Savior, who spoke to the venture affirmatively as “well done,” “good,” “faithful,” and worthy of the master’s “happiness” (v. 21). In addition to this blessing, the faithful investor was promised to be put in charge of other tasks for his master.

However, this parable contains a large contrast. In contrast to the industrious servants, one garnered no increase. One servant took his master’s beginning stake and neither put it to work nor merely received interest on it as in a fixed-rate interest. This person offered no gain or profit to his master, and was definitely criticized for this loss of potential profit. The words of Jesus make this clear when he spoke of this investor as “wicked,” “lazy,” and not trusting in the Lord’s power (v. 26). Accordingly, Jesus’ view of interest and profit may be partially discerned from his words in v. 27: “You should have put my money on deposit with the bankers so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.”

One of the things that Calvin drew from this parable was that God “does not bestow on all indiscriminately the same measure of gifts . . . but distributes them variously as he thinks proper.” It is thus clear from this and other passages that Calvin’s Protestant work ethic did not think it wrong that outcomes or distribution were unequal. On the contrary, Calvin recognized that, in principle, different people could be given differing amounts without violating justice. What was expected of each, however, was that “whatever gifts the Lord bestowed on us,” that seed-fund was to “yield some gain.” (441) Calvin went so far as to term it supremely “unreasonable” that we would allow the capital to remain buried or fail to invest it, since its value “consisted in yielding fruit.” (442)

When Calvin commented on Matthew 25:15, he recognized that the “master of the house,” or God, “has assigned to everyone his place, and has bestowed on him natural gifts, gives him also this or the other injunction, employs him in the management of affairs, raises him to various offices, furnishes him with abundant means of eminent usefulness, and presents to him the opportunity.” (442) He even interprets this parable to compare, not negatively, the Christian life to “trading,” in which “exchange,” “barter,” “merchandise,” and “industry” are all approved. (443) He states further that the goal of the “gain” in this parable by Jesus is “to yield profit,” (443) far from denouncing increase. At the same time, he also warned against the opposite of profitableness: sloth. He noted that the rebuke contained in this parable was reserved for those unprofitable servants, who had been given gifts, but then did not use them. Calvin believed that such sloth would lead to being “deprived of them all, and that their wretched and shameful poverty would redound to the glory of the good.” (444) Such slothful people “hide either the talent or the pound in the earth, because while they consult their own ease and gratifications, they refuse to submit to any uneasiness; as we see very many who, while they are privately devoted to themselves and to their own advantage, avoid all the duties of charity and have no regard to the general edification.” (444) These should have at least deposited their money “with a banker that it might at least gain interest.” (444)

Thus we see . . . conclusion?

Calvin stated that it was part of the dignity which God decreed for man that he should have authority over all created things. God appointed man, as “lord of the world”, thus exhibiting the image of God. And this authority was given not only to the singular Adam but also to all his descendents. Man was created initially with dominion, but the command also to “subdue it” Gen. 1:28 further emphasizes that God put this possession “of his right”, signifying that man had a calling to develop, tame, organize, harness, subdue, rearrange, and make useful all subservient aspects of the creation. In fact, Calvin taught that “it was thy business to nurture the things provided”. We may thus affirmatively say that Calvin taught that man was to improve and enhance the creation as part of his dominion.

Creation gives a pattern of hierarchies, too. All is not on the same plane. Some species are higher, more capable, than others. Others serve the higher orders. Dominion is God’s assignment to take the creation as we find it and improve it. He does not assign to Adam to leave the creation as it is or to let it deteriorate. No, God calls men to exert themselves to nurture and bring improvement. That fundamental notion of change for the better is an economic truism that does not accord with all business systems and practices.

God does not wish his creation merely to have stasis. Instead, he designed creation for growth, productivity, and maturation. Thus, one may ask as early as the opening chapters of Genesis: what economic system fits with both the creation and the nurture mandates? Growth, development, productivity, and orderliness are features that God designs for people to have.

Dominion infers a work ethic and accountability to God

How does one take dominion over an impersonal asset? First, by recognizing its status as created; then by imposing man’s good on it; and finally by yielding fruit that contains the seeds of future productivity.
The economics of Genesis 1-3 neither calls for wealth to dissipate or to stay the same. Man is to work the garden; and with hard work, he will seek to tame parts of the creation to serve God and neighbor.

Calvin summarized these notions well in his comments on Genesis 2:9: “No corner of the earth was then barren, nor was there even any which was not exceedingly rich and fertile; but that benediction of God, which was elsewhere comparatively moderate, had in this place poured itself wonderfully forth.” He noted further, that “not only was there an abundant supply of food, but with it was added sweetness for the gratification of the palate, and beauty to feast the eyes. Therefore, from such benignant indulgence, it is more than sufficiently evident how inexplicable had been the cupidity of man.” The state of creation was that Adam not only had a mere physical existence, but that the conditions of creation excelled in endowments of the soul.

Within days of Calvin’s death in 1564, his mantle of leadership passed to Theodore Beza (1520-1605). Geneva found itself on the world’s stage as various groups, such as Catholics and Anabaptists, hoped to overturn the newfound Calvinist establishment. The crucial 40-year period between the death of Calvin (1564) and the death of Beza (1605) determined whether or not Calvinism would be a lasting force in Geneva and elsewhere. William Monter attributes much of Geneva’s growth and stability during this period to the intellectual magnetism of Calvinism.[1]

In addition, support for Calvinism in Geneva was in part dependent on the city’s prosperity. Prior to Calvin’s time, Geneva had experienced economic hard times. The neighboring Duke of Savoy extorted “free gifts”[2] of massive amounts—taxation by another name—from the 1450s until 1526. In the early sixteenth century Geneva also owed her Bernese benefactors large debts. Moreover, taxation on wine and rising property taxes in the late fifteenth century only served royalty while robbing the citizens. With Calvin, however, the patterns of taxation and income were altered. The prosperity ethic that followed his time in Geneva is one of the wide-ranging effects of his thought and practice.

At least four large sources of income fueled Geneva’s new economic engine. First, revenue for Geneva increased dramatically from 1550 to 1570 primarily due to the large number of new citizens (refugees).[3] In two years (1555-1556), Calvinist refugees who were flocking to Geneva contributed approximately 20% of the total revenue to the city coffers.[4] The popularity of Calvin’s Academy[5] further boosted revenues in periods of need, and the influx of wealth continued for decades. By the 1580s many of the donors in times of crisis were people who had been refugees of the previous generation.[6] Growth in the population enhanced prosperity.

Second, after Calvin’s arrival in 1536 Geneva retained many of the revenues formerly raised by the Catholic diocese. Parish tithes were still contributed and, as an earlier historian wryly noted, “The last thing which a Reformed state wished to do was to abolish any Papist tax; and Messieurs knew that a preacher, even Calvin, was less expensive to maintain than a well-bred cathedral canon. . . . All in all, the Republic took in perceptibly more revenue from traditional ecclesiastical sources than it spent on Reformed ecclesiastical institutions.”[7] Thus, the conversion and redeployment of pre-existing assets helped the local economy.
Third, Geneva surged ahead in the development of new information industries. The printing businesses of Protestant immigrants made significant fiscal contributions to the local economy. Calvin’s thought and action impelled this to new heights.

Fourth, Geneva was successful in soliciting funds from other sympathetic Calvinistic countries. During one very difficult period (1593), Germans and other Calvinistic sympathizers gave up to 25% of Geneva’s budget to the city as a result of solicitations by Beza.[8] Historian Alain Dufour summarized the sources of income: “Geneva survived principally on loans from her citizens in 1589, on foreign loans in 1590, and on collections from foreign churches in 1591.”[9]

Beza also continued the political model of his mentor, favoring close interaction between the separate jurisdictions of church and state. The types and frequency of interactions between Beza and the various Councils testify to the strength and longevity of Calvin’s impact. Examples from the late sixteenth century[10] illustrate how this cooperative Reformation worked.[11] Beza spoke out against a 10% interest rate as usurious as early as 1580.[12] In 1581 city fathers consulted him about an appropriate sentence for a notorious criminal.[13] By 1588 Beza and other pastors again protested excessive usury to the Small Council.[14] In January 1596 Beza and the pastors urged the Council to compensate the teachers of the Academy.[15] Beza and the pastors were frequent consultants of the Council. Moreover, the types of discussions also indicate that the city governors wished to support the Reformation while not usurping the role of the ministers. Throughout 1596 the Council minutes indicate close consultation between the pastors and Council members on the appointment of pastors, disciplinary measures, the regulation of printing, and the search for Beza’s eventual successor. On April 7, 1596, the Council heard a complaint by Beza about poor church attendance, and the Council agreed to encourage citizens to attend. Specific pastors were approved for transfer or ordered to remain in their pulpits by the Council. Geneva’s separation of jurisdictions by no means erected an iron curtain separating church and state. None of this limited her growth and prosperity.

Rather, the historical record is clear: where Calvinism became thoroughly rooted, citizens saw economic growth. With the delicate combination of enhanced freedom and with opening economies, Calvin’s prosperity ethic would outlive him.

[1] Arthur David Ainsworth examined “The Relations between Church and State in the City and Canton of Geneva,” in his 1964 dissertation at the University of Lausanne (rpr. Atlanta: The Stein Printing Company, 1965). See especially pp. 30-45 for his discussion of Beza’s tenure.
[2] E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536-1605 (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1964), 11.
[3] Estimations of French Huguenot sympathy in the period range from 10 to 25% of the entire French population. Doug Kelly sets the range at 5 to 25%. Douglas Kelly, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1992), 38. Other projections estimate that up to 2 million of France’s 20 million population at the time were Huguenot.
[4] E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536-1605 (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1964), 25. William G. Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1994), 24, 216, charts the revenue to Geneva from Bourgeois admissions during the period from 1536 to 1556.
[5] Monter notes that the cost of the Academy was borne by selling off the estates of exiled enemies. E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536-1605, 25.
[6] E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536-1605, 40. Monter thinks it “an interesting commentary on the Calvinist conscience” to note that Beza, Calvin’s nephew, and theology professor Antoine de la Faye were also able to contribute during times of need. Monter, op. cit., 43.
[7] E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536-1605, 20.
[8] E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536-1605, 48.
[9] E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536-1605, 42.
[10] Beza’s role was viewed as so important by Jesuits from Germany and France that they called for his assassination in October of 1597.
[11] Lest these Calvinists be seen as overly ascetic, a June 5, 1598, act should be considered: “M. de Bèze having received from l’Hôpital a barrel of light red wine that was too young, Syndic Favre is asked to deliver to him a half-barrel of older wine.” Calvinists were not easily cheated out of good wine.
[12] E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536-1605, 37.
[13] E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536-1605, 37.
[14] E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536-1605, 109.
[15] References to the Registry of the Company of Pastors, 1596 are taken from Kim McMahan’s translation published at: http://capo.org/premise/98/FEB/p980209.html.

Men are grown mad with an insatiable desire of gain. Christ charges them with folly, in collecting wealth with great care, and then giving up their happiness to moths and to rust . . . What is more unreasonable than to place their property, where it may perish of itself or be carried off by men? Covetous men, indeed, take no thought of this. They lock up their riches in well-secured chests, but cannot prevent them from being exposed to thieves or to moths. They are blind and destitute of sound judgment, who give themselves so much toil and uneasiness in amassing wealth . . . particularly, when God allows us a place in heaven for laying up a treasure and kindly invites us to enjoy riches which never perish.[2]

Instead entangling oneself in this world’s snares, Calvin commended the alternative of making it one’s “business to meditate on the heavenly life,” a theme that will be repeated throughout his work. He warned that if money became the chief good, “covetousness will immediately predominate.”[3] Calvin knew—in ways that might be shocking to those who only refract Calvin through Weber and other hostile critics—that “if we were honestly and firmly convinced that our happiness is in heaven, it would be easy for us to trample upon the world, to despise earthly blessings, and to rise towards heaven.”[4] He was emphatic that wealth had a place as a created aspect but that it should never be confused with the Creator.
Moreover, his explanation of the law echoed this teaching at several places. On the first commandment, Calvin called for exclusivity of allegiance to God. If one is subtly tempted to put wealth acquisition above God, he is reminded that God is a jealous God and will not tolerate co-allegiances between God and Mammon. Later, on the 8th commandment, he warned against lusts that could lead to a variety of frauds. As strongly as Calvin supported the holding of private property in that commandment, he also opposed any wrongful taking or seizing of others’ property, which was normally motivated by greed which crossed over into the territory of idolatry (Col. 3:5).
On the 10th commandment, Calvin advised against setting our hearts on others’ property or seeking, as in the 8th commandment, “gain as another’s loss and inconvenience.”[5] Not only was greed condemned in this command, but Calvin perceived that God sought, by it, to “put a restraint on evil desires before they prevail.”[6] He compared coveting and other temptations to “so many fans” that swirled human passions even higher. Perched at an early stage of modern economic development, Calvin certainly knew that wealth had its snares if one’s inward dispositions were not rightly ordered.
Calvin’s comments on the Rich Young Ruler in Luke 18 reflect the same principle. It is not enough merely to divest oneself of riches (“he who deprives others, along with himself, of the use of money, deserves no praise”); one is also to use wealth for the glory of God and love of neighbor.

Calvin observed on this passage that to “renounce riches is not in itself virtuous, but rather an empty ambition.” Referring to secular history (Crates the Theban, who tossed his money into the sea), Calvin further noted that the rich young ruler was called to aid others with his income as an act of love: “And so Christ is recommending him not to simply sell but to be liberal in helping the poor.”[7]
Calvin believed that Christ was teaching his listeners not to worship money or riches. He stated that this teaching warned both rich and poor alike to trust in God—the rich being warned of their danger, the poor being called to be “satisfied with their lot—so that each could serve God. While Calvin realized that riches themselves do not preclude obedience to God, in view of the “depravity of the human mind,” it is rare “for those who have a great abundance to avoid being intoxicated by them.”
Calvin had the good sense, the good biblical sense to realize that God did not want humans to worship wealth or any aspect of it. He gave the capacity to humans to use wealth, but if the ever present idol-factory of the human mind confused Creator with creation, it would inevitably lead to disaster.

[1] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 1, 337.
[2] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 1, 332.
[3] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 1, 334.
[4] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 1, 334.
[5] John Calvin, Commentary on the Last Four Books of Moses (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 3, 187.
[6] John Calvin, Commentary on the Last Four Books of Moses (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 3, 188.
[7] Cited in Bieler, 283.