Calvin’s Hermeneutic and Tradition: An Augustinian Reception of Romans 7
Society of Biblical Literature
24 November 2005
R. Ward Holder
The seventh chapter of the epistle to the Romans considers the law. However, at the fourteenth verse, Paul abruptly changes to the first person. The history of Christian exegesis on this pericope has broken into two broad streams on this point. One claims that Paul’s language represents a pre-conversion state, that the misery contained in vv. 14-24 represent the life before receiving Christ’s grace. The other maintains that this passage signifies the state of the believer after grace, that either autobiographically or symbolically, Paul is characterizing the life of faith. St. Augustine even defended both positions at different times in his life.
John Calvin, in his Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, noted this change. He wrote that though Augustine had at first chosen the first option, he later righted himself. Calvin claimed that Augustine’s second position was correct, and that in fact, this passage could not be referred to anything but the regenerate (non aliter quam de renatis posse exponi.)[1]. Thus, Calvin cited Augustine’s later position as authority for his own stance, that the divided self of Romans 7 can only be referred to the regenerate believer. But why did Calvin make this choice?[2] David Steinmetz has pointed out that this was hardly a “Protestant” choice in the early modern period, as Cardinal Cajetan made the same choice.[3] Steinmetz makes clear that this choice was quite main-stream in the sixteenth century and did not represent a confessional identity issue.[4]
With the confessional rationale gone, why did Calvin choose Augustine’s later position? The reasons are not yet clear. The medieval tradition of interpreting this text did not support the later Augustine. In Calvin’s time this option was mainstream, but not a universal choice.[5] Even in our own day, the sense of the text is unclear enough that general agreement has not been reached.[6] Calvin had to abandon the medieval tradition that accepted Romans 7 as a description of life under the law, and Calvin was not an interpreter who lightly discarded the Church’s exegetical traditions.[7] Finally and most curiously, Calvin’s interpretive choice rejects the implicit solution that his favorite exegete, Chrysostom, had offered. Why did he make these choices? In this study, I will demonstrate that this is a particular case of Calvin’s hermeneutical principles over-riding his exegetical rules. We will see that though Calvin had strong exegetical reasons to follow the earlier tradition, his grasp of the Christian religio more urgently pointed him toward the later Augustine.
Calvin’s Interpretation
Calvin argued that v. 14 is about the nature of the law and the nature of human beings.[8] The law is wholly spiritual, wholly good. The law’s purity is balanced by the wickedness of sinful human nature. Calvin poked fun at those who would speak of the glories of human nature by asking what agreement might exist between the purity of the law and the decadence of human nature. He answered, “None – just as exists between light and darkness.”[9] Verse 15, on the other hand, describes the regenerate believer, who has different existential possibilities.[10] When he turns to v. 15, Calvin expressed the difficulty of the teaching which Paul gives. For Calvin, v. 15 represented two important themes. First, it is about both the difference that exists between the wholly pure law and polluted human nature. Secondly, it teaches that it is impossible to state that the law actually causes death.[11] Calvin began his explanation by tracing and refuting popular opinions about the freedom of the unregenerate will. He wrote
Since carnal man rushes with the whole predilection of his mind into sinning, he appears to be sinning by free choice, as if it were his power to govern himself. And this most pernicious opinion has become valued among almost all people, that man is able by his natural faculties to freely choose what he pleases without the support of Divine grace. Yet though the will of the faithful man is moved to good by the Spirit of God, it is in him that the depravity of human nature becomes most conspicuous, because it resists obstinately and leads away from where it is led. [12]
Calvin saw that it is only the converted believer who experiences the conflict that Paul describes. David Steinmetz has noted in Calvin’s interpretation that “There is, therefore, a perverse sense in which sinners may be regarded as integrated personalities, at least on the level of the will’s affections. If the ungodly are not free from a sometimes troubled conscience, they are at least free from the inner conflict that marks the life of faith. … But this freedom is deceptive, a mark of a subtler and deeper bondage.”[13]
Thus Calvin stated that v. 15 is an example of a believer who has been regenerated. He regarded this as an opportunity to consider the difference between the character of sin in the believer and in those who have not been regenerated. For Calvin, that difference has to do with the will, rather than the intellect. Unbelievers, when they receive the pangs of conscience, do so because they experience a contradiction in their judgment, rather than in their will.[14] For this reason, v. 15 can only speak about the regenerate, who still bear the remains of flesh within them. Verse 15 is about a conflict of the will, not the intellect.
Augustine’s Interpretations
Augustine interpreted the book of Romans frequently. Informally, he was concerned with its interpretation for years as a Manichaean hearer and a lover of philosophy.[15] Formally, he produced his Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans and his Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans between 392 and around 400. In the Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans, we see his early position. Commenting upon vv. 15-16, Augustine asserted
For
I do not want to do what I do; but what I hate, this I do. If, moreover, I do what I do not want to do,
I agree that the Law is good” (
Augustine noted
clearly that the person under discussion in v. 15 is one who is under the law
before the reception of grace (sub lege positus ante gratiam). Two concerns drove Augustine’s
interpretation. First is the protection
of the goodness of the law; the second is the freedom of the will. The vindication of the .aw Augustine took
from v. 14, where he wrote “‘We know that the Law is spiritual, but I am
carnal’ (
Around 396, Augustine composed his Ad Simplicianum de diversis quaestionibus.[18] This was Augustine’s set of answers to the questions of interpretation that Romans 7 and 9 raise for believers. The first question concerned Romans 7.7-25. In the fourth paragraph, Augustine wrote, “But sin was dead, that is, hidden, all the time that men were born mortal and lived without the commandment of the law, following the desires of the flesh in ignorance because there was no prohibition. Therefore he says, ‘I lived without the law once.’ Thereby he shows that he is not speaking in his own person but generally in the person of ‘the old man.’”[19] Augustine still held that earlier position, that Paul was not speaking autobiographically. Nor was Paul speaking of believers in general, rather he considered those who had not yet received grace. Clearly, in the 390’s, Augustine interpreted this passage to safeguard free will and the goodness of the law.
By 420, however, Augustine had experienced a change of heart about this passage. He had been embroiled in considering Pelagian issues since at least 411, when Marcellinus sent him a letter reporting that Pelagian views were expanding in Carthage.[20] This dispute seems to have affected his understanding of the passage. In 420 and 421, Augustine provided a number of arguments against the idea that this passage refers to those before grace in his Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum.[21] Calvin noted this text by name, but does not quote the arguments.[22] In 426, Augustine again repudiated his earlier teaching, specifically. In his Retractationes, II, i, Augustine wrote concerning this that “Whereas the apostle says, ‘The law is spiritual but I am carnal etc.,’ showing that the flesh wars against the spirit, I have expounded his words as if he were describing the man who is still under the law and not yet under grace. Long afterwards I learned that these words could also describe the spiritual man and in all probability do so.”[23]
In his own examination of the text, it was natural for Calvin to turn to Augustine, because Augustine was Calvin’s favorite patristic source.[24] As he turned to Augustine, Calvin had to choose between the young Augustine and the late Augustine. Because the exegetical tradition is divided, Calvin’s choice must reflect his theological convictions. Calvin’s choice of the late Augustine, however, raises as many exegetical questions as it seems to answer. Steinmetz points out the difficulties which this position seems to create for Calvin. He writes
On the other hand, Calvin’s position is not without its exegetical difficulties. Paul’s description of life in the Spirit is difficult to reconcile with Calvin’s characterization of the Christian life as an existence marked by inner conflict and repeated failure. If the person described in Romans 7:14 as “carnal, sold under sin is a believer, then Calvin must explain how the same person can elsewhere be described as “set free from sin” (6:18) and “not in the flesh” (8:9). The exegetical data seems far easier to account for if, as the young Augustine argued, 7:14 refers to life under the law and the contradictory texts to life under grace.[25]
Calvin created an exegetical problem for himself by accepting Augustine’s second solution. The unanswered question is why did he choose to do so? To answer this question, we must turn to Chrysostom.
Calvin and Chrysostom
Chrysostom is the un-named figure lurking in the background in Calvin’s consideration of Romans. In this section, we shall see that Calvin claimed Chrysostom’s exegesis was undeniably better than that of Augustine. We shall demonstrate that Calvin knew of Chrysostom’s homily on this text, which conflicted with the position taken by the mature Augustine. Finally, we shall see that Calvin turned away from Chrysostom for doctrinal concerns, rather than exegetical reasoning.
Augustine was not the only Father who influenced Calvin. Especially in his exegetical writings, Calvin frequently considered the opinions of Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome, among others.[26] But the citations to Chrysostom far outstripped these.[27] In fact, based on the named citations within his Pauline commentaries, we can see that Chrysostom was Calvin’s favorite patristic exegete to consider, surpassing even Augustine. With one exception, Calvin never cited Augustine more than Chrysostom, and frequently his citations to Chrysostom doubled or even trebled the number of citations to Augustine.[28] In the most remarkable difference, in the commentary on II Corinthians, Calvin only named Augustine five times, while he cited Chrysostom twenty-one times.[29]
But what was that one exception? The commentary on Romans. It cannot be that Calvin did not know of Chrysostom’s sermons upon this text. The 1536 Paris edition of Chrysostom’s works included these homilies, and Calvin had underlined one of them in his own copy.[30] Further, Calvin accepted Chrysostom as a model for both exegesis and practical application of the scripture to Christian life.[31] Our best evidence for this is Calvin’s Latin preface to a proposed French edition of Chrysostom’s homilies.[32] The original manuscript exists in Calvin’s own handwriting, and forensic and paleographical evidence date it conclusively between 1538 and 1540.[33] This is significant for several reasons. First, this time is at the very beginning of Calvin’s commenting upon the scripture, by 1540 he would publish only the Romans commentary, and his next commentary, on I Corinthians, would not appear until 1546.[34] Secondly, the preparation of the preface to the planned Chrysostom edition would have been simultaneous with the preparation of the first edition of the commentary on Romans.
What was the substance of Calvin’s preface to Chrysostom? First, Calvin pointed out the reasons for producing aids for the reading and understanding of scripture for ordinary Christians, those who could not read classical languages. He did so by noting that it is important when reading the scripture to know “…what one ought to look for there, to have some sort of goal towards which we may be guided”, in order to avoid wandering aimlessly.[35] The Holy Spirit enables the mind of believers to grasp the goal (scopus) of scripture, but once believers have received that power, they should also avail themselves of aids to understanding.
Since, however, the Lord, with the same consideration by which he illuminates us through his Spirit, has, in addition, granted us aids, which he intends to be of assistance in our labour of investigating his truth, there is no reason for us either to neglect them as superfluous, or even to care less about them as if irrelevant. For what Paul said ought to be borne in mind, that though everything belongs to us, we however belong to Christ. Therefore, let those things which the Lord has provided for our use be of service to us.
The point is, if it is right that ordinary Christians be not deprived of the Word of their God, neither should they be denied prospective resources, which may be of use for its true understanding. Besides, [ordinary Christians] do not have the educational attainment. As this in itself is a considerable privilege, so it is not granted to everyone. It is obvious, therefore, that they should be assisted by the work of interpreters, who have advanced in the knowledge of God to a level that they can guide others to as well. … All I have had in mind with this is to facilitate the reading of Holy Scripture for those who are humble and uneducated.
I am certainly well aware of what objection can be made to me in this business. This is what Chrysostom, whom I am undertaking to make known to the public, aimed his studies at the intelligentsia only. But yet, unless both the title [of his work] and [its] style of language deceive, this man specialized in sermons which he delivered to a wide public. Accordingly, he plainly adjusts both [his] approach and language as if he had the instruction of common people in mind. This being the case, anyone maintaining that he ought to be kept in seclusion among the academics has got it wrong, seeing that he did go out of his way to cultivate a popular appeal.[36]
Calvin set out the necessity of the laity reading the scriptures, and the concomitant essential of aids to understanding. Calvin himself would later follow this pattern by translating his own commentaries into French. Chrysostom was his choice, in part, because of Chrysostom’s ability to accommodate his wisdom and understanding to the abilities of the common people.
Secondly, Calvin defended his choice of Chrysostom. He wrote
My reason for selecting Chrysostom as the most preferable needs likewise to be dealt with in passing. From the outset, the reader ought to bear in mind the kind of literary genre it is in which I prefer him to others. Although homilies are something which consist of a variety of elements, the interpretation of Scripture is, however, their priority. In this area, no one of sound judgement would deny that our Chrysostom excels all the ancient writers currently extant. This is especially true when he deals with the New Testament.[37]
Chrysostom was Calvin’s ideal. We learn much about Calvin’s own ideal of interpretation when we read his understanding of Chrysostom’s principal significance. “The chief merit of our Chrysostom is this: he took great pains everywhere not to deviate in the slightest from the genuine plain meaning of Scripture, and not to indulge in any licence of twisting the straightforward sense of the words.”[38]
The comparison between Calvin’s opinions of Augustine and Chrysostom is underscored when we compare Calvin’s estimation of the two in the Chrysostom preface. Calvin lauded Chrysostom for avoiding any deviation “from the genuine plain meaning of Scripture”. Directly before that in his text, Calvin considered Augustine. “It is beyond dispute that Augustine does surpass everyone in dogmatics. He is also a very scrupulous biblical commentator of the first rank. But he is far too ingenious. This results in him being less sound and reliable.”[39] Augustine was without parallel in doctrine. His commenting, though voluminous, was however unsound and unreliable because of his ingenuity.
What of Chrysostom’s doctrine? Calvin sought, without much success, to rescue the Greek father from his dependence on human freedom. Calvin wrote of Chrysostom that:
By being unrestrained in asserting human free will, and in claiming the merits of works, he obscures somewhat the grace of God in our election and calling, and thereby the gratuitous mercy which accompanies us from our calling right up to death. Firstly, he attempts to link election to some consideration of our works. Scripture, though, proclaims everywhere that there is nothing by which God may be moved to elect us except our pathetic condition, and that he does not base his decision to come to our aid on anything except his own goodness. Secondly, to some extent [Chrysostom] divides the credit for our calling between God and ourselves, though scripture consistently ascribes the whole of it to God without qualification.[40]
Calvin attempted to reclaim Chrysostom from his errors about the freedom of the human will and the partial credit for human calling.[41] Calvin endeavored to do so by contextualizing Chrysostom. In Calvin’s re-construction of the historical circumstances of this, he states two reasons the Greek father left the “Christian teaching”. Both reasons were “forced” upon Chrysostom. First, Chrysostom modified his own opinion so as not to be too different from public opinion, avoiding an opening for scorn from “Sophist” slanderers.[42] Secondly, Calvin noted that many members of the church were living dissolute lives, and would take any opportunity presented to shift blame from themselves to another agency.[43] Therefore Chrysostom defended free will almost against his own will![44] Calvin’s effort reminds the reader of the preacher whose sermon text bore the marginal note, “Weak point – pound pulpit!” Calvin was unable to find a textual instance where Chrysostom agreed with the “Christian teaching” that Calvin knew he must have held. By 1543, in his reply to Pighius, Calvin will not even make the effort to recover Chrysostom from his incorrect doctrine of free will.[45]
Calvin followed Augustine’s doctrine. With Richard Muller, it is probably more fair to say that Calvin believed that he was finding in Augustine a particularly fruitful presentation of the Church’s doctrine.[46] We can firmly establish that Calvin was thinking about Chrysostom’s exegesis of Paul at the very time that he was avoiding the Greek father in his interpretation of Romans. Chrysostom did not slip from Calvin’s mind, the evidence points instead to the conclusion that Calvin rejected Chrysostom.
Let us examine the evidence from the beginning of Chrysostom’s Homily XIII on Romans 7.14.[47] Chrysostom, considering this passage, wrote
ROM. VII. 14.-"For we know that the Law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin."
After having said that great evils had taken place, and that sin, taking occasion by the commandment, had grown stronger, and the opposite of what the Law mainly aimed at had been the result, and after having thrown the hearer into a great deal of perplexity, he goes on next to give the rationale of these events, after first clearing the Law of any ill suspicion. For lest-upon hearing that it was through the commandment that sin took that occasion, and that it was when it came that sin revived, and through it deceived and killed-any one should suppose the Law to be the source of these evils, he first sets forth its defence with considerable advantage, not clearing it from accusation only, but encircling it also with the utmost praise. And this he lays down, not as granting it for his own part, but as declaring a universal judgment. "For we know," he says, "that the Law is spiritual." As if he had said, This is an allowed thing, and self-evident, that it "is spiritual," so far is it from being the cause of sin, or to blame for the evils that have happened. And observe, that he not only clears it of accusation, but bestows exceeding great praise upon it. For by calling it spiritual, he shows it to be a teacher of virtue and hostile to vice; for this is what being spiritual means, leading off from sin of every kind. And this the Law did do, by frightening, admonishing, chastening, correcting, recommending every kind of virtue. Whence then, was sin produced, if the teacher was so admirable? It was from the listlessness of its disciples. Wherefore he went on to say, "but I am carnal;" giving us a sketch now of man, as comporting himself in the Law, and before the Law.[48]
Chrysostom concerned himself in the interpretation of this passage with the defense of the law. For him, this was not about anthropology per se, nor about the place of the sinner before God. The question which this pericope posed was how Paul would rescue the law from the confusion into which his rhetoric had led. The law was a good teacher and corrector of humans. The fault lay not with the law, but with the disciples, who were listless or sluggish (segnitie). Only in the very last phrase did Chrysostom mention anything about the issue which Calvin had quoted Augustine to support. Chrysostom did not take the time to consider the issue of whether the subject is before grace, before the law, or in any other condition. For Chrysostom, the question to answer was the character of the law itself. Finally he stated simply and in passing that Paul had indicated humans in the law, and before the law (eum qui in lege et ante legem vixerat hominem indicans).
Let us consider then what Calvin’s choice among the fathers did for him. On the positive side, his denial of human activity and merit in the process of salvation was safe-guarded. Calvin achieved a proof text to buttress his claims about the conflicted character of the life under faith. However, on the negative side, he relinquished some flexibility in dealing with other passages from Romans, such as 6.16 and 8.9. Further, the whole tenor of the second half of chapter 8 seems incompatible with Calvin’s divided believing self. If his theology was simply to be an exposition of scripture, these were serious drawbacks.
Calvin and Scripture,
1537-1540
When
we look historically at what Calvin wrote during the time leading up to the
publication of the first edition of the Romans commentary, we can discern a
cluster of texts gathered around the issue of scriptural interpretation. This suggests that this issue was never far
from Calvin’s mind in the later period of his first stay in Geneva, and his
entire time in Strasbourg.[49] We see this most clearly in the prefaces to
the 1539 Institutes, the preface to the edition of Chrysostom, and to
the Romans commentary.
The 1539 edition of the Institutes was a
fundamental change from the first edition of 1536. In 1536, the Institutes was a handbook
for Christians, written with an added apologetic aim.[50] In the preface to the 1539 edition, Calvin
makes it clear that he now has directed his work to the preparation of
candidates in theology.[51] More importantly, Calvin made it clear at
that point that scripture reading required a kind of hermeneutical framework,
which he believed he was providing.
It has been my
purpose in this labor to prepare and furnish candidates in sacred theology for
the reading of the divine Word, that they might be able both to have easy
entrance into it and to advance in it unhindered. For it seems to me that I have provided a
summary of religion in all its parts, and have arranged it in such an order so
that should anyone rightly grasp it, it will not be difficult for him to
establish what he ought particularly to seek in Scripture, and also to what
goal he ought to refer its contents.[52]
Calvin supplied the summary of religion
in all its parts which allowed the mysteries of the scriptures to be
opened. This summary guided the choice
of any interpreter’s grasp of the meaning of the scriptures.
We
have already considered the preface to Chrysostom at some length. What we must grasp is the number of parallel
issues which Calvin notes in his preface to the 1539 Institutes, stated
either explicitly or implicitly.
Explicitly, this is about scriptural interpretation. It appears to be a different level of
interpretation, aimed at the common folk rather than learned candidates in
theology. But Calvin’s experience and
wording gives that appearance the lie – many preachers would have needed any
aids to scriptural interpretation and church history they could find,
especially those written in vulgar languages.[53]
Implicitly,
this work is about how one should handle biblical texts, and the relation of
that to doctrine. Calvin set out
Chrysostom as the exemplar for handling the scriptural texts. He does not deviate from the plain genuine
meaning of scripture, and does not twist the straightforward sense of the
words. This should have been enough had
this preface really been only about exegesis.
But for Calvin, the relationship of exegesis and doctrine could never be
denied. That is the reason for the
excursus on Chrysostom’s failings as a theologian, and Calvin’s attempted
rescue.
The dedicatory
epistle for the Romans commentary that Calvin wrote to Simon Grynaeus also
demonstrates Calvin’s concern for right biblical interpretation.[54] Calvin recorded his “interpretive” model,
stating
I remember that
three years ago we had a friendly conversation about the best manner of
explaining Scripture. The way that
pleased you best was also that which seemed best to me at that time. Both of us realized that the principle virtue
of the interpreter was in lucid brevity.
Because it is almost his [the interpreter's] only responsibility to make
accessible the mind of the writer whom he has undertaken to explicate, he
wanders away from that aim, or at least strays outside his goals, by the extent
to which he leads his readers away from that meaning. We desired that from the number of those who
at this day seek to assist the cause of theology in this task, one could be
found who would study not only to be straightforward, but would also at the
same time try to avoid detaining his readers with too much wordiness. I know, however, that this opinion is not
received by all, and that those who do not accept this nevertheless have their
own reasons, I however cannot be moved from a love of abbreviation.”[55]
The letter is dated October 18th,
1539. Calvin noted that since 1536 he
had been considering the correct manner of interpreting scripture. Further, he began his career commenting upon
scripture with Romans. This was not a
necessary choice, Calvin could have chosen the gospels as his starting place,
following the order of the canon of the New Testament. But his choice the Pauline literature in
general, and of Romans in particular, tells us something about his ideals for
understanding the scriptures.[56] For Calvin, Romans solved the mysteries of
the meaning of the scriptures. He wrote
In considering
the value of this Epistle, I doubt whether it would be worthwhile to spend much
time on it, because I fear that as my recommendation of it will fall far short
of its magnitude, everything I say might do nothing but obscure the
Epistle. Further, at its very beginning
the Epistle explains itself in a much better way than any words can
describe. It will, therefore, be better
for me to pass on to the argument itself.
This will prove to us beyond any controversy that among many other
exceptional virtues it has one in particular which can never be sufficiently
appreciated. If someone gains a true
understanding of it, that one has an entrance to all the most hidden (reconditissimos)
treasures of Scripture.[57]
The charge of a “canon within the canon” is not without merit when we consider Calvin’s theology. He believed that Romans and its message of the centrality of justification by faith was the narrow gate by which one came to true understandings of scripture.[58] Scholars have pointed this out as the Pauline character of Calvin’s thought, but it might perhaps be seen as the Augustinian-Pauline synthesis.[59]
What these texts demonstrate is that in 1540, Calvin had been considering the proper way to interpret scripture for a number of years. We can look at prefaces attached (or planned to be attached!) to three different genres – a summary of doctrine, a commentary, and an edition of a Greek Father. In each case, Calvin made the same point. Good biblical interpretation must be controlled by correct doctrine. The Preface to the 1539 Institutes claimed to be a summary of doctrine, so that one reading scripture will know how to understand it. The Argument to the Romans commentary claimed that the doctrine of the epistle to the Romans was the key to opening the most hidden or profound treasures in all the scriptures. The preface to Chrysostom argues the need for helps for ordinary people to read scripture, and carefully corrects the doctrine of the selected Father where he went astray. Calvin demanded that scripture be read with a proper doctrinal hermeneutic.
Calvin, Hermeneutics, and Exegesis
In examining Calvin’s choices in Romans 7, modern analysts are faced with a question. After we sort through the possible options which Calvin received from the prior interpretive tradition, can we straightforwardly state why Calvin took certain positions? The question is too complicated for a simple “influence” paradigm. Calvin was influenced by Augustine and by Chrysostom. Further, he had to choose between two options produced by Augustine!
Given the nature of the problem, we must use a different tool. In this study, we see the usefulness of a division between principles of hermeneutics and rules or practices of exegesis. This differentiation comes from the work of Karlfried Froehlich. In 1984, Froehlich wrote
Patristic hermeneutics (from the Greek hermeneuein, to explain, interpret) concerns itself with the developing principles and rules for a proper understanding of the Bible in the early Christian church. The principles reflect the theological framework in which the Biblical writings were interpreted by different groups and individuals at various times; they always included the basic conviction that God’s revelation in Jesus Christ was central to God’s plan of salvation (oikonomia) but they left room for different readings of major themes such as Israel and the church, eschatology, ethics, even Christology, anthropology, and soteriology. The rules reflect the methodology by which the language of Biblical revelation was scrutinized so that it would yield insight into God’s oikonomia and its ramifications for the life of the community; they were often taken over from the literary culture of the surrounding world but were then developed into new, creative paradigms of literary analysis. [60]
In this division between hermeneutic principles and exegetical rules, principles are the deeper term. These are the foundational ideas which an interpreter brings to interpretation, these are so basic to the interpreter that they form the lenses which clarify the text. Thus, they judge the text, rather than normally being judged by the text.[61] As well, hermeneutic principles tend to act sub-consciously in the interpreter, being part of the worldview or “structure of reality” for that person.
Exegetical
practices are about the method of extricating meaning from a text. These are chosen by the interpreter. Frequently the history of interpretation has
only dealt with exegetical practices.
Terms such as allegory, sensus germanus, literal sense,
historical-critical, typology, anagogh, and philological normally belong to this division. These are tools, the choice of which is
almost as culturally conditioned as the choice of clothing.[62] Biblical interpreters chose various rules or
practices so as to be understood and appealing to various audiences, and because they found those
practices most useful.[63]
Finally,
theologians in general, and Calvin in particular, allow hermeneutic principles
to overwhelm exegetical rules in cases of disagreement. Calvin noted that Augustine was the truest
teacher of doctrine, but from the very first verse of the Romans commentary,
chided his biblical interpretation by deriding his love of philosophical
argumentation.[64] This is what we would expect, given what
Calvin wrote in the Chrysostom preface of Augustine. We have already discussed that Calvin held
out Chrysostom as the best exegete among the fathers. But at a key point in commenting upon Romans,
Calvin turns away from the interpretation of Chrysostom, toward that of
Augustine. In the 1540 edition, he does
so without noting either father by name.[65] Calvin did so at the very point of difference
between his theological hermeneutic and Chrysostom’s own doctrinal
failing. For Calvin, these stirrings of
conscience cannot be infecting the will of the human who has not received the
grace of regeneration, because that would suggest that pre-grace humans have
the will to do something which Calvin claims they cannot – turn to God.
If
we accept this model of differentiating between hermeneutics and exegesis, we
can begin to examine the problem before us by application of this
division. Calvin “knew” that the bondage
of the will in matters of salvation was part and parcel of the Christian
religion.[66] The doctrine of the bondage of the choice of
the will was not only correct and factual, but to the advantage of the
believer.[67] This acted as a hermeneutical principle. For Calvin, this was not a choice which he
was making from a range of acceptable options.
It was simple Christianity, right teaching would have to defend it, and
that which did not could not be correct.
This
model also helps to explain the expansion of the text at this point. It is likely that Calvin knew both the
Augustine text against the Pelagians and the Chrysostom sermons prior to the
publication of the first edition of the Romans commentary.[68] Though Calvin frequently expanded his works
when he edited them (!), the addition of Augustine’s name in the later editions
can be taken as a grasping of authority.
In adding the material from Augustine, Calvin in no way changed his
earlier substance.[69] He did, however, add the weight of a
significant doctrinal authority to his own position.
Finally, Calvin
believed that the correct teaching of religion took priority, in some manner,
over the correct interpretation of scripture.
In the dedicatory epistle to Grynaeus, he had finished with a brief
acknowledgement of the difficulty of finding complete agreement in biblical
interpretation, while noting that less room for discrepancy is given to the
teaching of religion. He wrote:
We have always
observed, however, even among those who have not lacked in their zeal for
piety, or in sobriety in handling the things of God, even among them there has
not been consensus [concerning the interpretation of scripture]. God has never so dignified his servants with
the blessing that each possessed a full
and perfect understanding of every part of their subject. Without a doubt, his plan was first that we
would be kept humble, and also that we should continue to have communication
with our brothers. Therefore that which
we most hope for in the present life, even though it were otherwise highly
hoped for, we are not to seek in the present life for perpetual consensus among
us on the exposition of passages of
scripture. When, therefore, we depart
from the views of our predecessors, we are not to be stimulated by any lust for
innovation, not to be impelled by any desire to slander others, not to be
aroused by any hatred, and not to be prompted by any ambition. Only necessity should force us, and we are to
have no other object than that of doing good.
We are to try to do the same also in expounding Scripture, but in the
teachings of religion, in which God has particularly desired that the minds of
his people should be in agreement, we
are to take less liberty. I have studied
both of these, as my readers will easily grasp.[70]
For Calvin, the teaching of religion and
scriptural interpretation were indissolubly linked. But less liberty was allowed in
religion! Calvin believed that
scriptural interpretation must find its true goal (scopus) in Christ,
and that only doctrines which edified the Church were true. In Calvin’s mind, his own time most closely
approximated that of Augustine. Both
were faced with the same doctrinal problem.
Their opponents depended too much upon human merit and human
freedom. Calvin followed his doctrinal
authority, not because it necessarily made the most exegetical sense to him,
but because the teaching of religion required it. In fact, Calvin consistently advanced the
exegetical rule of the following the simple or straightforward (germanus)
meaning throughout his Pauline commentaries.[71]
Why
did Calvin accept the solution of the older Augustine? Because he recognized Augustine, somewhat
uncritically, as the chief representative of orthodox doctrine. In examining the theological challenges of
his own day, Calvin drew strong links between his own time and Augustine’s
struggle with the Pelagian heresy. The
issue of the will was central to this question, Calvin’s own definition of the
Christian religion denied the possibility of tolerance on this point. To take this position, Calvin had to turn his
back on the simple plain-sense exegesis of Chrysostom, the Father whom he
identified as the best patristic exegete.
Augustine’s early interpretation of Romans 7.14-15 was too close to that
of Chrysostom. In doing so, Calvin
accepted the difficulties of making coherent sense of Paul’s teaching in
chapter 7 against the background of Romans 6 and Romans 8.[72]
Conclusion
To understand a theologian’s conception
of particular biblical passages or teachings is always devilishly
difficult. It has not been my purpose in
this study to argue that hermeneutics must be given pride of place, and
displace historical-exegetical work from the set of tools the analysts bring to
the task of understanding. Indeed, many
of the issues which I sought to consider are impossible to conceive without the
insights which can only come from historical-exegetical work. My point in this study is to illustrate the
complexity of the analytical task in considering theological interpretations of
scripture, and to urge the use of an added investigative instrument to
complement others.
Let
us recount then what we have gathered.
At the time of the publication of his first commentary on scripture,
Calvin had been intensely considering the relationship of doctrine and exegesis
for years. By this time, he had already
determined his guiding lights for both efforts.
Augustine was the teacher of religion, Chrysostom the guide to exegesis. Calvin almost certainly knew of Chrysostom’s
interpretation of Romans 7, but eschewed it in favor of the position which is
represented in Augustine’s later explanation.
He did not cite Augustine at the time of the first edition, but did add
the allusion to him in later editions of the Romans commentary.[73] Further, he added Augustine’s material and
influence at the very point at which his own theology differed most greatly
with that of his favorite New Testament exegete – Chrysostom. The evidence collected suggests strongly that
this is a test case for Calvin’s hermeneutical principles overwhelming his
exegetical sensibility. Calvin could not
follow the early Augustine, for that position allows too great an opportunity
for the mischief concerning the freedom of the will to creep into the minds of
believers.
Appendix
Comparison
of Citations to Augustine and Chrysostom
Parker/Feld CNTC
Romans A-13 C-5 A-14 C-4
I Corinthians A-11 C-25
II Corinthians A-5 C-21 A-4 C-21
Galatians Group A-9 C-16 A-10 C-16
I Thessalonians A-1 C-4
II Thessalonians A-1 C-4
Timothy A-4 C-8
Titus A-2 C-2
Philemon A-0 C-1
Hebrews A-4 C-6 A-4 C-4
A – Augustine; C – Chrysostom
Texts Used:
Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Edited by T.H.L. Parker. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981.
Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica, Commentarii in Pauli Epistolas ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses. Edited by Helmut Feld. Geneva: Droz, 1992.
Ioannis Calvini Opera
Exegetica, Commentarii in Secundum Pauli Epistolam ad Corinthios. Edited by Helmut Feld. Geneva: Droz, 1994.
Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica, Commentarius in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Edited by T.H.L. Parker. Geneva: Droz, 1996.
Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. 12 volumes. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. vv. 8-12.
[1]Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, T.H.L. Parker, ed., (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981), 149.31-37. “Atqui Paulus, ut iam dixi, non hic proponit nudam hominis naturam: verum qualis et quanta sit fidelium infirmitas, sub persona sua describit. In communi errore aliquandiu versatus est Augustinus: verum loco propius excusso, non tantum retractavit quod male docuerat, sed libro ad Bonifacium primo, multis validis rationibus contendit, non aliter quam de renatis posse exponi.”
[2]Actually, Calvin did not include this material until later editions of the commentary. Parker’s text makes clear that this material was not in the 1540 edition. However, though it only achieved this form in 1556, the stance is unchanged, as other passages which are in the 1540 text give the same point. Ad Romanos, 149.31-37.
[3]David Steinmetz, “Calvin and the Divided Self of Romans 7,” In Calvin in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 110-121.
[4]Steinmetz, 117. “What this brief history of the exegesis of Rom. 7:14-25 in the sixteenth century makes clear is that the division between exegetical schools does not correspond in any way to the division between the competing confessional families.”
[5]Steinmetz examines the interpretations of fifteen sixteenth century
exegetes, finding three who preferred the earlier option. These were Bernardino Ochino, Fausto Sozzini, and Jacopo Sadoleto. Steinmetz, 111-112.
[6]Although Joseph Fitzmyer only deals with this question in passing, perhaps signifying that it is a settled question (476), C.E.B. Cranfield took the opposite approach with considerable effort (356ff.). Fitzmyer is supported by Achtemeier and Käsemann. Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1993); C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975); Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1985).
[7]Steinmetz, 118.
[8]Comm. Romans 7.14, Ad Romanos 146.39-41. “Nunc propius committere inter se Legem et hominis naturam incipit, ut clarius intelligatur unde mortis vitium emergat.” He now begins to compare the Law with human nature, in order more clearly to understand whence the corruption leading to death comes.”
[9]Comm. Romans 7.14, Ad Romanos 146.45-46. “Quae igitur convenientia naturae hominis cum Lege? nempe quae luci cum tenebris.”
[10]Comm. Romans 7.14, Ad Romanos 146.41-43. “Deinde exemplum proponit hominis regenerati: in quo sic carnis reliquiae cum Lege Domini dissident, ut spiritus ei libenter obtemperet.”
[11]Comm. Romans 7.15, Ad Romanos 146.77-80.
[12]Comm. Romans 7.15, Ad Romanos 146.81-87. “Siquidem quum homo carnalis tota animi propensione in libidinem peccandi ruat: videtur ita libera electione peccare, ut sit in potestate eius moderari sibi: ut haec opinio perniciosissima apud omnes fere invaluit, hominem naturali facultate posse utrumlibet eligere, citra Divinae gratiae auxilium. at vero dum voluntas fidelis hominis Spiritu Dei ad bonus agitur, illic perspicue patet naturae pravitas quae obstinate resistit, et nititur in adversum.”
[13]Steinmetz, 116.
[14]Comm. Romans 7.15, Ad Romanos 148.10-12. “Illi enim conscientiae aculei, quibus punguntur, potius ex iudicii contradictione nascuntur, quam ex contrario voluntatis affectu.”
[15]Paula Fredricksen Landes, Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), ix.
[16]Landes, 16. “‘Quod autem ait: Non enim quod volo, hoc ago, sed quod odi, illud facio. Si autem quod nolo, hoc facio, consentio legi, quoniam bona est, satis quidem lex ab omni criminatione defenditur, sed cavendum, ne quis arbitretur his verbis auferri nobis liberum voluntatis arbitrium, quod non ita est. (2) Nunc enim homo describitur sub lege positus ante gratiam. Tunc enim peccatis vincitur, dum viribus suis iuste vivere conatur sine adiutorio liberantis gratiae dei. (3) In libero autem arbitrio habet, ut credat liberatori et accipiat gratiam, ut iam illo, qui eam donat, liberante et adiuvante non peccet atque ita desinat esse sub lege, sed cum lege vel in lege implens eam caritate dei, quod timore non poterat.”
[17]Landes, 16. “Quod autem ait: Scimus quia lex spiritualis est, ego autem carnalis sum, satis ostendit non posse impleri legem nisi a spiritualibus, quales facit gratia dei. (2) Similis enim quisque factus ipsi legi facile implet, quod praecipit, nec erit sub illa sed cum illa; is est autem, qui iam non capitur temporalibus bonis nec terretur temporalibus malis.”