1 Bullinger as Interpreter of the Epistle to the Romans

For a long time the historical and theological importance of the Zurich reformer Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) for the development of the Reformed Protestantism world-wide was underestimated. It is only in the last few years that the scientific community have begun to give him more attention. The papers of the International Congress on Bullinger research (Zurich 2004), a volume with about 1000 pages, is due to appear and will certainly mark an important step in this direction. In his time Bullinger in no way took second place in authority and influence to Calvin, who was five years his junior, but outclassed him in various respects.

Bullinger also played an important role in the Reformed exegesis of the Epistle to the Romans. Already in 1525 when Bullinger was a teacher at Kappel, a cloister near Zurich, and only 21 (Calvin was 16 years old at the time), he interpreted the letter to the Romans in a lecture. His hand-written notes up to and including the fifth chapter are still preserved and are published in Heinrich Bullinger Werke [The Works of Heinrich Bullinger].[1] Then in 1537 Bullinger published a whole commentary on Romans that is unavailable in any modern critical edition, and which otherwise has also not been accorded much attention in the research.[2] Actually, that is astonishing. When one bears in mind that the theology of the Reformation is substantially influenced by Romans, it is obvious that one can find here an important source with regard to the basis and decisions for the Reformed exegetical tradition. In the course of our discussion we naturally cannot carry out a thorough examination of Bullingers commentary on Romans. However, some characteristics of Bullingers interpretation of that letter which stand out when comparing them with other contemporary Reformed commentaries should be named and briefly commented on. It can at least be made clear that Bullinger deserves consideration as an interpreter of the Epistle to the Romans.

2 Sources and Dependencies

The most important sources and aids Bullinger used at Kappel for his early lecture on Romans in 1525 are elaborated on by Susanna Hausamman.[3] As already mentioned, only the texts on Romans 1 5 are available for this lecture. It is clear that Bullinger used here Origines commentary on Romans, as well as Ambrosiaster and Theophylaktos. But Faber Stapulenis and of course Erasmuss paraphrased version on Romans are always present. It is interesting that Bullinger in many cases follows Erasmus very closely. This in the same year in which the final break-up between Erasmus and Luther took place, and where Bullinger himself clearly takes Luthers and Zwinglis side regarding the question of free will. Also in later years Bullinger explicitly admits learning much from Erasmus and wishes to continue doing so. At the same time, Bullingers commentary is not a humanistic interpretation, but a Reformed one, which, however, makes valuable use of humanistic tools for interpretation. Bullinger in particular falls back on antique rhetoric in order to clarify the path of argumentation in Pauls letter. In contrast to Luther, Faber Stapulensis and also Erasmus, he can demonstrate the antique letter pattern on which the Epistle to the Romans is based. And at the same time he interprets Romans in a continuous exegesis, going from one verse to the next, and in this way comes across as being very modern, in contrast for instance to Luthers lecture on Romans from 1515-16, which is very committed to the medieval gloss or commentary style.

At the time of his own 1525 interpretation, Bullinger doubtlessly knows Luthers most important writings that had been published up until then. He also uses a reprint of Luthers September Testament from 1522, and with that also Luthers marginal gloss.[4] Melanchthon is also especially important for him. His Loci of 1521 belonged to the most important writings for Bullinger from the beginning of his turning to the Reformation. And in the interpretation of Romans, Bullinger calls on Melanchthons Annotationes from 1522.[5] Nevertheless, already in 1525 the lines of Bullingers own understanding of Romans are evident, as becomes completely clear in his later commentary of 1537. Naturally the influence of Zwingli and Leo Jud also plays a role, which increases during Bullingers time at Kappel.

3 Composition and Scope

Bullingers division regarding his lecture on Romans and his statements about the skopus of the letter and their individual parts already indicate his own areas of emphasis in the interpretation. Bullinger divides the letter into three parts. The skopus of the whole Epistle to the Romans consists in the statement: lustum ex fide vivere The righteous will live by faith. Paul already states this thesis in the first three chapters, and then illustrates and expounds them in the following Chapters 4-8. For Bullinger the first part of the letter therefore is found in Chapters 1-8. He deals with the gospel in the sense of forgiveness of sins and penance as life coming from faith, because true penance (or repentance) for Bullinger is a fruit of faith and not the reverse. Faith and life based on faith belong together for Paul, and therefore Paul treats the subject in Bullingers eyes first: iustus ex fide vivet, and then: iustus ex fide vivet.

The second large part contains Chapters 9-11. According to Bullinger, it is about the reiectio ludaeorum et vocatione gentium the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles. And finally the third part is Chapters 12-16, dealing with various questions which were current or hot topics at the time in the Roman congregation.

4 Historical Embedding

Bullingers humanistic-philological approach in association with the great importance history holds for him leads him first of all to understand Romans as a letter which was written by Paul in a specific situation to a specific congregation. That which present-day exegesis takes for granted was by no means so obvious in the 16^th century. Luther barely even tries to place the Epistle to the Romans in Pauls time, but rather turns immediately to its teaching regarding the individual Christian. And for Melanchthon Romans is a theological didactic tract without real anchoring in history. In his own commentary a few years later, Calvin also does not address the historical situation as much as Bullinger does.

Bullinger begins with the reason for the letter: He briefly explains the beginning of the Christian congregation in Rome and then turns to the threat which false prophets[6] represent, who claim that a person could obtain righteousness by compliance with the law. Bullinger refers for this to Romans 16:17-20. In the commentary of 1537 Bullinger calls them Nazarene, following Jeromes example.[7] They are the same ones who also create problems in the congregations in Galatia, as Bullinger presents in detail in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians.

5 The Tradition of the Hebrew Bible (Roman 1:1)

Right at the beginning of his interpretation Bullinger emphasises what is often overlooked in contemporary commentaries: That in his Epistle to the Romans Paul explicitly picks up contacts with the Old Testament-Jewish tradition. By describing himself as called to be an apostle, he goes back to the prophetic tradition of being called in the Hebrew Bible and places himself in a line with Amos and Isaiah. And at the same time he already points out in Romans 1:1 that he is the herald of good news, namely the gospel of Christ which was promised before by the prophets and Holy Scriptures. The Son of God is actually inasmuch as he is human a descendant of David. In this connection Bullinger points out that the New Testament stands on the Old Testament and emerges from it. In a paper he wrote two years earlier in1523, Bullinger could formulate his thesis: The New Testament is nothing else than the interpretation of the Old.[8] With that Bullinger stressed so very much the unity and continuity of the Old and New Testaments as probably no other Reformer did. That had as a consequence for the interpretation of Romans that Bullnger reads Pauline theology and Christology yes, even Paul as a whole very strongly from a historical perspective of salvation, as a fulfilment of the Old Testament but not as a fulfilment which would make it superfluous, but rather just the opposite as a fulfilment which actually only now unlocks the sense and meaning of the Old Testament.

Therefore the Old Testament Hebrew horizon of Pauls thoughts in Romans becomes decisive for their interpretation, and that has consequences as far as the content is concerned. Two examples can be briefly explained here.

6 Ek pisteos eis pistin (Roman 1:17)

In his lecture on Romans in Kappel, Bullinger right from the beginning specifically points out the fact that he departs in some cases from the customary interpretation, and with that he means Luther and Melanchthon. One of these places is the famous Scripture of Romans 1:17.

Bullinger interprets the Pauline ek pisteos eis pistin as: The righteousness of God emerges from belief in (his) faithfulness. Pistis will be initially understood as belief and then as faithfulness. With faithfulness Bullinger means the faithfulness of God which leads a person to faith. Bullingers understanding of iustificatio receives with that its own character. Its explanations will be summarised in a few points.

Firstly, Bullinger like Luther emphasises the forensic aspect of iustificatio. The justification is not based on any kind of substantial righteousness that already exists, rather the person who is made righteous remains at the same time a sinner. Luthers formula simul iustus et peccator is maintained. Bullinger distances himself from any form of quantifying understanding of faith, and also expressly rejects the interpretation of the formula ek pisteos eis pistin in the sense of a growing faith, as supported not only by Erasmus, but also by Melanchthon.[9]

Secondly, Bullinger adopts Luthers concept of transference of the foreign righteousness of Christ onto the believer, as Luther especially developed it in De libertate christiana. The mystic-formed concepts of the joyous exchange are for Bullinger probably therefore not strange, because he was influenced in his youth by the devotio moderna.

Characteristic for Bullingers doctrine of justification and also in comparison with Luther and Melanchthon is thirdly, Bullingers attempt to elucidate the Pauline teaching of justification through the way of thinking and the means of language of the Gospel of John. Luther and Melanchthon interpret the Pauline teaching of justification in the context of the fundamental differentiation of law and gospel. At decisive places Bullinger falls back on the theology of John, regarding the talk about faith as Christs spiritual food, the concept of Christs presence in spirit in Johns farewell speeches and other specific formulations by him. With John 3:18 and 6:40 Bullinger can equate the faith of Christ with true righteousness.

Fourthly, then, a difference to Luther and Melanchthon arises from it : Where with Luther faith primarily takes up the promissiones as the gift of God, Bullinger relates faith to Gods faithfulness as a whole, respectively, to God himself. Faith means, in the sense of spiritual food according to John 6, becoming one with Christ through Christs spiritual presence. In that respect Johns way of thinking explains Christs presence and the reality of his righteousness, which Luther expresses in De libertate christiana with the metaphor of bride and bridegroom, and expounds on the concept of the joyous exchange. But Bullinger not only bases this on texts by John. Paul as well speaks frequently enough about the unification of Christians with Christ in spirit. As far as that goes, one could also say that Bullinger attempts to interpret the forensic statements of Paul with his mystical phrasing and vice versa.

And as a fifth point, Bullinger reminds us about the covenant with his interpretation of Roman 1:17. Belief in the faithfulness means after all: Trust in Gods faithfulness regarding his covenant. On the other hand, it is clear that Bullinger also wants to understand Romanss concept of faith based on the background of the Old Testaments Hebrew covenant tradition. The gospel which Paul proclaims in Romans is the message of the loyalty to the covenant of the God of the Old Testament.

7 The Calling of the Gentiles (Romans 9-11)

Next we will have a look at Bullingers interpretation of Roman 9-11. It has already been said that Bullinger titles this entire section with: De vocatione gentium. This heading already shows that he differs in his interpretation from Luther as well as from Melanchthon, but also from Bucer, from Calvin, and from Beza. Because they all more or less directly apply Romans 9-11 to the individual believer, and with that immediately come to the puzzling depth of Gods election and damnation, namely the calling and rejection of individual people. Pharaohs hardening of the heart is an example in this regard.

It is different with Bullinger. He proceeds on the assumption that Paul here as well is not presenting an abstract doctrine of God, but writing specifically as an annunciator and also as pastor. And he does this with a view of the historical situation, where he has in mind that the Jews in their large majority have rejected Christ and still do. According to Acts 13:46, this is what first led to the Pauline mission to the Gentiles. With this Bullinger interprets Romans 9-11 not as an instruction about a supralapsarian godly decree, but as an opening address, as a warning but at the same time comfort. In Chapters 9 and 10 Paul admonishes the Jews to submit in faith to the gospel.[10] According to Bullinger, Chapter 11 is a chapter of comfort: it is concerned here about easing the fear caused by the thought of Israels rejection, and to warn the Jews as well the Gentiles against arrogance and scorn of the respective opposite party.[11] That is why Bullinger titles Chapter 11 with : Restitutio Israelis the restoration of Israel. Bullinger remains consistent on the level of his basic idea: Gods nature is unchangeable, just as his will does not change. However, Gods will is: He doesnt want unrighteousness and he doesnt want the death of the sinner, but rather his repentance and his life. To ask what God decided to do before the founding of the earth is not our business.[12] God does not act like a tyrant according to the motto: Sic volo, sic iubeo.[13] It is in accordance with Gods nature, that all whom he saves are saved out of pure grace, that, however, he does not condemn anyone without fault on their part.[14]. In looking at the hardening of Pharaohs heart, Gods goodness is the causa sine qua non, but not the causa efficiens.[15]

8 The Exegesis as Interpretation Proposal

Finally, attention should be given to one other aspect of Bullingers interpretation which is not limited only to the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, but also is valid for it. The first sentence Bullinger wrote in the preface of the complete edition of his interpretation of the Pauline letters is the following:

First of all, we would like to point out, dear reader, that we have written no laws, but commentaries, which one must verify, and may not be considered as divine oracles. The Bible is the only measuring stick for the truth. Where, then, you notice that I have not been quite correct in my interpretation, lay my commentary aside and follow the Bible.

One does not always find such modesty among the interpreters of the Epistle to the Romans. Just this attribute, however, is a prerequisite for a fruitful continuation in exegetical research.

9 Literature

S. Hausammann, Römerbriefauslegung zwischen Humanismus und Reformation. Eine Studie zu Heinrich Bullingers Römerbriefauslegung von 1525, Zürich Stuttgart 1970.

Peter Opitz, Hebräisch-biblische Züge im promissio-Verständnis Heinrich Bullingers, in: Sigrid Lekebusch Hans-Georg Ulrichs (Hg.), Historische Horizonte, Wuppertal 2002, 105-117.

Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe. Eine Studie zu den Dekaden, TVZ: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, Zürich 2004