Calvin�s Hermeneutic and Tradition: An Augustinian Reception of Romans 7

Calvins 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 Pauls language represents a pre-conversion state, that the misery contained in vv. 14-24 represent the life before receiving Christs 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 Augustines 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 Augustines 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 Augustines later position? The reasons are not yet clear. The medieval tradition of interpreting this text did not support the later Augustine. In Calvins 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 Churchs exegetical traditions.[7] Finally and most curiously, Calvins 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 Calvins 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.

Calvins 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 laws 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 Calvins interpretation that There is, therefore, a perverse sense in which sinners may be regarded as integrated personalities, at least on the level of the wills 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.

Augustines 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 (7:15-16) This is the Law sufficiently defended from every accusation. But one must take care lest he think that these words deny our free will, for it is not so. (2) The man described here is under the Law, prior to grace; sin overcomes him when by his own strength he attempts to live righteously without the aid of Gods liberating grace. (3) For by his free will man has a means to believe in the Liberator and to receive grace so that, with the liberating assistance of him who gives it, he might cease to sin. Thus might man cease to be under the Law, but rather be with or within it, fulfilling it by the love of God, which he could not do through fear.[16]

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 Augustines 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 (7:14), indicates clearly that the Law cannot be fulfilled except by spiritual men, who are made such by the grace of God. (2) For he who has become spiritual like the Law will easily fulfill what it prescribes; nor will he be under the Law, but with it. He is one, moreover, whom temporal goods do not seduce nor temporal evils terrify.[17] The law here functions as a code for those to whom God has given grace. Such spiritual people easily fulfill the demands of the law. In fact, their release from the bondage to the law is a comment about their motivation. They are not under the law, they are with the law (nec erit sub illa sed cum illa). They do not seem actually to have been released from the requirements of the law, they simply now have been changed so that they see the requirements as desirable, rather than onerous.

Around 396, Augustine composed his Ad Simplicianum de diversis quaestionibus.[18] This was Augustines 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 390s, 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 Calvins 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, Calvins choice must reflect his theological convictions. Calvins 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, Calvins position is not without its exegetical difficulties. Pauls description of life in the Spirit is difficult to reconcile with Calvins 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 Augustines 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 Calvins consideration of Romans. In this section, we shall see that Calvin claimed Chrysostoms exegesis was undeniably better than that of Augustine. We shall demonstrate that Calvin knew of Chrysostoms 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 Calvins 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 Chrysostoms sermons upon this text. The 1536 Paris edition of Chrysostoms 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 Calvins Latin preface to a proposed French edition of Chrysostoms homilies.[32] The original manuscript exists in Calvins 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 Calvins 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 Calvins 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 Chrysostoms 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 Calvins ideal. We learn much about Calvins own ideal of interpretation when we read his understanding of Chrysostoms 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 Calvins opinions of Augustine and Chrysostom is underscored when we compare Calvins 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 Chrysostoms 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 Calvins 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] Calvins 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 Augustines 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 Churchs doctrine.[46] We can firmly establish that Calvin was thinking about Chrysostoms exegesis of Paul at the very time that he was avoiding the Greek father in his interpretation of Romans. Chrysostom did not slip from Calvins mind, the evidence points instead to the conclusion that Calvin rejected Chrysostom.

Let us examine the evidence from the beginning of Chrysostoms 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 Calvins 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 Calvins 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 Calvins 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 interpreters 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 Calvins 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 Chrysostoms failings as a theologian, and Calvins attempted rescue.

The dedicatory epistle for the Romans commentary that Calvin wrote to Simon Grynaeus also demonstrates Calvins 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 18^th, 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 Calvins 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 Calvins 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 Calvins 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 Gods revelation in Jesus Christ was central to Gods 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 Gods 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 Chrysostoms 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 Augustines 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 Calvins 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 Augustines struggle with the Pelagian heresy. The issue of the will was central to this question, Calvins 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. Augustines 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 Pauls teaching in chapter 7 against the background of Romans 6 and Romans 8.[72]

Conclusion

To understand a theologians 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 Chrysostoms interpretation of Romans 7, but eschewed it in favor of the position which is represented in Augustines 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 Augustines 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 Calvins 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. Parkers 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.

[18]Peter Brown notes it in 396, in his Chronological Table C. Augustine of Hippo: A New Edition with an Epilogue (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 178. This fits with JohnS. Burleighs reconstruction in Augustine: Earlier Writings (Philadelphia: Westerminster Press, 1953), 372.

[19]Augustine, To Simplician On Various Questions, In Augustine: Later Writings, edited by J. H. S. Burleigh (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 377-378. Augustine, Ad Simplicianum de Diversis Quaestionibus I.i.4 Sed mortuum fuerat, id est occultatum, cum mortales nati sine mandato legis homines uiuerent sequentes concupiscentias carnis sine ulla cognitione, quia sine ulla prohibitione. Ergo EGO, inquit, VIVEBAM ALIQVANDO SINE LEGE, unde manifestat non ex persona sua proprie, sed generaliter ex persona hominis se loqui. Corpus Christianorum XLIV (Turnholt: Brepols, 1970), 10.

[20]Brown, 344.

[21]Migne, 44.549-638, esp. 560-562. Peter Brown notes that this was composed in 420-421, Chronological Table D, 282-283. Calvin certainly knew this text by 1543, when he quoted it against Pighius. Lane traces his knowledge of it to Erasmus edition of Augustine, the text appeared in the seventh volume. By the 1559 Institutes, he was using it frequently, quoting the work twenty-two times, across eighteen distinct sections of the Institutes. See A.N.S. Lane, Calvins Use of the Fathers and Medievals, and Calvin and the Fathers in his Bondage and Liberation of the Will, In JohnCalvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), 55, 176.

[22]Ad Romanos, 149.135-136.

[23]Burleigh, 370. Augustine, Retractationes II.1 In qua illa apostoli uerba: Lex spiritalis est, ego autem carnalis sum et cetera, quibus caro contra spiritum confligere ostenditur, eo modo exposui, tamquam homo describatur adhuc sub lege nondum sub gratia constitutus. Longe enim postea etiam spiritalis hominis et hoc probabilius esse posse illa uerba cognui. Corpus Christianorum LVII (Turnholt: Brepols, 1984), 89. Brown dates this to 426-427, Chronological Table E, 380-381.

[24]See Johannes van Oort, John Calvin and the Church Fathers, In The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, 2 vol., ed. Irena Backus (Leiden: Brill, 1997), v. 2, esp. 689-690.

[25]Steinmetz, 111.

[26]Frequently, Calvins citations to Ambrose are actually Ambrosiaster.

[27]Irena Backus commented that Calvin used Chrysostom as a source for discipline and the use of scripture. Chrysostom was to Calvin a source of extremely useful information about the discipline of the Early Church, and as such could be adopted wholesale. Moreover, Chrysostoms way of using the Bible held great attraction for the Genevan Reformer. the Genevan Reformers use of Chrysostom is remarkably coherent and, in contrast to his use of many other Church Fathers, not primarily oriented by the demands of inter-confessional polemics. Backus, Calvin and the Greek Fathers, In Continuity and Change: The Harvest of Late-Medieval and Reformation History: Essays Presented to Heiko A. Oberman on his 70^th Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 263. Further, A.N.S. Lane has noted that in the totality of his works, Calvin cited Chrysostom more than any other father, with the two exceptions of Augustine and Jerome. Lane, Calvins Knowledge of the Greek Fathers, In John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), 72. Richard Gamble observed that Augustine could not be Calvins model for exegesis, and that Chrysostom probably provides a source for Calvins exegetical method. Gamble, Brevitas et Facilitas: Toward an Understanding of Calvin's Hermeneutic. Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985): 8-9.

[28]Based on the indices supplied by Feld and the CNTC.

[29]See Appendix

[30]Alexandre Ganoczy and Klaus Müller, Calvins Handschriftliche Annotationen zu Chrysostomus: Ein Beitrag zur Hermeneutik Calvins. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1981), 111.

[31]Ganoczy and Müller, 19-20. Mit dieser Beobachtung stossen wir auf ein eigenartiges Phänomen der Chrysostomusrezeption durch den französischen Reformator. Denn das anhand seiner eigenen Bearbeitung festgestellte paränetische Interesse scheint im Widerspruch zu stehen zu der von ihm ausdrücklich formulierten exegeteischen Intention, mit der er dem Kirchenvater begegnet.

[32]Two English translations exist. John H. McIndoe provided John Calvin: Preface to the Homilies of Chrysostom, Hartford Quarterly 5, 2, (1965): 19-26. This version supplies little in the way of commentary or critical apparatus. The preferred translation is that of Ian P. Hazlett, Calvins Latin Preface to his Proposed French Edition of Chrysostoms Homilies: Translation and Commentary, Humanism and Reform. The Chruch in Europe, England and Scotland, 1400-1643. Essays in Honour of James K. Cameron, edited by James Kirk (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 129-150. I will offer the Hazlett translation because he had access to manuscripts which supplement the version available in the Calvini Opera.

[33]Hazlett, 133. Irena Backus notes Hazlett, and adds that given Calvins insistence in the preface on the organisation of the Early Church as model for the Church of his own day, it is not unlikely that it was written in Strasbourg under the influence of Bucer. Calvin and the Greek Fathers, 254.

[34]T.H.L. Parker, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 17-19. See also Rodolphe Peter, Bibliotheca Calviniana: Les oevres de jean Calvin publiées au xvi^e siècle (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1991), Vol. I, 214-216.

[35]Hazlett, 141. Calvini, Ioannis, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia. 59 volumes, edited by Wilhelm Baum, Edward Cunitz, & Edward Reuss (Brunswick: Schwetschke and Sons, 1895). Hereafter CO. CO 9.832. scire quid illic quaerere oporteat, scopumque aliquem habere ad quem dirigamur. This concern mirrors those which Calvin notes in his prefaces to the Institutes. See especially his John Calvin to the Reader, appended to the 1539 edition of the Institutes. Joannis Calvini, Opera Selecta, 5 volumes, 3rd ed., edited by Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niesel (Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1967). Vol. 3.6.18-31.

[36]Hazlett, 141-142. CO 9.832-833. Quum tamen Dominus eadem, qua nos per spiritum suum illuminat, benignitate adminicula quoque nobis contulerit, quibus voluit studium nostrum in veritatis suae investigatione adiuvari, non est cur ea vel negligamus quasi supervacua, vel etiam quasi non adeo necessaria minus curemus. Obversari enim animis nostris debet quod ait Paulus, omnia nostra esse, nos autem Christi. Serviant ergo nobis quae in usum nostrum Dominus destinavit.

Iam vero, si aequum est plebem christianam non spoliari Dei sui verbo, neque deneganda sunt ei instrumenta quae ad veram eius intelligentiam usui sint futura. Artes porro et disciplinas non habet: quae ut sunt alioqui non minima subsidia, ita non omnibus conceduntur. Superest ergo ut interpretum opera adiuvetur, qui sic in Dei cognitione profecerunt, ut alios quoque manuducere ad eam possint. quo nihil aliud mihi propositum fuit quam ad scripturae sacrae lectionem rudibus ac illiteratis viam sternere.

Equidem non me fugit quid hic obiectari mihi queat: Chrysostomum, quem vulgo hominum publicare instituo, doctis tantum et literarum peritis lucubrationes suas destinasse. At vero, nisi et titulus et orationis compositio mentitur, quos ad universum populum sermones habuit hic complexus est. Ita certe et rerum tractationem et dictionem attemperat, quasi hominum multitudinem instituere velit. Proinde frustra quis contendat, eum inter doctos reconditum esse oportere, quum data opera studuerit esse popularis.

[37]Hazlett, 144. CO 9.834. Cur autem Chrysostomum ex omnibus potissimum delegerim, eius quoque rei obiter ostendenda ratio est. Ac primum quidem meminisse lectorem oportet, quale sit scripti genus in quo ipsum aliis praetulerim. Sunt autem homiliae, quae quum variis partibus constent, primum tamen in illis locum tenet scripturae interpretatio, in qua Chrysostomum nostrum vetustos omnes scriptores qui hodie exstant antecedere nemo sani iudicii negaverit. Praesertim ubi novum testamentum tractat.

[38]Hazlett, 145-146. CO 9.835. Chrysostomi autem nostri haec prima laus est quod ubique illi summo studio fuit a germana scripturae sinceritate ne minimum quidem deflectere, ac nullam sibi licentiam sumere in simplici verborum sense contorquendo.

[39]Hazlett, 145. CO 9.835. Augustinus citra controversiam in fidei dogmatibus omnes superat. Religiosus quoque imprimis scripturae interpres, sud ultra modum argutus. Quo fit ut minus firmus sit ac solidus.

[40]Hazlett, 146-147. CO 9.835. In praedicando hominis libero arbitrio, in meritis operum efferendis immodicus, gratiam Dei in electione ac vocatione nostra, gratuitam deinde misericordiam, qua nos a vocatione ad morten usque prosequitur, sic nonnihil obscurat. Primum electionem cum aliquo operum nostrorum respectu implicare nititur: quum scriptura passim reclamet nihil esse quo ad nos eligendos provocetur Deus nisi extremam miseriam, nec aliunde ipsum sumere quo nobis opem ferat, quam a sua ipsius bonitate. Deinde laudem vocationis nostrae inter Deum et nos quodammodo partitur, quum scriptura constanter solidum eius complementum Deo assignet.

[41]Hazletts note at this point is helpful. In note 50, he writes Calvin can do no other than to distance himself from Chrysostoms views on grace, works, merit, election, justification, etc. Standing firmly within the Reformation version of the radical Pauline and Augustinian revival, he could have little sympathy with a theology which, in fact, represents the entire Greek patristic tradition. The latter proceeded on the basis of the semi-Pelagian notion of a mutual approximation between God and humanity, whereas the former posited a chasm and polarity between God and humanity, which can only be bridged by divine initiative and operation. 146-147.

[42]Hazlett, 147-149. CO 9.836.

[43]Hazlett, 149. CO 9.836. Calvins re-construction sounds as if he has the Empress Eudoxia in mind, a person who frequently took Chrysostoms moral teachings as a personal affront. If that is the case, he is placing the Romans homilies and their semi-Pelagian stance too late in Chrysostoms career. See J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 90-91.

[44]Hazlett, 149. CO 9.836.

[45]John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, edited by A.N.S. Lane, translated by G.I. Davies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 79ff. CO 9.287-288.

[46]What Calvin intended to teach was the churchs doctrine, not his own doctrine. To the extent that he was successful, his originality must be sought more in his manner of presenting Christian doctrine, in the way he received, incorporated, or modified forms and arguments of patristic and medieval theology, in his particular fusion of older theological substance either with his own exegetical results or with Renaissance rhetorical forms, and in the nuances that he gave to the elements of extant tradition. Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of aTheological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 200), 7.

[47]David Steinmetz has also considered this in his Calvin and the Patristic Exegesis of Paul, In The Bible in the 16th Century David Steinmetz, ed., (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 100-118.

[48]Philip Schaff, NPNF vol. 11, Chrysostom, Hom. XIII. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, v. 60, 507. Homilia XIII. Cap. 7. v. 14. Scimus autem, quia lex spiritualis est: ego autem carnalis sum, venumdatus sub peccato. 1. Postquam dixerat magna fuisse mala, et peccatum admissum potentius fuisse lege, et contra quam lex satagebat accidisse, et cum in magnam dubitationem auditorem conjecisset; rationem postea dicit, per quam haec advenere, cum prius legem a prava suspicione vindicasset. Etenim ne quis audiens, peccatum occasionem per mandatum accepisse, et quod eodem mandato accedente peccatum revixit, et quod per illud decepit atque interfecit; ne quis, inquam, legem horum malorum causam putaret esse, primo illius defensionem affert uberrimam; non modo illam ab accusatione liberans, sed laudem ipsi maximam texens.Hocque adhibet non quasi ipse in ejus gratiam loquatur, sed quasi communem omnium sententiam exponens. Scimus enim, inquit, quod lex spritualis sit. Ac si diceret, hoc in confesso et manifestum est, quod sit spiritualis: tantum abest, ut sit causa peccati, et malis quae advenerunt obnoxia. Et vide quo pacto non modo illam abaccusatione liberet, sed etiam supra modum laudet. Nam cum spiritualem illam dicit, magistram virtutis ostendit esse, et nequitiae adversariam: hoc est enim esse spiritualem, et ab omni peccato abducere; quod lex faciebat, terrens, admonens, puniens, corrigens, quae ad justitiam pertinent omnia consulens. Unde ergo, inquit, peccatum exstitit, si tam admirabilis sit praeceptor? A discipulorum segnitie. Quapropter haec subjunxit: Ego autem carnalis sum, eum qui in lege et ante legem vixerat hominem indicans.

[49]Calvin was exiled from Geneva in April of 1538. He returned in September of 1541. In the interim, he ministered in Strasbourg, being surrounded by learned colleagues, and mentored by Martin Bucer. Cornelis Augustijn has written on this period in his Calvin in Strasbourg, In Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, ed. Wilhelm Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 166-177. Augustijn provides a helpful summary of the literature on this period, and notes four aspects of Calvins stay in Strasbourg which he sees as insufficiently researched. He does not list Calvins maturing sense of the interpretation of scripture and its relationship to doctrine.

[50]François Wendel noted this in his summary of the changing purposes of the Institutes as it matured. See his Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, originally 1950, translated by Philip Mairet (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1987), 145-146.

[51]Wendel, 146.

[52]Joannis Calvini, Opera Selecta, in 5 volumes, 3rd ed., edited by Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niesel (Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1967). Vol. 3.6.18-31. Translation mine. Porro hoc mihi in isto labore propositum fuit, sacrae Theologiae candidatos ad divini verbi lectionem ita praeparare et instruere, ut et facilem ad eam aditum habere, et inoffenso in ea gradu pergere queant; siquidem religionis summam omnibus partibus sic mihi complexus esse videor, et eo quoque ordine digessisse, ut siquis eam recte tenuerit, ei non sit difficile statuere et quid potissimum quaerere in Scriptura, et quem in scopum quicquid in ea continetur referre debeat.

[53]Calvin attmpted to spare the feelings of ministers who lacked facility in languages. In addition to this point, there is a further consideration: among us it does not always happen that those charged with the miistry of the churches are sufficiently versed in Greek and Latin as to be able to understand the ancient writers in the original. Yet I think it is widely recognized how important it is that a pastor of the Church knows what the nature of the ancient form of the Church was, and that he is equipped with at least some knowledge of Antiquity. And so in this respect, too, this work of mine could be fruitful, as everyone may admit; for no one denies that it is proper for all those responsible for Christian education to be familiar with this kind of writing. Yet there will maybe be some people around who will only manage with the help of a translation. Hazlett, 143. CO 9.833. Huc etiam accedit quod non semper ita bene nobiscum agitur, ut qui ecclesiarum administrationi praesunt ita sint in graeca latinaque lingua exercitati ut veteres illos scriptores sua lingua loquentes audire queant. Quantopere autem referat, ecclesiasticum pastorem tenere qualis fuerit vetusta ecclesiae facies, et aliqua saltem antiquitatis notitia esse praeditum, palam esse existimo. Itaque hac quoque parte fructuosus esse poterit meus iste labor, vel omnium confessione, quia nemo negat utile esse versari in hoc scripti genere omnes eos qui docendi provinciam in christiano populo sustinent. Reperientur autem forte nonnulli qui hoc non consequentur nisi interpretationis beneficio.

[54]An interesting point is that in March of 1538, Grynaeus had written a critical letter to Calvin, chastising him for arrogance about intellectual superiority. See Cornelis Augustijn, 175-176.

[55]Comm. Romans, Dedicatory epistle. Ad Romanos, 1. Memini, quum ante triennium de optimo enarrandae Scripturae genere inter nos familiariter commentaremur, eam quae plurimum tibi placebat, rationem mihi quoque prae aliis probatam tunc fuisse. Sentiebat enim uterque nostrum, praecipuam interpretis virtutem in perspicua brevitate esse positam. Et sane quum hoc sit prope unicum illius officium, mentem scriptoris, quem explicandum sumpsit, patefacere: quantum ab ea lectores abducit, tantundem a scopo suo aberrat, vel certe a suis finibus quodammodo evagatur. Itaque cupiebamus ex eorum numero, quibus in hoc laboris genere theologiam iuvare hodie propositum est, unum aliquem extare qui et facilitati studeret, et simul daret operam ne prolixis commentariis studiosos ultramodum detineret. Quanquam autem scio sententiam hanc non apud omnes receptam esse: et eos qui non recipiutn, nonnullis quoque argumentis adduci ut ita iudicent: ego tamen dimoveri non possum ab amore compendii.

[56]T.H.L. Parker has suggested that this choice was a deliberate theological policy which Calvin believed was demanded by the New Testament itself. Calvins New Testament Commentaries, 2^nd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), 31.

[57]Comm. Romans, Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, edited by T. H. L. Parker (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981), Argumentum in Epistolam Ad Romanos, 5.1-11. In praedicanda Epistolae huius utilitate, nescio an operaepretium sit diutius immorari, tum quod vereor ne meis elogiis haud dubie infra eius magnitudinem longe subsidentibus, nihil quam obscuretur : tum etiam quod multo magis ipsa primo statim se proferat, et vera specie melius se explicet, quam ullis verbis enarrari queat. Ergo iam ad argumentum ipsum transire satius fuerit : unde citra controversiam protinus constabit, praeter plurimus alias, et eas eximias dotes, hanc ei proprie competere, quae nunquam pro dignitate satis aestimetur : quod siquis veram eius intelligentiam sit assequutus, ad reconditissimos quosque Scripturae thesauros adeundos habeat apertas fores.

[58]Comm. Romans, Ad Romanos, Argumentum, 5.18-19. Atque ita ingreditur principalem totius epistolae quaestionem, Fede nos justificari.

[59]See for instance Alexandre Ganoczys Forschungsansatze zur Hermeneutik Calvins: Calvin als paulinischer Theologe. Lecture given at the Europaischer Kongress fur Calvinforschung, Amsterdam, Sept. 16-19, 1974; or Barbara Pitkins What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvins Doctrine of Faith in Its Exegetical Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), esp. 82-83.

[60]Karlfried Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, 1.

[61]It would be incorrect to say that the biblical text can never change an interpreters hermeneutic. However, when it does in a significant manner, the event will have seismic consequences for the interpreter. Perhaps the best case in point is Luthers transformation through a herneneutical discovery in Romans 1.16.

[62]I have covered this at greater length in my forthcoming book with Brill, John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation: Calvins First Commentaries.

[63]One normally does not think about interpreters choosing their rules of exegesis. But see M.L. Monheits Young Calvin, Textual Interpretation and Roman Law. Bibliotheque d'humanisme et renaissance: travaux et documents. 59, No. 2, (1997): 263-82; Monheit demonstrates various models of interpretation taught to Calvin, and his subsequent use of them.

[64]Comm. Romans 1.1, Ad Romanos, 11.22-23. Quod Augustino placuisse hoc tantum nomine puto, ut argute philosophandi occasionem arriperet. This follows the version of 1540, not the later additions.

[65]Ad Romanos, 149.30-38.

[66]Even when Calvin attempted to defend Chrysostoms defense of free will by historically contextualizing him, Calvins own incredulity about the Greek fathers choices crept into his text. He wrote, Yet it is hard to believe that [Chrysostom] was so naïve about Christian teaching as not to be aware either of the afflected condition of humanity or of the grace of God, which is the sole remedy for its distress. Hazlett, 147. CO 9.835-836. Neque tamen christianae doctrinae sic fuisse imperitum ac rudem credibile est, ut vel miseram hominis conditionem, vel Dei gratiam, quae unicum est eius miseriae remedium, ignoraret.

[67]See Institutes II.ii.1, almost all of which came from the 1539 Institutes. Opera Selecta, in5 vol., 3rd ed., Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niesel, ed. (Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1967), OS 3.241-242.

[68]The Chrysostom evidence is given above. The McNeill-Battles edition of the Institutes traces a citation to Augustine in which Calvin does not name as being to this text, and coming from the 1539 edition. See Institutes of the Christian Religion, in 2 vol., translated by Ford Lewis Battles, edited by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), II.ii.8, n. 44.

[69]I agree here with T.H.L. Parkers analysis, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 36-59.

[70]Comm. Romans, Dedicatory Epistle to Grynaeus, Ad Romanos 3.110-4.19. Verum animadvertere semper licuit, illos ipsos quibus nec pietaties studium deesset, nec in tractandis Dei religio ac sobrietas, nequaquam ubique inter se consensisse. Nunquam enim tanto beneficio servos suos dignatus est Deus, ut singuli plena perfectaque omni ex parte intelligentia praediti essent. nec dubium quin eo consilio, ut nos in humilitate primum, deinde communicationis fraternae studio retineret. Ergo quum sperandum in praesenti vita non sit, quod maxime alioqui optandum esset, ut in locis Scripturae intelligendis perpetua sit inter nos consensio: danda est opera ut nulla novandi libidine incitati, nulla suggillandi alios cupiditate impulsi, nullo instigati odio, nulla ambitione titillati: sed sola necessitate coacti, nec aliud quaerentes quam prodesse, a superiorum sententiis discedamus: deinde ut id fiat in Scripturae expositione: in religionis autem dogmatibus, in quibus praecipue voluit Dominus consentaneas esse suorum mentes, minus sumatur libertatis. Utriusque studium mihi fuisse, facile deprehendent lectores.

[71]See his comment on I Cor. 6.18, CO 49.399; II Cor. 1.17, Secundam ad Corinthios 27.13-14; Galatians 1.15, Ad Galatas 26.21-23. This last is instructive, because Calvin is critiquing Chrysostom. Olivier Millet has written Nous avons dailleurs vu quil reproche à saint Augustin sa prolixité, évidemment opposée à sa propre briéveté. Mais cela ne veut pas dire que Calvin na pas trouvé chez les Pères des modèles déloquence. Enfin, si notre auteur a pu de fait trouver dans la littérature patristique des formes dexpression et de style, cet intérêt littéraire, tel que nous pouvons le saisir chez Calvin, relève principalement des attitudes et des stratégies de lorateur: nous rencontrerons Tertullien pour lapologète, Augustin pour le défenseur infatigable de la foi, et nous allons ici nous intéresser à Chrysostome comme théologien vulgarisateur et prédicateur, car cest notamment à travers Chrysostome que Calvin réfléchit sur la mission et les formes du munus docendi. Calvin et la dynamique de la parole: Etude de rhétorique réformée (Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion, 1992), 169.

[72]Here, Calvin breaks another of his exegetical rules. For him, the context of the particular book of scripture was a guideline to the mind of the author. He uses this clearly in his interpretation of Colossians 2.13, Ad Colossenses 429.13-24; I Thessalonians 2.7, CO 52.148; and I Corinthians 11.3, CO 49.474. This last is particularly instructive, as it is a case of Calvin using context to determine that Paul had not contradicted himself between I Corinthians and Galatians.

[73]T.H.L. Parker makes it clear that of the Pauline group of commentaries, Romans receives the greatest amount of revision. See his Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 36-59.