Sunday Romans: 1:1-7 (Week 2: Calvin, Moo, Schreiner)

This is my second week on Romans 1:1-7.

For my initial translation, see last week's post. I also started a Romans interlinear that I plan to fill out as we go. Last week I looked over John Wesley and Adam Clarke's thoughts on these verses. This week I am looking over 1) John Calvin on Romans 1:1-7, 2) Douglas Moo's The Epistle to the Romans, and Thomas Schreiner's Romans.

Calvin
I will be the second to last to admit that Calvin is a far superior interpreter of Scripture in context to Wesley. He did not of course have the tools available that we do. Nor did he have the benefits of this last century's discoveries and insights. So it is not difficult for a bright MDiv student today to be superior to him--after all, the MDiv student can read Calvin himself and then move beyond to all the subsequent interpreters. But there is the real possibility that, were he interpreting today, he would be counted among the greatest interpreters of our time.

Which does not of course mean that his theology was more correct than Wesley. But this is not my topic for today.

Calvin amazingly says this of Paul as "called apostle": "I cannot agree with those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal election of God; and who understand the separation, either that from his mother’s womb, which he mentions in Galatians 1:15, or that which Luke refers to, when Paul was appointed for the Gentiles: but I consider that he simply glories in having God as the author of his call, lest any one should think that he had through his own rashness taken this honor to himself."

So Calvin does not see the calling language of Paul's apostleship as a matter of his predestination to salvation.

On the other hand, Calvin says this of Romans 1:3:

"Ye are the called of Jesus Christ, etc.
He assigns a reason more nearly connected with them — because the Lord had already exhibited in them an evidence by which he had manifested that he had called them to a participation of the gospel. It hence followed, that if they wished their own calling to remain sure, they were not to reject the ministry of Paul, who had been chosen by the same election of God.

"I therefore take this clause, 'the called of Jesus Christ,' as explanatory, as though the particle 'even' were inserted; for he means, that they were by calling made partakers of Christ. For they who shall be heirs of eternal life, are chosen by the celestial Father to be children in Christ; and when chosen, they are committed to his care and protection as their shepherd."

As we will see, I question whether Paul, as Calvin, thought of predestination language primarily in "deductive" terms. God called before the foundation of the world these specific people; therefore, they became partakers of Christ. Predestination language in Paul, I would argue, functions "inductively" as it relates to specific people. You are here among the people of God; therefore, God chose you.

This distinction makes a great deal of difference when it comes to how we are to apply the doctrine of predestination. It cannot come first as the governing element in our theology. It rather must come last, as "after the fact" language.

Moo and Schreiner
Moo has lots of great little tidbits in his comments on Romans 1:1-7, and Schreiner's treatment is quite good too. The commentaries on Romans are so big it is exasperating, and they all cover much of the same material. My task here isn't to do anything like a full commentary (maybe I'll add links to the interlinear the final week of each cycle). I'm principally looking at issues relating to Calvinism and Arminianism.

1. Moo makes no real deal about language of calling in these verses. He gives ascent to Leon Morris' claim that Romans is ultimately a book about God (43). Schreiner similarly goes against the majority view that the phrase "the gospel of God" refers only to the gospel from God (a "genitive of source") (37). Schreiner thinks Paul also means his audience to hear that it is a "gospel about God," a double entendre.

Certainly God is for Paul the "all in all," and Paul spreads the gospel "on behalf of His name" (Schreiner, 35 in reference to Rom. 1:5). But I also wonder if these are reflections of "Westminster Catechism Colored Glasses" (the chief end of man is to glorify God..."). We'll have to track this question of emphasis, though let no one suggest we question that God is indeed all in all. The question is not whether God is in fact the only intrinsically Worthy of existence.

The question is
1) exegetical--what is the primary topic of Romans--God? salvation? Christ? and
2) the nature of God's love--what does it mean to say that God loves the world.

Could it be that Paul's focus in Romans 1-11 is not primarily on the glory or sovereignty of God but rather on defending his understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly as it relates to the Gentile?

2. Moo and Schreiner, following Calvin, consider the phrase "grace and apostleship" as what is called a hendiadys, "gracious apostleship." In other words, God's calling of Paul to be an apostle was an act of His grace. Fair enough.

3. Both take the phrase "obedience of faith" in much the way I do--"obedience that comes from faith," although Schreiner allows for additional nuances to this that are not problematic from my perspective (I refer to the idea of a genitive of apposition).

4. My chief question about their interpretation of these verses comes from their language of the redefinition of the people of God.

Moo: "Paul implies that they are God's chosen people; for both phrases echo OT designations of Israel. In so transferring language used of Israel in the OT to Christians" (54-55).

Schreiner: "Paul implicitly redraws the lines of what constitutes the true people of God" (45) and "Since Jesus is the true Israel... those who belong to him constitute the people of God" (36).

By the way, I've been intrigued by a number of positive statements by Schreiner in relation to N. T. Wright interpretations in the small space of his interpretation of verses 1 through 7. I'll be interested to track his relation to Wright. He dedicates his commentary to John Piper, who has just written a book against Wright. Interesting...

I agree with these commentators that Paul redefines the people of God in a way that is not limited to Israel. The question in my mind is whether ethnic Israel remains the "base" of the people of God or whether the people of God have been completely redefined as a "third race," a neutral race that truly shows no priority to ethnic Israel at all.

I have serious questions about whether this is the case or whether, as Schreiner and Wright believe, Jesus is the true Israel. I am open, but fail to find this theme in Paul.

Dunn, Wright, Fitzmeyer next week...