II. Lectures on Genesis
13. Some Reflections on Relating Calvin’s Exegesis and Theology
Elsie Anne McKee
Like many of the long cast of characters who have influenced Christian history in a significant way, John Calvin has been analyzed, praised, and damned. Though William Bouwsma’s recent portrait suggests that Calvin the man may have been more complex than is often thought,’ it is Calvin the thinker who has been the chief focus of argument. Quite frequently, widely divergent and sometimes even contradictory ideas have been traced to Calvin. As John Leith’s new book makes clear, manyr of the opposing developments may well have roots in Calvin’s theology.2 Others, however, may have been imported into the treatment of the Reformer by later interpreters whose conclusions are not fully satisfying because their perspective is anachronistic: questions ma&pose’es, or one- sided answers which do not take into account the historical context in which Calvin wrote.
The object of this presentation is to name and briefly discuss a few of the problems in Calvin scholarship connected with the relationship of theology and exegesis in the Genevan Reformer’s thought. In view of the limited space, only three of the major issues will be sketched.
1. William Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2. John H.
1988).
Keith, John Calvin 3 Doctrineof the Christian Life (Louisville: Westmin- ster/John Knox, 1989).
215
216 ELSIE ANNE MCKEE
I. The Order of Teaching
The first question to be considered is the persistent separation of Calvin the theologian from Calvin the exegete. Calvin has been known as a
“systematic” theologian because he organized his teaching so carefully.
When Calvin ordered his theology according to the right pattern of teaching, he did not thereby mean to denigrate, much less eliminate, that which came later in the order. As some twentieth-century scholars have pointed out Calvin made a conscious effort to provide cross references to clarify thd conceptual framework. This pattern of cross references has been traced within the Institutes, illuminating in new ways the relationship of such topics as Creator and Redeemer, Scripture and faith, regeneration and justification.3 Until recently, though, there has been very little attention to the possibility that Calvin might have provided cross references beyond the Institutes, or what these interconnections might mean in understanding the Genevan Reformer’s thought as a whole. Here I would like to suggest how the ordo docendi principle may cast light on the relationship of theology and exegesis.
It is clearly recognized that Calvin was one of the great theologians of the Western church, and his Institutes of the Christian Religion is usually seen as the single most important theological textbook to come out of the Protestant Reformation. Calvin is also often cited as a remarkable exegete whose biblical commentaries continue to be reprinted - and even some:
times read’. - in the late twentieth century. These two facets of the Re- former’s work are rarely treated together, however, and indeed the Institutes has overshadowed everything,else for so long that many people practically forget the commentaries.
This split between Calvin’s theology and his exegesis, which has handicapped or even prevented a fair assessment of the rest of the Re- former’s thought, owes something to Calvin himself and something to the inattention of his modem interpreters. From Calvin’s side, the split derives from the “order of teaching” by which he elected to separate theology from exegesis. Calvin understood his chief task to be the faithful exposition of Scripture. For him this had two main parts: the Institutes, conceived as a catechism or an introduction to Scripture organized according to the
3. Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis 1559, in Opera Selecta (Monachii in Aedibus, 1926-52) ed. P. Barth, G. Niesel et al. (Hereafter cited as OS.) Here see 1.2.1;
1.6.1; 1.7.4; 1.7.5; and also 3.3.1. Cross references are pointed out in notes in the McNeilI- Battles English translation, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols LCC (Philadelphia: Westminster, l%O), 1:40 n. 3, 71 n. 3, 78 n. 12, 81 n. 18. (Hereafter &ed as Institutes.) Several of Calvin’s references are to orab docendi, 1.1.3, 3.3.1.
ON RELATING CALVIN’S EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY 217
humanist loci communes principle, and the individual commentaries and
sermons which explained particular biblical texts. Having observed the limitations in the practices of a number of outstanding contemporaries, Calvin decided that the order of teaching would be best served by separating his introductory text, his commonplace book, from his commentaries.4 So much has always been obvious. What has not usually been seen is that Calvin also put clear cross references between the Institutes and the ex- egetical works, not only in the prefatory materials, but also in the body of each text. In the commentaries, these cross references are occasional and explicit;5 in the Institutes they are frequent and implicit, and have usually been overlooked or misconstrued as “mere proof texts.”
One major reason that scholars have missed the cross references between Calvin’s theological textbook and his exegetical works is the changing theological climate of the post-Enlightenment period. In an age when historical-critical studies have altered the ways the Bible is inter- preted, and the hermeneutics of suspicion has challenged every writer’s motivations, Calvin’s biblical citations in the Institutes are frequently seen as “proof texts” for views arrived at on other grounds. Thus it has some- times been difficult for modem readers to take seriously the Reformer’s claim to have based his theology on Scripture; and the biblical references which are scattered broadcast through Calvin’s writings are usually ac- corded close attention only when they seem to the twentieth century ex- tremely farfetched.6
One way of dealing with the problem of separation between Calvin’s theology and his exegesis, therefore, is to suspend disbelief and examine with an open mind exactly how the Institutes and the commentaries are related. To do this one must also challenge the often repeated notion that Calvin never changed his mind. This latter view is partly the result of the fact that the Institutes is almost always read in the 1559 version, as a “flat”
4. Comments on method and division: dedication to Romans commentary, Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ed. T. H. L. Parker (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 1-3. “Preface to the Reader” in the Institutes, OS 3:6-7.
5. A rapid survey of the explicit cross references in the NT commentaries gives fourteen: Acts 6:3; Rom. 3:21; 3:28; 1 Cor. 1:l; 3:9; 3:14; 5:5; 9:5-6; 2 Cor. 4:17; 5:lO; Eph.
3:18-19; 1 Tim. 2~6; 3:8; 1 Pet. 1:20. Note that two of these are related to the diaconate.
6. Instances of farfetched exegesis: on Rom. 12:8, see R. H. Henderson, “Sixteenth- Century Community Benevolence, ” ChH 37 (1969): 427; J. K. S. Reid, “Diakonia in the Thought of John Calvin,” in Service in Christ, ed. J. I. McCord and T. H. L. Parker (London:
Epworth; Grand Rapids, Berdmans, 1966), 106; R. M. Kingdon, “Was the Protestant Refor- mation a Revolution? The Case of Geneva,” in Transition and Revolution, ed. R. M. Kingdon (MinneapoIis: Burgess, 1974), 73. On 1 Tim. 5:17, see T. E Torrance, “The Eldership in the Reformed Church,” UT 36 (1984): 503 et passim.
218 ELSIE ANNE MCKEE
text. If, however, one studies each edition of the book from 1536 through 1559, noting carefully how biblical references as well as substance develop over time in both the Institutes and parallel commentaries, one can begin to see the interplay between theology and exegesis in a new way.
What may be one of the clearest examples of the interrelationship between the Institutes and the commentaries, which illustrates both the mutual influences of the two and a form of development in Calvin’s theology, is found in the teaching on the diaconate. In 1536 the brief passage on the diaconate is largely a typical Protestant reaction against Roman understanding of a sacramental diaconate as a step leading to the priesthood.
The origin, ordination, and office of the deacons are described by Luke in The Acts [Acts 6:3]. . . . This was the office of deacons: to attend to the care of the poor and minister to them; . . . Then Luke added an account of their institution. Those they had chosen, he says, they ordained in the presence of the apostles: praying, they laid their hands upon them [Acts 6:6]. Would that the church today had such deacons, and appointed them by such a ceremony; namely, the laying of hands. . . . Paul also speaks of the deacons: [l Tim. 38ff.l . . . But what likeness to this is there in the deacons which these men devise?7
Calvin refers to the traditional passages of Acts 6 and 1 Tim. 3, indicating that Acts 6 in particular has been misunderstood. Medieval exegetes had considerable difficulty with Acts because they could not reconcile laying on of hands (v. 6), the sign of ordination, with the temporal (profane) task of serving tables. Thus they emphasized Timothy, because the linking of bishops and deacons fitted a more sacramental view of holy orders. Grdi- nation for a temporal task presented no problem for Protestants, who saw charity as a holy vocation, and thus made Acts the dominant voice in determining the nature of the diaconate.8
Calvin adds nothing to the treatment of the diaconate in the Institutes in 1539, though a double diaconate is introduced in the third edition in 1543. This is significant because some scholars have claimed that the Reformer instituted a twofold diaconate as a way to sacralize and control the bipartite organization of the civil welfare system in Geneva. Though Calvin knew the welfare reforms established in Geneva in 1535, he did
7. Calvin, Institution of the Christian Religion . . . 1536, ed. F. L. Battles (Atlanta:
John Knox, 1975), 235. Chap. 5, OS 1:218-19.
8. For discussion of exegetical history of Acts 6:1-6, 1 Tim. 3:8-13, see Elsie Anne McKee, John Calvin on the Diaconate and Liturgical Almsgiving (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1984), chaps. 6-7. (Hereafter cited as John Calvin.) For social welfare reform arguments, see chap. 4.
ON RELATING CALVIN’S EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY 219
not develop a double diaconate until 1540. What happened in that year was the publication of his commentary on Romans, which included some ex- egetical problems which led to development in the teaching on the ministry, especially the diaconate.
In Rom. 16:1-2, Paul refers to a woman, Phoebe, as a “deacon.” In attempting to explain what these verses could mean and how they could be fitted into the Protestant charitable diaconate based on Acts 6 and 1 Tim.
3, Calvin noted that Phoebe was praised for hospitality. Therefore he sought clarification from other passages of Scripture, most notably 1 Tim. 5:9-10, where Paul instructs Timothy to set apart hospitable elderly widows to serve the needy of the church. This Timothy pericope was in fact a problem in itself, because it was the key Roman Catholic proof text for women’s vows of celibacy. Calvin believed that in both Romans and Timothy Paul was referring to women deacons who minister to the physical needs of the saints. It remained to see how these women were related to the men who served tables. Calvin knew the early modern tradition which interpreted Rom. 126-8 as a list of ecclesiastical offices, and he built on elements of v. 8 to explain how Phoebe and the widows were related to the deacons of Acts 6 and 1 Tim. 3. In Rom. 12:8, those who give liberally are the male administrators, while those who do mercy cheerfully are the women nurses.9
Thus, when Calvin revised and expanded his discussion of deacons in the Institutes of 1543, he incorporated the exegesis developed in his Romans commentary to explain that the early church had two sorts of deacons, men and women.
The care of the poor was entrusted to the deacons. However, two kinds are mentioned in the letter to the Romans: “He that gives, let him do it with simplicity; . . . he that shows mercy, with cheerfulness” [Rom. 12:8;
cf. Vulg.]. Since it is certain that Paul is speaking of the public office of the church, there must have been two distinct grades. Unless my judg- ment deceive me, in the first clause he designates the deacons who distribute the alms. But the second refers to those who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and sick. Of this sort were the widows whom Paul mentions to Timothy [l Tim. 5:9-10). . . . Their origin, in- stitution, and office are described by Luke in The Acts [Acts 6:3]. . . . Here, then, is the kind of deacons the apostolic church had, and which we, after their example, should have.10
9. See ibid., chaps. 8-9, for discussion of exegetical history of Rom. 12:8 and Rom.
16:1-2 with 1 Tim. 5:3-10. The argument is traced most fully in E. A. McKee, “Calvin’s Exegesis of Rom. 12:8 - Social, Accidental, or Theological?” CTJ 23 (1988): 6-l 8.
10. Calvin, Institutes 4.3.9; McNeill-Battles, 2:1061-62; OS 5:50-51.
220 ELSIE ANNE MCKEE
Note the biblical references; Rom. 128 links the male administrators of Acts 6 and the widows of 1 Tim. 5. (Both 1 Tim. 3 and Phoebe are still in the system, though they are not mentioned here.) Note also the prescriptive character of the model in Acts. In his sermons on this passage, Calvin explains that Paul’s words to Timothy were a general rule, which served to make the story related by Luke normative for right church order throughout time.11
Calvin’s teaching on the diaconate thus provides one demonstration of the symbiotic relationship between his theology and his exegesis. The need to explain difficult texts such as those about Phoebe and the widows shows not only how Calvin could be led into eisegesis (Rom. 12%) but also how he might feel impelled to develop a doctrine, in this case adding nuances to his earliest notion of the diaconate in ways none of his prede- cessors had done.