Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
As my pastor preaches through Romans, I am endeavoring to read through a couple of Romans commentaries alongside of his preaching. Thus far, I am reading through Calvin, Henry, Hodge, and Murray. I make no promises that I will continue with all four to the end of the book! Of the four, Calvin stands out the least thus far - all the other three have different strengths to commend them, but I have a partiality to the clarity and incisiveness of Hodge's writing.
Authorship
Calvin and Henry do not address the question of authorship explicitly. Hodge and Murray note that it is largely undisputed.
While waiting to meet with a pastor friend of mine, I picked up Barclay's Romans commentary off the shelf and read part of the introduction. He introduced me to the notion that some higher critics have challenged the authenticity of Romans 16 - wonders never cease when pondering the lengths to which our rebellious hearts will go to unnaturally dissect and wrest the word of God from its foundations! Of course this commentary is several decades old, so I'm not sure if that view still holds credence among those who are wise in the world.
However... he did make a very interesting point, if I may be permitted a digression in my own thread. I have long been bothered by the critical arguments against Pauline authorship of Ephesians - in particular the assertion about the lack of personal touches in a letter to a city where Paul had spent so much time. This has never made sense to me. I am very often less personal in correspondence with close friends. I can dispense with the introductions and formalities because our friendship is such that we have perpetually moved past that stage. On the flip side, when talking to distant acquaintances or friends, I am much more likely to re-acquaint myself with the person and establish context through the communication itself. Barclay defends Romans 16 as likely genuine and similarly asserts (though not as a hard-and-fast rule) a roughly inverse correlation between Paul's first-hand exposure to a church and the prominence of personal touches in the epistle. To him, it makes sense that since Paul has never been there, he would devote an entire chapter to referencing a couple dozen personal connections.
Dating / Context
I confess that, although I am generally very interested in such matters, my primary focus is coming to a deeper understanding of the doctrinal content of the book. Therefore, I have not paid serious attention to questions of dating as I have often done in past years. Everyone seems to agree that Romans was probably written from Corinth in the latter part of the 50s - I can circle back to this later.
Outline
Again, here I am not focusing on generally secondary differences in how these commentators outline the work. Henry, Hodge, and Murray seem agreed on three main parts: chs. 1-8, chs. 9-11, and chs. 12-15, with the end of 15 and chapter 16 forming a conclusion to the third part or a concluding third part. Other study Bibles and notes I have seen more simply divide the book into two parts: the doctrinal (chs. 1-11) and the practical (chs. 12-16)
1:1-2
In 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 & 2 Timothy, Paul calls himself an apostle. Only here and in Philippians and Titus does he first refer to himself as a servant. (Murray)
"Called to be an apostle" - Henry and Hodge note a connection with the name Saul - "one called for" (Henry), or "demanded" (Hodge). Hodge includes a fascinating discourse on the origin of Paul's names - something I haven't seen elsewhere.
"Separated unto the gospel of God" - Calvin mentions that this could either refer to his spiritual state more broadly, or to his specific calling to be an apostle and preacher of the gospel. Calvin favors the latter explanation, and is in agreement with the other three on this point.
1:3-4
My most natural reading of this verse has been as a statement on the two natures of Christ - vs. 3 referring to his human nature and vs. 4 to his divine nature. Calvin takes this view, as do Henry and Hodge. Murray's view is complex. While he sees the humanity and divinity of Christ both asserted in these verses, he believes that the chronological progression of these two verses is the interpretive key and that they refer to the humiliation and exaltation of Christ.
I cannot remember where I have read this, but I recall some years ago reading an article discussing the tendency to view Romans as the New Testament's own systematic theology. That article was cautioning against taking that too far and (as I recall) noted that Romans is not a complete systematic theology, for it lacks a well-developed Christology. I remember thinking that to be a good point and one that has stuck with me. In thinking through these verses of Romans, and the comments made on them by these authors, I am inclined to think that Paul was not writing with either the Chalcedonian formula or the Westminster catechisms in mind, though it makes sense to see both his two natures and his two states described in these passages - a state of humiliation as part of his humanity, evidenced by his descent from the seed of David, and a declaration of his divinity as evidenced through the state of exaltation that begins at his resurrection. Contra Murray, I am inclined to prefer the word "declared" in v. 4. While I can't argue with his knowledge of the semantic range of this word elsewhere in the NT, to me the word "declared" carries the connotation of announcing or revealing something that is already an accomplished fact. Hodge devotes a paragraph to rebutting "appoint" as the best rendering, and I am inclined to agree with him.
Both Hodge and Murray elaborate at great length the Christological implications of these two verses. Murray in particular goes to great lengths here when he says: "the apostle at the threshold of the epistle is commending the gospel by showing that it is concerned with him who has no lower station than that of equality with the Father". I wonder if Murray is approaching a sort of totality fallacy here by reading the New Testament's entire semantic and theological range of meaning into these words, as if all that is what Paul intended to convey in these verses. Maybe I myself am misreading Murray there. Hodge seems to take a more measured approach. He draws a great deal out of these two verses but it seems that he is more interested in relating it to what other Scriptures are saying on the topic, rather than arguing that all of that is what Paul intends to convey in these two verses. I am inclined to maintain the point from my reading of years ago - Paul is not setting out to present a detailed Christology in this epistle, which of course doesn't mean we can glean insights about the person of Christ from it.
Hodge has some great Trinitarian insights here. If some of Hodge's Princetonian colleagues can be accused of paving the way for modern evangelicalism's Trinitarian shallowness, Hodge himself seems to be above this criticism. "Christ is called the Son of God because he is consubstantial with the Father, and therefore equal to him in power and glory. The term expresses the relation... as it exists from eternity." Later: "He was and is the Eternal Son." Later: "having the same power, the same authority, and a right to the same honour." No room for ESS here! Later on, we get an interesting allusion to the doctrine of inseparable operations "He had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it again. John x. 18. This is not inconsistent with the fact... that he was raised by the power of the Father, because what the Father does the Son does likewise creation, and all other external works, are ascribed indifferently to the Father, Son, and Spirit." I do wish he had put some prooftexts there - something he does not hesitate to do in many other places.
Henry, Hodge, and Murray all point out the parallels in the structure of these two verses: made of the seed of David - declared to be the Son of God with power; according to the flesh - according to the spirit of holiness.
Authorship
Calvin and Henry do not address the question of authorship explicitly. Hodge and Murray note that it is largely undisputed.
While waiting to meet with a pastor friend of mine, I picked up Barclay's Romans commentary off the shelf and read part of the introduction. He introduced me to the notion that some higher critics have challenged the authenticity of Romans 16 - wonders never cease when pondering the lengths to which our rebellious hearts will go to unnaturally dissect and wrest the word of God from its foundations! Of course this commentary is several decades old, so I'm not sure if that view still holds credence among those who are wise in the world.
However... he did make a very interesting point, if I may be permitted a digression in my own thread. I have long been bothered by the critical arguments against Pauline authorship of Ephesians - in particular the assertion about the lack of personal touches in a letter to a city where Paul had spent so much time. This has never made sense to me. I am very often less personal in correspondence with close friends. I can dispense with the introductions and formalities because our friendship is such that we have perpetually moved past that stage. On the flip side, when talking to distant acquaintances or friends, I am much more likely to re-acquaint myself with the person and establish context through the communication itself. Barclay defends Romans 16 as likely genuine and similarly asserts (though not as a hard-and-fast rule) a roughly inverse correlation between Paul's first-hand exposure to a church and the prominence of personal touches in the epistle. To him, it makes sense that since Paul has never been there, he would devote an entire chapter to referencing a couple dozen personal connections.
Dating / Context
I confess that, although I am generally very interested in such matters, my primary focus is coming to a deeper understanding of the doctrinal content of the book. Therefore, I have not paid serious attention to questions of dating as I have often done in past years. Everyone seems to agree that Romans was probably written from Corinth in the latter part of the 50s - I can circle back to this later.
Outline
Again, here I am not focusing on generally secondary differences in how these commentators outline the work. Henry, Hodge, and Murray seem agreed on three main parts: chs. 1-8, chs. 9-11, and chs. 12-15, with the end of 15 and chapter 16 forming a conclusion to the third part or a concluding third part. Other study Bibles and notes I have seen more simply divide the book into two parts: the doctrinal (chs. 1-11) and the practical (chs. 12-16)
1:1-2
In 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 & 2 Timothy, Paul calls himself an apostle. Only here and in Philippians and Titus does he first refer to himself as a servant. (Murray)
"Called to be an apostle" - Henry and Hodge note a connection with the name Saul - "one called for" (Henry), or "demanded" (Hodge). Hodge includes a fascinating discourse on the origin of Paul's names - something I haven't seen elsewhere.
"Separated unto the gospel of God" - Calvin mentions that this could either refer to his spiritual state more broadly, or to his specific calling to be an apostle and preacher of the gospel. Calvin favors the latter explanation, and is in agreement with the other three on this point.
1:3-4
My most natural reading of this verse has been as a statement on the two natures of Christ - vs. 3 referring to his human nature and vs. 4 to his divine nature. Calvin takes this view, as do Henry and Hodge. Murray's view is complex. While he sees the humanity and divinity of Christ both asserted in these verses, he believes that the chronological progression of these two verses is the interpretive key and that they refer to the humiliation and exaltation of Christ.
I cannot remember where I have read this, but I recall some years ago reading an article discussing the tendency to view Romans as the New Testament's own systematic theology. That article was cautioning against taking that too far and (as I recall) noted that Romans is not a complete systematic theology, for it lacks a well-developed Christology. I remember thinking that to be a good point and one that has stuck with me. In thinking through these verses of Romans, and the comments made on them by these authors, I am inclined to think that Paul was not writing with either the Chalcedonian formula or the Westminster catechisms in mind, though it makes sense to see both his two natures and his two states described in these passages - a state of humiliation as part of his humanity, evidenced by his descent from the seed of David, and a declaration of his divinity as evidenced through the state of exaltation that begins at his resurrection. Contra Murray, I am inclined to prefer the word "declared" in v. 4. While I can't argue with his knowledge of the semantic range of this word elsewhere in the NT, to me the word "declared" carries the connotation of announcing or revealing something that is already an accomplished fact. Hodge devotes a paragraph to rebutting "appoint" as the best rendering, and I am inclined to agree with him.
Both Hodge and Murray elaborate at great length the Christological implications of these two verses. Murray in particular goes to great lengths here when he says: "the apostle at the threshold of the epistle is commending the gospel by showing that it is concerned with him who has no lower station than that of equality with the Father". I wonder if Murray is approaching a sort of totality fallacy here by reading the New Testament's entire semantic and theological range of meaning into these words, as if all that is what Paul intended to convey in these verses. Maybe I myself am misreading Murray there. Hodge seems to take a more measured approach. He draws a great deal out of these two verses but it seems that he is more interested in relating it to what other Scriptures are saying on the topic, rather than arguing that all of that is what Paul intends to convey in these two verses. I am inclined to maintain the point from my reading of years ago - Paul is not setting out to present a detailed Christology in this epistle, which of course doesn't mean we can glean insights about the person of Christ from it.
Hodge has some great Trinitarian insights here. If some of Hodge's Princetonian colleagues can be accused of paving the way for modern evangelicalism's Trinitarian shallowness, Hodge himself seems to be above this criticism. "Christ is called the Son of God because he is consubstantial with the Father, and therefore equal to him in power and glory. The term expresses the relation... as it exists from eternity." Later: "He was and is the Eternal Son." Later: "having the same power, the same authority, and a right to the same honour." No room for ESS here! Later on, we get an interesting allusion to the doctrine of inseparable operations "He had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it again. John x. 18. This is not inconsistent with the fact... that he was raised by the power of the Father, because what the Father does the Son does likewise creation, and all other external works, are ascribed indifferently to the Father, Son, and Spirit." I do wish he had put some prooftexts there - something he does not hesitate to do in many other places.
Henry, Hodge, and Murray all point out the parallels in the structure of these two verses: made of the seed of David - declared to be the Son of God with power; according to the flesh - according to the spirit of holiness.
