Theology and Interpretation: The Case of Aquinas and Calvin on Romans CHARLES RAITH II* Abstract: This article explores how Aquinas’s and Calvin’s theology of justification, the law and the nature of human works integrate with their interpretations of Romans by analyzing their commentaries on 1:16b–17, focusing on the iustitia Dei, and 2:13, which addresses the relationship between works and justification. Aquinas’s interpretation unfolds by emphasizing the work of Christ in and through sinners, while Calvin’s interpretation emphasizes the work of Christ for and to sinners. I also demonstrate how the theological judgements embedded in these sections inform their reading of Romans as a whole. Paul’s letter to the Romans profoundly shapes both Aquinas’s and Calvin’s theological vision. 1 Calvin states in the preface to his Romans commentary: ‘If anyone has gained true understanding of this letter, he has open doors to the most profound treasures of Scripture’ (5.9–11) 2 – treasures that supported, Calvin * Honors College, Baylor University, One Bear Place #94177, Waco, TX 76798-7144, USA. 1 For Calvin, see Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 127; R. Ward Holder, ‘Calvin as a Commentator on the Pauline Epistles’, in Donald K. McKim, ed., Calvin and the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 224; Gary Neal Hanson, ‘Door and Passageway: Calvin’s Use of Romans as Hermeneutical and Theological Guide’, in Kathy Ehrensperger and R. Ward Holder, eds., Reformation Readings of Romans (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008), pp. 77–94. For Aquinas, see Christopher Baglow, Modus et Forma: A New Approach to the Exegesis of Saint Thomas Aquinas with an Application to the Lectura super Epistolam ad Ephesios (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2002), p. 29; M.-D. Chenu, Toward Understanding St. Thomas, trans. A.-M. Landry and D. Hughes (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1964), p. 248. 2 John Calvin, Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ed. T.H.L. Parker (Leiden: Brill, 1981), p. 5, lines 9–11; further citations in the body of the article are by page and line number. On this comment, Parker clarifies that this did not mean that the rest of Bible could not be understood unless one understood Romans. Rather: ‘Once Romans has been grasped a certain point of view will have been gained which will then enable the reader to comprehend the intention of the rest of Scripture.’ T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (London: SCM Press, 1971), p. 32. International Journal of Systematic Theology doi:10.1111/j.1468-2400.2011.00618.x © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd