Martin Luther - Lesson 8

Dr. Gordon Isaac
Martin Luther 
CH643-08
Luther's Approach to Scripture
Lesson Transcript

[00:00:02] Today, we're going to be talking about Luther's approach to scripture. And let's get underway here with a word from scripture or a word from Luther, rather, on Scripture. Second, Timothy, chapter four, verse two says this Preach the word. Be prepared in season and out of season. Correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instructions. Luther says this I preach the Gospel of Christ and with my bodily voice, I bring Christ into your heart so that you may form him within yourself. If now you truly believe so, that your heart lays hold of the word and holds fast within it, that voice tell me what have you in your heart. You must answer that. You have the true Christ, not that He sits in there as one sits on a chair, but as he is at the right hand of the father. How that comes about, you cannot know. But your heart truly feels his presence. And through the experience of faith, you know, for a certainty that he is there. Now I can accomplish this again, that the one Christ enters into so many hearts through the voice, and that each person who hears the sermon and accepts it takes the whole Christ into his heart. For Christ does not permit himself to be divided into parts, yet He is distributed whole among all the faithful so that one heart receives no less and a thousand hearts, no more than the one Christ. This we must ever confess. And it is a daily miracle. Indeed it is as great a miracle as here in the sacrament. Let us pause for prayer, O Heavenly Father, since no one likes your will, and since we are too weak to have our will and our old Adam mortified, we pray that you will feed us, strengthen and comfort us with your holy word, and grant us your grace that the heavenly bread, Jesus Christ may be preached and heard in all the world, that we may know it in our hearts, and so that all harmful, heretical, erroneous and human doctrine may cease.

[00:02:33] And only your word, which is truly your living bread, be distributed. Amen. Okay, we're underway. And today's topic is Luther's approach to scripture. We want to talk a little bit about how this goes down. Now, of course, whenever one approaches any any number of topics within Luther, one has to ask the question, how are we going to deal with this? Are we going to do it historically and talk about the particular context in which he's fighting out issues, or are we going to deal with it systematically and draw from his writings throughout the corpus and then try to arrange it according to a method which might be easily grasped by the mind? Well, today I think what we're going to do is we're going to hit it in a twofold manner. First of all, I want to talk a little bit about what Luther is perhaps most often remembered for, namely the slogan Sola Scriptura and the issue of biblical authority. I want to spend a bit of time there and deal with some of the issues surrounding this important matter. But also then the perhaps more important question why? Maybe we can't see it that way, but to the equally important question of biblical exegesis and the question of hermeneutics, how does one deal with the text of Scripture? How does the text of Scripture work in the life of the church? And so we'll be dealing with issues of the four fold allegorical interpretation of scriptures, which was common in the Middle Ages. So let's get underway, first of all, in dealing with Luther's approach to Scripture. Let's think just for a moment or two about the issue of Sola Scriptura. Now, most often Luther is remembered for his slogan Sola Scriptura and the issue of biblical authority.

[00:04:31] This principle, however, has much more to do with the larger question of authority than the more intricate matter of dealing with the text of Scripture. Now, you remember back to our discussion of the 95 theses at the time that Luther wrote those very important theses. It was quite clear that he was still giving great deference to the Pope and he was still claiming that councils that the teaching Magisterium, that the tradition of the church and Scripture were the way to deal with issues that were controversial, controversial in the church. If you wanted to cut through and get to the bottom line on any particular issue, you had to deal with that whole broad range of authority structure. So it wasn't a simple authority. Structure, but it consisted of Scripture, the Magisterium councils, and a whole number of other things, including tradition. And in the 95 theses, Luther is dealing with, with the important issue of indulgences and, and other questions that deal with some serious allergy and in other kinds of things. But clearly, at that point in his career in 1517, he has still not at a place where he would make some of the bold statements that he would later make regarding Scripture as the sole authority for faith and practice. When Luther proceeded to the Leipzig debate in 1519 with his friend Andreas Karlstad, and they debated against Johannes EK. There we see almost before our eyes a development in Luther's own thinking. Johannes actually presses Luther and Luther, finally, in the midst of that debate, has to assert that councils can and have heirs. Now, if that's the case, where do we get our authority for reforming the church? On what basis do we assess current church practice? Luther is being driven back again and again to the matter of Scripture as the sole source of our authority in the church.

[00:06:54] Now, he was not the only one in the Roman Catholic tradition who was to say this. And interestingly enough, when we come to later a later chapter in church history, when in response to the tremendous change that took place in the Reformation time period, the Council of Trent met. They had to discuss the issue of Scripture and how it was to be considered. And we find that in that discussion in the Council of Trent, there were Roman Catholic theologians, bishops who are maintaining scripture as our sole authority for faith and practice. So very interesting. Luther is not alone in saying that Scripture is our only rule for faith and practice, but he hammers it out in very practical ways that forces the issue among his own people, but forcing it also on the Roman Curia as well. Now, then there were critical issues that were coming down the pike. In 1521, Luther, after appearing at the died of worms, is taken away to the vard. BURKE And there he's in the castle and he is out of pocket, as it were, for the continuing reform in Wittenberg. Now, already reforms had taken place in Wittenberg. They were changing the way they did their university lectures and the structure of their teaching method there. Instead of dealing with Aristotle and some of the scholastic forms of doing theology. They were now moving back to straightforward lectures on the Pauline Corpus, on the Book of Romans, for example, Galatians and the Book of Hebrews. And so we have are moving back to the text of Scripture in terms of the reform at the University of Wittenberg. Well, there was tremendous foment and theology this this new theology that Luther had set forward in the disputation against scholastic theology in 1517.

[00:08:56] And then also the Heidelberg disputation in 1518 was really making quite a stir. Well, now, with Luther out of the way, Andreas Fun Call stat began to take the reforming effort into his own hands. Now, Andreas Kosh that while very sympathetic to the reform measures of Luther, was really much more of a Puritan reformer than Luther was, and he believed that the text of the Old Testament was to be taken very, very seriously. And indeed, the stipulations and the legal requirements laid down in Old Testament were binding for Christians today. And in point of fact crossed that believe that, for example, the images that were a part of 16th century piety needed to be abolished and destroyed. Thou shalt make no graven image unto the Lord. And he took the Old Testament very literally at that point. And then there was a bit of a riot that took place in Vinton Burke and a number of the statues that that were a part of the cathedrals there and the places of worship were destroyed. There was an edict that was set forward by the Council of Wittenberg allowing the abolition of of images. And there was really, of course, quite an uproar. And there was there was actually a mob out on the street that destroyed things, roughed up a couple of the priests and did a few things like that that were just a little bit over the top. Well, Lou sort of caught wind of this and he came back to town to make an assessment of it. And then later on, he came back to town, really putting his own life in jeopardy because he was under the ban. But he decided he could remain in banishment no longer or remain in seclusion, no longer.

[00:11:05] So he came out and then he preached a series of sermons and they were called the end of It sermons, a series of eight sermons in which he addressed the issue that was going on in Rittenberg. These reforms had taken the form of kind of a mob rule, and he was really quite upset about the whole thing. And Karlstad had a number of images abolished. And Luther was very concerned that this was not the way it ought to be. You shall make. Yourself. You shall not make yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Of course, the question here is how do we interpret this? How do we apply this text of scripture in the life of the church? Cause that said, we take this text literally. This is something which applies to Christians and we must see it through to the end and therefore take radical action in our own midst. There. You take your stand. That is your ground. Now, let us see, since Luther, when our adversaries say the meaning of the first commandment is that we should worship only one God and not any image. Even as it has said immediately following you shall not bow down to them or serve them. And when they say that it is the worship of images which is forbidden and not the making of them, they are shaking our foundation and making it uncertain. And if you reply, the text says you shall not make any graven images. Then they say it also says you shall not worship. Then in the face of such uncertainty, who would be so bold as to destroy the images? Not I, says Luther.

[00:12:54] But let us go further. They say, Did not Noah, Abraham. Jacob. Build altars. And who will deny that? We must admit it again. Did not Moses erect a bronze serpent? As we read in his fourth book? Numbers 22. How, then, can you say that Moses forbade the making of images when he himself made one? It seems to me that such a serpent is an image too. How shall we answer that again? Do we not read also that two birds were erected on the mercy seat, the very place where God willed that He should be worshiped. Here we must admit that we may have images and make images. But we must not worship them. And if they are worshiped, they should be put away and destroyed. And Luther goes on. Luther's point, however, is to shout at this point, using Scripture against Scripture, as it were, in order to make his point. He says that cost ad and his followers have preached that images should be destroyed. But Luther says, you know, why have you done it in this way? Why not preach the word of God and allow it to happen on its own? Says you're just as bad as the papacy. The papacy has forced a number of rules and regulations on us without the evidence of Scripture. And now you and your evangelical enthusiasm are now putting a new law on the people, saying you must destroy the images much better, that you should simply preach the word and allow the word to do its work. Luther here is saying that scripture has its own authority and it needs to be used as such. Whatever stand we take must have the backing of Scripture. And if it does, then that stand will remain good.

[00:14:52] He also points out the fact that Paul, when he was in Athens, didn't strike down or kick over any of the monuments to the other gods, but rather he preached the gospel of Jesus Christ in the hope that individuals would hear and believe, and thus their hearts would be changed toward the matter. So he's saying we need to be careful how we use Scripture, that we don't use it as another law, rule or regulation to bind the conscience, but rather when Scripture is used rightly, it actually frees the conscience. So you have this very interesting case study, as it were, and how Luther deals with the text of scripture. And he says, Look, you think you view Scripture rightly here, but we need to be sure that we use Scripture alone in order to assert our positions. Later on in his career, just not very, very much later. Luther begins to address a very interesting situation in which there were a number of nuns and monks who were concerned over their circumstance. They were bound in a situation where Luther claims their consciences were held captive. They want to escape from their circumstance, but they're uncertain that they have any scriptural warrant to do so. They're in orders that require that on certain days they not eat eggs, meat or milk. They stay away from confession, etc., etc.. And Luther wants to give them some advices. So he writes a little document entitled Avoiding the Doctrines of Men. And in this treatise, what he does is he sets in contrast the doctrines of men and what are rules and regulations under these particular monastic orders have been, and what the rule and law of Scripture is all about. And so he's making contrast between these two things.

[00:17:01] He begins with reasons from Scripture for avoiding the doctrines of men. Moses says in Deuteronomy, You shall not add anything to the word which I speak to you, nor take anything from it. And here, Luther says, We need to take this seriously and understand that Scripture is not to be added to nor taken from. And here he says, you know, some of his opponents were saying, well, yeah, but look, these are simply the words of Moses here. And we have many books of the prophets as well as the entire New Testament. But Luther says, nevertheless, nothing new has been added for the same thing that is found in the books of Moses as found also in the others. These other books, while using different words and narratives, do nothing more than illustrate how the word of Moses has been kept or not kept throughout them all. There is one and the same teaching and thought. And here we can challenge them to show us one word in all the books outside those of Moses that is not already found in the books of Moses, for this much is beyond question that all the Scriptures point to Christ alone. Indeed, in John five. Christ says Moses wrote of me. Therefore, everything in the other books is already in the books of Moses, as in a basic source. There's very interesting little bit that Luther does here, and he says the entire scriptures have one center, one focal point, and that is Christ Jesus. Since that is the case, Scripture is indeed our one authority, and it is a safe authority, one which will keep us from legalism and one which will set us free into life in Christ. So for Luther Christ is the center of Scripture, and that's one of the points he wants to make.

[00:18:50] So Sola Scriptura is wrapped up in that notion. Now, when it comes to the issue of these various monastic orders requiring a distinction of food, you remember that was a big deal. Even as mentioned in the Augsburg confession, the distinction of foods, remember that there were certain rules and regulations. And on certain fast days you were to avoid eating butter, eggs, cheese, meat, etc. those kinds of things, depending on whether it was Friday, Lent or Advent. Luther turns to this scripture in Matthew 15, where Christ declares It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but one comes out of the mouth. This defiles a man. And then he goes on to say that this declaration in judgment must be firmly grasped, for it is powerful and overthrows with forcefulness, all teaching, custom and mode of life that distinguishes between foods. It liberates all consciences from all laws concerning food and drink. So it is allowable to eat milk, butter, eggs, cheese and meat any day, be it Sunday or Friday, Lent or Advent. And no one needs to pay butter money or buy letters for that purpose. For this word stands firm and does not deceive. What goes into the mouth does not defile a man. He goes on to attack the kind of accumulation of human doctrines which has taken place in the Roman Catholic structure. And he fights against it by way of the word of scripture, saying Scripture is where we get our our guidance for for for life. Scripture is the word of God. And that is what is authoritative in the church. Scripture is authoritative. Human ceremony is a matter of freedom. You're free either to abstain from these foods or to eat them. And no one can tell you that it's a mortal sin if you eat meat on Friday, etc., etc..

[00:21:04] So scripture alone is authoritative. There's another text that was thrown up against him in this regard, and it was a quotation taken from Saint Augustine in a little text entitled Against the Fundamental Letter of the Man of Keynes. Augustine makes this confession. I should not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the church. I should not believe the gospel if I did not believe the church. And here the line of argumentation was this Look, they say the church is to be believed more than the gospel. That's what Luther's fighting against here. There's the assertion that it's church tradition. It's canon law, which is binding, and it's this legal structure which is authoritative. And as a matter of fact, it is the church which has written the scriptures and therefore is the church which has power to interpret the texts of Scripture. And therefore, one must listen to the church and not the gospel or more than the gospel. Luther makes several points in response to this. He says, I answer, Even if Augustine had said this, who gave him the authority that we must believe what he says? What scriptures does he quote to prove this statement? What if he heard here as we know that he frequently did, just as all the fathers did? Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the text quoted above? God would not have that. Saint Augustine must yield to them. And Luther goes on, he says. Besides, if that were St Augustine's opinion, he would be contradicting himself, for in many places he exalts the Holy Scriptures above the statements of all teachers. Moreover, Luther asserts that those who would use Augustine against the text are deceivers, that they not only ascribe to Augustine an opinion he did not hold, but they also falsify and pervert his words.

[00:23:22] For St Augustine's words are actually these. I should not believe the gospel if the authority of all Christendom did not move me. And here Luther points out that Augustine is speaking of the whole of Christendom and says that throughout the world it preaches with one accord the gospel. And it's not the manikins who have a corner on Christian truth. That's the whole context of his writing this letter, fundamental letter against the manikins. It is this unanimous authority of all Christians that moves Augustine to consider it the true gospel. But our tyrants say this is Luther, that they are themselves this Christendom as if the common layman were not also Christians. What they teach is supposed to be called the doctrine of the Christian church, though they are a minority and we who are universal. Christendom should also first be consulted about what is to be taught in the name of the universal of universal Christendom. So it's here. It's very interesting that Luther's line of argumentation moves in its way. Basically, what he's saying is that Canon law or the Roman Catholic structure is actually coercing other Christians into a certain behavior pattern. Whereas Augustine, his writing is saying that Christendom is the repository for the gospel, and this is where we learn about the nature of Christianity, and that's where the preaching of truth is to be found and not in an heretical group. So it's very interesting the way that he goes after this. And to sum up this this this line of inquiry. Luther says this We do not condemn the doctrines of men just because they are the doctrines of men, for we would gladly put up with them, but we condemn them because they are contrary to the gospel and the Scriptures, while the Scriptures liberate consciences and forbid that they be taken captive by the doctrines of men.

[00:25:25] These doctrines of men captivate the conscience anyhow. This conflict between the Scriptures and the doctrines of men, we cannot reconcile. Therefore, because these two forms of doctrine contradict one another, we allow even young children to judge here whether we are to give up the scriptures in which the one Word of God is taught from the beginning of the world, or whether we are to give up the doctrines of men which were newly devised yesterday and which changed daily. So Luther here sets forward his understanding of Scripture over and against the accumulation of human doctrines, and so sets forward what has later on be been dubbed as Sola Scriptura. Now, just an interesting point that goes beyond this. Roman Catholics, in dealing with Luther's trenchant use of the scriptural principle, had to come together at the Council of Trent. Which meant 1546 to 1563, and the Roman Curia gathered there together to determine what was going to happen in terms of their doctrine of scripture. They reassert that the Vulgate is to be is to be given authority. It is authoritative. The Vulgate is the common Latin translation of the Bible that came down from Jerome. And also they claim that authority resides in Scripture and tradition. Scripture and tradition. Partum partum, to use the Latin. And of course, there beyond that, of course, there's a very interesting question. George to Bard has claimed that by this phrase, what is meant is that the whole gospel is found in the Scripture and the whole gospel is found in the oral tradition, which is maintained within the life of the church. There is another way to interpret the part to impart to him, and that is to understand that Scripture sets forward that which it sets forward authoritatively.

[00:27:42] And what it sets forward we receive in combination with the Church's interpretation of that, we come with the fullness of doctrine. So part from scripture, part from tradition. And it depends on who you listen to, how the interpretation of this understanding goes. Now, quite obviously here at the point of the nature of Scripture and its authoritative function. You have an interesting point of dialog, let's put it that way, between the Protestant tradition holding, as it does to Sola Scriptura and the Roman Catholic tradition which maintains Scripture and tradition as its ultimate authority. Okay, now let's move on to the second phase and deal just briefly with the issue of biblical hermeneutics and Luther's approach to Scripture in terms of how Scripture is applied. Now, we've already had a case study of how he dealt with the issue of Scripture and applying it to the reforms in Wittenberg. And what we want to do is take that a couple of steps further and see how we can proceed in terms of filling in a very large and rich kind of discussion within Luther's scholarship. If you read Luther's scholarship and you really become, you know, a top draw in this particular regard, you'll find that there's a lot of different opinions about how this thing goes down. And there has been a lot of progress made in terms of understanding the complexity of medieval exegesis. Now, if you go to some of the older Protestant biblical hermeneutics books, you'll find that there is usually a very disparaging word about allegorical interpretation, allegorical interpretation. So the line goes, does not take the text of Scripture seriously and therefore covers over the true meaning of Scripture. And insofar as we allow ourselves to deal in allegory, we lose the true meaning of the text.

[00:29:45] And so allegorical interpretation is just really hammered on, and it's panned rather badly. Well, now there may indeed be some truth to certain critiques of the four fold interpretive method. However, there are significant number of reasons why it emerged. So let's just take a quick look at this very interesting chapter of history. Of course, we can only deal with it in a very cursory manner in a brief session, as we have today. But let's get to it and see what we can come up with. Now, the young Luther had to struggle with the traditional methods of biblical interpretation. Typically, Luther speaks about the four fold sense of scripture. When Luther became a doctor of the Bible, it was his task to begin to make exposition of Scripture. Luther's earliest expositions of Scripture were on the Psalms. And there he inherited quite a long standing tradition of interpretation. And it was the four fold interpretation of Scripture, sometimes called the Quadriga the four fold sense. And this is a method of interpretation that deals with the text of Scripture along a number of different levels of interpretive importance. Now, one of the questions that perhaps we could start out asking is why allegorical interpretation? Why is it that we need to make a distinction between the letter of Scripture, the historical sense of Scripture? Sure. And some deeper meaning. Well, it really this the interpretive structure, the allegorical interpretation of scripture comes out of an interpretation of the words of Saint Paul in second Corinthians three, six in second, Corinthian Corinthians three six. Saint Paul says the letter kills, but the spirit makes a life. Now, early on in the history of the church, believers began to wrestle with this text. What does this mean? The letter kills, but the spirit makes a life.

[00:32:09] Now, Augustine suggested that this text could be understood in either one of two ways. On the one hand, the distinction between letter and spirit could be a distinction between law and gospel, between demand and grace. The letter kills because it demands and obedience of the sinner, which the sinner is powerless to render. The spirit makes alive because it infuses the forgiven sinner with new power to meet the rigorous requirements of the law. You will find that Luther follows Augustine at that particular point. However, that's not the only way that this text could be interpreted. Augustine maintained that also it could be a distinction between the story or the narrative level of the Bible and the deeper theological meaning or the spiritual significance implicit within it. So what you have is the letter of Scripture. So you've got a text that deals with Jerusalem. Well, okay. You have this text that talks about a city in the Middle East, and that has a very historical kind of meaning. But, you know, what possible significance does that have for a priest who is functioning in Saxony in the 16th century? We'll get to this a little bit further on. But you have the literal words of scripture and it has an historical setting. But isn't there a deeper theological meaning that's going on here? The distinction between the letter and the spirit has to do with how a narrative operates. Origin one a profound theologian early in the life of the church, says that in this unforgettable way. Now, what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and the moon and the stars, and that the first day, if we may so call it, was even without a heaven.

[00:34:28] And who was so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward in Eden and set it or set in it a visible and palpable tree of life of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life. And again, that one could partake of good and evil by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name. And when God is said to walk in the paradise and the cool of the day and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual event. This is what origin, early on in the life of the church, had to say. Simply because the story purports to be a straightforward historical narrative does not mean that it is in fact what it claims to be, what appears to be history, maybe metaphor or figure instead. And the interpreter who confuses metaphor with literal fact is an interpreter who is simply incompetent. Every biblical story means something, even if the narrative taken at face value contains absurdities or contradictions. The interpreter must use good sense in order to grasp the sacred mystery cloaked in the language of actual events. That's origin. And so with him, much of the early interpretive tradition of the church. A second reason for distinguishing between letter and spirit is the thorny question of the relationship between Israel and the church, between the Greek Testament and the Hebrew Bible. The church regarded itself as both continuous and discontinuous with ancient Israel because it claimed to be continuous. It felt an unavoidable obligation to interpret the Torah, the prophets and the writings.

[00:36:21] But it was precisely this claim of continuity, absolutely essential to Christian identity, which created fresh hermeneutical problems for the church. Let's go back to that German priest operating in the 16th century. If you were given the task of preaching on that text that talks about that sordid story of Judah taking a prostitute or the raping of Tamar, is that really food for spiritual thought? How do you handle these kinds of issues in making spiritual sense for the church of your own day? Or how about when you take Psalm 137, which bemoans captivity in Babylon, makes rude remarks about Edomites. Expresses a radical longing for a glimpse of Jerusalem and pronounces a blessing on anyone who avenges the destruction of the temple by dashing Babylonian children against Iraq. You, as a priest in the 16th century live in Wittenberg, and probably your greatest desire is to someday go to Nuremberg to the book fair there. You're not particularly interested in going to Jerusalem. That would probably mean that you'd be on a crusade about to lose your life. So Nuremberg would be a much preferable place to be. So how is it that we can derive meaning out of these kinds of texts, given a circumstance in which we find ourselves? A third reason for distinguishing letter from certain. A spirit was the conviction expressed by Augustine that while all Scripture was given for the edification of the church and the nurture of the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love, not all the stories in the Bible are edifying as they stand. What's the spiritual point of the story of the drunkenness of Noah, the murder of Cicero or the ox Goat of Sham Gar? If it cannot be found on the level of narrative, then it must be found on the level of allegory, metaphor and type.

[00:38:32] Okay. Now, when the. The church then subscribed to a theory of the four fold sense of scripture. They're simply trying to deal seriously with the meaning of the text and life in the church with Scripture informing that life. So from the time of John Cassian, the church subscribed to this theory of the four fold sense of Scripture. You have an attachment in the little handout I gave to you today. And on the back page, there's just a little chart here. This is taken from the book by Oberman. And what he does here is simply sets out these four senses. There's a literal sense. Jerusalem. It's a city of Judea, but taken allegorically. The citizens of Jerusalem are good people. These are the people of God trope, logically moral, the moral sense. Jerusalem stands for virtues. There is, after all, Jerusalem. And then there's Athens. Right. In terms of what will be or the anti-God legal sense, there are future rewards. So we're looking for the new Jerusalem, the streets of gold. So you see how a simple kind of external identification of scripture, the city of Jerusalem, can have this four fold meaning or Babylon. It's a city in Mesopotamia, but allegorically speaking, this has to do with heathens and therefore evil people. Topologically understood. Babylon is full of vices in and in, and a God shekel terms or future terms. This represents great punishment. So you can see how it would be possible to to use the four fold sense of Scripture and apply it to Scripture and come out with these four senses. Mm hmm. Party of the early church. These were called. Yes. The fourfold sense of scripture comes from. From John Cassian. And so this was practiced for some time, but it had a lots of different variations over the course of the history of the church.

[00:40:54] And it simply is a fact that not everyone applied it in the same manner. So when you take a look at medieval theologians, you won't necessarily even have all of them saying, Well, this is the four fold sense of scripture, this is how we must interpret. But you may find that they have different ways of handling the letter and the spirit. Thomas Aquinas wanted to ground the spiritual sense of Scripture even more securely in the literal sense than it had been grounded in patristic thought. He returns to the distinction between things and signs that was made by Augustine. Earlier, Thomas argued that while words are the signs of things, things designated by words can themselves be the signs of other things. In all merely human sciences. Words alone have a high have a sign character, but in holy Scripture, the things designated by words can themselves have the character of sign. The literal sense of scripture has to do with the sign character of words. The spiritual sense of Scripture has to do with the sign character of things. By arguing this way, Thomas was able to show that the spiritual sense of Scripture is always based on the literal sense and derived from it. So what Thomas is trying to do as well, while he's still using this allegorical interpretation of Scripture, he's trying to tie it to the text of Scripture so that it doesn't become too fanciful. And when you take a look at a medieval exegesis in many regards, they were quite, quite conservative. Now there's much more that could be said about the nuancing of this Nicholas of literature. A 14th century exit cheat has a theory of the literal historical. It's in fact a double literal sense of scripture where it has a literal meaning for the author, but it has a literal spiritual meaning which points beyond the literal.

[00:42:55] So you get a nuancing of this whole thing. And it's perhaps not all that important for us to understand that. But the young Luther has to deal with this four fold sense of of Scripture. Now that in your handout we can perhaps just get a quick handle on one of these, an example of of how this might be used in the longer quotation in the small type. Luther rails against this division of letter and spirit as it's often used by Origin and Jerome. And he says, for instance, a scripture narrative in Genesis records how the serpent persuaded the woman to eat of the forbidden fruit and to give to her husband, who also ate this narrative in its simplest meaning, represents what they understand by letter spirit. However, they understand to mean the spiritual interpretation which is thus the spirit or the serpent, rather signifies the evil temptation, which lures us to sin. The woman represents the sensual state or the sphere in which enticements and temptations make themselves felt. Adam, the man stands for reason, which is called man's highest endowment. Now, when reason does not yield to the allure, months of external sense all as well, but when it permits itself to waver and consent, the fall has taken place. Origin was the first to trifle thus with the Holy Scriptures, and many others followed. Until now, it is thought to be the sign of great cleverness for the church to be filled with such quibbling. And it's quite clear Luther doesn't have much time for this kind of working with the text. Now, what is Luther's approach to Scripture then? How does he deal with this? This matter? Now? There are some who maintain that early in his lectures on the Bible, Luther uses the four fold allegorical interpretive system, and that may well be asserted and and proved out.

[00:45:01] But a more important thesis comes from no less than Gerhard Ablin, who has asserted that there is a methodological shift in her and Luther's hermeneutic in which he overcomes the four fold interpretive schema enabling claims. Gerhard Ablin claims that this shift in Luther's hermeneutical methodology came simultaneously with his evangelical experience, the tower experience, where he breaks through to this loving God. And perhaps you've read that well in Over, you did read a passage where Luther comes to his understanding of a God who now is gracious. He wants to do that. Ablin claims that simultaneously with this event. Luther's approach to scripture changes. And there's a methodological shift. Now, Luther throws over the four fold interpretive schema, and he gives us a new understanding of the text of Scripture enabling points out, or he makes the case. He claims that the real contribution that Luther makes to biblical hermeneutics, historically speaking, is that he throws over the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. And it's not so much that it's any one of his particular interpretations of the text, which is important, but it's the fact that he has thrown over the whole idea of allegory as being an appropriate way of dealing with the text. This is an interesting kind of thesis. And rather interestingly, when you take a look at the work in which ably sets this forward, you find that even there, Ablin concedes that Luther continued to use allegory throughout his career. And he is unable to really show us that Luther has fully thrown over his use of the four fold interpretive process. He claims that his his change is implicit and he's just not able to fully work this out. Now, there are a couple of others who have begun to call this thesis into question.

[00:47:53] John Lenhart, a Danish professor of rhetoric, Helmut Johansson Kenneth Haig and the professor I studied under have all leveled some kind of critique at Enabling Thesis. John Lenhart claims that we really haven't quite understood Luther at the point of his theory of language, and so much work needs to be done there. He claims that the modern study of Luther's approach to Scripture is located in a different place than it thinks itself to be. With regard to terminology, modern scholarship has failed to see that the entire textual theory of the Middle Ages presupposes symbolic interpretation. So when the authors of the Middle Ages termed their understanding allegorical, this was taken at face value. But the terminology that would more accurately fit our modern usage is symbolic. Luther did not break with the use of allegory, but with the symbolic interpretation of Scripture. Luther objected to the Polish symmetry of the multilevel interpretive schema in use at the time. John Lenhart goes on in saying, Being symbolists ourselves, we make a symbolist of Luther too, or else he would not be a reasonable man. Just as we also assume that he broke with the allegorical method, which he did not. We further assume that Luther understood the understanding of language in text enjoyed by modern scholars, which he certainly did not. So it's very interesting that Lynn Hart moves against Abe Ling's thesis in this sort of a way. Once again, a good paper topic is lurking here. In case you're interested in finding out a bit more about Luther's view of Scripture. Kenneth Hennigan claims we skip over. Young Hans Kenneth Hagan claims that Luther is a theologian of the sacred page, that as such he draws very heavily on the monastic tradition. He is interested in reproducing the vocabulary of Scripture, and he is not so much interested in methods for interpreting Scripture, but rather his task is to take Scripture and apply it to the needs of the church.

[00:50:11] Luther You see the whole process of interpretation in our modern context. We assume this. The text of Scripture is an ancient text. What we need is an interpreter, which will help to bridge the interpretive gulf. We need to somehow get back to this ancient text, and that's why we need an interpreter. And so we use our modern methods of interpretation. And of course, the the last 200 years has been dominated by the historical critical method of interpreting scripture. Getting over this great gulf of time. But interestingly enough, for Luther. Luther lives in the world of the Bible. For him, it is not an ancient dock, a document in need of interpretation. He lives in that very world. So it's very interesting when you're reading Luther and his biblical interpretation, he can talk about Jerome, Isaiah, Adam, the Papists, all in one breath. And for him, it is a single world in which he is moving. The Bible is not an ancient document in need of interpretation. The Bible is a document which is simply in need of a voice to re articulate it. And so you see, Luther is not so much interested, therefore, according to Hagan, in trying to interpret Scripture, but rather his job as a theologian of the sacred page is to apply Scripture and to engage in the cosmic battle between God and the devil. So it's a very interesting thing here. You see, Hagan says, Well, well, Luther uses allegory. After all, Saint Paul uses allegory as well in the book of Galatians. Doesn't he use an allegory between Jerusalem, you know, and Hagar and you know, the other. So he says, since Saint Paul can do it, Luther can use allegory as well. So for him, allegory is not the big issue.

[00:52:12] There's there's another issue that's going on, quite obviously, in this interpretive battle, but we'll get to that. What is certain is this Luther gives definite place to second Corinthians chapter three, verse six. The tradition understood the letter as the mere historical sense, and they get the real meaning of Scripture. One needed to move beyond the letter, the earthly to the spirit. This caused the interpreter to look for the spiritual or the allegorical meaning of the text. But it seems that Luther reverses this hermeneutic by asserting that the text does not mean something. It accomplishes something. The letter kills. The spirit gives life. The spirit. The Scripture confronts us with the living God who kills in order to make a life. Now this flows naturally. Then let's talk just a little bit. Let's tie some things together. Last time we talked about a theology of the cross theology for Luther is not talking about God in abstract terms, but it is rather the action of God as He works on us and we allow it to be so we suffer it to be so. It is a passion. We suffer it to be so. God is at work on us and in us. That's the theology of the cross stuff. We know God in suffering in the cross, and that suffering in the cross comes to us insofar as we are united to to the crucified God. Now, in terms of Scripture. Notice how the same principle is at work in a theology of the cross. What happens there is there is not a continuous life of the religious believer who then is adjusted and changed with just a little bit more knowledge or an appeal to the free will which will do this or that of the other thing? No.

[00:53:56] What happens in the theology of the Cross? What is necessary, according to Luther is this The old Adam must die. God puts us to death in order to raise us up to new life. There's a discontinuity in the life of the religious subject so that the new life of faith can be raised up. Now, the same thing is true in terms of his understanding or his approach to Scripture. Notice how this parallels the theology of the cross. This is just the theology of the cross understood in light of Scripture. What happens is, is is this let's let's draw some pictures. Sometimes it's easier to to to deal with life when you can draw pictures. Okay. Look in the. Okay, We're not too high here. Good spirit. This is the spirit realm. And this is the letter. Now, according to the the medieval structure, what you needed to do is move from the physical or the physical realm and get up to what's really important, namely the spiritual. You don't want to be caught in the dead letter, earthly appearances. You need to go up. But notice what happens in Luther is you have you have the letter, which is the that which is representing the old. It's the old Ian. It really is law. And notice what happens. It drives us to Christ and the cross. It's only in that death that occurs by means of Scripture that now we are brought into the life of the Spirit. We see, according to Luther's spirit, is not some philosophical realm of pure idea, but spirit. Here is the spirit of God. And this is not the old Ian. It is the new Ian. And it is not dominated by law, but it is dominated by gospel.

[00:56:03] You see, there's an altogether different kind of thing going on here in Luther. And let's just take a look at our reading for today to nail down this point as we conclude what I have to say. Notice on page 84, bottom of page 84, I'm not taking too much of your thunder here. There's still plenty of material in this, in this reading. Take out your lull on page 84, the very bottom there. Last two lines. Check it out. The apostle does not want us to avoid the letter or to escape its death. He complains in the same passage, second Corinthians three seven, that there was a veil hanging over the law for the Jews, just as over the face of Moses, so that they failed to see the letter, its death or its brilliance. He wants us to preach and make the letter clear and to lift the veil from Moses face. This is how it happens. He who understands the Law of God correctly and looks it in the face without the veil, will find that the works of all men are sin and that there is nothing good in them unless the grace of the spirit enters into them. Notice in this passage how Luther understands things you see for him. Luther's not concerned about the meaning of a text. It would be possible. See? The whole point here is in medieval use of Scripture. You want to avoid the letter because the letter is dead letter. And you've got to get up to some spiritual truth. You actually avoid the letter here. Luther says No, no, no, no. You don't avoid the letter. The letter, when you hear it does something to you, it puts you to death. It calls you a sinner in order to allow you to move into righteousness.

[00:57:54] It puts you to death so that you might have new life. This is the theology of the cross. Put in the terminology of scriptures, application to our lives. That's what Luther's trying to get at. That's how Scripture functions. Notice to on page 82 in law. Let's deal with this passage concerning the spirit and the letter in this passage. Saint Paul does not write one iota about these two meanings. Get that. Not two meanings. Only about two kinds of preaching or preaching offices. This is a very top of page 82, the very type of page 82. You get this. You see what had happened in the tradition. The medieval tradition is second Corinthians. Chapter three was taken to be a discussion about biblical hermeneutics. Luther says, No, no, no, no, no. This is not a question of biblical hermeneutics. This is a question of how we preach. And notice, once again as a theologian of the cross. He is desperately interested in getting to what words we use, how we use language, what we say. As a theologian of the cross. And he says, No, no, no. This is not a matter of biblical hermeneutics. This is a matter of how we speak in the life of the church. We speak law in order to confront our sin and to put us to death. We speak gospel in order to raise up to new life. And that is how Scripture functions most properly among us. You see his point this this is wild stuff. And you see Luther, in many respects is moving against the entire tradition. Now, he still does that, it seems to me, using allegory, but not in the four fold interpretive process. He wants to say there's one meaning for scripture and that meaning will be discovered within the distinction between law and gospel.

[00:59:53] Luther There's a couple of very interesting places in Luther where Luther will say, I have no method of biblical interpretation because the Bible needs no interpretation. And he will say, I don't think what Luther is trying to do here is to set up another method, because it's precisely method that distinguishes him as a theologian of the sacred page from the humanists who claim that method is all important. And so as a theologian of the very ancient and patristic line of thought, where he is actually engaging in this cosmic battle between God and the devil, he's quite uninterested in getting drawn off into the discussion of methodology, because methodology quite quickly can devolve into a theology of glory. This is how you interpret the text of Scripture, and it becomes a set of principles. And then what's happened? You're no longer speaking the word, but you're talking about the word. So there's something that's very subtle going on here. I suppose one could talk about principles of the theology of the cross, but that itself starts me to get a bit nervous because I think then we lose the battle if we do that.