A
few weeks ago I posted a couple of excerpts from Martin Luther’s introduction to
the Old Testament. In one of those excerpts, he asserts that the Old Testament is
analogous to the manger and swaddling-clothes in which Jesus is laid,
suggesting that the Old Testament is not to be equated with Christ. In the
other he insists that “all laws aim at faith and love, none of them can be valid, or be a law, if it conflicts with faith and love.”
Here
are the last few paragraphs of Luther’s Preface to his German translation of
the New Testament (1522):
Which are the true and noblest books of the
New
Testament?
From all this you can now judge all the books
and decide among them which are the best.
John’s gospel and St. Paul’s epistles, especially that to the Romans,
and St. Peter’s first epistle are the true kernel and marrow of all the
books. They ought properly to be the
foremost books, and it would be advisable for every Christian to read them
first and most, and by daily reading to make them as much his own as his daily
bread. For in them you do not find many
works and miracles of Christ described, but you do find depicted in masterly
fashion how faith in Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell, and gives life,
righteousness, and salvation. This is the real nature of the gospel, as you
have heard.
If I had to do without one of the other –
either the works or the preaching of Christ – I would rather do without the
works than without His preaching. For
the works do not help me, but His words give life, as He Himself says [John
6:63] . Now John writes very little
about the works of Christ, but very much about His preaching, while the other
evangelists write much about His works and little about His preaching. Therefore John’s Gospel is the one, fine,
true, and chief gospel, and is far, far to be preferred over the other three
and placed high above them. So, too, the
epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three Gospels,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first
epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and
St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all
that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see
or hear any other book or doctrine.
Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to
these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.
(The Protestant Reformation, Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed., New York, Harper Torchbooks,
1968, p. 42)
I
am sympathetic to Luther’s approach to scripture. It is quite different from
the approach I was taught growing up, i.e., that all of the Bible (except, of
course, the Apocrypha), every word and verse, was equal in inspiration and
authority. But, in fact, I do not think
there is anyone who does not in practice, if not in theory, give priory to some
scriptural texts or themes by which the rest are measured. Luther was just more
up front about it. I have suggested my own here: Getting off the Fence – Interpreting Scripture and more broadly here: The King or a Fox? Configuring the Mosaic of Scripture.
While
I am sympathetic, I am less reductionist than Luther – at least as he is in
these texts. I would insist for example that the Gospel of John must not be
read apart from the other three gospels. And I think the Epistle of James has much
to teach us not least because the faith vs works dichotomy as Luther presents
it is too simplistic and does not reflect what Jesus taught or, for that matter,
Paul.
In
any event, Luther’s introductions to the Old and New Testaments present an
approach to the Bible other than what is common among modern American
Fundamentalists and indicates that from the beginning of the Reformation there
has been more than one way to come at the Bible and understand it’s inspiration
and authority.
Posts
