Luther
Discovers the Book
One of the great rediscoveries of the Reformation -especially
of Martin Luther- was that the Word of God comes to us in a form
of a Book. In other words Luther grasped this powerful fact: God
preserves the experience of salvation and holiness from generation
to generation by means of a Book of revelation, not a bishop in
Rome, and not the ecstasies of Thomas Muenzer and the Zwickau
prophets (see note 1). The Word of God comes to us in a Book. That
rediscovery shaped Luther and the Reformation.
One of Luther's arch-opponents in the Roman Church, Sylvester
Prierias, wrote in response to Luther's 95 theses: "He who
does not accept the doctrine of the Church of Rome and pontiff of
Rome as an infallible rule of faith, from which the Holy
Scriptures, too, draw their strength and authority, is a
heretic" (see note 2). In other words, the Church and the
pope are the authoritative deposit of salvation and the Word of
God; and the Book is derivative and secondary. "What is new
in Luther," Heiko Oberman says, "is the notion of
absolute obedience to the Scriptures against any authorities; be
they popes or councils" (see note 3). In other words the
saving, sanctifying, authoritative Word of God comes to us in a
Book. The implications of this simple observation are tremendous.
In 1539, commenting on Psalm 119, Luther wrote, "In this
psalm David always says that he will speak, think, talk, hear,
read, day and night constantly—but about nothing else than God's
Word and Commandments. For God wants to give you His Spirit only
through the external Word" (see note 4). This phrase is
extremely important. The "external Word" is the Book.
And the saving, sanctifying, illuminating Spirit of God, he says,
comes to us through this "external Word."
Luther calls it the "external Word" to emphasize that
it is objective, fixed, outside ourselves, and therefore
unchanging. It is a Book. Neither ecclesiastical hierarchy nor
fanatical ecstasy can replace it or shape it. It is
"external," like God. You can take or leave it. But you
can't make it other than what it is. It is a book with fixed
letters and words and sentences.
And Luther said with resounding forcefulness in 1545, the year
before he died, "Let the man who would hear God speak, read
Holy Scripture" (see note 5). Earlier he had said in his
lectures on Genesis, "The Holy Spirit himself and God, the
Creator of all things, is the Author of this book" (see note
6). One of the implications of the fact that the Word of God comes
to us in a book is that the theme of this conference is "The
Pastor and His Study," not "The Pastor and His Seance,"
or "The Pastor and His Intuition," or "The Pastor
and His Religious Multi-perspectivalism." The Word of God
that saves and sanctifies, from generation to generation, is
preserved in a Book. And therefore at the heart of every pastor's
work is book-work. Call it reading, meditation, reflection,
cogitation, study, exegesis, or whatever you will—a large and
central part of our work is to wrestle God's meaning from a Book,
and proclaim it in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Luther knew, that some would stumble over the sheer
conservatism of this simple, unchangeable fact. God's Word is
fixed in a book. He knew then, as we know today, that many say
this assertion nullifies or minimizes the crucial role of the Holy
Spirit in giving life and light. Luther would, I think, say,
"Yes, that might happen." One might argue that
emphasizing the brightness of the sun nullifies the surgeon who
takes away blindness. But most people would not agree with that.
Certainly not Luther.
He said in 1520, "Be assured that no one will make a
doctor of the Holy Scripture save only the Holy Ghost from
heaven" (see note 7). Luther was a great lover of the Holy
Spirit. And his exaltation of the Book as the "external
Word" did not belittle the Spirit. On the contrary it
elevated the Spirit's great gift to Christendom. In 1533 he said,
"The Word of God is the greatest, most necessary, and most
important thing in Christendom" (see note 8). Without the
"external Word" we would not know one spirit from the
other, and the objective personality of the Holy Spirit himself
would be lost in a blur of subjective expressions. Cherishing the
Book implied to Luther that the Holy Spirit is a beautiful person
to be known and loved, not a buzz to be felt.
Another objection to Luther's emphasis on the Book is that it
minimizes the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ himself. Luther says
the opposite is true. To the degree that the Word of God is
disconnected from the objective, "external Word," to
that degree the incarnate Word, the historical Jesus, becomes a
wax nose for the preferences of every generation. Luther had one
weapon with which to rescue the incarnate Word form being sold in
the markets of Wittenberg. He drove out the money changers—the
indulgence sellers—with the whip of the "external
Word," the Book.
When he posted the 95 theses on October 31, 1517, number 45
read, "Christians should be taught that he who sees someone
needy but looks past him, and buys an indulgence instead, receives
not the pope's remission but God's wrath" (see note 9). That
blow fell from the Book—from the story of the Good Samaritan and
from the second great commandment in the Book, "external
Word." And without the Book there would be no blow. And the
incarnate Word would be everybody's clay toy. So precisely for the
sake of the incarnate Word Luther exalts the written Word, the
"external Word."
It is true that the church needs to see the Lord in his earthly
talking and walking on the earth. Our faith is rooted in that
decisive revelation in history. But Luther reasserted that this
seeing happens through a written record. The incarnate Word is
revealed to us in a Book (see note 10). Is it not remarkable the
Spirit in Luther's day, and in our day, is virtually silent about
the incarnate Lord—except in amplifying the glory of the Lord
through the written record of the incarnate Word.
Neither the Roman church nor charismatic prophets claimed that
the Spirit of the Lord narrated to them untold events of the
historical Jesus. This is astonishing. Of all the claims to
authority over the "external Word," (by the pope), and
along-side the "external Word" (by the prophets), none
of them brings forth new information about the incarnate life and
ministry of Jesus. Rome will dare to add facts to the life of Mary
[for example, the immaculate conception (see note 11)], but not to
the life of Jesus. Charismatic prophets will announce new
movements of the Lord in the sixteenth century, and in our day,
but none seems to report a new parable or a new miracle of the
incarnate Word omitted from the Gospels. Neither Roman authority
nor prophetic ecstasy adds to or deletes from the external record
of the incarnate Word (see note 12).
Why is the Spirit so silent about the incarnate Word—even
among those who encroach on the authority of the Book? The answer
seems to be that it pleased God to reveal the incarnate Word to
all succeeding generations through a Book, especially the Gospels.
Luther put it like this:
The apostles themselves considered it necessary to put the New
Testament into Greek and to bind it fast to that language,
doubtless in order to preserve it for us safe and sound as in a
sacred ark. For they foresaw all that was to come and now has come
to pass, and knew that if it were contained only in one's heads,
wild and fearful disorder and confusion, and many various
interpretations, fancies and doctrines would arise in the Church,
which could be prevented and from which the plain man could be
protected only by committing the New Testament to writing the
language (see note 13).
The ministry of the internal Spirit does not nullify the
ministry of the "external Word." He does not duplicate
what is was designed to do. The Spirit glorifies the incarnate
Word of the Gospels, but he does not re-narrate his words and
deeds for the illiterate people or negligent pastors.
The immense implication of this for the pastoral ministry is
that we pastors are essentially brokers of the Word of God
transmitted in a Book. We are fundamentally readers, and teachers
and proclaimers of the message of the Book. And all of this is for
the glory of the incarnate Word and by the power of the indwelling
Spirit. But neither the indwelling Spirit nor the incarnate Word
leads us away from the Book that Luther called "the external
Word." Christ stands forth for our worship and our fellowship
and our obedience from the "external Word." This is
where we see the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2
Corinthians 4:6). So it's for the sake of Christ that the Spirit
broods over the Book where Christ is clear, not over trances where
he is obscure.
The specific question that I want to try to answer with you is
what difference this discovery of the Book made in the way Luther
carried out his ministry of the Word. What can we learn from
Luther at study? His entire professional life was lived as a
professor in the University of Wittenberg. So it will be helpful
to trace his life up to that point and then ask why a professor
can be a helpful model for pastors.
The Pathway to the Professorship
Luther was born November 10, 1483 in Eisleben to a copper
miner. His father had wanted him to enter the legal profession.
And he was on the way to that vocation at the University.
According to Heiko Oberman, "There is hardly any
authenticated information about those first eighteen years which
led Luther to the threshold of the University of Erfurt" (see
note 14).
In 1502 at the age of 19 he received his Bachelors degree,
ranking, unimpressively, 30th of 57 in his class. In January, 1505
he received his Master of Arts at Erfurt and ranked second among
17 candidates. That summer the providential Damascus-like
experience happened. On July 2, on the way home from law school,
he was caught in a thunderstorm and hurled to the ground by
lightening. He cried out, "Help me, St. Anne; I will become a
monk" (see note 15). He feared for his soul and did not know
how to find safety in the gospel. So he took the next best thing,
the monastery.
Fifteen days later, to his father's dismay, he kept his vow. On
July 17, 1505 he knocked at the gate of the Augustinian Hermits in
Erfurt and asked the prior to accept him into the order. Later he
said this choice was a flagrant sin—"not worth a
farthing" because it was made against his father and out of
fear. Then he added, "But how much good the merciful Lord has
allowed to come of it!" (see note 16). We see this kind of
merciful providence over and over again in the history of the
church, and it should protect us form the paralyzing effects of
bad decisions in our past. God is not hindered in his sovereign
designs from leading us, as he did Luther, out of blunders into
fruitful lives of joy.
He was 21 years old when he became an Augustinian Monk. It
would be 20 more years until he married Katharina von Bora on June
13, 1525. So there were 20 more years of wrestling with the
temptations of a single man who had very powerful drives. But
"in the monastery," he said, "I did not think about
women, money, or possessions; instead my heart trembled and
fidgeted about whether God would bestow His grace on me ... For I
had strayed from faith and could not but imagine that I had
angered God, whom I in turn had to appease by doing good
works" (see note 17). There was no theological gamesmanship
in Luther's early studies. He said, "If I could believe that
God was not angry with me, I would stand on my head for joy"
(see note 18).
On Easter, April 3 (probably), 1507 he was ordained to the
priesthood, and on May 2 he celebrated his first mass. He was so
overwhelmed at the thought of God's majesty, he says, that he
almost ran away. The prior persuaded him to continue. Oberman says
that this incident is not isolated.
A sense of the "mysterium tremendum," of the holiness
of God, was to be characteristic of Luther throughout his life. It
prevented pious routine from creeping into his relations with God
and kept his Bible studies, prayers, or reading of the mass from
declining into a mechanical matter of course: his ultimate concern
in all these is the encounter with the living God (see note 19).
For two years Luther taught aspects of philosophy to the
younger monks. He said later that teaching philosophy was like
waiting for the real thing (see note 20). In 1509 the real thing
came and his beloved superior and counselor and friend, Johannes
von Staupitz, admitted Luther to the Bible," that is, he
allowed Luther to teach Bible instead of moral philosophy— Paul
instead of Aristotle. Three years later on October 19, 1512, at
the age of 28 Luther received his Doctor's degree in theology, and
Staupitz turned over to him the chair in Biblical Theology at the
University of Wittenberg which Luther held the rest of his life.
So Luther was a university theology professor all his
professional life. This causes us to raise the question whether he
can really serve as any kind of model for pastors, or even
understand what we pastors face in our kind of ministry. But that
would be a mistake. At least three things unite him to our
calling.
Why Should Pastors Listen to Luther?
1. He was more a preacher than any of us pastors.
He knew the burden and the pressure of weekly preaching. There
were two churches in Wittenberg, the town church and the castle
church. Luther was a regular preacher at the town church. He said,
"If I could today become king or emperor, I would not give up
my office as preacher" (see note 21). He was driven by a
passion for the exaltation of God in the Word. In one of his
prayers he says, "Dear Lord God, I want to preach so that you
are glorified. I want to speak of you, praise you, praise your
name. Although I probably cannot make it turn out well, won't you
make it turn out well?" (see note 22).
To feel the force of this commitment you have to realize that
in the church in Wittenberg in those days there were no programs,
but only worship and preaching; Sunday 5:00 a.m. worship with a
sermon on the Epistle, 10:00 a.m. with a sermon on the Gospel, an
afternoon message on the Old Testament or catechism. Monday and
Tuesday sermons were on the Catechism; Wednesdays on Matthew;
Thursdays and Fridays on the Apostolic letters; and Saturday on
John (see note 23).
Luther was not the pastor of the town church. His friend,
Johannes Bugenhagen was from 1521 to 1558. But Luther shared the
preaching virtually every week he was in town. He preached because
the people of the town wanted to hear him and because he and his
contemporaries understood his doctorate in theology to be a call
to teach the word of God to the whole church. So Luther would
often preach twice on Sunday and once during the week. Walther von
Loewenich said in his biography, "Luther was one of the
greatest preachers in the history of Christendom ... Between 1510
and 1546 Luther preached approximately 3,000 sermons. Frequently
he preached several times a week, often two or more times a
day" (see note 24).
For example, in 1522 he preached 117 sermons in Wittenberg and
137 sermons the next year. In 1528 he preached almost 200 times,
and from 1529 we have 121 sermons. So the average in those four
years was one sermon every two-and-a-half days. As Fred Meuser
says in his book on Luther's preaching, "Never a weekend off—he
knows all about that. Never even a weekday off. Never any respite
at all from preaching, teaching, private study, production,
writing, counseling" (see note 25). That's his first link
with us pastors. He knows the burden of preaching.
2. Like most pastors, Luther was a family man – at least from
age 41 until his death at 62.
He knew the pressure and the heartache of having and rearing
and losing children. Katie bore him six children in quick
succession: Johannes (1526), Elisabeth (1527), Magdalena (1529),
Martin (1531), Paul (1533), and Margaret (1534). Do a little
computing here. The year between Elizabeth and Magdalena was the
year he preached 200 times (more than once every other day). Add
to this that Elizabeth died that year at eight months old, and he
kept on going under that pain.
And lest we think Luther neglected the children, consider that
on Sunday afternoons, often after preaching twice, Luther led the
household devotions, which were virtually another worship service
for an hour including the guests as well as the children (see note
26). So Luther knew the pressures of being a public and pressured
family man.
3. Luther was a churchman, not an ivory tower theological
scholar.
He was not only part of almost all the controversies and
conferences of his day, he was usually the leader. There was the
Heidelberg Disputation (1518), the encounter with Cardinal Cajetan
at Augsburg (1518), the Leipzig Disputation, with John Eck and
Andrew Karlstadt (1519), and the Diet of Augsburg (though he was
not there in person, (1513).
Besides active personal involvement in church conferences,
there was the unbelievable stream of publications that are all
related to the guidance of the church. For example, in 1520, he
wrote 133 works; in 1522, 130; in 1523, 183 (one every other
day!), and just as many in 1524 (see note 27). He was the
lightening rod for every criticism against the Reformation.
"All flock to him, besieging his door hourly, trooped
citizens, doctors, princes. Diplomatic enigmas were to be solved,
knotty theological points were to be settled, the ethics of social
life were to be laid down" (see note 28).
With the breakdown of the medieval system of church life, a
while new way of thinking about church and the Christian life had
to be developed. And in Germany the task fell in large measure to
Martin Luther. It is astonishing how he threw himself into the
mundane matters of parish life. For example, when it was decided
that "Visitors" from the state and university would be
sent to each parish to assess the condition of the church and make
suggestions for church life, Luther took it upon himself to write
the guidelines:"Instructions for the Visitors of Parish
Pastors in Electoral Saxony." He addressed a broad array of
practical issues. When he came to the the education of children he
went so far as to dictate how the lower grades should be divided
into three groups: pre-readers, readers and advanced readers. then
he made suggestions for how to teach them.
"They shall first learn to read the primer in which
are found the alphabet, the Lord's prayer, the Creed, and
other prayers. When they have learned this they shall be given
Donatus and Cato, to read Donatus and to expound Cato. The
schoolmaster is to expound one or two verses at a time, and
the children are to repeat these at a later time, so that they
thereby build up a vocabulary" (see note 29).
I mention this simply to show that this university professor
was intensely involved in trying to solve the most practical
ministry problems from the cradle to the grave. He did not do his
studying in the uninterrupted leisure of sabbaticals and long
summers. He was constantly besieged and constantly at work.
So I conclude, that though he was a university professor, there
is reason we pastors should look at his work and listen to his
words, in order to learn and be inspired for the ministry of the
Word—the "external Word," the Book.
Luther at Study: The Difference the Book Made
For Luther the importance of study was so interwoven with his
discovery of the true gospel that he could never treat study as
any other than utterly crucial and life-giving and
history-shaping. For him study had been the gateway to the gospel
and to the Reformation and to God. We take so much for granted
today about the truth and about the Word that we can hardly
imagine what it cost Luther to break through to the truth and
sustain access to the Word. For Luther study mattered. His life
and the life of the church hung on it. We need to ask whether all
the ground gained by Luther and the other reformers may be lost
over time if we lose this passion for study, while assuming that
truth will remain obvious and available.
To see this intertwining of study and gospel let's go back to
the early years in Wittenberg. Luther dates the great discovery of
the gospel in 1518 during his series of lectures on Psalms (see
note 30). He tells the story in his Preface to the Complete
Edition of Luther's Latin Writings. This account of the discovery
is taken from that Preface written March 5, 1545, the year before
his death. Watch for the references to his study of Scripture
(italicized).
I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for
understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then
it was ... a single word in Chapter 1 [:17], 'In it the
righteousness of God is revealed,' that had stood in my way. For I
hated that word 'righteousness of God,' which according to the use
and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand
philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as
they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the
unrighteous sinner.
Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a
sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could
not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not
love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and
secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was
angry with God, and said, "As if, indeed, it is not enough,
that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are
crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue,
without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the
gospel threatening us with his righteous wrath!" Thus I raged
with a fierce and trouble conscience. Nevertheless, I beat
importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to
know what St. Paul wanted.
At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave
heed to the context of the words, namely, "In it
righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, "He who
through faith is righteous shall live." There I began to
understand [that] the righteousness of God is that by which the
righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the
meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel,
namely, the passive righteousness with which [the] merciful God
justifies us by faith, as it is written, "He who through
faith is righteous shall live." Here I felt that I was
altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open
gates. Here a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed
itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory
...
And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the
hatred with which I had before hated the word 'righteousness of
God.' Thus that place in Paul was for me truth the gate to
paradise (see note 31).
Notice how God was brining Luther to the light of the gospel of
justification. Six sentences—all of them revealing the intensity
of study and wrestling with the Biblical text:
I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for
understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans.
According to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been
taught to understand philosophically. (An approach to study from
which he was breaking free.)
I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently
desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.
At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave
heed to the context of the words.
Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory.
That place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise.
The seeds of all Luther's study habits are there or clearly
implied. What was it, then, that marked the man Luther at study?
1. Luther came to elevate the Biblical text itself far above
all commentators or church fathers.
This was not the conclusion of laziness. Melancthon, Luther's
friend and colleague at Wittenberg, said that Luther knew his
Dogmatics so well in the early days he could quote whole pages of
Gabriel Biel (the standard Dogmatics text, published 1488) by
heart (see note 32). It wasn't lack of energy for the fathers and
the philosophers; it was an overriding passion for the superiority
of the Biblical text itself.
He wrote in 1533, "For a number of years I have now
annually read through the Bible twice. If the Bible were a large,
mighty tree and all its words were little branches I have tapped
at all the branches, eager to know what was there and what it had
to offer" (see note 33). Oberman says Luther kept to that
practice for a least ten years (see note 34). The Bible had come
to mean more to Luther than all the fathers and commentators.
"He who is well acquainted with the text of
Scripture," Luther said in 1538, "is a distinguished
theologian. For a Bible passage or text is of more value than the
comments of four authors" (see note 35). In his Open Letter
to the Christian Nobility Luther explained his concern:
The writings of all the holy fathers should be read only for a
time, in order that though them we may be led to the Holy
Scriptures. As it is, however, we read them only to be absorbed in
them and never come to the Scriptures. We are like men who study
that sign-posts and never travel the road. The dear fathers wished
by their writing, to lead us to the Scriptures, but we so use them
as to be led away from the Scriptures, though the Scriptures alone
are our vineyard in which we ought all to work and toil (see note
36).
The Bible is the pastors vineyard, where he ought to work and
toil. But, Luther complained in 1539, "The Bible is being
buried by the wealth of commentaries, and the text is being
neglected, although in every branch of learning they are the best
who are well acquainted with the text" (see note 37). For
Luther, this is no mere purist, allegiance to the sources. This is
the testimony of a man who found life at the original spring in
the mountain, not the secondary stream in the valley. For Luther
it was a matter of life and death whether one studied the text of
Scripture itself, or spent most of his time reading commentaries
and secondary literature. Looking back on the early days of his
study of the Scriptures he said,
When I was young, I read the Bible over and over and over
again, and was so perfectly acquainted with it, that I could, in
an instant, have pointed to any verse that might have been
mentioned. I then read the commentators, but soon threw them
aside, for I found therein many things my conscience could not
approve, as being contrary to the sacred text. 'Tis always better
to see with one's own eyes than with those of other people (see
note 38).
Luther doesn't mean in all this that there is no place at all
for reading other books. After all he wrote books. But he counsels
us to make them secondary and make them few. As a slow reader
myself, I find this advice very encouraging. He says,
A student who does not want his labor wasted must so read and
reread some good writer that the author is changed, as it were,
into his flesh and blood. For a great variety of reading confuses
and does not teach. It makes the student like a man who dwells
everywhere and, therefore, nowhere in particular. Just as we do
not daily enjoy the society of every one of our friends but only
that of a chosen few, so it should also be in our studying (see
note 39).
The number of theological books should ... be reduced, and a
selection should be made of the best of them; for many books do
not make men learned, nor does much reading. But reading something
good, and reading it frequently, however little it may be, is the
practice that makes men learned in the Scripture and makes them
pious besides (see note 40).
2. This radical focus on the text of Scripture itself with
secondary literature in secondary place leads Luther to an intense
and serious grappling with the very words of Paul and the other
Biblical writers.
Instead of running to the commentaries and fathers he says,
"I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently
desiring to know what St. Paul wanted." This was not an
isolated incident.
He told his students that the exegete should treat a difficult
passage no differently than Moses did the rock in the desert,
which he smote with his rod until water gushed out for his thirsty
people (see note 41). In other words, strike the text. "I
beat importunately upon Paul." There is a great incentive in
this beating on the text: "The Bible is a remarkable
fountain: the more one draws and drinks of it, the more it
stimulates thirst" (see note 42).
In the summer and fall of 1526 Luther took up the challenge to
lecture on Ecclesiastes to the small band of students who stayed
behind in Wittenberg during the plague. "Solomon the
preacher," he wrote to a friend, "is giving me a hard
time, as though he begrudged anyone lecturing on him. But he must
yield" (see note 43).
That is what study was to Luther—taking a text the way Jacob
took the angel of the Lord, and saying: "It must yield. I
WILL hear and know the Word of God in this text for my soul and
for the church!" That's how he broke through to the meaning
of the "righteousness of God" in justification. And that
is how he broke through tradition and philosophy again and again.
3. The power and preciousness of what Luther saw when he beat
importunately upon Paul's language convinced him forever that
reading Greek and Hebrew was one of the greatest privileges and
responsibilities of the Reformation preacher.
Again the motive and conviction here are not academic
commitments to high-level scholarship, but spiritual commitments
to proclaiming and preserving a pure gospel.
Luther spoke against the backdrop of a thousand years of church
darkness without the Word, when he said boldly, "It is
certain that unless the languages remain, the Gospel must finally
perish" (see note 44). He asks, "Do you inquire what use
there is in learning the languages ...? do you say, 'We can read
the Bible very well in German?'" And he answers,
Without languages we could not have received the gospel.
Languages are the scabbard that contains the sword of the Spirit;
they are the casket which contains the priceless jewels of antique
thought; they are the vessel that holds the wine; and as the
gospel says, they are the baskets in which the loaves and fishes
are kept to feed the multitude.
If we neglect the literature we shall eventually lose the
gospel ... No sooner did men cease to cultivate the languages than
Christendom declined, even until it fell under the undisputed
dominion of the pope. But no sooner was this torch relighted, than
this papal owl fled with a shriek into congenial gloom ... In
former times the fathers were frequently mistaken, because they
were ignorant of the languages and in our days there are some who,
like the Waldenses, do not think the languages of any use; but
although their doctrine is good, they have often erred i the real
meaning of the sacred text; they are without arms against error,
and I fear much that their faith will not remain pure (see note
45).
The main issue was the preservation and the purity of the
faith. Where the languages are not prized and pursued, care in
Biblical observation and Biblical thinking and concern for truth
decreases. It has to, because the tools to think otherwise are not
present. This was an intensely real possibility for Luther because
he had known it. He said, "If the languages had not made me
positive as to the true meaning of the word, I might have still
remained a chained monk, engaged in quietly preaching Romish
errors in the obscurity of a cloister; the pope, the sophists, and
their anti-Christian empire would have remained unshaken"
(see note 46). In other words, he attributes the breakthrough of
the Reformation to the penetrating power of the original
languages.
The great linguistic event of Luther's time was the appearance
of the Greek New Testament edited by Desiderius Erasmus. As soon
as it appeared in the middle of the summer session of 1516 Luther
got it and began to study it and use it in his lectures on Romans
9. He did this even though Erasmus was a theological adversary.
Having the languages was such a treasure to Luther he would have
gone to school with the devil in order to learn them.
He was convinced that many obstacles in study would be found
everywhere without the help of the languages. "St.
Augustine", he said, "is compelled to confess, when he
writes in De Doctrina Christiana, that a Christian teacher who is
to expound Scripture has need also of the Greek and Hebrew
languages in addition to the Latin; otherwise it is impossible for
him not to run into obstacles every where" (see note 47).
And he was persuaded that knowing the languages would bring
freshness and force to preaching. He said,
Though the faith and the Gospel may be proclaimed by simple
preachers without the languages, such preaching is flat and tame,
men grow at last wearied and disgusted and it falls to the ground.
But when the preacher is versed in the languages, his discourse
has freshness and force, the whole of Scripture is treated, and
faith finds itself constantly renewed by a continual variety of
words and words (see note 48).
Now that is a discouraging overstatement for many pastors who
have lost their Greek and Hebrew. What I would say is that knowing
the languages can make any devoted preacher a better preacher—more
fresh, more faithful, more confident, more penetrating. But it is
possible to preach faithfully without them—at least for a
season. The test of our faithfulness to the Word, is we have lost
our languages, is this: do we have a large enough concern for the
church of Christ to promote their preservation and widespread
teaching and use in the churches? Or do we, out of
self-protection, minimize their importance because to do otherwise
stings too badly?
I suspect that for many of us today Luther's strong words about
our neglect and indifference are accurate when he says,
It is a sin and shame not to know our own book or to understand
the speech and words of our God; it is a still greater sin and
loss that we do not study languages, especially in these days when
God is offering and giving us men and books and every facility and
inducement to this study, and desires his Bible to be an open
book. O how happy the dear fathers would have been if they had our
opportunity to study the languages and come thus prepared to the
Holy Scriptures! What great toil and effort it cost them to gather
up a few crumbs, while we with half the labor— yes, almost
without any labor at all—can acquire the whole loaf! O how their
effort puts our indolence to shame (see note 49).
4. This reference to "indolence" leads us to the next
characteristic of Luther at study, namely, extraordinary diligence
in spite of tremendous obstacles.
What he accomplished borders on the superhuman, and of course
makes pygmies of us all.
His job as professor of Bible at the University of Wittenberg
was full-time work of its own. He wrote theological treatises by
the score: biblical, homiletical, liturgical, educational,
devotional, and political, some of which have shaped Protestant
church life for centuries. All the while he was translating the
whole of Scriptures into German, a language that he helped to
shape by that very translation. He carried on a voluminous
correspondence, for he was constantly asked for advice and
counsel. Travel, meetings, conferences, and colloquies were the
order of the day. All the while he was preaching regularly to a
congregation that he must have regarded as a showcase of the
Reformation (see note 50).
We are not Luther and could never be not matter how hard we
tried. But the point here is: do we work at our studies with rigor
and diligence or are we slothful and casual about it, as if
nothing really great is at stake?
When he was just short of sixty years old he pleaded with
pastors to be diligent and not lazy.
Some pastors and preachers are lazy and no good. They do not
pray; they do not read; they do not search the Scripture ... The
call is: watch, study attend to reading. In truth you cannot read
too much in Scripture; and what you read you cannot read too
carefully, and what you read carefully you cannot understand too
well, and what you understand well you cannot teach too well, and
what you teach well you cannot live too well ... The devil ... the
world ... and our flesh are raging and raving against us.
Therefore, dear sirs and brothers, pastors and preachers, pray,
read, study, be diligent ... This evil. shameful time is not the
season for being lazy, for sleeping and snoring (see note 51).
Commenting on Genesis 3:19, Luther says, "The household
sweat is great; the political sweat is greater; the church sweat
is the greatest" (see note 52). He responded once to those
who do hard physical labor and consider the work of study a soft
life.
Sure, it would be hard for me to sit "in the saddle."
But then again I would like to see the horseman who could sit
still for a whole day and gaze at a book without worrying or
dreaming or think about anything else. Ask ... a preacher ... how
much work it is to speak and preach ... The pen is very light,
that is true ... But in this work the best part of the human body
(the head), the noblest member (the tongue), and the highest work
(speech) bear the brunt of the load and work the hardest, while in
other kinds of work either the hand, the foot, the back or other
members do the work alone so such a person can sing happily or
make jokes freely which a sermon writer cannot do. Three fingers
do it all ... but the whole body and soul have to work at it (see
note 53).
There is great danger, Luther says, in thinking we have ever
gotten to a point when we fancy we don't need to study any more.
"Let ministers daily pursue their studies with diligence and
constantly busy themselves with them ... Let them steadily keep on
reading, teaching, studying, pondering, and meditating. Nor let
them cease until they have discovered and are sure that they have
taught the devil to death and have become more learned than God
himself and all His saints (see note 54)"—which, of course
means never.
Luther knew that there was such a thing as overwork and
damaging, counterproductive strain. But he clearly preferred to
err on the side of overwork than under-work. We see this in 1532
when he wrote, "A person should work in such a way that he
remains well and does no injury to his body. We should not break
our heads at work and injure our bodies ... I myself used to do
such things, and I have racked my brains because I still have not
overcome the bad habit of overworking. Nor shall I overcome it as
long as I live" (see note 55).
I don't know if the apostle Paul would have made the same
confession at the end of his life. But he did say, "I worked
harder than any of [the other apostles]" (1 Corinthians
15:10). And in comparison to the false apostles he said, "Are
they servants of Christ? (I speak as if insane) I more so; in far
more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without
number, often in danger of death" (2 Corinthians 11:23). So
it's not surprising that Luther would strive to follow his dear
Paul in "far more labors."
5. Which leads us to the next characteristic of Luther at
study, namely, suffering. For Luther, trials make a theologian.
Temptation and affliction are the hermeneutical touchstones.
Luther notices in Psalm 119 that the psalmist not only prayed
and meditated over the Word of God in order to understand it; he
also suffered in order to understand it. Psalm 119:67,
"Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep thy
word ... 71 It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I may
learn Thy statutes." An indispensable key to understanding
the Scriptures is suffering in the path of righteousness.
Thus Luther said: "I want you to know how to study
theology in the right way. I have practiced this method myself ...
Here you will find three rules. They are frequently proposed
throughout Psalm [119] and run thus: Oration, meditatio, tentatio
(Prayer, meditation, trial) (see note 56). And trials (Anfechtungen)
he called the "touchstone." "[They] teach you not
only to know and understand but also to experience how right, how
true, how sweet, how lovely, how mighty, how comforting God's word
is: it is wisdom supreme" (see note 57).
He proved the value of trials over and over again in his own
experience. "For as soon as God's Word becomes known through
you," he says, "the devil will afflict you will make a
real doctor of you, nd will teach you by his temptations to seek
and to love God's Word. For I myself ... owe my papists many
thanks for so beating, pressing, and frightening me through the
devil's raging that they have turned me into a fairly good
theologian, driving me to a goal I should never have reached"
(see note 58).
Suffering was woven into life for Luther. Keep in mind that
from 1521 on Luther lived under the ban of the empire. The emperor
Charles V said, "I have decided to mobilize everything
against Luther: my kingdoms and dominions, my friends, my body, my
blood and my soul" (see note 59). He could be legally killed,
except where he was protected by his prince.
He endured relentless slander of the most cruel kind. He once
observed, "If the Devil can do nothing against the teachings,
he attacks the person, lying, slandering, cursing, and ranting at
him. Just as the papists' Beelzebub did to me when he could not
subdue my Gospel, he wrote that I was possessed by the Devil, was
a changeling, my beloved mother a whore and bath attendant"
(see note 60).
Physically he suffered from excruciating kidney stones and
headaches with buzzing in his ears and ear infections and
incapacitating constipation —"I nearly gave up the ghost—an
now, bathed in blood, can find no peace. What took four days to
heal immediately tears open again" (see note 61).
It's not surprising then that emotionally and spiritually he
would undergo the most horrible struggles. For example, in a
letter to Melancthon on August 2, 1527, he writes, "For more
than a week I have been thrown back and forth in death and Hell;
my whole body feels beaten, my limbs are still trembling. I almost
lost Christ completely, driven about on the waves and storms of
despair and blasphemy against God. But because of the intercession
of the faithful, God began to take mercy on me and tore my soul
from the depths of Hell" (see note 62).
On the outside, to many, he looked invulnerable. But those
close to him knew the tentatio. Again eh wrote to Melancthon from
the Wartburg castle on July 13, 1521, while he was supposedly
working feverishly on the translation of the New Testament:
I sit here at ease, hardened and unfeeling—alas! praying
little, grieving little for the Church of God, burning rather in
the fierce fires of my untamed flesh. It comes to this: I should
be afire in the spirit; in reality I am afire in the flesh, with
lust, laziness, idleness, sleepiness. It is perhaps because you
have all ceased praying for me that God has turned away from me
... For the last eight days I have written nothing, nor prayed nor
studied, partly from self-indulgence, partly from another
vexatious handicap [constipation and piles] ... I really cannot
stand it any longer ... Pray for me, I beg you, for in my
seclusion here I am submerged in sins (see note 63).
These were the trials he said made him a theologian. These
experiences were as much a part of his exegetical labors as were
his Greek lexicon. This has caused me to think twice before I
begrudge the trials of my ministry. How often I am tempted to
think that the pressures and conflicts and frustrations are simply
distractions from the business of study and understanding. Luther
(and Psalm 119:71) teach us to see it all another way. That
stressful visit that interrupted your study may well be the very
lens through which the text will open to you as never before.
Tentatio—trial, the thorn in the flesh—is Satan's unwitting
contribution to our becoming good theologians.
But at one point Luther confessed that in such circumstances
faith "exceeds my powers" (see note 64).
6. Which leads to the final characteristic of Luther at study:
prayer and reverent dependence on the all-sufficiency of God.
And here the theology and methodology of Luther become almost
identical.
In typical paradoxical form, Luther seems to take back almost
everything he has said about study when he writes in 1518,
That the Holy Scriptures cannot be penetrated by study and
talent is most certain. Therefore your first duty is to begin to
pray, and to pray to this effect that if it please God to
accomplish something for His glory—not for yours or any other
person's—He very graciously grant you a true understanding of
His words. For no master of the divine words exists except the
Author of these words, as He says: 'They shall be all taught of
God' (John 6:45). You must, therefore, completely despair of your
own industry and ability and rely solely on the inspiration of the
Spirit (see note 65).
But for Luther that does not mean leaving the "external
Word" in mystical reverie, but bathing all our work in
prayer, and casting ourselves so on God that he enters and
sustains and prospers all our study.
Since the Holy Writ wants to be dealt with in fear and humility
and penetrated more by studying [!] with pious prayer than with
keenness of intellect, therefore it is impossible for those who
rely only on their intellect and rush into Scripture with dirty
feet, like pigs, as though Scripture were merely a sort of human
knowledge not to harm themselves and others whom they
instruct" (see note 66).
Again he sees the psalmist in Psalm 119 not only suffering and
meditating but praying again and again:
Psalm 119:18
Open my eyes,
that I may behold wonderful things from Thy law. 27 Make me
understand the way of Thy precepts, teach me, O LORD, the way
of Thy statutes. 23 Give me understanding, that I may observe
Thy law. 35 Make me walk in the path of Thy commandments, for
I delight in it. 36 Incline my heart to Thy testimonies, and
not to dishonest gain. 37 Revive me in Thy ways.