At the time of the Reformation, Luther's emphatic declaration, “The
just shall live by faith,” rocked the very foundation of European
society. He not only confidently defied the combined powers of both
Church and State, he was willing to die for what he believed. However,
many living in our post-modern society not only find it hard to
understand such deep conviction, but also fail to realize that a
radically different approach to Bible interpretation made that
conviction possible. The purpose of this essay is to highlight that
approach to Bible interpretation.
At the root of Luther’s theology is a definition of
doctrine that is rooted in the belief that the Bible is a clear book,
and regards the actual words of Scripture as the doctrine that God
wants taught. Since the church had, for centuries, treated the Bible as
if it were a dark book that needed to be interpreted by men, Luther’s
approach was radically different. Nevertheless, it was not a new
approach, because it had been taught by the Apostle Paul almost fifteen
hundred years earlier, and summarized in the words, “We write none
other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge // we use great
plainness of speech” (2Corinthians 1:13 and 3:12). In teaching that
definition of doctrine to his students, C.F.W. Walther (the first
president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) said, “Contempt of the
pure doctrine is contempt of the truth; for the pure doctrine is simply
nothing else, absolutely nothing else, than the pure Word of God.”
(“Law and Gospel”, page 349)
Throughout history that definition of doctrine has
set Lutherans apart from all other denominations. In fact, Ulrich
Zwingli’s failure to grasp that definition, was the real reason that he
was unable to understand Luther’s position on the Lord’s Supper, or
come to an agreement with him. Like most people, Zwingli simply assumed
that the Bible needed to be explained, and in attempting to explain it
sometimes explained away what the words plainly said (1John 4:6).
In order to illustrate what I mean, consider a
meeting that took place between Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, in
the city of Marburg Germany, in 1529. At that meeting, fourteen points
of doctrine were discussed, and they were able to come to an agreement
on all but one, the meaning of Christ's Words, “Take eat this is My
body” (1Corinthians 11:24). In reading the account of that meeting, it
is easy for someone to assume that they could not agree because they
each had a different opinion as to what the words meant. Nevertheless,
that was not the case. The real root of disagreement had to do with the
definition of doctrine.
Because Luther regarded the actual words of
Scripture as doctrine, he responded to Christ’s words, “Take eat this
is My body,” by saying, “that is what we should teach.” In contrast,
Zwingli said, “no, it isn’t really His body.” In other words, Luther
could not agree with Zwingli, because Zwingli insisted on contradicting
Christ. If it had merely been a difference of opinion, Luther would
have been willing to compromise. However, Zwingli was not disagreeing
with Luther’s interpretation, he was disagreeing with what Christ said.
And, because Luther could not change what Christ said, he could not
change his position.
In fact, far from being dogmatic about an
interpretation, Luther not only did not have an interpretation, he
freely admitted that he did not know what Christ meant. However, for
Luther not knowing did not matter because he believed that the true
doctrine was what Christ actually said, not opinions as to what He
meant. What Zwingli simply could not understand, is that if Scripture
is the source of doctrine then we are to teach what it says, not what
we think. He also failed to understand that we truly receive Christ’s
body and blood every time a sin is covered by His sacrifice. We may not
be receiving it in a physical way, but we are receiving it as the
atonement for our sin. And, that is exactly what Christ was talking
about.
If you think that Zwingli regarded the bread and
wine as symbols of Christ's body and blood while Luther did not, you
have failed to understand Luther. Luther did not disagree with Zwingli
because Zwingli regarded the bread and wine as symbols of Christ's body
and blood, he disagreed with Zwingli because Zwingli contradicted
Christ. In fact, Luther himself believed that the bread and wine were
signs of Christ's body and blood. However, unlike Zwingli, he did not
use that opinion as an excuse for denying what Christ said, as the
following quotations reveal.
Because Zwingli thought of doctrine as an
explanation of Scripture, he wanted to teach his own opinions as divine
doctrine. However, because he wanted Luther to allow his opinion to be
taught, he was willing to tolerate Luther’s position. In contrast,
Luther found Zwingli’s refusal to accept what Christ said, abhorrent.
In the eyes of Luther Zwingli was doing the same thing that Satan did
in the Garden of Eden (when he said, "Ye shall not surely die" Genesis
3:4), namely contradicting the Word of God.
Although Luther's polemical writings do contain
certain statements that sound as if he believed that flesh and blood
are actually being eaten in the Lord's Supper. The fact that such
statements are only found in his polemical writings, and are absent
from his doctrinal teaching, tells us that such statements were
intended to be an “in your face” rebuke of those who contradict the
words of Christ, not a serious statement of Bible doctrine. (“The
Theology of Martin Luther,” by Paul Althaus, page 402) Nevertheless,
because of those polemical statements, Luther’s view of the Lord’s
Supper can seem confusing to those who are looking for an explanation
of Christ’s words. However, once you understand Luther’s definition of
doctrine, you should have no problem understanding what he believed
about the Lord’s Supper.
First of all, because he believed that the promise
connected with the Lord’s Supper is of primary importance, and that we
receive what is promised through faith in Christ, he believed that the
whole purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to continually remind believers
that Christ’s body and blood were “given” and “shed” for them, for the
remission of sins. In fact, those words summarize the very heart of the
gospel. That message is what Christianity is all about. And, that is
why Luther said:
At the same time, Luther realized that contradicting Christ’s words
“take eat, this is My body” made those words “of none effect” (Mark
7:13).
Luther’s interpretation of Scripture was governed by
certain key doctrines that are clearly set forth in the pages of Holy
Writ.
Scripture Alone
First of all, because we are clearly warned not to
add to or take from the words of Scripture, those who follow in the
steps of Luther will not look outside of Scripture for doctrine (John
8:31-32, Proverbs 30:6). They will not read unscriptural ideas into the
text, or explain away anything that the Bible says [as Zwingli did].
Instead, they will allow the plain meaning of the words to stand as it
reads, while allowing the clear passages to explain those that are
unclear (2Corinthians 1:13, 1Corinthians 2:12). At the same time,
because the purpose of Scripture is to testify of Christ, everything
that the Bible says will be interpreted in the light of that testimony
(John 5:39 and 20:21).
The Clarity of Scripture
Second, because the Bible plainly tells us that it
is clear, and that its words contain no meaning other than what we
read, those who follow in the steps of Luther will allow the plain
meaning of the words to stand as it reads (2Corinthians 1:13 and 3:12).
The Authority of Scripture
Finally, because the Bible is the Word of God, those
who follow in the steps of Luther will bow to its authority, or as
Luther put it, the will take their “reason captive to the obedience of
Christ.” (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church) That means,
essentially, that every idea that is not in agreement with all that the
Bible says, will be rejected as false (Isaiah 8:20, Romans 3:4,
2Corinthians 10:5).
The way of the world is to read unscriptural ideas
into the text of Scripture, jump to conclusions that contradict what it
plainly says, interpret it to agree with the opinions of men, teach
man-made explanations as doctrine, and explain away anything that does
not fit. In contrast, those who have the Spirit of truth allow the
actual words of Scripture to stand as they read, allow Scripture to
interpret itself, and teach as doctrine those truths that are plainly
stated in the text, without human embellishment.