7. Luther and the Inspiration of Holy Scriptures.
It has had to be pointed out repeatedly that modern theology, in denying the inspiration of Scripture, attempts to make Luther particeps criminis. Only the later dogmatists — so it is almost universally asserted — built up an "artificial theory" of inspiration, according to which Scripture and the Word of God are to be "identified" absolutely. In Luther, on the other hand, there is no mistaking a freer position on Scripture. Cremer calls the doctrine of inspiration of the dogmatists "a pure novelty"922) Seeberg cannot even imagine, because of certain statements of Luther, that verbal inspiration should have been in Luther's mind.923) In Nitzsch-Stephan, on the one hand, it is admitted that Luther "put Holy Scriptures in the place of church authority [under the papacy]"; on the other hand, it is asserted that "clear traces" of a freer conception of the inspiration of Scripture are found in Luther. "On the Lutheran side a tightening of the doctrine of inspiration begins with Flacius and Chemnitz. This was fully formed by the Protestant scholastics of the 17th and 18th centuries since the example given by Johann Gerhard as early as 1610 in Locus de Scriptura and continued in 1625 in Exegesis Uberior Loci de Scriptura. It was believed that the Catholics, the Socinians, the Arminians, and other parties could be fought victoriously only by extending the divine prestige of Scripture to the letter [to the words of Scripture]. The Bible was not both a document of divine revelation or of the Word and a divine religious textbook. ... In fullest scholastic aggravation we meet with the developed theory of inspiration among the dogmatists who sought to maintain the old orthodox system against Calixtus and the syncretists."924) That Luther took a free position on the doctrine of inspiration has been asserted not only by German but also by American theologians, e.g., Dr. Charles A. Briggs.925)
922) RE. 2 . 3 VI, 755. 923) Dogmengesch. 2 II, 289, note 1.
924) Ev. Dogmatik 3, p. 249.
925) Cf. Presbytery of New York. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D. Argument of the Rev. I. Lampe, D. D., a member of the Prosecuting Committee, p. 54 sqq. — Likewise the rebuttal: The Other Side. By S. A. Farrand, Ph. D. 1897.
335 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 277-278]
But this assertion is entirely outside the realm of historical truth. The dissent between Luther and the Lutheran dogmatists concerning the doctrine of inspiration is pure invention. The real difference between Luther and the dogmatists is that the dogmatists only weakly parrot what Luther taught much more powerfully from Scripture about Scripture. Let us recall again what Quenstedt, for example, says of Scripture as the inspired Word of God. Quenstedt writes: 926) "The canonical Holy Scriptures in the basic text are infallible truth and free from all error, or, what is the same thing, in the canonical Holy Scriptures there is found no lie, no incorrectness, no, not even the slightest error, whether in things, whether in words, but all and the individual things reported in them are absolutely true, whether they concern doctrine or morals, whether they concern history, chronology, description of places or naming; no ignorance, no carelessness or forgetfulness, no error of memory can or may be ascribed to the writers of the Holy Scriptures in writing them." This statement of Quenstedt's about Scripture has been called a dictum horribile. But everything that Quenstedt's statement contains about Scripture, Luther also says about Scripture, just going into the details mentioned by Quenstedt. Only this happens on Luther's part, as has already been noted, with incomparably greater power. In order to demonstrate this, we will summarize here what Luther says first about the whole of Scripture, and then add what he says about details in which a deviation from the doctrines of the dogmatists has been ascribed to them. In doing so, it cannot be avoided that parts of Luther's words are repeated that have already been mentioned in another context and for another reason.
Of the whole Scriptures Luther says: "So then one gives to the Holy Spirit the whole Holy Scriptures."927) "The Holy Scriptures did not grow on earth." 928) "The Holy Scriptures are spoken by the Holy Spirit." 929) It is "the Holy Spirit's book."930) It is "God's letter" to men.931) Such and similar sayings could be multiplied into the hundreds.
926) Systema I, 112.<w:t xml:space="preserve">927) III, 1890.<w:t xml:space="preserve">928) VII, 2095.
929) III, 1895.<w:t xml:space="preserve">930) IX, 1775.<w:t xml:space="preserve">931) I, 1055.
336 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 278-279]
But what Luther says of the whole of Scripture, he also holds consistently in every respect and in relation to all the individual questions that have been raised concerning the divine authority of Scripture. As is well known, modern theology strongly urges that a "human side" be recognized in Scripture. This "human side" had been neglected by the ancient theologians, and to bring this "human side" duly to the fore is the special donum of modern theology. Modern theology has a sharply developed sense for "reality". Luther, however, also knows a "human side" of Scripture, but only in the sense that God had His Word written by men in human language. Luther is terrorized by those who dare to claim that the Scriptures are not entirely and in all parts the Word of God, because the writers of the Scriptures, such as Peter and Paul, were also men. Luther remarks, as we have already seen, on 1 Petr. 3:15:932) "If they do so and say: You preach that one should not teach the doctrine of men, when St. Peter and Paul, even Christ Himself, were men; if you hear such people who are so blinded and obdurate that they deny that this is the Word of God, what the apostles have spoken and written, or doubt it, then only be silent, do not speak a word to them and let them go." And Luther records this "identification" of Scripture and the Word of God precisely with respect to those parts of Scripture that seem to us to be very "human." A few examples of this: While Kahnis thinks that one cannot well imagine that the Holy Spirit should have inspired David with what David felt in his heart in the form of a psalm, Luther says of the Psalms: "Methinks the Holy Spirit himself would have taken upon himself the trouble to bring together a short Bible and book of examples of all Christendom and all the saints." 933) Of those who want to give the Psalms, because they describe the movements of the human heart, not to the Holy Spirit, but to the man David, Luther judges that they have a "carnal heart".934)
Also about the apparently minor human things (levicula), the mention of which already some older and especially the modern theologians consider unworthy of the Holy Spirit,
932) St. L. IX, 1238.<w:t xml:space="preserve">933) Preface to the Psalter, XIV, 23.
934) The Last Words of David, III, 2803 [sic: III, 1894].
337 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 279]
Luther speaks about this in great detail. In his preface to the Old Testament935) , Luther warns "every devout Christian" not to be deceived into denying "the high divine majesty" of the minor things mentioned and described in Scripture. "God delights," says Luther, "to describe such little things (as, for example, Jacob's housekeeping and marital state), that he may indicate and testify that he does not disdain, nor have abhorrence, nor wish to be far from housekeeping, from a pious husband, and from wife and children." 936) It is as if Luther could not do enough to emphasize and explain how important and full of salutary doctrines these apparently minor things were. Therefore, these minor things should not be kept silent in the church, but "they should always be moved and inculcated into the people, namely, why the Holy Spirit, who has a very pure mouth, should speak with such great diligence of these things, which the most holy father, the pope, with his chaste monks and nuns, would not like to think of once as such things, which are quite foul and carnal in their eyes. For they walk in great things of their celibacy and celibate life. But this filth, how the women became pregnant, gave birth to children, and how the spouses were angry with each other, they do not consider worthy to be read. They say that the Holy Spirit, according to his holiness, could have addressed heavenly and other higher things and not such lowly, carnal things. He was supposed to have become a monk or a nun, but now he only tells how the household stood and how Jacob's marriage stood. This annoys us holy and angelic men, who walk above the clouds in the wisdom and spirituality of the angels. But because they despise these little things and are disgusted with them, the Holy Spirit is now hostile to the saints who are so arrogant and glorious, and does not recognize them as his own; he always lets them go in their glory, arrogance and vanity, and goes down to his creatures; he takes care of them and adorns them. For he created the ground, he created man and woman, and blessed them to be fruitful; he subjected the world to them, and it is he who still sustains all things;
935) St. L. XIV, 2 f.
936) Opp. exeg. Lat. VII, 285-287; St. L. II, 537 ff.
338 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 280]
He feeds and gives milk to the mother to nourish and sustain the child. He does not despise this creature. … Therefore the Holy Spirit wants to teach us and testify to us, since he deals with these small, human and common things, that we should know that he wants to be with us, take care of us and prove that he is our creator and governor. The papists do not see this, but despise it; therefore they must also fairly bear the penalty for such contempt. … What better and more useful thing can be taught in the congregation of God than the example of a godly housemother, who prays, sighs, cries out, gives thanks to God, rules the house, does what the office of a pious woman entails, desires to have children, with great chastity, gratitude and godliness? What more should she do? But the pope, cardinals and bishops should not see this; for they are not worthy. The Holy Spirit always makes them walk in strange, great, and supernatural things, and that they only marvel at their chastity and boast of it, which would be worthy of being pointed out to the common house; but these things they shall by no means see. But in the meantime the Holy Spirit leads and governs the holy women in such a way that he testifies that they are his creatures whom he wants to govern not only according to the spirit but also according to the flesh, that they should call on God, pray, thank him for the children and be obedient to their husbands" etc.
In the Old Testament Scriptures, we find passages in which gross sexual sins are also reported. Old and new theologians have addressed "dirty stories" in the Scriptures, with which one should not burden the Holy Spirit. Luther remarks in his commentary on Gen. 38, where the sin of Judah and Thamar is reported:937) "It is a marvelous diligence of the Holy Spirit to describe this shameful, lewd history, that He also carries out everything so very precisely to the utmost. ... Why then has the most pure mouth of the Holy Spirit descended to such low, despised things, which are also lewd and obscene and, moreover, condemnable, as if such things should be of any use to teach the church and congregation of God? What has the church of God to do with it?" Luther shows
937) St. L. II, 1200 ff.
339 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 280-281]
then in detail how full of doctrine, punishment, admonition and consolation also such scriptural passages are for the church of God of all times.
Whether someone takes the Christian position on the Scriptures, that is, lets the Scriptures be the Word of God, always becomes clear from the way he takes a stand on the possibility of error in the Scriptures. Christ very decidedly rejects the possibility of error in Scripture when he says: "Scripture cannot (oὐ δύναται) be broken." Philippi had not yet found the Christian position on Scripture as long as he still declared, "One is not to resist from the outset the recognition of the possibility that some subordinate differences are real. ... We would therefore at least not like to say a priori with Calov: Nullus error, vel in leviculis, nullus memoriae lapsus, ... ullum locum habere potest in universa Scriptura Sacra." [“Nullus error, vel in leviculis, nullus memoriae lapsus, ... ullum locum habere potest in universa Scriptura Sacra." [“No error, even in the slightest, no lapse of memory, ... can have any place in the entire Sacred Scripture”] Philippi had found the right position on Scripture, decent to a Christian, when he recanted in the third edition of his "Doctrine of the Faith" and declared Calov's a priori position on Scripture to be the correct one. This a priori position is Luther's position on Scripture. Luther does not want to establish the inerrancy of Scripture only by human investigation (a posteriori), but to him it stands firm before all investigation that no error can be found in Scripture. Luther holds this to be true on all sides. If there seems to be a conflict between Scripture and human science, it stands clear to him from the outset that human science is in error and Scripture is right. Thus, as we have already seen, Luther says in regard to the work of six days, "If thou canst not hear it, as it hath been six days, do glory to the Holy Spirit, that he be more learned than thou. For thou shalt thus deal with the Scriptures, that thou mayest think as God Himself speaks." 938) Luther also holds this to be true with respect to all chronological statements of Scripture, thus coming into sharp contrast with all modern theology. Examples: Prof. Hausleiter-Greifswald prefers Josephus' account of Herodias to the report of the Scriptures.939) A. B. Bruce in The Expositor's Greek Testament leaves open at least the possibility that Mark 6:17 at least leaves open the possibility that the biblical account is erroneous, even if the error cannot be determined.
938) Sermons on the First Book of Moses, III, 23.
939) L. u. W. 1907, p. 426.
340 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 281-282]
Also Ihmels assumes from the beginning that at least the chronology of the scripture is not infallible.940) Luther is different. For him it stands a priori certain that in every case where the chronology of the Scriptures differs from that of human historians, the Holy Scriptures are right. He says: "I use them (the human historians) so that I am not urged to be contrary to the Scriptures. For I believe that in the Scriptures God speaks, who is true, but in other histories that very fine men apply their best diligence and fidelity, yet as men, or even least, that their copyists could have erred."941) This is a topic that Luther, as a great friend of historical studies,942) very often treats. Concerning Gen. 11:27-28 he remarks that according to the chronology "sixty years are lost with Abraham". At the same time, Luther rebukes the "bold people" who may say that there is an error here. He (Luther) has also "diligently brought together and reckoned the years of the world". He defends himself against the assumption that he "knew nothing about such questions or had read about them". Nevertheless, he does not want to belong to the bold people who accuse the Holy Scriptures of a chronological error, but concludes with the humble confession of his "lack of understanding, as is inexpensive; for it is the Holy Spirit alone who knows and understands everything." Luther adds that such obscurities in chronology as Abraham's losing the sixty years were intended by the Holy Spirit "so that no one would stoop to prophesy something certain about the end of the world from the certain reckoning of the years of the world. For even though God knows signs (signa) of the Last Day and wants them to be seen and seen, He does not want anyone to know anything certain (certum aliquid) about this day, nor even the year, so that devout Christians can practice their faith and fear of God in anticipation of this most beloved and joyful day.943) Regarding Gen 11:11, Luther deals with the question of how Arphaxad could have been born two years after the Flood. He points to possibilities of harmonization, but adds that our faith is not endangered if the attempts at harmonization do not produce a certain result. But the non-endangerment of faith
940) Central Questions 2, p. 72.<w:t xml:space="preserve">941) St. L. XIV, 491.
942) Writing to the Councilors, St. L. X, 483 f.
943) St. L. I, 721 f.
341 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 282-283]
he justifies with the statement, "For this is certain, that the Scriptures do not lie." 944) — Just as Luther considers all statements of time in Scripture to be correct a priori, because the author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit, "cannot lie," so he also considers all contradictions in Scripture to be absolutely excluded a priori. And Luther did not merely take this position on Scripture at the beginning of his public appearance, as more recent people have claimed, but held on to it until the end of his life. In 1520 he wrote: "Scripture cannot err." 945) In the same year: "Scripture has never erred." 946) In 1524: "Scripture agrees everywhere." 947) In 1527: "It is certain that Scripture may not disagree with itself." 948) In 1535: "It is impossible that Scripture should disagree with itself, except that the unintelligent, obdurate hypocrites think so." 949) From 1541 and 1545 dates Luther's "Chronikon," in which, as we have seen, he says that the chronological data of Scripture are absolutely reliable. Even apparent disarrangements in the chronology of Scripture are, according to Luther, of the Holy Spirit. In his exposition of the prophet Habakkuk he remarks,950) that the prophets seem to keep no order, in that, addressing the Jewish kingdom, they break off short and begin to speak of Christ. But this too is of the Holy Spirit. Luther says: "The Holy Spirit is to blame for not being able to speak well, but speaking like a drunkard or fool, he mixes it up and utters wild, strange words and passages. But it is our fault that we have not understood the language nor known the way of the prophets. For this can never be otherwise, the Holy Spirit is wise and makes the prophets also wise. A wise man must be able to address, that never fails." Luther says of the evangelist Matthew,951) that he "mixes and mixes together" Jerusalem's destruction and the end of the world in ch. 24, but adds, "and it is also the Holy Spirit's way in the Scriptures that He speaks thus." What Luther says of mingling, not keeping order, etc. in the accounts of Scripture, more recent theologians use as evidence
944) St. L. I, 713 f.<w:t>945) W. XIX. 1309.<w:t xml:space="preserve">946) St. L. XX, 798.
947) St. L. III, 18.<w:t xml:space="preserve">948) St. L. XX, 798.
949) St. L. IX, 356. Walch VIII, 2141. Erl. Gal. I, 388 sq.
950) St. L. XIV, 1418.
951) Sermon on Matt. 24:8-14. St. L. VII, 1297.
342 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 283-284]
that Luther "kept open the possibility of historical inaccuracies and contradictions."952) But they refrain from adding that Luther attributes this "mingling together," etc., to the intention of the Holy Spirit. Kahnis also argues against the inspiration of Scripture the fact that the evangelists do not use the same words in the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper.953) Luther, on the other hand, writes against the papists who declared the administration of the Lord's Supper invalid because of the omission of only one word in the canon of the Mass: "They have not noticed that the Holy Spirit has diligently arranged that no evangelist agrees with the other in the same words." 954)
We saw that it belongs to the nature of modern theology to place the inspiration of the Scriptures essentially on the same level with the enlightenment of all Christians, to assume not a specific but only a gradual difference between the writers of the Holy Scriptures and all Christians and their teachers with regard to the knowledge of the truth and the doctrines of the same. Just as enlightenment does not make Christians and their teachers infallible, so the inspiration of the writers of the Scriptures does not ensure the infallibility of the Scriptures, even though the writers of the Scriptures cannot be denied a richer fullness of the Holy Spirit. Luther, on the other hand, assumes not merely a gradual but a specific difference between illumination and inspiration, or — which is the same thing — between enlightened teachers of the Church and the inspired writers of Holy Scriptures. What the inspired writers of Holy Scriptures teach is absolutely God's own Word of God; as far as the enlightened teachers of the Church are concerned, to whom Luther also counts himself, they teach God's Word only only insofar as and to the extent that "we repeat and preach what we have heard and learned from the prophets and apostles."955) In his Disputatio de Fide of 1535, however, Luther first says that it is one and the same Holy Spirit who was in the apostles and is active in all Christians and their teachers for right enlightenment. But then he draws a sharp line of distinction between the apostles on the one hand and all Christians and all later
952) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 268.
953) Quote in Baier-Walther I, 102, from Kahnis' Dogmatik 1 1, 666.
954) On the Abuse of the Mass. St. L. XIX, 1104. Walch, 1348.
955) Exposition of the last words of David, 1543. III, 2797.
343 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 284]
teachers on the other, "so that the church may not be divided.” Indeed, he adds:956) "We are not all apostles sent to us as infallible teachers (infallibiles doctores) by a fixed decree of God (certo Dei decreto). Therefore, it is not they but we who can err and fall short (falli) in the faith, because we are without such a decree of God." Luther makes an equally sharp distinction between enlightenment, which belongs to all Christians and all Christian doctrines, and inspiration, where he defines a prophet as distinct from all later teachers. He says in his exposition on several chapters of Exodus from 1525:957) "A prophet is called who has his mind from God without means, to whom the Holy Spirit takes the Word into his mouth. ... No one can make a prophet by human sermon and doctrine, and even though it is God's Word, and I [Luther] preach the Word in the purest way, I do not make a prophet; I can make a wise and understanding man. As, Matthew in the 23rd chapter, 'wise men' are called who drew the teaching from the prophets, because God speaks through people and not without means. But prophets are those who have the doctrines of God without any means." Also, what was already known to the prophets and apostles, or what they took from already existing Holy Scriptures, was given to them "directly," inasmuch as the Holy Spirit "put into their mouths" the words about what was already known to them or about what was taken from Scripture. As happened to the apostles on the day of Pentecost, when they so powerfully took hold of the Scriptures, "as if they had studied in them a hundred thousand years and had learned the same in the best way."958) Luther adds: "I [Luther] could not do such a certain taking hold of the Scriptures, whether I am indeed a doctor of the Holy Scriptures."
Modern theologians further distinguish degrees in inspiration. As examples we mentioned among the German theologians Kahnis, among the American Henry E. Jacobs. The former tries to divide the books of Holy Scriptures into three classes, depending on whether they are more or less inspired. The latter says, among other things, "A text from Genesis and one from John, one from the Psalms and one from Romans, cannot stand upon the same footing." 959) This, of course, completely abandons
956) Opp. V. a. IV, 381. St. L. XIX, 1442.<w:t xml:space="preserve">957) St. L. III, 785.
958) Erl. Ausg. 2 5, 183.<w:t>959) Cf. above, p. 221.
344 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 284-285]
the scriptural concept of inspiration. According to the Scriptures, inspiration is a concept that is capable neither of increase nor of decrease. Quenstedt rightly remarks against the Jesuit Bonfrère († 1643) and others that in Scripture there is not the slightest trace (nec vola nec vestigium) that one part of Scripture is more divine (divinius) than another.960) Christ ascribes the same divinity to all parts of the Scriptures when he says John 10:35 that "the Scriptures" cannot be broken. And according to 2 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 3:2; 2 Petr. 1:21; 1 Petr. 1:10-12; Eph. 2:20 etc. the whole scripture is equally a divine product. Luther does not allow any degrees of inspiration. "So then one gives all Scripture to the Holy Spirit." 961) To be sure, Luther distinguishes between the books of Holy Scriptures insofar as they are more or less important according to their content for the origin and preservation of the Christian faith. In this sense, he calls the Gospel of John the "some tender, right chief Gospel," because it is primarily concerned with doctrine, while the other Gospels report more facts or events from the life of Christ. For the same reason, Luther also calls "St. Paul's Epistles, especially the one to the Romans, and St. Peter's first Epistle" from the letters of the apostles. Peter's first epistle" the "right core and marrow" among all books, "which should also inexpensively be the first, and it would be advisable for every Christian to read them first and foremost and to make them as common to him as daily bread through daily reading.962) From this, newer theologians think they can prove that according to Luther's "actual opinion" the Scriptures are not in all parts equally the word of the Holy Spirit.963) But this is a misunderstanding and misuse of Luther's words. Although Luther calls the Gospel of John the "tender, right main Gospel" because it primarily drives the doctrine, he also gives the other Gospels in all parts to the Holy Spirit. We already heard that Luther refers to the external order of facts in Matthew, according to which this evangelist (chapter 24) "mixes and mingles" the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, as the Holy Spirit's
960) Syst. 1, 101 f. On Bonfrère, cf. W. S. Reilly in The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, 655 sq.
961) St. L. III, 1890.<w:t xml:space="preserve">962) St. L. XIV, 90 f.
963) Thus in Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 268; Seeberg, Dogmengesch.2 II, 287 f.
345 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 285-286]
way of speaking.964) Furthermore, Luther says that the Holy Spirit has diligently arranged the words of the Lord's Supper, which are not found in John, but in the other Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, in such a way that in the words of the Lord's Supper no evangelist coincides with the other.965) Quenstedt has been credited with an almost unbelievable overstretching of the concept of inspiration, that he does not leave the election of the words (voces) and the mode of expression (phrasis) to the discretion or human consideration of the sacred writers, but ascribes it to divine inspiration. Quenstedt teaches, first of all, as we have already seen in another section,966) that the Holy Spirit in inspiration did not create a new language according to vocabulary and mode of expression, but in this he made himself comfortable with the prevailing use of language (genus loquendi) known and familiar to the writers. Quenstedt says: Prout informati aut assuefacti erant ad sublimius humiliusve loquendi scribendique genus, sic eodem usus Spiritus Sanctus sese indoli hominum attemperare et condescendere voluit atque ita res easdem per alios magnificentius, per alios tenuius exprimere. [“According as they were informed or accustomed to a higher or lower kind of speaking and writing, so by the same use the Holy Spirit wished to conform and condescend to the nature of men, and thus to express the same things more magnificently through others, and more subtly through others.”] But then Quenstedt adds, "That the sacred writers, however, used these, and not other phrases (phrasis), these and not other words (voces) or synonymous (aequipollentes), comes solely from the divine impulse and inspiration." But this is exactly how Luther describes inspiration. He, too, lets the election of certain words and the certain mode of expression depend on inspiration. He says to Ps. 127:3: "Not only the words (vocabula), but also the mode of expression (phrasis), of which the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures make use, is from God (divina)."967) To make matters worse, we would like to recall the well-known words from Luther's Instruction for the Study of Theology, from which it is also clear that Luther understood by inspiration of Scripture nothing other than "verbal inspiration." For a more detailed explanation of "meditatio" he says: "On the other hand, you shall meditate, that is, not only in the heart, but also outwardly, the oral address and literal words in the Book [scil. in the Holy Scriptures] always driving and rubbing, reading and rereading, with
964) St. L. VII, 1297.<w:t xml:space="preserve">965) St. L. XIX, 1104.<w:t>966) p. 282.
967) Erl. Opp. exeg. Lat. XX, 96. st. l. IV, 1960.
346 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 286-287]
diligent attention and reflection, what the Holy Spirit means by it [scil. by the "literal word"]. And beware that you do not become weary or think that you have read, heard, and said it once or twice enough, and that you understand it all too well; for no special theologian will ever come out of it." Thus powerfully does Luther bind all theological study and all effort to know divine truth to the "literal words in the book," to verbal inspiration. We repeat what we noted at the beginning of this section: If we want to speak of a difference between Luther and the orthodox Lutheran dogmatists, the difference is not that Luther took a "freer stand" on Scripture, but that he teaches the complete "identification" of Scripture and the Word of God much more powerfully and all-sidedly than do the dogmatists.
Of course, we cannot close this section "Luther and the Inspiration of Scripture" without referring to several of Luther's sayings, which are cited with great confidence by almost all recent theologians as evidence of Luther's "free" position on Scripture. However, if we examine these sayings, it turns out that they do not prove Luther's "free" position on Scripture, but the unscientific and frivolous manner of modern theologians in quoting Luther. Partly the quoted sayings do not deal with the inspiration of Scripture at all, partly they are completely taken out of context and quoted just against the sense in which they are used by Luther. They belong to the large class of quotations that are passed on from one generation to another without examination.
This is true to the fullest extent of a quotation that is perhaps the most widespread, has also probably caused the greatest stir, and has misled many about Luther's position on Scripture. We mean the "hay, straw, and stubble" quote. To prove that Luther "admitted errors in Scripture," Tholuck wrote in the first edition of Duke's "Realenzyklopädie": "In his preface to Linken's notes on the five books of Moses (Walch XIV, 172) he says: 'Have no doubt studied the prophets in Moses and the last prophets in the first, and have written down their good thoughts, inspired by the Holy Spirit, in a book. But whether the same good, faithful teachers and researchers in the Scriptures were sometimes accompanied by hay, straw, and stubble, and not by pure
347 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 287-288]
silver, gold, and precious stones, the ground remains there; the fire consumes the rest." 968) In the second edition of Herzog's "Realenzyklopädie" the article by Tholuck has been replaced by an article by Cremer. But Cremer again refers to the quoted words of Luther to show that Luther admits errors in Scripture. Cremer writes: "On the one hand, the Holy Scriptures are for Luther a book in which 'in one letter, even in one title, there is more and greater than in heaven and earth'; on the other hand, he knows how to say of hay, straw, and stubble, which the prophets, in their own good thoughts, also ran under." 969) Cremer's article also passed into the third and latest edition of Herzog's Encyclopedia.970) Kahnis also asserted, "Of the prophets Luther says that the same studied Moses and their predecessors, and built upon them not always gold and silver, but also hay, straw, and wood." 971) What Kahnis says is repeated verbatim by Nitzsch-Stephan as late as 1912.972) But the fact is that in this passage, which is quoted so generally and up to the latest times, Luther does not speak at all of the writing of the Holy Scriptures and thus also not of the inspiration of the Scriptures, as was also explained in detail in Lehre und Wehre.973) Incorrect use of the words of Luther in question is also admitted in the tenth edition of Luthardt's "Compendium of Dogmatics" in a note. While in the text even of this edition the "hay, straw, and stubble" quotation is still used as proof of Luther's free position on Scripture, a note p. 328 states, "These words, however, according to Luther's correct understanding, do not go to the biblical writers, but to the exegetes; cf. Kawerau, 'Theol. Lit.-Ztg.' 1895, S. 216." In fact, it is quite impossible to refer Luther's words to "the biblical writers," that is, to the prophets, insofar as they wrote the Bible of the Old Testament. Rather, Luther is addressing the Old Testament prophets at those times when they were not driven as infallible organs of the Holy Spirit to write Holy Scriptures
968) RE. 1 VI, 695 under "Inspiration"; year of printing: 1856.
969) RE. 2 VI, 753 f.; year printed: 1880.
970) RE.3 IX, 191; year of printing: 1901.
971) Lutheran Dogmatics 2 I, 275<w:t xml:space="preserve">. 972) Lutheran Dogmatics 3, p. 268.
973) 1885, pp. 329 ff; 1886, pp. 8 ff.
348 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 288-289]
but outside the state of this inspiration made the existing Scriptures of the Old Testament, just like other people, an object of study and thereby wrote out "in a book" the good thoughts which the Holy Spirit gave them during this study. Luther's words refer to this study and writing outside of the state of inspiration to write down the Holy Scriptures: "But whether the same good, faithful teachers and researchers in the Scriptures sometimes also built with hay, straw and wood and not pure silver, gold and precious stone, the foundation remains there; the other is consumed by fire." Indeed, Luther teaches that the prophets of the Old Testament did not speak and write God's Word infallibly at all times, but only temporarily by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He remarks e.g. on Gen. 44:18:974) "The theologi have a common saying that they say: Spiritus Sanctus non semper tangit corda prophetarum, that is, the Holy Spirit does not stir the hearts of the prophets all the time. The enlightenments of the prophets do not last always, forever, without ceasing. Just as Esaias did not always and continually have revelations (continuas et assiduas revelationes) of high, great things, but only at special times. The same is shown by the example of the prophet Elisha, when he says of the Sunamite woman 2 Kings 4:27: 'Let her go, for her soul is troubled, and the Lord has hidden it from me and has not shown it to me. There he confesses that God does not always stir the hearts of the prophets. Sometimes the Spirit came when they played the harp or psaltery and sang psalms and spiritual hymns. 975) That Luther, in the passage under address, speaks of the prophets outside their actual prophetic office, that is, of the times when they stood on the same level with other indirectly enlightened "good, faithful teachers and searchers of the Scriptures" and could err, Tholuck has concealed by omitting the words "in this way" when quoting from Luther. Luther's words are, "Have without doubt studied in this way the prophets in Moses and the last prophets in the first." With the "in this way"
974) Walch II, 2417 f.; St. L. II, 1645; Erl., Opp. ex. Lat. X, 303 sq
975) In L. u. W. 1886, p. 9, note 1, it is recalled that also Quenstedt and Calov teach the Spiritus Sanctus non semper tangit corda prophetarum and substantiate it from the Scriptures.
349 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 289-290]
Luther refers back to the preceding. In the preceding, however, Luther speaks of the study of Scripture, as it is commanded by God to all Christians and all teachers, as he himself [Luther] and also Augustine read and studied Scripture, which "researching and reading" cannot be done, "one must be there with the pen and record what is especially given to him under reading and studying, so that he could remember and retain it." Also in the words that follow Tholuck's quotation from Lord, Luther speaks of doctrines as written by all teachers in the church, including his "dear Lord and friend, Dr. Wenzeslaus Link." After the entire preface to Link's Annotationes is printed in Lehre und Wehre 1885, pp. 329 ff, it is certainly rightly added there: "From this it is clear: Luther is not talking about writing Holy Scriptures, but about writing such books as his friend Wenzeslaus Link wrote and to which he [Luther] wrote prefaces. Luther is not talking about writing under the effect of 'inspiration', as we take the word when we address the doctrine of inspiration, but about studying in the Scriptures with writing down 'in a book' what good the Spirit of God gives a Christian when reading the Scriptures. … Luther speaks here — that we express ourselves in this way — of a daily private study of the prophets; 'for there were not such men as put Moses under the bench, and wrote his own vision, and preached dreams, but practiced themselves in Moses daily and diligently'. And in this sphere Luther leaves open the possibility that 'the same good, faithful teachers and researchers of the Scriptures were sometimes also subjected to hay, straw, wood'. ... So it is clear: Luther does not speak of inspiration at all in this passage, which is quoted so persistently to prove Luther's 'free' position in the doctrine of inspiration. Luthardt, Kahnis, Cremer, etc., either did not read this passage at all, or yet read it without all attention." Walther therefore turned against Luthardt and Cremer with the following words of serious rebuke:976) "On the one hand, the professors Luthardt and Cremer are to be excused in a certain respect, since they obviously did not read the passage in its context, but copied Tholuck in good faith; on the other hand, however, it is irresponsible
976) L. u. W. 1886, p. 10 f.
350 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 289-290]
that in such an important matter, we should have relied on a man like Tholuck, who himself says of Christ, 'that what is necessary for the exposition, which can only be learned by heart, can only have been known and accessible to him [Christ] according to the educational level of his time and the educational means of his upbringing, his social intercourse' [!!], from which Tholuck concludes: 'Even if there is no hermeneutical formal error in the present addresses of the redemption, the impossibility cannot be asserted from the outset, just as little as that of a grammatical linguistic error or a chronological error.' (See Tholuck, Das Alte Testament im Neuen Testament. Gotha 1861, p. 59 f.)" In the same context, Walther still points out a double sin here: He rightly rebukes the modern theologians who pursue this evil work on the authority of Luther, whose doctrine they carelessly misrepresent in order to mislead Christians about the divine authority of Scripture. "Is it already an irresponsible sin against the dear man of God Luther, to ascribe to him, for lack of his own hindsight, an opinion, in which, if one compared a hundred other sayings of his, he would stand as the most confused head of the world, yes, an opinion, which he would curse into the abyss of hell, it is a much more appalling sin against thousands who have recognized Luther as the greatest witness of truth after the apostles and prophets, and who have been misled in their faith against all truth by Luther's authority."
Besides the "hay, straw and stubble" quotation, another quotation from Luther has gained great fame among modern theologians. We can briefly call it the “'too weak to stab” quote. But even in this quotation, which is also meant to prove Luther's broken position on Scripture, the context is disregarded. For example, when Cremer writes: 977) Luther knows to say "of an insufficient proof of the apostle Paul Gal. 4:21 ff. ('zum Stich zu schwach')," this creates the impression, which is also intended by Cremer, as if Luther denies the evidential force at all to the allegory used by Paul Gal. 4 (Sarah and Isaac mean the Christian church, Hagar and Ishmael the people of the law), while Luther only says that the allegory in dispute with
977) RE. 2 VI, 753.
351 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 290-291]
the Jews (contra Iudaeos), for whom the apostle Paul was not yet an authority, was "too weak to stab". Incidentally, Cremer and all those who urge this expression so strongly that they want to prove Luther's broken position on Scripture from it, could well have considered it worth the effort to look up the Latin original. The expression is taken from Luther's Commentary on the Genesis, in which, as is well known, Luther uses the Latin language. What the translator renders as "too weak to stab" reads in the original: "in acie minus valet", that is, “it has less convincing power in a controversy.”. The "in controversy" (in acie) would have reminded us that Luther does not reject the evidential value of the allegory Gal. 4 absolutely (also for the Christians, to whom Paul is the inspired apostle of Christ), but only in a certain relation, namely in the fight with the Jews.978) Walther therefore wrote in regard to this point against Cremer:979) "It did not occur to Luther to deny that for Christians who have recognized and therefore acknowledge Paul's authority as that of an inspired writer, the doctrine presented by Paul by means of allegorical interpretation of a story is just as conclusive as any other doctrine presented by him directly, according to the established hermeneutical principle: Sensus allegoricus non est argumentativus, nisi a Spiritu Sancto traditus, that is, the allegorical sense is not conclusive unless it is taught by the Holy Spirit Himself." Christians, however, know and believe that in Paul, as the inspired Apostle of Christ, was the Holy Spirit.
978) In the whole passage, Luther reminds us that a pastor teaches his Christian listeners in a different way than he disputes with the enemies of the church. Luther says: "The godless Jews laugh at us that our fathers (the church fathers are meant) wanted to prove the Trinity from this text [Gen. 18:l ff.], that three men appeared to Abraham and yet he speaks only as with one.” Of this Luther judges: "As far as this text is concerned, we admit, however, that the historical understanding against the Jews proves nothing; but sometimes the inauthentic and figurative understanding is also true." Here follows Luther's remark about the allegory Gal. 4:21 ff: "For so does Paul in Gal. 4:22 ff: after he has masterfully proved the doctrine of faith [namely, "from other certain and clear sayings of Scripture"] and, as it were, conquered it with the sword, he then brings in the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, which, although it is too weak in the battle [that is the translation of "in acie minus valet" in the St. Louis edition of Luther],, because it deviates from the. historical understanding, it nevertheless makes the matter of faith its light and adorns it."
979) L.u.W. 1886, p. 12.
352 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 291-292]
It goes without saying that it is quite improper to cite Luther's distinction between homologumena and antilegomena as evidence of a "free" position in the doctrine of inspiration. Voigt, for example, says "that Luther could not regard Holy Scripture word for word as a product of the Holy Spirit," because he was "over whole books of Holy Scripture … permitted himself the freest judgment."980) In Nitzsch-Stephan we find the remark: "The Revelation of John displeases Luther so much that he considers it neither apostolic nor prophetic." 981) This illogically identifies two things that have nothing to do with each other. The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is not about the extent of the canon, that is, not about the question whether the so-called Antilegomena (the Epistles of James and Jude and the Revelation of John) belong to the canon, but about the question whether the books established as canonical (Luther calls them "the right certain main books") are inspired and are God's infallible Word. This, as we have seen in the first part of this section, Luther holds unalterably. But as to the scope of the canon, Luther (like Chemnitz, etc.) holds to the distinction which, according to Eusebius' account (Kirchengesch. III, 25), was made in the early Church between the writings of the New Testament as to their certain or not certain apostolic origin.982) Luther expresses this in his preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews thus:983) "Hitherto we have had the right certain main books of the New Testament. These four following ones, however, have had a different reputation before." Hönecke writes:984) "A distinction must be made between the extent of the canon and the inspiration of the books of Holy Scriptures which are established as canonical. And there says W. Walther [Professor in Rostock, Das Erbe der Reformation im Kampfe der Gegenwart, vol. 1, p. 42 ff.] rightly says that Luther had open questions concerning the scope of the canon; but what is canonical to him has authority for him as the inspired Word of God. This is always overlooked. The newer theologians always want to deduce from Luther's words concerning individual books his position on the
980) Fundamental Dogmatics, p. 536.
981) Ev. Dogmatik, p. 269. Seeberg, Dogmengesch. 2 II, 287.
982) St. L. XIV, 132.<w:t xml:space="preserve">983) A. a. O., p. 126.984) Dogmatik I, 362.
353 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 292-293]
Word and its inspiration and thus transfer their free position on inspiration to Luther. Rather, it is certain that Luther regarded the Word as inspired, and that the dogmatists of the seventeenth century can rightly call upon him as the constant voice of the Church, and thus that their doctrine is by no means an innovation in relation to Luther." On the same matter Walther of St. Louis expresses himself thus:985) "Those who here recall Luther's judgment on the Antilegomena, as he, e. g. the epistle of James 'a right brawling epistle against them' (the epistles of Paul and Peter) (XIV, 105), and from this want to prove Luther's allegedly free views on inspiration, we pass over here, since even the weakest mind sees without much thought how foolish it is, from a derogatory judgment of Luther about a Scripture which he did not consider canonical, what free views he had about the inspiration of those Scriptures which he considered canonical, while the exact opposite is to be concluded from that judgment."
Another assertion of modern theologians is that Luther limited the divine authority of Scripture to that which "drives Christ" in Scripture. According to what drives Christ in the Scriptures, Luther wants everything else in the Scriptures to be judged and assessed as to whether it is divine truth or not. Luther assumed a "canon within the canon". According to this, Luther could not possibly have assumed that all words of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit.986) Two passages from Luther in particular are cited in support of this claim. First, the words from Luther's preface to the epistle of St. James and Jude:987) "What Christ does not teach is not yet apostolic, even if St. Peter or Paul taught it. Again, what Christ preaches,
985) L. u. W. 1886, p. 8.
986) Cf. Dorner, Geschichte der Prot. Theologie, p. 246. Luthardt, Comp.10, p. 328. Seeberg, Dogmengesch.2 II, 288 ff. Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 269. even before that Hase, Ev. Dogmatik4 , p. 394. Grimm, Institutio Theologiae Dogmaticae, 2 p. 118, prints itself thus: Quamvis [Lutherus] in controversiis de coena sacra agitatis litterae librorum sanctorum tenacissime inhaerendum esse doceret, aut ipsa singula Scripturae verba grandiloquis [!] laudibus efferret, alias tamen divinitatem sacrorum librorum vi et fervore reposuit, quo Christi meritum praedicaretur animisque commendaretur, atque ita velut canonem in canone constituit. [Google] Somewhat different, though unclear, Gottlob Mayer, Das religliöse Erkenntnisproblem, 1897, I, 65 ff.
987) S. L. XIV, 129; Erl. 63, 156.
354 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 293]
that would be apostolic if Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod did the same." Then the 49th thesis from Luther's "Disputation on Faith" of 1535 is referred to, which reads thus:988) "If our adversaries press on the Scriptures, we press on Christ against the Scriptures." In the original Latin the words are:989) Quodsi adversarii Scripturam urserint contra Christ, urgemus Christ contra Scripturam. [“But if the adversaries pressed the Scriptures against Christ, let us urge Christ against the Scriptures.”] These words — we go to this quotation first — sound strange, however. Viewed out of context, they really give the impression as if Luther opposed "Scripture" and "Christ" and wanted to use Christ, conceived as the content of Scripture, to correct the words of Scripture. But this view is only possible as long as we refrain from examining the context in which these words stand in Luther. Luther understands by the Scripture, which the adversaries urge and against which Luther urges Christ, the Scripture misused, misunderstood and misapplied by the adversaries (adversarii, papists). Luther thinks of the abuse of Scripture that the Romans do by introducing passages of Scripture that deal with the Law and human activity against Christ, that is, against the Gospel and faith. Thus Luther declares himself in the preceding theses 42-48. Luther reminds us that the papists introduce such scriptural passages as "Keep the commandments," "Thou shalt love God thy Lord," "Do this, and thou shalt live," and "Make thyself free from iniquity by doing good to the poor" against Christ and the faith, whereas they are to be understood for Lord, because the works mentioned can only take place in Christ, that is, they always presuppose Christ and faith in him. That Luther understands by Scripture the Scripture misunderstood by the papists, when he says that he urges Christ against Scripture, he also expressly declares in the 41st Thesis, which introduces this section. This Thesis reads: "One must understand the Scriptures not against, but for Christ, therefore one must either refer them to Christ or not consider them to be true Scripture."990) By the way, it should be pointed out that it is a vain effort
988) St. L. XIX, 1441.<w:t>989) Opp. v. a. IV, 381.
990) A. a. O., p. 381: Et Scriptura est non contra, sed pro Christo intelligenda, ideo vel ad eum referenda, vel pro vera Scriptura non habenda. [“And the Scripture is not to be understood against, but for Christ, and therefore either to be referred to him, or not to be regarded as true Scripture.”]
355 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 294]
on the part of modern theologians to seek cover for their position on Scripture behind Luther's alleged statement that only that in Scripture is true which "drives Christ". Because modern theologians almost unanimously deny the satisfactio vicaria, they do not teach at all what in Scripture " drives Christ." The Christ who is addressed in Scripture is always the Christ who reconciled the human world to God through his satisfactio vicaria. Also what Luther says in the theses following Thesis 49 has been used against the context to deny Luther "the strict conception of inspiration". Indeed, Luther elaborates there the thought, which he also expresses elsewhere, that all who have Christ and thus the Holy Spirit could also make a decalogue (decalogum quendam) and judge rightly of all things. Luther's address in Theses 66-67 is thus: "For if the heathen in their corrupt nature can make ordinances concerning God and be a law unto themselves, Rom. 2, how much more can Paul or a perfect Christian, full of the Holy Spirit, ordain a kind of decalogue and judge all things most rightly, even as all the prophets and fathers have spoken out of the very same Spirit of Christ all that we have in the Scriptures." 991) Because Luther here places "the perfect Christian" and "the Fathers" next to Paul and the Prophets, as speaking from one and the same Spirit, this has been and is cited as evidence that Luther assumes no specific, but only a gradual difference between the illumination that comes to all Christians and the inspiration of the writers of Holy Scriptures, and just as through illumination Christians do not become infallible, but remain capable of error, so this is also the case with the writers of Holy Scriptures. But here again it appears that all those who claim this to be Luther's view of Scripture have not read up on Luther. Immediately in the immediately following theses 58-60, Luther most decisively rejects the idea that faith in Christ enables and entitles a Christian or even a theologian to take a
991) A. a. O., p. 382: Si enim gentes in natura corrupta potuerunt de Deo statuere et. lex esse sibi ipsis (Com. 2), quanto magis Paulus et perfectus Christianus plenus Spiritq potest decalogum quendam ordinare et de omnibus rectissime iudicare, sicut omnes prophetae et patres eodem Spiritu Christi omnia sunt locuti, quae habentur in Scripturis. [Google]
356 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 294-295]
"free" position toward the words of Scripture, that is, not to consider himself bound by the words of Scripture because the words might contain an error. Luther draws the line between the inspired prophets and apostles on the one hand and all Christians and all later doctrines on the other hand very sharply at this point. He describes the sovereign position vis-à-vis the words of Scripture as the characteristic of the "fluttering spirits" (vagi spiritus), who cause division in the Church of God with their thoughts detached from the Word of God of the apostles and prophets. For the fact that we all, Christians and Christian theologians, are strictly bound to the writings of the prophets and apostles and must not allow ourselves to criticize the same, Luther refers to this difference between us and the apostles: The apostles were appointed by God as infallible teachers (infallibiles doctores) of the Church and could not err; with us, on the other hand, the possibility of error is present. The words of Luther with regard to this point leave nothing to be desired in terms of clarity. They read: "Since in the meantime we are of different spirits [although one and the same spirit dwells in us and in the apostles] and the flesh contends against the spirit, it is also necessary, because of the fluttering spirits, to adhere to the certain commandments and writings of the apostles (adhaerere), so that the church will not be divided. For we are not all apostles sent to us as infallible teachers by a fixed decision of God. Therefore, not they, but we, can err and fall short in the faith, because we are without such a decision." 992)
Finally, what stands with the first words of Luther: "What Christ does not teach is not yet apostolic, even if St. Peter or Paul taught it. Again, what Christ preaches would be apostolic if Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod did it"? The form of the address already indicates that Luther is only talking about an assumed case, not a real one. Moreover, Luther still explicitly says,993) that these apostles' sermon of Christ "can be imitated by no one,
992) ibid., p. 382: Tamen quia interea sumus inaeqfiali spiritu, et caro adversatur, necesse est propter vagos spiritus certis mandatis et scriptis apostolorum adhaerere, ne laceretur ecclesia. Non enim sumus omnes apostoli, qui certo Dei decreto nobis sunt infallibiles doctores missi. Ideo non illi, sed nos, cum sine decreto tali simus, errare possumus et labi in fide. [Google]
993) Erl. A. 5, 183.
357 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 295]
neither Annas nor Caiaphas nor any man on earth".
Whatever else has been cited from Luther's writings as evidence of Luther's allegedly free position vis-à-vis Scripture has already been considered in the first part of this section, in the positive exposition of Luther's position vis-à-vis Scripture. To return briefly to the main points: That prophets and apostles do not always keep the "right order," indeed, that certain events are "mixed and mingled," that even in the words of the Lord's Supper no evangelist is in complete agreement with the other, etc., this Luther attributes, as we have seen, not to the "human frailty" of the writers of Scripture, but to the Holy Spirit, who willed it so. That Luther very often says that it does not much matter whether apparent contradictions can be harmonized or not, does not come from the fact that Luther considered the inerrancy of Scripture to be an adiaphoron, but from the fact that he is certain a priori, because of the inspiration of Scripture, that no error can be found in Scripture. "For this is certain, that the Scriptures do not lie." 994) We also saw already that Luther in his Chronikon (1541 and 1545) declares the Holy Scriptures to be the only book in the world in which no chronological errors can be found, because he believes "that in the Scriptures the true God speaks."995) From the Chronikon we add here that Luther prefers to accept an error "provided by writers [copyists]" rather than ascribing an error to the original text. We refer to these words in the Chronikon, p. 600: "The time of the judges from the death of Moses to Samuel is 357 years, Joshua included, as you see yourself. And the calculation is not missing, because in the first book of the kings, chap. 6, from the exodus to the temple of Solomonis 480 years are counted. Therefore, it is a manifest error in the Acts of the Apostles, ch. 13, by the mistake of the writers. The Latin translation is doubly wrong because it puts 460 years before the judges, during the distribution of the land, and forces the Lyra to go back to the years of Isaac. The Greek text, however, is corrupted by error of the scribes, which could easily have happened by writing τετρακοοίοις for τριακοσίόις." 996)
994) St. L. I, 714. <w:t xml:space="preserve">995) St. L. XIV. 491.
996) So also Beza; cf. L. u. W. 1886, p. 72, note. It is not a question here of whether other solutions to the difficulty are not possible and
358 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 296]
However, one argument of those who would like to cover their free position on Scripture with Luther's authority should be taken into account, because it has been used again many times in recent times. The argument goes like this: Luther teaches that the Scriptures are understood only by the Holy Spirit and are "experienced within" as divine authority, therefore Luther could not possibly have assumed that the words of Scripture are the words of the Holy Spirit. Thus, among the evidence that Luther could not have held the "divinity" (divinitatum) of Holy Scriptures, Grimm also cited this: [Lutherus] ad Scripturae mentem recte percipiendam Spiritus Sancti illuminationem opus esse censuit. [“[Luther] considered that the illumination of the Holy Spirit was needed to correctly perceive the mind of the Scriptures.”]997) Seeberg argues in the same way, however, when he says that998) Luther "did not base the recognition of the authority of Scripture on its church recognition, but on the experience of its truth." Seeberg quotes in the first place from the Erlangen Luther edition 28, 340 the words: "Everyone must believe that it is the Word of God and that he finds it to be true.” Everyone will admit that this argument: Because the Holy Scriptures are understood or experienced only through the Holy Spirit, therefore the words of the Holy Scriptures cannot be inspired by the Holy Spirit, is completely beyond all logic. This is why Luther does not contrast the experience of the truth of Scripture with the inspiration of Scripture, but teaches "inspiration in the strictest sense" quite powerfully in the passage quoted by Seeberg. On the following page (p. 341) he calls it "blasphemy" if someone says: "If St. Matthew, Paul, Peter were also men, therefore their doctrine is also the doctrine of men. ... Now when you hear such deeply hardened and blinded blasphemers, turn away from them or stop your ears; they are not worthy to be spoken to." ... p. 342: "Another thing is, if man himself or if
closer, but of Luther's position with regard to the inerrancy of Scripture, which he firmly holds. Other solutions already in the Weimar and Hirschberg Bibles, also in Calov. Cf. the comments of Meyer, Lange-Schaff and Bloomfield. The latter, for example, after suggesting two possible solutions, writes: "Thus no error will attach to either passage [l Kings 6:1 and Acts 13:20], and only different modes of computation be supposed to be adopted."
997) Institutio, p. 119.<w:t xml:space="preserve">998) Dogmengesch. 2 II, 288.
359 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 296-297]
God speaks through man. The apostle's address is commanded to them by God and confirmed and proven with great wonders." Furthermore, Luther says in this passage of the Scriptures that "therein is taught one and the same word of God from the beginning of the world. Finally, Luther says, p. 343: "We do not reproach the doctrine of men because men have said it, but because they are lies and blasphemies against the Scriptures, which, though they were written by men, were not written by or from men, but from God.
Thus it is clear that the newer theologians, who want to make Luther the patron of their free position on Scripture, partly did not read Luther at all, but copied collections of passages of others without examination, partly, if they really read Luther, were nevertheless incapable of understanding him, because their striving for Luther's protectorate was stronger than the sense for the historical truth. The former fact is particularly evident in Kahnis, for example. In his sharply polemical writing against Hengstenberg, "Zeugnis von den Grundwahrheiten," he claims that Luther took the same free position on Scripture as he (Kahnis) did. In justification he adds:999) "Walch has compiled such sayings in his edition of Luther in the 14th volume. Those who wish to orient themselves with all speed should read the articles 'Inspiration' (by Dr. Tholuck) and 'New Testament Canon' (by Dr. Länderer) in Herzog's Realenzyklopädie (VI. pp. 696 ff.; VII, pp. 295 ff.)." But Kahnis cannot deny himself to quote Luther from Tholuck's catalog, which seems to him to be the most conclusive. He chooses the "hay, straw and stubble" quotation, which, as we have seen and finally also Luthardt admits, is not about writing the Holy Scriptures at all. That Kahnis did not re-read Luther is evident from the fact that he also copied Tholuck's transcription errors.1000) In his Dogmatik, Kahnis offers us a lengthy catalog of judgments about Luther that are meant to prove his (Kahnis') proposition: "The standpoint of freedom is represented by Luther." But he adds in a note: "We do not prove these largely well-known sayings in detail by referring to the
999) Zeugnis von den Grundwahrheiten des Protestantismus gegen D. Hengstenberg, 1862, p. 85.
1000) The same occurred with Dr. Briggs in the lawsuit brought against him.
360 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 297-298]
compilations cited." He names as such compilations those of Rudelbach, Tholuck and Köstlin. Of other newer theologians one must judge that they have really read Luther, but with the result that they read their position on Scripture into Luther without Luther having given them any cause to do so. In this regard we must again refer to Seeberg. Seeberg1001) still refers especially to the Erlangen edition 30, 313 f., 331 for "censuring statements of Luther about individual thoughts in biblical books" and for Luther's "recognition of oversights." If we read the given passages, we do find that Luther says "that Matthew and Mark do not keep the strict order, but Luke does." But Luther does not "rebuke" Matthew and Mark, but adds that neither had "promised" to keep the chronological order. The situation is different with regard to Luke; Luke promised "that he would write from the beginning and in order; and he proves this with deed, for his Gospel is finely sequenced to the end. Seeberg read the predicate "reproving" into Luther's remarks. Luther finds it quite in order that Matthew and Mark follow an order other than chronological. Furthermore: In the other place, p. 331, Luther says that Matthew and Mark describe the Lord's Supper "imperfectly". But with the "imperfect" Luther does not think of an error, but of the fact that Matthew and Mark do not report "that Christ has called us [the church of all times] to do this and also to keep it", as Luke and Paul report the command words to the church of all times: "Do this in remembrance of me!"