Here
are the last few paragraphs of Luther’s Preface to his German translation of
the New Testament (1522):
Which are the true and noblest books of the New
Testament?
From all this you can now judge all the books
and decide among them which are the best.
John’s gospel and St. Paul’s epistles, especially that to the Romans,
and St. Peter’s first epistle are the true kernel and marrow of all the
books. They ought properly to be the
foremost books, and it would be advisable for every Christian to read them
first and most, and by daily reading to make them as much his own as his daily
bread. For in them you do not find many
works and miracles of Christ described, but you do find depicted in masterly
fashion how faith in Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell, and gives life,
righteousness, and salvation. This is the real nature of the gospel, as you
have heard.
If I had to do without one of the other –
either the works or the preaching of Christ – I would rather do without the
works than without His preaching. For the works do not help me, but His words
give life, as He Himself says [John 6:63] . Now John writes very little about
the works of Christ, but very much about His preaching, while the other
evangelists write much about His works and little about His preaching.
Therefore John’s Gospel is the one, fine, true, and chief gospel, and is far,
far to be preferred over the other three and placed high above them. So, too,
the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three Gospels,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first
epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and
St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all
that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see
or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an
epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of
the gospel about it.
(The Protestant Reformation, Hans J.
Hillerbrand, ed., New York, Harper Torchbooks, 1968, p. 42)
I
am sympathetic to Luther’s approach to scripture. It is quite different from
the approach I was taught growing up, i.e., that all of the Bible (except, of
course, the Apocrypha), every word and verse, is equal in inspiration and
authority. But, my experience is that
one way or another all readers of scripture give priority to some scriptural
texts or themes by which the rest are measured. Luther was just more up front
about it.
While
I am sympathetic, I am less reductionist than Luther – at least as he is in the
passage above. I would insist for example that the Gospel of John must not be
read apart from the other three gospels. And I think the Epistle of James has
much to teach us not least because the faith vs works dichotomy as Luther
presents it is too simplistic and does not adequately reflect what Jesus taught
or, for that matter, what Paul taught.
In
any event, Luther’s introductions to the Old and New Testaments present an
approach to the Bible quite different from what is common among many contemporary
American Christians. Luther could be wrong. From the beginning of the Reformation (and before, actually) there has been more than one way to come at the Bible and understand its inspiration, authority and interpretation. No way of engaging the Bible dropped from the sky. And whether you were taught or consciously adopted a way of reading the Bible inherited from Martin Luther, John Calvin, Menno Simons, Thomas Aquinas, John Darby or someone else, it is not the only or obvious or authoritative approach. You either chose it or it was chosen for you by those who taught you.
I
have suggested an approach that I think is a faithful way of engaging the Bible
here: The King or a Fox? Configuring the Mosaic of Scripture. And similar to Luther’s
emphasis on faith and love, I have argued that a biblical way of reading the Bible will use love and mercy as Jesus taught and embodied them as the measure
by which to interpret the Bible.
Previous:
