“Letter” and “Spirit” in Luther’s Hermeneutics

By Randall C. Gleason

[Randall C. Gleason is Professor of Systematic Theology, International School of Theology-Asia, Quezon City, Philippines.]

Studies in biblical hermeneutics no longer focus merely on the proper rules and steps for interpreting the Scriptures. They also address fundamental issues such as the nature of meaning itself.[1] This shift has led to a wide spectrum of opinions, ranging between those who insist that proper biblical hermeneutics should seek the author’s intended meaning and those who say that readers actually construct their own meanings from the text.[2]

Those who hold more closely to the historical-grammatical meaning seek to safeguard interpreters against twisting Scripture to fit their own theology and self-interests. Others seek a more dynamic hermeneutic that transforms the reader through the creation of new meanings more relevant to the modern world. Several writers have observed that these recent trends relate “very much to the understanding of the Bible by the Reformers.”[3]

This article discusses Luther’s distinction between a Spirit-guided understanding of Scripture and a superficial knowledge of its words, which foreshadows some of the problems facing modern biblical interpreters. Like most medieval exegetes before him, Luther expressed the relationship between words and their meaning in terms of Paul’s contrast in 2 Corinthians 3:6, “For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” However, unlike many who preceded him, Luther understood Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis in a new way. This new understanding gives a window into his hermeneutical framework that revolutionized hermeneutics in the sixteenth century.[4]

The interpretive history of Paul’s letter/spirit contrast (Rom. 2:25–29; 7:1–7; 2 Cor. 3:6) is virtually a history of biblical interpretation, since patristic and medieval exegetes commonly appealed to this important Pauline concept to justify their hermeneutical methods.[5] For example from earliest times the Alexandrian school (led by Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria) used Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis to support their allegorical method.[6] Many modern scholars persist in establishing their hermeneutical methodology on this key concept. David C. Steinmetz, for example, appeals to Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis to advocate a return to the “precritical” medieval theory of multiple levels of meaning in the Bible.[7] Emphasizing the necessity of the illumination of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics, Karl Barth declared, “For in 2 Cor. 3 everything depends on the fact that without this work of the Spirit Scripture is veiled, however great its glory may be and whatever its origin.”[8] Likewise Peter Richardson states that “the most fruitful line of inquiry for a biblical basis for hermeneutics” is in the investigation of the letter/spirit contrast in 2 Corinthians 3, “because within this dual focus there is latent the demand for interpretation at the instigation of the Spirit.”[9] The continued use of Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis in the modern quest to understand the Bible highlights the need to investigate the interpretive history of this pivotal text.[10]

Luther’s Rejection of the Medieval Use of Letter and Spirit

As already noted, the Alexandrian school distinguished between the “letter” as the literal sense of Scripture and the “spirit” as its deeper, spiritual meaning. Muller explains how the desire to move beyond the literal sense originated “under the impact of established Jewish exegesis of the Old Testament, the allegorical tendencies of the New Testament itself (e.g., Gal. 4:22–26; Heb. 5:5–10), and the unacceptable literal readings of the Old Testament used by the Gnostics.”[11] Origen reasoned that “stumbling blocks” (e.g., logical difficulties, impossibilities, fictitious historical events, and so forth) were placed in Scripture by God to point to the need for a deeper understanding.

The later Alexandrians searched for clues to this deeper meaning by giving careful attention to “the philological study of words and phrases, etymology, numerology, figuration, natural symbolism, etc.”[12] They considered the literal sense to be inferior and even misleading. Their hermeneutical task was to move beyond the dead “letter” of the literal sense to the life-giving “spirit” of Scripture found in its hidden meaning. Paul’s distinction between letter and spirit gave them license, they believed, to allegorize away alleged biblical inaccuracies, to harmonize the apparent discontinuity between the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament, and to discover the spiritual meaning of the “unedifying” stories of the Old Testament (such as the drunkenness of Noah, the murder of Sisera, and others).[13]

Origen explained that God arranged Scripture like human beings, “consisting of body, soul, and spirit.” Its “bodily sense” (i.e., letter) was for the simpleminded who could understand only earthly realities. The higher meaning within the “soul” and “spirit” of the text was “reserved for the one who can identify the heavenly realities.”[14] In contrast, the Antiochene school of interpreters emphasized the literal sense of Scripture in light of its historical context. Consequently they uniformly rejected the Alexandrian interpretation of Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis. Instead, they understood that Paul was drawing a contrast between the external Law (Mosaic Law) of the Old Testament and the Holy Spirit, who empowers Christians to obey.[15]

Interestingly Augustine (354–430) at first affirmed the allegorical use of “letter” and “spirit” because of the influence of Bishop Ambrose of Milan (339–97). In his Confessions (397–401) Augustine recalled, “And I was happy when I heard Ambrose in his sermons, as I often did, recommend most emphatically to his congregation this text as a rule to go by: The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. So he would draw aside the veil of mystery and explain in a spiritual sense the meanings of things which, if understood literally, appeared to be teaching what was wrong.”[16]

However, later in his anti-Pelagian essay, The Letter and the Spirit (412), Augustine preferred the Antiochene meaning. “That text—‘The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life’—is naturally taken to mean that we are not to understand the figurative sayings of Scripture in their literal sense, but to look for their deeper significance…. But this is not the only meaning of the apostle’s saying…. Romans … gives sufficient proof that his words to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 3:6) are to be understood as we have said: in that the letter of the law, admonishing us to avoid sin, kills, if the life-giving Spirit be not present.”[17] Significantly Luther appealed to Augustine’s The Letter and the Spirit in his interpretation of Paul’s spirit/letter antithesis.

The fourfold pattern of exegesis known as the Quadriga gained widespread acceptance among medieval interpreters.[18] First was the literal-historical sense. Second, the allegorical or mystical sense defined the doctrines Christians were to believe. Third, the tropological sense applied Scripture to the spiritual life and behavior of the individual believer. Fourth, the anagogical sense provided hope for the Christian by viewing Scripture from the perspective of its eschatological fulfillment. The Quadriga offered an ingenious synthesis of the main strands of the hermeneutical traditions found within the early church. As Froehlich explains, “The attention to be given to the literal sense preserved the grammatical and historical emphases of the Antiochene school; the allegorical sense expressed the typological understanding of the Old Testament and its rich early Christian tradition; the tropological sense allowed for the interests of Jewish and Christian moralists from the rabbis and Philo to Tertullian and Chrysostom; the anagogical sense kept alive the central concern of Alexandrian exegesis for a spiritual reading of Scripture.”[19]

Though many medieval theologians emphasized the foundational role of the literal-historical sense (sensus litteralis),[20] they continued to depreciate the historical and theological value of the Old Testament.[21] Departing from Origen’s simplistic identification of “letter” and “spirit” with the literal and spiritual senses, many medieval exegetes understood Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis to describe the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. In contrast to the life-giving “Spirit” of the New Testament, they believed the literal-historical sense of the Old Testament was unedifying “letter” and was therefore of no theological value unless spiritually understood.[22] But Luther rejected this pattern of exegesis along with its understanding of Paul’s letter/spirit distinction.

Luther’s rejection of allegorical hermeneutics occurred gradually between 1515 and 1519. Though he repeatedly set forth the four senses of the Quadriga throughout his first lectures on the Psalms (1513–1515), Luther warned in his “Preface to the Glosses” that “no allegory, tropology, or anagogy is valid, unless the same truth is expressly stated historically elsewhere. Otherwise Scripture would become a mockery.”[23]

Later in his lectures on Galatians in 1519, Luther declared on the basis of Galatians 4:21–31 that allegory “may be permitted to those who want it, provided they do not accustom themselves to the rashness of some, who tear the Scriptures to pieces as they please.”[24] However, in such cases he explained that allegory served only to add “extra ornamentation to the main and legitimate sense … so that those who are not well instructed may be nurtured in gentler fashion with milky teaching, as it were.”[25] Repudiating the four medieval senses, he concluded that the “four-horse team is not sufficiently supported by the authority of Scripture, by the custom of the fathers, or by grammatical principles.”[26]

Six years later in his controversy with Erasmus in 1525, Luther clearly stated his rejection of allegorization. “Let us rather take the view that neither an inference nor a trope is admissible in any passage of Scripture, unless it is forced on us by the evident nature of the context and the absurdity of the literal sense as conflicting with one or another of the articles of faith. Instead, we must everywhere stick to the simple, pure, and natural sense of the words that accords with rules of grammar and the normal use of language as God has created it in man.”[27]

Bornkamm writes that though Luther “often added a spiritual interpretation of Christ … to the literal interpretation … he was never again confused about the clear sense of Scripture.”[28] Ebeling also observes that Luther’s allegorizing is mainly limited to his sermons, where he used it “as a homiletical device to obtain a more striking application of the text … though he did this with decreasing frequency.”[29] Therefore Luther’s earlier practice and later occasional use of allegory should not be construed to mean that he continued to regard allegorization as a valid hermeneutical principle.

The Reformer’s growing appreciation of the literal sense of the biblical text and eventual rejection of the allegorization of medieval hermeneutics may be understood in light of three historical factors. The first was the growing tension between the authority of Scripture and the authority of the magisterium of the church. The prolific allegorization of medieval exegetes and its multiple (sometimes conflicting) interpretations confused the hermeneutical enterprise of the church. Questions of authority became urgent: Whose interpretation is right? Which allegory is correct? These questions, as Forde states, demanded “an authoritative office to forestall chaos.”[30] The solution offered was to declare the “magisterium” of the church as the official interpreter of Scripture.[31] Although most medieval church leaders accepted this judgment, Runia cites William of Ockham as an example of one who said that infallibility in its strictest sense should be attributed only to the Scriptures.[32]Ockham maintained that if there is a contradiction between Scripture and the magisterium, the final authority belongs to Scripture.[33] Since Luther studied at the University of Erfurt, where the influence of Ockham was strong, Ockham’s view of biblical authority undoubtedly provided impetus to Luther’s emphasis on sola scriptura.[34] Thus Luther came to reject allegorization and its use of Paul’s letter-spirit antithesis because they contributed to the dominance of the magisterium, thereby weakening biblical authority.

A second factor was the return by several medieval interpreters to a greater appreciation of the grammatical-historical understanding of the Scriptures. They reacted against the disparaging of the literal sense that resulted from the excesses of the fourfold medieval hermeneutic. Among them was Nicholas of Lyra (ca. 1265–1340), a Franciscan monk, considered the greatest biblical commentator of the Middle Ages. He is primarily known “for his protest against excessive allegorization and for his efforts at understanding the literal, historical sense of the Scriptures.”[35] He rejected the allegorical use of Paul’s letter/spirit distinction by maintaining that the word “spirit” refers to the Holy Spirit rather than a method of interpretation.[36] Evidenced by his extensive use of Nicholas of Lyra’s commentaries,[37] Luther came to appreciate Nicholas’s emphasis on the grammatical-historical sense, and this in turn further motivated Luther to reject the allegorical use of Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis.

A third factor was the influence of the humanist revival of learning, summarized in the slogan ad fontes, meaning “back to the sources.”[38] In Europe the sixteenth century began with a resurgence in the study of Scripture as a result of the humanist emphasis on the original biblical languages. The undisputed leaders of this movement were Johannes Reuchlin (ca. 1455–1522), renowned for his studies in the Hebrew Old Testament, and Desiderius Erasmus (ca. 1466–1536), whose publication of the Greek New Testament introduced a new era of biblical scholarship. Before Luther began his Psalms lectures (1513–1515), he was equipped to explore the nuances of the Hebrew text through Reuchlin’s newly completed Hebrew grammar (1506). Also, when Erasmus’s Greek New Testament appeared in 1516, Luther put it to immediate use in his exposition of Romans (1515–1516). Luther took full advantage of the lexicographical and grammatical assistance offered by the humanists in studying the text of Scripture. However, unlike Erasmus, Luther’s growing understanding of Scripture in its original languages could no longer permit an allegorical hermeneutic, which disparaged its grammatical, historical sense.[39] Neither could he accept the use of Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis to justify the allegorical method.

The humanist with the greatest impact on Luther’s method of interpretation was the French scholar Faber Stapulensis (ca. 1455–1536). He defined the literal sense of the text by distinguishing between a literal historical sense and a literal prophetic sense. The latter was “prophetic” because it made forward reference to Christ and was “literal” because it was “the intention of the prophet and of the Holy Spirit speaking in him.”[40] Faber used Paul’s antithesis (2 Cor. 3:6) to distinguish between the “letter” of the historical sense, which “kills,” from the “spirit” of the prophetic-Christological interpretation, which “gives life.” As “spirit,” the prophetic sense depended on the illumination of the Spirit to arrive at the correct literal interpretation.[41] Luther followed Faber’s use of letter and spirit by both emphasizing the need for the Spirit’s illumination and seeking the Christological meaning in the Old Testament, although he did not devalue the historical sense, as Faber did.[42] Faber’s influence contributed greatly to Luther’s new approach to Paul’s letter/spirit distinction.

Luther’s Use of Paul’s Letter/Spirit Antithesis

Of the three passages where Paul referred to the letter and the spirit—Romans 2:29; 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6—Luther’s treatment of the following two is most significant: “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6). “Who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6).

Luther’s Lectures on Romans

The fullest treatment of Luther’s exposition of Romans 7:6 is found in his “Lectures on Romans,” which he prepared for teaching at the University of Wittenberg from the spring of 1515 until the fall of 1516. These lectures included his notes, which were carefully entered between the lines and in the wide margins of his Vulgate text, and his scholia, which were extensive commentary notes written out on separate sheets. The scholia do not flow as if they were written to express one single idea. Instead they seem somewhat disjointed, as if they were put together gradually over time. As a result it is difficult to understand exactly what Luther was intending to say until he concluded with his “corollary” or summary of application deduced from each passage.

Summarizing the difference between the “oldness of the letter” or “law” and the new way “of the Spirit,” Luther wrote, “The old law says to those who are proud in their own righteousness: ‘You must have Christ and His Spirit’; the new law says to those who humbly admit their spiritual poverty and seek Christ: ‘Behold, here is Christ and His Spirit.’ Therefore, they who interpret the term ‘Gospel’ as something else than ‘the good news’ do not understand the Gospel, as those people do who have turned the Gospel into a law rather than grace and have made Christ a Moses for us.”[43]

These comments indicate that Luther saw at the heart of Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis his own law/gospel distinction. “Law,” he said, means all demands for personal holiness and complete obedience, and “gospel” means Christ’s gracious provision for sinful humanity to meet those demands. Seeing this law/gospel distinction in Romans 7:6, he wrote, “Therefore, when the question is asked why the Gospel is called the Word of the Spirit, a spiritual teaching, the Word of grace and a clarification of the words of the ancient law and a knowledge that is hidden in a mystery, etc., the reply is that properly the Gospel teaches where and whence we may obtain grace and love, namely, in Jesus Christ, whom the Law promised and the Gospel reveals. The Law commands us to have love and Jesus Christ, but the Gospel offers and presents them both to us.”[44] Therefore, what is demanded in “law” is granted in “gospel.” Luther developed this concept of law and gospel throughout his treatment of Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis in Romans 7:6.

This former Augustinian monk appealed to Augustine’s The Letter and the Spirit to explain the Pauline letter/spirit. Using three citations, Luther drew on Augustine’s understanding of the “letter” as the written code that commands right behavior without providing the ability to perform it. “That teaching by which we receive the commandment to live continently and uprightly is the written code that kills, unless the life-giving Spirit is present.”[45]

This led Luther to identify “the new way of the Spirit” (Rom. 7:6, NIV), as the unique feature of inward enablement offered by the Holy Spirit, in contrast to the old way of the letter, which is the mere external understanding of the text. He said that this inward enablement is accomplished by the loving intention of the Lawgiver. “Without the love which has been poured out through the Spirit” that which we ought to do “is impossible.”[46] Luther illustrated this by the shallow spirituality of contemporary scholars: “They are not the best Christians who are the most learned and read the most and abound in many books. For all their books and all their learning are the ‘written code’ and the death of the soul. But rather they are the best Christians who with a totally free will do those things which the scholars read in the books and teach others to do. But they do not act out of a totally free will unless they have love through the Holy Spirit. Therefore in our age it is to be feared, that by the making of many books we develop very learned men but very unlearned Christians.”[47]

For Luther, “gospel” is not the mere external understanding of the “letter” but the internal enablement to obey the text granted by the Spirit. This fits nicely with his law/gospel principle, for the gospel as “spirit” gives what the law as “letter” can only demand.

Another aspect of Luther’s understanding of letter and spirit in Romans 7:6 is the importance he placed on the gospel as “preached.” “The Law commands us to have love and Jesus Christ, but the Gospel offers and presents them both to us. Thus we read in Ps. 45:2: ‘Grace is poured abroad in Thy lips.’ Therefore, if we do not receive the Gospel for what it really is, then it is like the ‘written code [i.e. letter].’ And properly speaking it is Gospel when it preaches Christ.”[48]

As Forde explains, “Grace, Luther says, does not ‘exist’ in the mind or in books, nor does it flow so readily off the end of our pens and pencils; it is ‘poured abroad in thy lips;’ it is something preached.”[49] For Luther, unless the word of grace is heard as “good news” (i.e., the gospel) it remains merely “letter.” In this way Luther contrasted between the written word as “letter” and the preached word as “spirit.” This reflects Luther’s emphasis on the Word of God as a message to be proclaimed rather than merely read. “Throughout his career Luther emphasized the centrality of this oral Word in the life and work of the church. ‘Christ did not command the apostles to write, but only to preach.’ Again he said: ‘The church is not a pen-house but a mouth-house.’ And yet again: ‘The Gospel should not be written but screamed.’ When one meets the phrase ‘Word of God’ in Luther’s writings, it usually has reference to this oral Word of Proclamation.”[50]

According to Luther a person could read and study the gospel many times and yet it would remain the “dead letter” if he did not apply it to himself. But the gospel becomes the Word of the “Spirit” when it is spoken in a way that the hearer is able to recognize that he is the one being addressed.

Luther’s Treatise Against Emser of Leipzig

Luther gave his most extensive exposition of 2 Corinthians 3:6 in a treatise against Hieronymus Emser of Leipzig. The controversy between Luther and Emser over the relationship between Scripture and the tradition of the church resulted in a series of treatises written by them between August 1519 and November 1521. This treatise was written by Luther in March 1521 under the title Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual, and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser in Leipzig—Including some Thoughts Regarding His Companion, the Fool Murner.[51] Luther got to the heart of his differences with Emser by focusing on the issue of authority. “While Emser subjects the word of God to ecclesiastical authority, Luther regards the word of God as the judge of ecclesiastical tradition.”[52]

Emser refuted Luther’s defense of biblical authority by accusing him of neglecting the allegorical sense of the text. Describing Emser’s attack on him, Luther wrote that Emser “claims for himself St. Paul’s saying in II Corinthians 3 [:6], ‘The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.’ He then teaches us that he who understands Scripture according to the letter and not according to the Spirit should rather read Virgil or some other heathen fable, for he reads his death. This is what Luther does, who obeys the letter, strikes about with the sheath, and does not teach the Spirit.”[53] Thus Emser followed Origen and medieval exegetes in understanding Paul’s letter/spirit distinction.

Because Emser’s use of 2 Corinthians 3:6 posed a serious threat to biblical authority, Luther declared that his purpose was “to give reason and to show clearly that Origen, Jerome, Dionysius, and some others have erred and failed in this matter, that Emser builds upon sand, and that it is necessary to compare the fathers’ books with Scripture and to judge them according to its light.[54]

Then Luther proceeded with a detailed exposition of 2 Corinthians 3:6.

Against Emser’s hermeneutic of allegorization Luther first argued that there is only one meaning of the text, namely, the simple literal meaning. “The Holy Spirit is the simplest writer and adviser in heaven and on earth. That is why his words could have no more than the one simplest meaning which we call the written one, or the literal meaning of the tongue. But [written] words and [spoken] language cease to have meaning when the things which have a simple meaning through interpretation by a simple word are given further meanings and thus become different things [through a different interpretation] so that one thing takes on the meaning of another…. One should not therefore say that Scripture or God’s word has more than one meaning.”[55]

Hence Luther rejected the fourfold hermeneutic used “out of ignorance” by medieval exegetes. Because of their misuse of the term “literal” he preferred to call the proper sense the “grammatical, historical meaning.”[56] Luther then explained the true meaning of 2 Corinthians 3:6 in terms of two kinds of preaching. “Let us deal now with the passage concerning the Spirit and the letter. In this passage [2 Cor. 3:6], St. Paul does not write one iota about these two meanings, only about two kinds of preaching or preaching offices. One is that of the Old Testament, the other is that of the New Testament. The Old Testament preaches the ‘letter,’ the New [Testament] preaches the Spirit.”[57]

This relates back to what was said previously about Luther’s emphasis on the proclaimed Word. Luther made an important transition here from “letter” and “spirit” to the preaching of law and gospel.[58] “The letter is nothing but the divine law or commandment which was given in the Old Testament through Moses and preached and taught through Aaron’s priesthood. It is called “letter” because it is written in letters on stone tablets and in books. It remains letter, and does not yield more than that, because no man improves through the law; he only becomes worse. Thus the law does not help, nor does it grant grace; it only commands and orders something done which man is neither able nor willing to do.”[59] Here again Luther used “letter” as another designation for his concept of “law,” which commands and condemns without providing the ability to obey.

Explaining “Spirit,” Luther said,

But the Spirit, the divine grace, grants strength and power to the heart; indeed, he creates a new man who takes pleasure [in obeying] God’s commandments and who does everything he should do with joy…. Through this Spirit of grace man does what the law demands. He pays what he owes the law, and thus becomes liberated from the letter which kills him, living now through the grace of the Spirit. For everything which does not have the grace of the living Spirit is dead, even the external obedience to the whole law glitters. That is why the Apostle says of the law that it kills, gives no one life, and holds one eternally in death if grace does not arrive to redeem and give life.[60]

Here the “Spirit” again refers to divine enablement to carry out the commands that the law demands. However, according to Luther both the “letter” and the “Spirit” must be proclaimed because only when the law as “letter” is preached can a person recognize “that he is dead and without grace before God and that he does not fulfil the commandment, which he should fulfil.”[61] One cannot avoid preaching the “letter,” for it provides the only means to a true knowledge of humanity without Christ. This is why Luther concluded that “it is impossible for someone who does not first hear the law and let himself be killed by the letter, to hear the gospel and let the grace of the Spirit bring him to life.”[62] Though “the law is good, just, holy, and spiritual” (Rom. 7:12), it is still a “killing” letter.

Emser’s failure to see the necessity of preaching the law caused Luther to describe Emser’s teaching on law as “in reality, nothing but the veil, the harmful misunderstanding of the letter, and the damnable flight from this blessed death.”[63] The preaching of the law as “letter” prepares the way for the preaching of the gospel as “Spirit.” “These then are the two works of God, praised many times in Scripture: he kills and gives life, he wounds and heals, he destroys and helps, he condemns and saves, he humbles and elevates, he disgraces and honors, as is written in Deuteronomy 32:39], 1 Kings 2 [1 Sam. 2:6–8], Psalm 112:7–8 [Ps. 113, Eng.], and in many other places. He does these works through these two offices, the first through the letter, the second through the Spirit. The letter does not allow anyone to stand before his wrath. The Spirit does not allow anyone to perish before his grace.”[64] Therefore this dialectic of law and gospel is an essential part of Luther’s emphasis on the living Word of God as preached.[65]

Luther’s point throughout his discussion of 2 Corinthians 3:6 is that the verse pertains to the authoritative proclamation of the Word of God and not allegorization. This is precisely what Emser had failed to recognize in his accusations against Luther’s literal hermeneutics. Emser’s approach placed the Word under human domination through spiritualizing the text. Luther’s method presented the “letter” of the Word as that which exercised its authority over individuals by stripping them of their arrogance and self-righteousness and by pointing them to their need for Christ. Once that has occurred, the Word of the “Spirit” has the ability to do what the law cannot do, namely, to give the believer grace and the spiritual enablement to live righteously. As Brecht aptly summarizes, “Emser had understood the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures as allegorical interpretation. Luther, in contrast, here advocates a literal interpretation, insofar as Scripture itself does not demand something else. For him, the antitheses of letter and spirit are something else, namely, the antitheses of law and grace or of law and gospel as the two offices of the Word. They are necessary alongside one another. The letter alone would be law without grace, and spirit alone would be grace without law.”[66]

Luther presented his own exposition of the Pauline letter/spirit antithesis in order to establish the autonomy of the Scriptures, free from the ecclesiastical manipulations imposed on them by the allegorizing hermeneutics of medieval exegesis. In their place he presented his distinction between the law and the gospel in order to restore authority to Scripture as it is preached to the world.

Conclusion

Luther’s use of Paul’s letter/spirit distinction anticipated the modern search for a proper biblical hermeneutic in the following ways.

First, Luther rejected any appeal to the letter/spirit antithesis for support of an allegorical hermeneutic. By limiting the meaning of the text to its original historical sense he hoped to prevent the medieval church from imposing its own tradition on the text as a means of preserving its ecclesiastical authority. His commitment to an objective hermeneutic provides a healthy caution to those who advocate a return to the multiple levels of meaning proposed by medieval interpreters.[67] Like Luther, believers today must resist any shift in the locus of authority from the text to the interpreter, for this would weaken the authority of Scripture.

Second, Luther’s use of letter/spirit helps distinguish between mere external examination of Scripture and personal application of its meaning. Ebeling concurs, “This distinction between an understanding based purely on the outward meaning of a text, and an understanding based on its inner significance, between remaining satisfied with the lifeless letter and going on to penetrate the living Spirit of a text, has become a general hermeneutic principle.”[68] Here Luther echoed Gadamer’s “recognition of application as an integral element of all understanding.”[69]

Third, Luther’s use of letter and spirit to clarify his concept of the twofold function of law and gospel shows the need for allowing the Scriptures to speak deeply to humanity’s need for salvation. As he explained, a person must experience the “killing” role of the Word as law before he or she can experience the “life-giving” power of the Word as gospel. As Althaus asserts, both functions of the Word must “take place concurrently” in order to fulfill their soteriological role of moving “faith … from the law to the gospel.”[70]

Fourth, Luther’s emphasis on the Word as “Spirit,” which must be “preached” in order for it to “speak” authoritatively to each generation, lies at the heart of his use of Paul’s letter/spirit distinction. The church’s responsibility is the same as it was in Luther’s day. Expositors are to proclaim the Word of God in such a way that people will be struck with their sinfulness after hearing the demands of the “letter,” and thereby be drawn to God’s gracious provision for righteousness as the gospel of the “Spirit” is preached.

Karl Barth well summarized Luther’s desire to communicate the true meaning of the biblical text, contrasting the mere “historical reconstruction of the text” practiced by most modern interpreters with the “genuine understanding and interpretation … which Luther exercised with intuitive certainty in his exegesis.”[71] Barth praised the brilliance of Luther’s exegesis in his ability to break down “the walls which separate the sixteenth century from the first” so that when Paul spoke, “the man of the sixteenth century hears.”[72] Present-day biblical interpreters would do well to note Luther’s hermeneutical concerns revealed in his distinction between “letter” and “Spirit.” The world of the twenty-first century needs to hear the Word of God proclaimed with the same authority sixteenth-century Europe heard it from Luther.

Notes

1. For example see Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991), 366–415; Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 27–45; and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).
2. This is perhaps best illustrated by contrasting E. D. Hirsch’s emphasis on the single-meaning determined by authorial intent (Validity in Interpretation [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967]), and Hans-Georg Gadamer’s emphasis on new meanings shaped by each reader’s own preunderstanding and historical situation (Truth and Method [New York: Crossroad, 1975]). Some defend Hirsch as offering the major theoretical model for biblical interpretation (e.g., Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], 54–69). Others praise Gadamer for his valuable hermeneutical insights (e.g., Bruce B. Miller, “Hans-Georg Gadamer and Evangelical Hermeneutics,” in Evangelical Hermeneutics, ed. Michael Bauman and David Hall [Camp Hill, PA: Christian, 1995]: 213-32).
3. Klaas Runia, “The Hermeneutics of the Reformers,” Calvin Theological Journal 19 (1984): 121. See also John Goldingay, “Luther and the Bible,” Scottish Journal of Theology 35 (1982): 33.
4. Gerhard Ebeling’s classic essay—first published in German (“Die Anfänge von Luthers Hermeneutik,” Die Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 48 [1951]: 172-230) and recently translated into English (“The Beginnings of Luther’s Hermeneutics,” Lutheran Quarterly 7 [1993]: 129-58, 315–38, 451–68)—chronicles Luther’s hermeneutical change from the allegorical methods of the Quadriga (fourfold senses) to the literal-prophetic sense of Faber Stapulensis. Ebeling’s essay is developed from his doctoral dissertation entitled Evangelische Evangelienauslegung: Eine Untersuchung zu Luthers Hermeneutik (Munich: Evangelischen Verlag Albert Lempp, 1942). James Samuel Preus offers an alternative view of Luther’s hermeneutical shift in From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969). He traces the development of the “literal” sense from Augustine through the medieval interpreters to show how their methods continued to devalue the historical meaning of the Old Testament. Preus demonstrates how Luther rediscovered the theological value of the Old Testament through his concept of promise that united the historical and prophetic senses (ibid., 176–99). Other important studies of Luther’s hermeneutics include Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther and the Old Testament, trans. Eric W. Gritsch and Ruth C. Gritsch (Philadephia: Fortress, 1969); A. Skevington Wood, Luther’s Principles of Biblical Interpretation (London: Tyndale, 1960); Darrell R. Reinke, “From Allegory to Metaphor: More Notes on Luther’s Hermeneutical Shift,” Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 386-95; and David S. Dockery, “Martin Luther’s Christological Hermeneutics,” Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983): 189-203.
5. W. S. Chua illustrates this well in his examination of various patristic and medieval interpretations of Paul’s letter/spirit antithesis entitled The Letter and the Spirit: A History of Interpretation from Origen to Luther (New York: Peter Lang, 1995). His analysis includes Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, the authors of the Glossa ordinaria, Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Lyra, and Martin Luther.
6. See Bernardin Schneider, “The Meaning of St. Paul’s Antithesis ‘The Letter and the Spirit,’ ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953): 166-68, 170, 182–83.
7. David C. Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” Theology Today 36 (April 1980): 27-37, esp. 28–30.
8. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1956), 1.2.515.
9. Peter Richardson, “Spirit and Letter: A Foundation for Hermeneutics,” Evangelical Quarterly 45 (1973): 208-09.
10. For a survey of modern approaches to Paul’s letter-Spirit antithesis in 2 Corinthians 3:6 see Randall C. Gleason, “Paul’s Covenantal Contrasts in 2 Corinthians 3:1–11, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (January-March, 1997): 70-77.
11. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 254.
12. Karlfried Froehlich, ed. and trans., Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 18.
13. Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” 29–30.
14. Origen, “On First Principles: Book Four,” in Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, 58–59.
15. See Schneider, “The Letter and the Spirit,” 172–76, 178–79, 181–82.
16. Augustine, Confessions 6.4 (italics his). He also affirmed the allegorical use of letter and spirit in his treatise On Christian Doctrine, 3.5.
17. Augustine, “The Spirit and the Letter,” in Augustine: Later Works, ed. John Burnaby (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955), 198–200.
18. For a helpful discussion of the medieval fourfold sense see Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (New York: Oxford, 1952).
19. Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, 28–29.
20. For example Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.1.10. However, most medieval interpreters considered all four senses to be of equal importance. See Robert M. Grant and David Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 86.
21. Preus, From Shadow to Promise, 24–60.
22. Ibid., 153-65.
23. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955), 10:4.
24. Ibid., 27:311.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Martin Luther, “On the Bondage of the Will,” in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, trans. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), 221.
28. Bornkamm, Luther and the Old Testament, 95.
29. Gerhard Ebeling, Luther: An Introduction to His Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 108.
30. Gerhard O. Forde, “Law and Gospel in Luther’s Hermeneutic,” Interpretation 37 (1983): 244.
31. Burrows draws a careful distinction between those medieval exegetes who regarded the church’s present magisterium as the interpretive guide and those like Jean Gerson who went back to the “fathers of the early church who received the Scripture together with an understanding of it directly from Christ.” Hence not everyone in the medieval church accepted the magisterium, as set forth by the Council of Trent (1545–1563), as the infallible guide to Scripture (Mark S. Burrows, “Gerson on the ‘Traditioned Sense’ of Scripture,” in Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective, ed. Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 165).
32. Runia, “The Hermeneutics of the Reformers,” 123.
33. Hermann Sasse, “Luther and the Word of God,” in Accents in Luther’s Theology, ed. Heino O. Kadai (St. Louis: Concordia, 1967), 59.
34. William Kooiman, Luther and the Bible (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961), 14–15.
35. Preus, From Shadow to Promise, 62. However, Preus points out that Nicholas also advocated a “second-literal sense” beyond the historical sense, determined by a New Testament reading of certain “unedifying” Old Testament passages (ibid., 69).
36. Schneider, “The Letter and the Spirit,” 185.
37. For example this can be clearly seen in Luther’s commentary on Romans, in which he borrowed his chapter headings almost verbatim from the glosses of Nicholas of Lyra (Luther’s Works, 25:3).
38. Regarding the impact of humanism on Luther see Alister McGrath, Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), 152–58. However, McGrath cautions against connecting Luther’s reformation ideas too closely to his hermeneutical shift (ibid., 158–67).
39. In spite of his appreciation for the literal sense, Erasmus followed Origen’s “spirit/letter” hermeneutic and said the Old Testament consisted almost entirely of allegories (see Bornkamm’s citation of Erasmus in Luther and the Old Testament, 252). Also unlike Erasmus, who said that a person need only to read the Bible in order to understand it, Luther was convinced that no one could understand God’s Word apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Kooiman, Luther and the Bible, 74–75).
40. Preus, From Shadow to Promise, 137.
41. Ibid., 139.
42. For an analysis and critique of Luther’s Christological hermeneutic see David S. Dockery, “Martin Luther’s Christological Hermeneutics,” Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983): 189-203.
43. Luther’s Works, 25:327.
44. Ibid., 25:326.
45. Ibid., 25:325.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid., 25:326.
48. Ibid.
49. Forde, “Law and Gospel in Luther’s Hermeneutic,” 242.
50. Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther the Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959), 64.
51. Luther’s designation of Emser as the “goat of Leipzig” referred to the goat in Emser’s coat of arms which was displayed on the title page of his writings (Luther’s Works, 39:107).
52. Ibid., 39:140.
53. Ibid., 39:151–52.
54. Ibid., 39:175.
55. Ibid., 39:178–79.
56. Ibid., 39:180–81.
57. Ibid., 39:182.
58. Forde, “Law and Gospel,” 247.
59. Luther’s Works, 39:182–83.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid., 39:185.
63. Ibid., 39:185.
64. Ibid., 39:188.
65. Runia, “Hermeneutics of the Reformers,” 127.
66. Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation 1483–1521, trans. James L. Schaaf (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 379.
67. It seems doubtful that Luther would welcome Steinmetz’s claim that “the medieval theory of levels of meaning in the biblical text, with all its undoubted defects, flourished because it is true, while the modern theory of a single meaning, with all its demonstrable virtues, is false” (“The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” 38).
68. Ebeling, Luther: An Introduction to His Thought, 100.
69. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 275. On this point there is growing consensus. Hirsch has written, “I am now very much in agreement with Gadamer’s idea that application can be part of meaning” (“Meaning and Significance Reinterpreted,” Critical Inquiry 11 [December 1984]: 202-25).
70. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 265.
71. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 7.
72. Ibid.