Ebeling, Gerhard.The Beginnings of Luther's Hermeneutics 3.pdf

7/29/2019 Ebeling, Gerhard.The Beginnings of Luther's Hermeneutics 3.pdf

1/19

The Beginnings of Luther's Hermeneutics*

by GERHARD EBELING

The Fourfold Sense ofScripture and the Distinction

Between Letter and Spirit

AN ANALYSIS OF THE linguistic usage of"letter" and "spirit" inthe Dictata has shown that here, in fact, the two possible meanings (which were mediated through the tradition of Origen andAugustine) had come in contact with each other and led to thefoundation ofa new hermeneutic through what was plainly a dizzying whirlpool of correlative terminology. If we penetrate intothis complicated process, we see how the origin of Reformationtheology was a titanic struggle over the problem ofscriptural exposition. And we shall thus correctly estimate the significance ofthe first Lectures on the Psalms with respect to hermeneutics, even

if the result ofthis struggle cannot yet be grasped as afinishedandfirmly established product. For, on a superficial view, Luther standscompletely under the spell oftraditional expository methods rightup to the end of the Lectures, and the concepts of "literal" and"spiritual" do not lose their scintillating ambiguity. Indeed, a noteat the beginning of the Gloss257 attests that Luther is conscious ofthe problem. He clarifies the scheme ofthe Quadriga (the fourfoldsense), and indeed, by means ofthe same example which had been

used as a model since John Cassian258

(to whom we can trace theorigin of the Quadriga) and which was taken from Galatians 4,namely, the example of the different possible meanings of Jerusalem.259 And it also remains entirely within the traditional framework when Luther places the fourfold meaning of Babylonalongside it. For the idea that with Christ and the devil two worldwide bodies, two realms, stand in opposition to one another, wasone which even the Donatisi Tyconius believed it was necessary to

heed with respect to the interpretation ofScripture. The first ofhisseven rules concerned the Lord and his kind ofbody, and the last


2/19

452 LUTHERA N QUARTERLY

concerned the devil and his body. Through Augustine, who had

adopted the seven rules of Tyconius in his textbook of hermeneutics,

On Christian Doctrine, they became the common property of the

Middle Ages, and in his first Lectures on the Psalms, Luther, too,indicates a familiarity with them.260

But what is noteworthy is the

following: No sooner has Luther mentioned the great dualism, us

ing the catchwords "Jerusalem"a n (

i "Babylon," than he imme

diately associates with these opposites his fundamental formula of

the life-giving spirit versus the killing letter. This antithesis accords

with that of the body of Babylon and the body of the church. And

now Luther launches out anew with the execution of the Quadriga,

and indeed, with two rubrics next to each other: the one, the killingletter, the other, the life-giving spirit. And yet it is no longer simply

that the catchwords "Babylon" and "Jerusalem" are plugged into

these two slots respectively, but rather that Luther inserts one and

the same word, "Mount Zion," into both slots, just as the complete

paradigm of a conjugated verb in a grammar book will show its

forms for both moods and all tenses. What is so noteworthy and,

with respect to the exegetical tradition, so novel about that? It is

that here the fourfold sense of one and the same word is furtherdoubled into evil and good and indeed, that therefore the twofold

scheme of killing letter and life-giving spirit cuts right across the

fourfold scheme of the senses of Scripture. This is in tension with

traditional hermeneutical terminology: It is not that the historical

sense is the letter and the allegorical, tropological, and anagogical

sense the spirit; rather, it is that whether literally or mystically

interpreted, the whole exposition according to the Quadriga stands

either under the sign of "killing letter" or under the sign of "life-giving spirit." Certainly in that place Luther did not bring the

problem to its highest possible degree of precision. If he had, as

usual, characterized the first sense of Scripture not as the "historical"

but rather as the "literal," and lumped together the other three

levels of meaning as "spiritual," the problem would have sprung

to light in all due clarity.

This hint confirms yet again the correctness of the way in which

we have posed the question so far. It also demonstrates beautifullythe statement that the two hermeneutical schemata (the letter/


3/19

THE BEGINNINGS OF LUTHER'S HERMENEUTICS 453

our attention is now fixed upon another problem: could it not bethat precisely at the moment when he was working with thetraditional fourfold sense of Scripture, he was already moving in

a new hermeneutical direction? Even if we had, until now, onlypaid attention to this letter/spirit scheme, and to how Luther's useof it led to the overcoming of allegorization, we would now haveto ask if Luther himself did not recognize something new in thoseplaces where he so eagerly allegorizes, and indeed, in the way inwhich he does so. Thus, it not only appeared by chance in thecontent, but also in the very method of his exposition accordingto the fourfold sense of Scripture.

The Fourfold Sense ofScripture and the

Christological Meaning ofthe Psalms

The foundation of Luther's application of the Quadriga is thechristological meaning of the Psalms. Does the characteristic noteof Luther's exposition not lie primarily in this interpretation? The

christological meaning of the Psalms was the common property ofthe tradition. Nevertheless, certain peculiarities of Luther alreadycan be recognized at this point. The power to see everything together, the ability to get a grasp of the many-branched whole whichsprouts from the root, and the capacity to concentrate everythingon one point, and then to unfold everything from that point outward, distinguishes Luther's thought from the very beginning. Itshould be observed, tangentially, that what is meant is not only a

distinctive, formal, spiritual talent, but rather something which isconnected with his unusually intense personal existence and thusalso with the great problem ofhis besetting temptations. This pointof view illustrates how, even at the beginning of his professorialcareer as an exegete, Luther grasped with special intensity thismethod, which had by then become familiar from the tradition, amethod by which, as he himself said, to find one's way around inthe dark and holy labyrinth.261 This observation stands in the in

troduction to the text of the Psalms, which Luther had had printedfor the hearers of his lecture course.262 Thus this introduction is the


4/19

454 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

are carefully considered. If we compare this preface with those of

other medieval studies of the Psalms (for example the Postil of Hugo

Cardinalis,263

which Luther had also used,264

and which announced

even in its title that the exposition was pervaded by the Quadriga)then we are immediately struck by the directness with which, at

the very beginning, Luther brings the viewpoint of the christolog

ical meaning into importance. He begins not with specific discus

sions about it, but rather ascribes the word to Christ himself.


5/19

THE BEGINN INGS OF LUTHER'S HERMENEUTICS 455

stimulus. Because for Faber as well as for Luther, the propheticsense of the Psalms is the literal sense. But that means that Luther,like Faber, comes to terms with a double sense of the Psalms, and

indeed, a double literal sense, the one being the literal-historicalsense, the other being a literal-prophetic sense; or, as Luther alsosays, a rear sense and a frontal sense.272 Luther will not dispute thatat times the Psalms are also meant historically, which is certainlydemonstrated by the abundant statements about the historical situation at the beginning of the Psalms. But from this kind of observation he throws a bridge across to the literal-prophetic sense,so that under that rubric a historical statement can also be uttered

propheticallyand that because to the prophets the deeper mysticalsense of the historical situation to which the Psalm mainly refersis unfolded.273 "From that history he prophesies learnedly."274 Andtherefore the real intention of the prophets is not to relate ancientstories as such, but rather, on the basis of these ancient stories, tolook ahead prophetically into the future.275 Thus the relationshipof the two literal senses to each other is actually determined throughthe application of the allegorical scheme of thinking. The literal-

prophetic sense is the mystical sense of the literal-historical sense.The historical becomes a sign and a parable which points beyonditself.

276 In contrast to the historical sense, which lies open to thelight of day, the literal-prophetic sense is exceedingly well-hidden.277 The literal-prophetic sense is therefore simultaneously thespiritual sense.278 The prophetic and the spiritual are interchangeable concepts.279

These thoughts fully accord with the hermeneutical principles

of Faber. Indeed, in relation to the historical sense, the propheticsense is the mystical sense. And, too, it is the literal sense, preciselybecause it lies in the intention of the prophetic author of the Psalms.And in order to demonstrate the literal character of the propheticsense, Luther is constantly at pains to find, within the text of thePsalms itself, clues that the sense which was really intended wasnot the historical but rather the prophetic. Whether and to whatextent Luther goes in particular directions could only be demon

strated through a detailed and specific comparison with the wholetradition of exposition upon the Psalms. For if one now, with Faber,


6/19


the mystical sense of the Psalms. With respect to the means whichhe employs, even for determining to whom the manifold meaningsof the "I" of the Psalter refer, Luther seems to me to proceed

essentially according to the traditional model.Yet it must be stated, precisely by a comparison with Faber Sta-pulensis, that in spite of the widely-known agreement in fundamental hermeneutical thinking, at one decisive point Luther strikesoff in another hermeneutical direction.280 If Faber had eliminatedthe entire apparatus of the Quadriga through the interpretation ofthe prophetic sense as the essential literal sense and therefore simultaneously as the spiritual sense, Luther in no way drew this

conclusion. For Faber, the literal-prophetic sense made the exposition according to the Quadriga quite superfluous. For Luther, onthe contrary, the literal-prophetic sense becomes the basis of theQuadriga: "the foundation of the others, the master and the lightand the author and the fountain and even the origin."281 Here apenetrating distinction between these two exegetes becomes visible.Hereinthat Luther combines the literal christological exegesis ofFaber with the traditional scheme of the Quadrigalies Luther's

new and independent hermeneutical approach with reference to themystical exposition of the Psalms. The first impression of this observation is, admittedly, a negative one. With regard to hermeneutics, is Faber not progressive in comparison to Luther? And hasLuther not fundamentally misunderstood Faber's hermeneutical innovation and corrected it for the worse, if he was not satisfied withthe literal-prophetic sense, but in spite of that still tacked on al-legorically derived meanings? In any case, for Luther, in contrast

to Faber's simple distinction of the double literal sense, the hermeneutical problem has turned out to be extraordinarily complicated. One could despair of the work of bringing logical clarityinto Luther's hermeneutical terminology. One might be temptedto rest content with the conclusion that the combination of entirelydifferent schemata has led to a dreadful hodgepodge of concepts.Not only is his new letter/spirit scheme (in the sense of two mutually exclusive understandings of human existence) in conflict with

the letter/spirit scheme (in the sense of the traditional hermeneutical distinction of verbal and spiritual meanings). But further


7/19

THE BEGINNINGS OF LUTHER'S HERMENEUTICS 457

diately exclude the other, whereas Luther has mixed them up together?

The fact that the Luther of the first Lectures on the Psalms displays

what might be called a hermeneutical syncretism is indisputable.The question is only whether the significance of this approach isgrasped, if we regard it as an erroneous combination of differentinfluences, and thus whether clarity can be brought to his hermeneutical position, by breaking down his synthesis into its constituent parts. Can we discover an inner foundation which hasbrought about this combination and makes it into a logically compelling and productive combination? Could it not be that the in

clusion of the Faberian hermeneutical scheme is connected withthe struggle for the correct hermeneutical meaning of the antithesisof letter and spirit? If we inquire more closely into which of thetwo literal senses Luther is speaking of when he asserts that thePsalms are to be understood as referring literally to Christ, whichis to say, the prophetic sense is the essential literal sense, we noticethat the stress is distinctly different from that of Faber. The rightto charaterize the christological meaning of the Psalms as the literal

sense was determined for Faber through recourse to the intentionof the prophetic author of the Psalms. Luther, too, shares this interpretation. The Psalms are composed in the spirit and must therefore also be understood in the spirit and in the prophetic sense.That means that they are truly understood according to the letter.The christological interpretation, which is allegorical in comparisonwith the obvious historical sense, goes back to the author himself.To expound something mystically which is meant mystically is, in

fact, correct literal exegesis. For Faber the hermeneutical problemwas thereby resolved. The literal-prophetic sense simply was thespiritual sense. But for Luther the hermeneutical problem was notthereby resolved at all. Certainly in relation to the historical senseof the Psalms, the christological meaning was the spiritual sense;and in relation to the intention of the author it was the literal sense.But now for Luther an entirely different problem sets in. Literaland spiritual are at the same time two mutually exclusive ways of

understanding human existence. What, then, is the relation of thechristological sense of the Psalms to existence? Is some expression,


8/19

458 L U T HE R A N QU A R T E R L Y

ing of human existenceas to whether this expression is understoodliterally or spiritually? Thus the statement that the Psalms speakabout Christ according to the letter has for Luther a peculiar ring

to it. Certainly it stands in agreement with Faber that the christological meaning of the prophetic intention of the author is justifiably taken as the literal sense. But Luther asks at the same time:What is thereby gained for the understanding? For even though Iknow exegetically that the Psalm speaks about Christ, I have therebymerely arrived at a bare fact. But as yet it has not been stated at allwhat this fact means for my understanding of existence. It is manifest in Luther's application of the expression, "according to the

letter," in relation to christological exposition that he is thinkingrelatively little about the Faberian problem of how the propheticsense relates to the wording of the text, and much more about theproblem of how the fulfillment that takes place in Christ relates tothe prophetic sense. Not only does Luther consider it to be important that some expression in a Psalm literally means Christ, butalso and above all that Christ quite literally is the fulfillment of theexpression. It appears to be only a question of an insignificant nu

ance. Faber says: The Christ event is really meant. Luther says thistoo, but above all he accentuates it thus: What is meant has reallyhappenedin Christ. "Hoc est in christo ad literam factum."282 And thunot merely, "Hoc est de christo adliteram dictum." Thus, from beina characteristic of prophetic meaning, the expression "according tothe letter" simultaneously comes to be for Luther a characteristicof the fulfillment of the prophetic word. Certainly these are closelyinterconnected. But it is characteristic that for Luther the accent is

displaced in this way. For now the question must certainly be posed:What then does the prophetic word mean for existence if it isalready fulfilled, if it thus does not refer to the hearer but ratherto something that is purely external to him, and thus likewise toa historical factnot, indeed, to a historical fact of the Old Testament, but instead to a historical fact which today is a past eventwhile for the prophet it was still a future event? What for theprophet was not yet given according to the letter but which he had

only in the spirit is now present according to the letter. And behindthis stands the further thought: If the meaning of the word is only


9/19

THE BEGINNING S OF LUTHER'S HERMENEUTICS 459

thus in the arena of the letter. As long as one has the fulfillmentonly over against himself as an objective fact, one relates himselfto it literally, not spiritually. Now it becomes clear why for Luther

the literal-prophetic sense is not the end point as it is for Faber,but is really only the starting point of the exposition of the Psalms,and why for him the scheme of the double literal sense becomesrelatively unimportant while the Quadriga is indispensable. Forsaying that the Psalms refer to Christ according to the letter, doesnot at all express what this means. It is not that the meaning ofthe christological exposition of the Psalms would thereby be relativized. On the contrary: now the principal sense in the labyrinth

of the Psalms is elucidated, the sense by which the general exposition is to be accomplished283 and from which the meaning of thetext is unlocked.284 Indeed, one could say that it is no longer thePsalms but rather Christ that is the text. Thereby, an importantrealization is obtained: the Quadriga does not directly disclose thedifferent possible meanings of the text of the Psalms. Rather, itonly serves for the development of the christological sense of thePsalms. For Luther it is thus, strictly speaking, only a scheme for

the interpretation of christology. Its application is then justified ifChrist underlies it as the literal sense.Through this rigorous christological connection Luther has given

to the Quadriga a rule of application which is not manifest withinthe tradition. In a note at the beginning of the Gloss, Luther writes:"In scripture, the allegorical or tropological or anagogical sensesare of no value unless the same thing is explicitly said elsewherein the historical sense. Otherwise, scripture would become a play

thing."285 This carries weight only as a general standing principleand does not imply any incipient criticism by Luther of the Quadriga. For hereafter, allegory was only limited by the viewpoint thatit may bring nothing to light which is not also proven elsewheredirectly through the Scripture and which belongs to the content ofthe Christian faith. Yet how much that could include! How diffusewere the goals toward which the Quadriga could point! Naturallyexamples for this are also to be found in Luther himself. But it is

important that he quite obviously begins to regulate the Quadrigafrom the opposite end, namely, from a single point of departure:


10/19


virtually its inner logic, was dictated by the structure of christology.Instead of possible meanings struggling against each other, a unifiedwhole is produced: "In this manner do all four senses of Scripture

flow together in one most copious stream."287

And in place of allthese fanciful notions stands one foundamental governing thought,namely, that God makes all the holy writers agree in their pictureof his Son.288 Thus, the theological concentration in the handlingof the Quadriga comes to its fullest value especially when, usingthis method, Lutherto my knowledge, this also is new in comparison with the traditiongives a christological interpretation ofmajor individual theological concepts such as the work of God, the

justice of God, or God's justification, and from there on developsthis in all directions. Indeed, Luther can even draw the four consecutive meanings together as if by a great clamp and write:


11/19


often seems to be almost identical with hope. Yet the same thingholds good here that I already observed about the prophetic sense.For the anagogical sense is certainly nothing other than a prophetic

sense, the fulfillment of which is still to come. The anagogicalsense refers, as all purely prophetic expressions, to facts, that is, tosomething which lies outside of human existence. But if the essential intention of the word is not to communicate somethingabout the future, but rather to orientate the reader toward the future,and indeed, in such a way that he understands himself from thepoint of view of the future, then the essential scope of the anagogicalsense becomes important only in the tropological sense. It would

be a profitable exercise to go through Luther's interpretation ofeschatology in the first Lectures on the Psalms. It would expose aconspicuous tendency toward the realization of eschatology in thehere and now of the Word. But I must abandon this matter here,as well as any inquiry into the allegorical sense, with which thequestion of the concept of the church stands in the closest connection.

Instead of that, the tropological sense requires a much closer

inspection. For all the lines of the hermeneutical problem convergefor Luther just here. Since the meaning of tropological exegesis forthe genesis of his theology (particularly his christology and doctrineof justification) have already been suitably stressed in Luther research,291 I can confine myself essentially to working out its hermeneutical structure. According to the traditional understanding,the tropological or moral sense of Scripture is to show, along withits other meanings, the relationship of the Word to the individual

person. "The moral sense says what is to be done," as it is said inthe familiar medieval jingle on the fourfold sense of Scripture.Therein already lies a definite, fundamental perception of what kindof relationship obtains between the Word and human existence.The Word stands against the individual as doctrine, as advice, andas law, and it aims at the actual behavior of the person. Inasmuchas the relationship between God and the person is constitutedthrough the Word, the being of God is thus interpreted as demand[einfordern], the being of the person as action [ein handeln]. Onlythrough a radical transformation of this interpretation of the tro


12/19


human being as a being who understands himself in one of two

ways. Aside from human existence which understands itself, every

thing has the character of objective facts. This is so because the

"being a fact" becomes a "becoming" as soon as the fact movesinto the horizon ofhuman existence. "For as long as something is

not recognized as a fact, it is not yet a fact for him or with him,

but it becomes a fact with him when it is recognized that it is a

fact."292 Furthermore, because the facts viewed by human existence

receive their form in each case according to the self-understanding

of the human being, the form of the things is all things in all.293

That holds good for Scripture as well: it preaches as the hearer is

disposed.294 "Because ofwhat sort anyone is, ofthat sort is for himGod, the Scripture, the creature." And finally because the facts

influence human existence in the way they are considered in the

light of the understanding ofhuman existence.. . ."what is feared

to be of a certain kind, is for that person of that kind."296

"Love

makes all things easy and enjoyable, even those that are difficult

and sad."297

Therefore, assertions about human existence are not

assertions about an objective fact, but rather about an event which

becomes existential only as it is recognized to be so. Thus Lutherfrequently interprets verbal assertions about the human person cog-

nitively: "Thus we are not confused, because we do not know our

selves to be confused."298 For only what touches the self-

understanding of a person strikes at the root of his human existence.

And only through a change in self-understanding does a change in

his existential situation really begin. On the other hand, Luther

understands the being of God as an action [handeln] 2nd a self-

communication: "Non tantum est, sedetiam operator."299 And thisresponse is identical with self-communication: "The acts of God

are his words . . . for to God doing and speaking are the same."300

Where he acts directly, there he showers down his essence, which

is pure goodness.301 "For this is the essence of God: not to accept

goods, but to bestow [dare] them, and therefore to return good for

evil."302 Therefore his proper works are spiritual works ofredemp

tion and justification,303

that is, the works which are not facts but

acts.304 This understanding ofthe being of God necessitates a causative interpretation of the assertions about him. If the matter con


13/19


about its effect on us, as an expression about what he causes tohappen.305 "Arise, O Lord," is to be understood as "Show yourselfin action."306 "do not be silent," means, "Act, that one may not be

silent about you."307

"The way of God is how he makes us towalk."308 God is, indeed, holy in himself. But that is only rightlyunderstood if it is simultaneously interpreted to mean that he makesothers holy.309 And that holds true in the same way about conceptslike judgment, righteousness, virtue, and wisdom of God, "It isthat through which we are wise, strong, righteous and humble, or

judged."310 Thus, something decisive becomes clear: the properworks of God are not aimed at facts but rather at human existence.

God's works, in the proper sense, are those which he effects in us.311

But if God's proper and immediate action [handeln]is an interventioninto human existence, then certainly the causative interpretationmust become identical with the cognitive. "God knows thethoughts of men, that they are vain," simultaneously means thathe causes us to know that our thoughts are vain.312 "He remembersus"; that is, "he brings it about that we remember him."313 "Heturns us to dust"; that is, "he leads us to the realization that we

are dust."314 "God ascends not in nature, but rather in our knowledge and love."315 ThefirstLectures on the Psalms are full of examplesof this existentialist interpretation of theological expressions, thatis, for Luther, tropological exposition. God's activity and a person'sself-understanding of existence stand in indissoluble correlation.God thus acts through the Word, and this activity is inseparablycausative and cognitive: causative while it is cognitive, and cognitivewhile it is causative. But through existentialist interpretation, a

definite direction is indicated for tropological exposition. An example can eludicate this brightly: "Turn away your wrath" is notto be understood as a plea for a change of the facts outside of humanexistence, but rather as a plea for the conversion of human existence.316 Thus, Luther never loses sight of the fact that the conversionof human existence is effected by God's own conversion with respectto human existence, that is, through the incarnation and theCross.317 So to be converted to God means to be converted to

Christ.318 And by this is disclosed both the right and the necessityof existentialist interpretation. Christological interpretation is its


14/19


carnation signifies nothing else than the Cross. Thus the tropological exegesis fastens Christ and human existence together. "God'srighteousness . . . , interpreted tropologically, is faith in Christ."320

That is the fundamental principle of Luther's doctrine ofjustification in the first Lectures on the Psalms. And thereby, for Luther,"the tropological sense is the ultimate and principally intended senseof Scripture."321

But that means at the same time: the scheme ofthe Quadriga isshattered from within. Reduced to the point on which the wholequestion turns: he has finally proven the literal-prophetic sense andthe tropological sense to be identical. For in Christ God and man

are one. Therein lies not only a negative hermeneutical consequence, namely, the abandoning of the Quadriga; but also a positiveone, namely, that the assertions about God in Scripture are to beinterpreted existentially, that is, as assertions offaith.

This analysis ofthe hermeneutical problem at the beginning ofLuther's theological development has not come close to exhaustingthe profuse material. Many questions and problems remain in connection to the material. In spite ofthis deficiency and limitation,

I hope I have contributed something to the clarification of the question ofhow the genesis ofReformation theology is connected withthe hermeneutical problem and why it led to a radical change inthe history ofhermeneutics.

N O T E S

257. On the following see 55:1.1, 4.36^ (3.n.2off.).258. E. V. Dobschutz, "Vom vierfachen Schriftsinn," in Harnack-Ehrung. 1921, i. Prob

ably Luther took over the paradigmatic treatment ofJerusalem according to the fourfold

sense ofScripture from Lyra, cf. Evangelische Evangelienauslegung, 131 . 8.

259 Evangelische Evangelienauslegung, ^. Further references there.

260. 3:285.29^ 552.23^ 6i2.29f, 619.37^ 627.351. Luther indeed never mentions the name

of Tyconius. The rules were common property of the Middle Ages. They are treated in

detail, e.g., also by Lyra in the second prologue to his Postil, even if it is done there in

dependence on the report which Isidor of Seville gives in his Sententiarum de summo bono

libri tres. Cf. Evangelische Evangelienauslegung, 132f. Luther was familiar with the rules

Tyconius also from Augustine's De doctrina Christiana. This workwas contained in the col

lection of the writings ofAugustine which Luther worked through when he was Sententiarius


15/19

THE BE GI NN IN GS OF LUTHER'S HERME NEUT ICS 465

in which he obviously assumes the hermeneutical principles of Lyra, advocating the literal

meaning. The "observance" of these rules which Luther employed already in the Dictata (a

fact that eluded Bauer) has nothing at all to do with avoding allegory.

261. 55:1.1, 6.22-24 (3:13.41*.)

262. 55:1.1, 6.1-10,15 (3:12.11-13, 32). Cf. the edition and commentary of this section byE. Vogelsang in BoA [Luthers Werke in Auwahi, ed. by Otto Clemen] 5:46.8-48, 12.I

have dealt with the Praefatio in greater detail: "Luthers Psalterdruck vom Jahre 1513," Zeit

schrift fr Theologie undKirche 50 (1953) (43-99) 80-99. A certain overlapping unfortunately

could not be avoided with respect to the function of these expositions in the two essays.

263.1 used the edition of 1498-1502, the second volume of which contains the Exposition

of the Psalms.

264. 4:27.27. Cf. . . Meissinger, Luthers Exegese In DerFrhzeit (Leipzig: Heinsius,

1911), p. 86.

265. 55:1.1, 6.1-3 (3 ' -3)

266. 55:1.1, 6.4-9 (3: 2

4-9)267. 55:1.1, 6.-2 (3:12.20-13.3).268. 55:1.1, 6.22-,5 (3:13.4-32).269. Thus, for example, in the Glossa Ordinaria.270. 55:1.1, 6.25-8.7 (3:13.6-13).271. Cf . . Meissinger (see above . 264), 86. F. Hahn, Zeitschriftfr Systematische

Theologie 12 (1934/35):i7if. J. Hilburg, "Luther und das Wort Gottes in seiner Exegese und

Theologie, dargestellt auf Grund seiner operationes in psalmos 1519/21 in Verbindung mit

seinen frheren Vorlesungen," Diss. Marburg/Lahn 1948,54f.

272. 4:475.1fr., uff., 3:73.32fr".

273 4-*47

6-

Ioff

274. 55:1,1, 48.12 (3:73-33)275. 3:i88.i2ff., 284.27fr"., 299.271F., 543.36fr*., 544.i6fF., 610.35fr., and so forth.27

6 3

:55-3

6f f-

277. 4:492.6.

278. Compare the remarkable change of expression in 4:379.35-39: In principali sensu et

literali... m spirituali sensu et principali.

279. 4:226.25^

280. The following observation, which is in my opinion decisive for the relationship

between Faber's and Luther's hermeneutics, has not been recognized by F. Hahn in its

significance.

281. 4:305.6-8.282. 4:4

2-33 166.311"., 175.21. Cf. y^s-itf.

282. 55:2.1, 62.i5fF. (3:46.17fr.).284. 55:1.1, 6.32-34 (3:i2.34f.).285. 55:1.1, 4.20-22 (3.11.33-35).286. 4:35-7

f-

287. 55:2.1, 63-iof. (3*.46.28f.).288. 55:2.1, 63.i5f. (3:46.32^).289. 3:369.1-10.

290. 55:1.1, 8.8ff. (3:13.14fr.).291.

E. Hirsch (see above . 24) 167 (33^) . Holl. Ges. Aufs. I: 546. E. Vogelsang (seeabove . 26) passim. F. Hahn, ZSTh 12 (934/35)65. E. Seeberg, Luthers Theologie II:6ff.

29

2 3

:43537 39


16/19

466 LU TH ER AN QUARTERLY

297. 4-.387.5f., 264.1fr*. cf. also the use of the term, reputare, 4:389.2.

298. 3:443.10fr., 45o.27f., 526.if., and so forth.

299. 4:262.32^ Compare especially with reference to the concept of God, 3:406.38fr.

300. 3:i52.7f.

301. 55:2.1, 45.6fr. (3:35.76.). A Gyllenkrok, Rechfertigung undHeiligung in der Frheevangelischen Theologie Luthers, (Uppsala: Lundequistska, 1952), 13, has remarked on the stat

ments above that one "has to distinguish two things within the tropological exegesis of

Luther, first the theological statements about God's and Christ's work second the statements

about existence or nature of God." And, he claims that "Luther has already at an early time

used the tropological application of the former statements," while a corresponding application

of the existence statements are found only later in the Lectures on the Psalms. I stressed

earlier the statement from the larger context which is cited in this note, namely 55:2.1, 45.15-17 (3:35.i6f.): For God is so good that whatever he immediately does, is nothing but the

highest joy and delight. Gyllenkrok considers this the simple statement that God's action is

good because he himself is good so that it is not at all a "transvaluation of a theological

statement of existence." According to him, it is not by accident that all the examples cited

by me, "which truly show that Luther interprets God's existence as action, are of a much

later date." The distinction to which Gyllenkrok points seems to me to be quite problematic

for a detailed investigation of what is the distinctiveness of Luther's application of the tro

pological interpretation, how it originated and how it developed. In the treatment above I

have limited myself to a summarizing characterization of the date in the first Lectures on the

Psalms without asking the question concerning an internal chronological differentiation. To

examine Gyllenkrok's assumption would necessitate a repeated thorough investigation of the

entire text of the Dictata. However, one would also have to consider the relationship to the

tradition. In the present essay I had been satisfied, without proving it in detail, with the

statement that Luther's understanding of the tropological interpretation has been transformedthoroughly in comparison with the tradition and that this is conditioned by the way in which

here the christological interpretation enters into a connection with causative and cognitive

interpretation of theological statements. Neither the christological interpretation in itself is

something new, nor do the causative and the cognitive interpretation of (primarily anthro

pomorphous) statements about God lack a prototype in the tradition. Cf., e.g., the material

in 55:1.1, 14. 236. and as well as 55:2.1, 42.if. and K. Only after a thorough investigationof the relationship to the tradition in this point, can one approach the answer to thatquestion

which is the real interest of Gyllenkrok, namely how the origin of the application of tro

pological interpretation which is characteristic of Luther is related to the discovery of the

understanding of the righteousness of God. In the discussion above, I did not intend to makefindings concerning the chronological development of that which I established there as the

hermeneucal structure. The more subtly the genetic and tradition-historical method of

investigation is applied, the more insight we will gain in my opinion into the complexity

of a process which escapes punctilious fixation. Finally in regard to the quotation I cited, I

concede to Gyllenkrok that it is not a direct proof for the interpretation of God's existence

as self-communication. I had not claimed the passage for this. It served only as a connecting

link between the statement on the action of God as self-communication and the statement

that the true works of God are the spiritual works. All together this was to lead to the

application of causative and cognitive interpretation. Those who consider the context will

recognize that 55:1.1, 45.6-46,14 (3:35-7-32) belong definitely into this connection.

302. 4:269.25.

33- 3:53-2l f-
http://4-.387.5f/http://4-.387.5f/


17/19

THE BE GI NNI NG S OF LUTHER'S HER MENE UTIC S 467

308. 3:529.33.309. 4:238.1, 162.nf.310. 3:465.33-55; 4:22.36, 197.34t311. 3:541.39

312. 3:592.36-38.33- 3:539-7f-314. 4:i7I-23f-315. 3:124.7. In referring to this passage, A. Brandenburg (see above n. 31), 139., thinks:

"Here it is clearly evident that a fact in the events of salvation, the ascension, i.e., a historicaleventaccording to the title of the Psalm and the context it cannot be in doubt that Christ'sascension is here at least includedis not only made present cognitively but that it becomesexistent as such at all only in the recognition." I consider even the formulation of the problem,which here is decisive according to Brandenburg, 136, as quite unsatisfactory: "Can in Lutherthe distinctiveness of a converging of 'objective' reality of salvation and 'subjective' appropriation of salvation in the word be found? Does the 'objective' work of salvation stand initselfand does the word bring me knowledge of it in an intentional, represented manner,or is it so that the work of salvation takes place for the first time here and now in the wordof judgment and gospel?" Even a modern exegetical "actualism" and "existentialism" whichBrandenburg constantly has in view probably does not assert the latter. That Luther did nothave the slightest doubt concerning the unique event character of the events of salvation,such as cross and resurrection of Christ, results (leaving aside the theological weightinesswhich for him depended on it) already from the fact that those modernly conceived alternatives had to be completely foreign to the thinking of a person in the 16th century.Unnecessarily let me point to Luther's gloss on Ps. 17:1 (the above statement is found in thescholion on Ps. 17:11), 3:112.34.: .. . because it completely took place on the day of the

passion of Christ, therefore it must be understood on and for that day that these things aredone for him by God which he has told in that Psalm. Cf. the annotation on Faber's Quine.Psalt. Ps. 17:1: And yet these things which are put below, have not taken place in David'sliberation but in Christ's passion and resurrection. Therefore they must be understood asreferring to Christ. For the rest Luther does not interpret Ps. 17:10 (He [i.e., God] rode ona cherub), despite the formulation of the summarium, either in the gloss or in the scholionas referring to the resurrection of Christ. He speaks of Christ in this connection only becausehe ties God's ascending in our knowledge and love to the descending which must precede.3:124.10-14: But this ascending does not take place unless he previously descended. Just asChrist previously descended and later ascended. Because no one has ascended into heaven

except the one who descended (John 3:13), i.e., no one has come to the knowledge of thedivinity, except the one who previously became humiliated and has descended into self-knowledge, for there he finds at the same time the knowledge of God. It does not at allmean that a "factwhich is a historical factis seen as dependent for its existence on theone who recognizes it. And probably not elsewhere either. For what is it supposed to meanwhen a historical fact is to be thought of as dependent in its facticity on the one whorecognizes it? That a certain "existentialist" interpretation, especially of (primarily anthropomorphous or anthropopathic) statements concerning God's acting was familiar already inthe tradition, can be read in Luther's own writing in the scholion on Ps. 17.3:127.8.: .. .God is called such, i.e., spiritually, because he makes us such, according to Bernhard. (Lutherrefers to Bernhard, In Cant. serm. 69, 7.8. I owe this reference to a communication by letterfrom R. Schwarz.) Here we find also the passage Isa. 26:12 which is cited repeatedly byLuther for such a figure of interpretation. Cf. 55:2.1, 45.6-46,14 (3:35-7-32). The distinction


18/19

468 L U T HE R A N QU A R T E R L Y

tological interpretation, see below, ad loc. I believe so to have done justice to the state ofaffairs in Luther.

316. 4:1.i6f., 7.26.317. 4:2.if., 246.; 8.6fi.; 52.10. The "in us" in the first Lectures on the Psalms never lets

the "outside ofus" become soft. Moreover, the genuine meaning of the Lutheran "outsideof us" would still need clarification in comparison with the ordinary understanding ofthisformula. Since I would have to refer to some passages of the Lectures on Romans, this taskwould exceed the limits set for the task of the present essay. Cf. now K.-H. zur Mhlen,"Nos Extra Nos. Eine begrifTsgeschichtliche Studie zu Luthers Theologie." Diss. Zurich1969.

318. 4:7.8f.391. 4:19.31-34.320. 3:466.26.321. 3:335.21., 531.33fr.


19/19

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sanchezmelado
View:	233 times
Download:	4 times

Ebeling, Gerhard.The Beginnings of Luther's Hermeneutics 3.pdf

Documents