Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
by G E R H A R D E B E L I N G
*Here we publish part two of the three-part serialization of Ebeling's investigation of the
beginnings of Luther's hermeneutics. Part three will appear in our winter 1993 issue.
315
316 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY
rather only in the Word in its correlation to faith does the rec-
ognition come that the hiddenness under a contrary is not an ob-
jective condition but rather hints at the clamping-together of
christology and existential understanding. And therefore the con-
nection between Word and faith signifies that the relationship to
Christ has something to do with the problem of understanding:
That Christ is Lord we have only by hearing in faith."163 "It is the
nature of the Word to be heard."164
So here the whole dualism is further broken open. What kind
of Word is it then? And what kind of hearing is it? Is it an external
Word, proclaimed vocally and heard by the ear? Or is it an internal
and invisible Word, spoken directly in the heart and heard interi-
orly?165 If it simply happens to us, then it is certainly a human word
and of the letter. For only when it happens in us is it God's Word
and of the Spirit.166 Upon this hangs the question of the "efficacious
Word." For "the Word of God has motive power above all
things," 167 and is thus not only a "teaching power" but also a "mo-
tivating power."168 The antithesis between the external Word as
letter and the internal Word as spirit sometimes seems for Luther
to be stretched right to the breaking point. Yet the tension is not
broken. It does not come to the point of rendering God's speaking
interiorly over against the letter of Scripture. "God uses our words
. . . as tools with which He Himself writes living words in our
hearts."169 Luther has nothing to do with the psychological problem
of how, in general, a word which has been perceived with the senses,
read, or heard can penetrate into the heart. In a formal sense, each
word is able to beget living letters in the heart, "since nothing
could be received into a living subject unless it were living."170 In
this formal sense, the spirit is certainly always hidden in the letters.
The question, rather, is how, through the literal Word, the Spirit
of God can write such living letters into the heart, letters which
are enlivened by God. Here the idea of hiddenness under a contrary
holds good. In fact: "the spirit is concealed in the letter."171 But,
in this theological sense, the spirit is not concealed in every letter,
but only in the Holy Scripture, because Scripture is the testimony
of Christ. But then the Scripture is not the Word of God in the
sense of an objective report. Rather, we can now formulate it suit-
ably as follows: the Word of God is hidden in Scripture. But if the
Word of God is encountered in this way through the Holy Scrip-
ture, then it is obviously determined by the understanding of Scrip-
T H E B E G I N N I N G S OF L U T H E R ' S H E R M E N E U T I C S 321
The first problem is as follows: Can only the person who exists
spiritually know about the possibility of these two mutually exclu-
sive understandings of existence? Moreover, can only one who is
himself a believer expound the Scripture rightly? The Dictata offer
rich material for these questions, material which seems to be attuned
to a single keynote: Only one who is illumined by the Holy Spirit,
only the believer, can understand and expound the Scripture. Yet
we would make this matter too easy if we felt content with this
information and thereby allowed all further hermeneutical reflec-
tions to be truncated. That Luther so interrelates faith and under-
standing characterizes the existential thrust of his theological
thought. It is not an inability to draw distinctions, but rather the
power of integration, which impels him not to place theological
assertions next to each other as separate objects of thought nor to
bring them into a Scholastic system, but rather to lay hold of what
is objectively separated where it all comes together at a single point
and is no longer an object but rather an event, namely in human
existence. And, indeed, in human existence understood as one or
the other of these two ways. And this self-understanding of hu-
manity stands, in turn, in an indissoluble correlation to the under-
standing of that which encounters humanity. Luther's assertions
about humanity are chiefly governed by categories of understanding
like sapere (sense), sentire (feeling), cognoscere (knowledge), intelligere
(intelligence), and so forth. But then, if all theological assertions
are understood in their existential thrust, it is a self-evident con-
sequence that the anthropological categories in Luther's theological
vocabulary (like caro [flesh], spiritus [spirit], mens [mind], cor [heart],
anima [soul], conscientia [conscience], affectus [affect or emotion], vol-
untas [will], intellectus [intellect or understanding], etc.) play a large
role. And therefore, because the theological assertions are set in
connection with human existence, the anthropological categories
obtain a peculiar ambivalence. For example, the question of what
the term spiritus means in any given case does not resolve itself into
324 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY
entirely before God, and even to refer all assertions about God to
human existence before God. That is why the expressions in Scrip-
ture such as conspectu dei, coram deo, apud deum, and ante deum are so
abundant.184 Self-understanding before God and knowledge of God
are one and the same. For self-understanding before God is precisely
the opposite ofthat self-observation by which God's and humanity's
relatedness to one another is torn apart in such a way that one
considers only oneself and God considers only himself. To be "in
conspectu dei" certainly means simultaneously that God sees and
humanity is seen, and that humanity sees and God is seen. The
"sight of God" is simultaneously to be understood actively and
passively. "Because [God] sees us; so he makes himself seen by us."185
If we keep in view this kind of theological thinking in Luther, we
will be able to rightly evaluate his many assertions about the right
disposition for understanding Scripture, the necessity of faith, the
spiritual understanding, the conformity of affect, humility, and so
forth. Although echoes of the heritage of mysticism resonate here
(one thinks of such expressions as "rapture" and "ecstasy"), Luther
inserts them in such a fashion as to accentuate the existential thrust
of all theological statements. It would cast everything into a false
light if we made of this something obvious and at one's disposal,
so that the person who reads or interprets Scripture observes, himself
as to his possession of the Spirit, his own humility, how he is affected
and thus attempts to prove himself before others. "Even if the effi-
cacious word of the gospel stands with the empassioned soul, it nevertheless
does not [stand] from the empassioned soul."186 If one tries to make this
existential understanding into a method of exegesis, he has not
understood what the terms "existential" and "before God" mean,
nor that being-spiritual is a being-hidden under a contrary. Here
the hermeneutical circle comes into play, which even Luther knows:
"How are we able to become illumined, unless we become blind? And how
will we become blind, unless we are illumined?"187 Whoever attempts
to understand and expound Scripture should take into account all
that Luther says about the relationship of faith and understanding.
But he should not commit the folly of basing the method of his
exegesis upon some alleged unity of faith and understanding which
he presumes to have found in himself. For we have God's Word
only in actu..188 But human existence is a constant being-underway,
and as movement, is but an "incomplete act, always partly acquired and
partly to be acquired, always in between contraries and consisting from one
326 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY
end and to another. "189 Human existence is "an advance from act to
act" and therefore also "from understanding to understanding, from
faith to faith."190 And this process is nothing other than a perpetual
beginning.191 What was previously spirit for someone is now letter
for him.192 Thus, the trinitarian dogma was spirit to the fourth
century, while to us it is now letter.193 For the acquired understand-
ing is always letter in view of the acquiring understanding.194 The
step on which one finds oneself is always letter in light of that
which lies before him.195 This readiness to leave what lies behind
as letter and to stretch oneself out after the spirit;196 to observe
oneself not as the one who illuminates but as the one who is to be
illuminated;197 to know that "every passage in Scripture is to be
infinitely investigated {infinite intelligentie)198—all this means to take
Scripture seriously as a testimony, namely, as a "Testimonia eorum,
que nondum intellexisti."199 The knowledge of this dialectic of un-
derstanding is "the fear of the Lord which is the beginning of
wisdom."200 Therefore let no one appeal to Luther in support of
the idea that scriptural exegesis is "spiritual" only if the exegete
himself is in possession of the Spirit. For one can speak of a "spiritual
exposition" only in cases where the exposition is oriented by the
distinction between spirit and letter.
toward the same thing, however many there are."201 And indeed:
"In Christ all words are one Word, and outside of Christ they are
many and vain."202 It is evidently quite otherwise if we approach
the Scripture and try to prove the accuracy of this thesis exegetically.
The issue which traditionally made the unity of Scripture problem-
atic and generated the greatest difficulties for Christian exegesis
naturally gave impetus to intensive exegetical efforts in Luther's
exposition of the Psalms as well, namely, the relationship of the
Old and New Testaments. For in the Old Testament, Jews and
Christians struggle against each other, like Esau and Jacob in the
womb of Rebecca.203 If it is said that one must first have the New
Testament in order to understand the Old,204 then it would surely
be conceded to Jewish exegesis that the Old Testament, taken for
itself, leads to this exegesis. But is it not the single correct her-
meneutical standpoint to expound the Old Testament purely from
its own contents? How can one justify it hermeneutically to proceed
otherwise in order to prove that Jewish exegesis is a mistaken in-
terpretation? Luther even goes so far as to say: "If the Old Testament
could be expounded by human sense without the New Testament,
I would say that the New Testament then is given for nothing."205
This means that the New Testament is the exposition of the Old
Testament; therein its meaning expends itself. Thus, according to
this perspective, which in itself is entirely traditional, the Old and
New Testaments relate to each other like text and exposition. This
means not only that single passages of the Old Testament find their
exposition in the New, but also that the Old Testament as a whole
is text and the New Testament as a whole is exposition. And the
general problem, how text and exposition relate to each other,
wherein they are one and wherein they are distinct, is thus the same
as the problem of the unity and the differentiation of the Old and
the New Testaments. Thus, not only does the hermeneutical prob-
lem arise for the person who approaches the exposition of the Holy
Scripture, but that problem is inherent in Scripture itself. And in-
deed, the two-part canon of Scripture, with Old and New Testa-
ments, with text and exposition, not only poses the hermeneutical
problem thus, but actually claims according to this understanding
to offer the solution to the hermeneutical problem. In the way in
which the New Testament is the exposition of the Old, the au-
thoritative paradigm is given for a general method of approaching
the exposition of a text. This thought, that the Holy Scripture is,
328 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY
through the death of the old. Thus is the agreement of the Old
and New Testaments to be understood: "the Old and the New Law
come together, just as the old man is slain and the new man is
revived. . . . And so they come together amicably."241
And what is it that is conducive to the correct exposition of the
Old Testament? Luther says repeatedly: "The spiritually understood
Law is identical with the Gospel."242 Now does that mean that the
Old Testament allegorically interpreted is identical with the gospel?
Obviously not! It means, rather, that the law, understood as the
killing letter, is one with the gospel; and conversely, that the "lit-
erally-understood law"243 is the same understanding of the law which
finds the law to be sufficient and does not recognize it as the killing
letter. So, are there then two possible ways to understand the old
law? Indeed so! Yet these two possibilities of understanding are not
divided in such a way that, besides the literal sense, the letter still
also has an allegorical sense, but rather in such a way that man can
understand his relationship to one and the same law in two quite
different ways. It is one and the same state of affairs, namely, the
old law as the killing letter, in which two understandings of human
existence part company. The one does not understand himself to
be killed by the law. But precisely then the law is, in fact, the
killing letter. The other does understand himself to be killed by
the law. But precisely then the killing letter points the way to the
life-giving spirit. That the old law is the promise of the new law
is thus not based on the fact that besides being of the killing letter,
it is something different from it. Instead, its character as the killing
letter is its promissory character. For "the Old Law understood
spiritually is nothing but the crucifixion of the flesh."244 Luther
tries to make this clear with a very graphic picture. The statement
in Psalm 103:2 (104:2), "You stretch heaven out like a tent," Luther
interprets allegorically of the old law. It divides between the waters
above the firmament and below the firmament, namely between
spirit and letter. The Jews, who stand under the law and therefore
only have its inferior parts, only see its concave side. Conversely,
Christians, who stand above the law and therefore have its superior
parts, recognize its convex side.245 Both possibilities of understand-
ing the law therefore do not fall apart like its literal and allegorical
meaning, but rather presuppose the identity of the letter which,
described pictorially, is therefore convex on one side precisely be-
cause it is concave on the other, and is therefore promise precisely
THE B E G I N N I N G S OF L U T H E R ' S H E R M E N E U T I C S 333
because it is the killing letter. One might immediately veil this state
of affairs with allegorical meaning. The insight into the distinction
of letter and spirit in the sense of law and gospel thus has her-
meneutical consequences. It compels us to abandon the allegorical
interpretation of the Old Testament.
But are we not making a gross mistake? Must we not sharply
distinguish between law and Old Testament? As much as Luther
does this later, in the first Lectures On The Psalms the concepts are
still enmeshed for him. Old and New Testaments stand against
each other as old law and new law. And yet, in these very lectures,
the way is paved for the later distinction between law and the Old
Testament in consequence of his correct differentiation between
spirit and letter. Luther recognizes that already in the time of the
Old Testament itself, both understandings of human existence were
struggling with each other. The Pharisaic understanding of the law
opposed the prophetic.246 The former took the law only as letter;
that is, their understanding of human existence was defined by the
law as something perfect. They had their justification in the law.
The latter, on the contrary, had both the spirit and the letter at
once; that is, their understanding of human existence was defined
by the law as something imperfect, and therefore as passing away.
They did not attempt to achieve justification through the law, but
rather prayed for it, "as the letter retreats, the Spirit advances; the
veil is removed, the face appears; Christ comes and Moses leaves."247
So they had not the naked letter, but rather a letter which was
hiding the things of the spirit.248 And yet Luther made a distinction:
they did not have a revealed faith, but rather only a simple literal
faith;249 that is, they did have the Spirit in simple hiddenness, yet
still not in hiddenness under a contrary.250 Furthermore, Luther
begins to understand that the time of the law and the time of grace
are not simply chronologically successive,251 that even the gospel
can become for someone an "impossible law."252 For "until now
the one who is under sin is also under the law."253 This yields a
deep insight into the relationship of the Old and New Testaments
and into the necessity of both Testaments for the church. Psalm
103:10 (104:10) says this: "You cause fountains to spring forth in
the valleys, that water may flow between the mountains." Luther
interprets this pictorially: The two mountains which form a deep
valley are the Old and New Testaments. The mountains are dif-
ferent: the one is a mere hill in comparison to the other. The peak
334 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY
of the Old Testament is the glory of the world; the peak of the
New Testament is the glory of heaven. And yet these two come
together in the bottom of the same valley, in one root of truth. In
this valley the church finds itself in this life: "In this life one lives
in between two mountains namely, between the corresponding old
and new law."254 Therefore the church is reminded that its existence
is a pilgrimage, an existence between the times, that is, between
the time of the law and the time of grace. For just as the people
of the Old Testament were shadows of the future people, so too,
the present church is the shadow of the future church.255 For "shad-
ows" do not signify something static, but rather movement and
even destruction.256 As the way of the Old Testament leads to the
New, so the way of the church also leads toward its fulfillment
only over the Cross of Christ.
Has something therefore changed with respect to Old Testament
exposition? Indeed, in the first Lectures On The Psalms, Luther be-
lieves it is necessary to emphasize the prophetic character of the
Old Testament by means of allegorization. And even if he, along
with Faber Stapulensis, understands the prophetic meaning of the
Psalms christologically as the literal sense, this still does not over-
come allegory in principle; on the contrary, it is the alleged legi-
timation for it. But amid this christological interpretation, which
is so strongly oriented by the Cross, the hermeneutical change
breaks in. For if the decisive connection of the Old and New Tes-
taments lies in the Cross of Christ, such that precisely there a
revolutionary change in one's understanding of human existence
takes place, and precisely there the law is brought to light as law,
then one can confidently, and of necessity, expound the Old Tes-
tament literally and keep free from all allegorical whitewashing, so
that the Old is really seen to be the Old; and we must leave it only
to the literal understanding to determine to what extent a new
understanding of human existence already announces itself in the
Old Testament which has an inkling that the law is the killing
letter. Thus, Luther's struggle with the relationship of spirit and
letter in the first Lectures On The Psalms had already laid the ground
for the hermeneutical change which first became visible in 1516,
and even then, not with all its practical consequences.
T H E B E G I N N I N G S OF L U T H E R ' S H E R M E N E U T I C S 335
NOTES
2 2 f
139. 55:2.1, 73.13-15 (3:5 - 5 ·)·
140. 55:1.1, 86.7 (3:93.12).
141. 3:i24.3off.
142. 3:4ii.8f.
143. 4:83.i6ff.
144. 4:449.35^
145· y-302.ig{.
146. 3:203.22f.
: 8 2 f
*47- 3 35 - 9 -
148. 3:112.25.
149. 3:463.15fr.
150. CF. 4:82.14fr.
151. 3:166.22.
0
152. 3:150.16fr. and 27η .
1 26
ΐ53· 4Η5°·39-4:45 · ·
ΐ54· Certainly it is correct that in the Reformation the Word of God takes the place
which in the Roman Church is taken by the sacraments. Luther himself can later designate
the effect of the word as sacramental in order to demonstrate the viewpoint of the efficacy
of the Word. But it must not be overlooked that the difference from the Catholic conception
lies already in the understanding of the nature of sacramental efficacy.
*55· 3 : 2 79·3°-3 2 ·
156. 4:310.29Í. E. Iserloh (see above n. 31) 78 in his critique of my explanation objects:
"But does in the sacraments an exhibition of the present things take place?" I cannot enter
here into the history of Catholic sacramental terminology. But that the term "exhibit"
occurs exactly in the context of the doctrine of the eucharist and a justification of the adoration
of the Host and of the Corpus Christi Procession can be attested by mag Tri. Sess. XIII can.
8 (it is not important that this text is of a later date than the passages in Luther under
discussion). It speaks explicitly of Christ as exhibited in the eucharist (Denz. 1658 [890]).
In can. 6 it says—compare this with my remark below at n. 159—: If someone should say
that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to
be adored also in the external cult of worship, and is not to be venerated with an appropriate
festive celebrity, and is not to be carried around in the processions according to the praise-
worthy and universal rite and custom of the Holy Church, or not publicly to be presented
to the people so that he should be adored, and that those who adore him are idolaters: let
him be condemned. (Denz. 1656 [888]). Unfortunately Iserloh does not discuss my con-
trasting of the statements of Luther with the piety and theology of the sacraments which
stand behind the text quoted. But in my opinion, it cannot be set aside with the rhetorical
question, "But does in the sacraments an exhibition of the present things take place?"
157. 4:272.i6f.
158. 4:376.13^
159. 4:272.17^
160. 4:376.15^
161. Here it must be emphasized, in harmony with n. 154, that it is not in contradiction
with this when Luther following Augustinian terminology, calls Christ a sacrament.
162. 3:124.37^
163. 4:8.341"·
164. 4:9.i8f.
165. Compare on this question especially 3:255.336°.
166. 4:9.286°.
336 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY
2
°4- 3 : 373-3 of -
205. 55:1.1, 6.26f. (3-.12.29f.).
206. 55:1.1,100.116°. (3:99.236°.). 3:119.356, 224.25., 245.29., 43 2 - I 5 f f -> 435- 2 7 f ·» 4 4 °
560.46°., 564.76; 4:141.i6f., 167.366, 433.4if., 468.226, 4 6 9 . 2 9 6 , 492.26°., 507.216°.
20
7 · 3:59o·1-12·
208. 3:608.36
209. 55:2.1, 115.96°. (3:97.186°.).
210. 4:1.246°., 51.31.
211. 3:116.56
212. 3:286.3.
213. 3:285.22.
214· 3 : 455- 2 9 f -
215· 4:233.226
216. 4:69.256
217. 3:561.66°.
218. 3 : 3 3 6 - 3 3 f · ' 4:164.186°.
219· 3 : 34i-i3 f f -
220. 4:245.236°.
221. 3:456.14-16.
222. 4:285.39.
223. 4:286.27.
224. 3:257.146
225. 4:2.286
226. 4:1.246°.
227. 4:237-216
228. 4:323.216°.
229. 3:164.22-26.
23°· 3 : 2 4 3 - 3 8 ·
231. 4:3°5- I 9 f f -
232. 3:129.206
233· 3 : 6 o 5 · 2 1 ·
234· 4 : ΐ 3 5 · Ι 4 ·
2
3 5 · 4:97-35 f -
236· 4:45· 2 ·
2
37· 4:454-6.
238. 4··47·3 2 ^
2
3 9 · 4 : 4 7 - 2 l f f · ' 49-24ff.
240. 4:47·39·
241. 4:176.28-30 (emphasis mine).
242. 55:1.1, 92.196 (3:96.266).
2
4 3 - 5 5 : i I > 9 2 - I 7 f - (3:96-25).
244. 4:174.176
245. 4:174.296°.
246. 55:1.1, 92.2ofF. (3:96.276 e .).
247. 4:310.386
248. 4:251.4.
249. 4:251.16°.
250. C F . 3:547.366°.
251. 4:51.31fF.
252· VAS1·22^·
338 L U T H E R A N QUARTERLY
253. 4:61.13.
254. 4:179.306°., 180.66
255. 3:608.286
256. 3:638.166°.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from 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 specific
work 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 design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.