This is the second installment in our article series, “An Introduction to the Bondage of the Will,” written to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will.
Luther’s Bondage of the Will (1525) is often thought of as a grand testimony to divine grace, or a brutal indictment of human sin. At the heart of this book, as Luther says, is the “jugular” of the matter when it comes to the gospel: does human salvation depend on anything in us, even the vestiges of free will? Or does it depend entirely upon God’s power and work? Luther takes up the second alternative: to God alone belongs all the glory of our salvation and the credit for accomplishing it.
Less often is Luther’s treatise understood as an argument about Scripture. Yet indeed, Luther’s dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam begins with the latter’s Freedom of the Will (1524), consisting of a series of arguments appealing to Scripture and defending human freedom in salvation. At issue in the dispute between these two figures is not only the right interpretation of Scripture; but also the nature and authority of Scripture.
At the heart of Erasmus’ teaching on freedom is that it makes a good deal of sense to common reason that people have free choice. When Scripture appears to rule out the possibility of human freedom, Erasmus then argues that Scripture is unclear. He therefore appeals both to reason and to other passages that he believes prove free choice. At first blush, Erasmus seems to be applying the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter (scriptura sui ipsius interpres). This principle is famously given in Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine, where the bishop of Hippo contends that light passages should illuminate obscure ones.
Scripture is clear––“perspicuous” is the English term of Latin origin. It is sinful human beings, and even their reason itself, which are dark and obscure.
However, Erasmus has instead taken a further step––one with which Luther will disagree. Scripture itself is suspect before the light of human reason, which involves a subtle but very important reversal. It is not Scripture, in this case, that illuminates itself and its readers, but human reason which can appeal to common sense or the consensus of reasonable people. Such a consensus that people generally have free choice, to one degree or another, sweeps away all biblical assertion to the contrary.
In response to this, Luther attacks the method of argument Erasmus employs in Freedom of the Will. Scripture is clear––“perspicuous” is the English term of Latin origin. It is sinful human beings, and even their reason itself, which are dark and obscure. The light of God’s word illuminates faithfully because, as God’s own utterance, it contains no falsehood (see Num. 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18).
Scripture therefore has both an inner and outer clarity. Its inner clarity lies in the fact that law and gospel both shine a light upon the darkened human heart. First the law does so by exposing human sin, magnifying it to an unbearable degree (see Rom. 5:20). The gospel illuminates the heart with the light of Christ who remakes all things with his word. The outer clarity of Scripture consists in the public proclamation of the gospel which is the ministry of the church. Like the human heart, the world is a dark, obscure, and sinful place. The light of God’s word shows us the truth about this world––both its captivity to sin and God’s will to remake all things.
It is Scripture that interprets its readers, not the other way around.
In this way, Luther’s argument for scriptural clarity solves the conundrum of conflicting interpretations by revealing the bondage of the will. Because the will is bound, conflicting readings and unclear interpretation rest in the interpreters of Scripture, not in the Bible itself. The truth is that human beings captivated by sin and the power of the devil have no capacity to interpret the Bible––as if the text were simply a passive object of human perception. Instead, it is Scripture that interprets its readers, not the other way around.
What this reveals is that sinners are self-interested readers. They alone are responsible for their conflicting interpretations, despite the fact that they’re compelled by the falsehood of sin. Self-interested readers are also attracted to the idea of free will, since this notion elevates the sovereignty of the old sinful self. God’s word teaches instead that the old sinful self is the enemy to be crucified and raised by the potent word of God.
It's here with Luther’s argument about the clarity of Scripture and human bondage that we find the origin of the classic Protestant teaching of sola scriptura–Scripture alone. Human reason and the tradition of the church all have their place, and their divinely given purposes renewed and strengthened by the Holy Spirit. But the only sure foundation is God’s word preached verbally, given with the sacraments physically, and inscribed in the text of the Bible. Since the human will is bound, the truest kind of human freedom is the certainty that God alone is free, faithful, and trustworthy––chiefly in the word he gives to us.
