An Introduction To
THE
THEOLOGY
OF WILLIAM TYNDALE
By Gary Ray Branscome
Although English speaking
Christians, and to a certain extent Christians around the world, owe a
great
debt of gratitude to William Tyndale, many
know
little about him. In fact, no one even knows the precise date and place
of his
birth, although there is some evidence that he was born near the border
of
While he was at the
university he had come to faith in Christ through reading the Greek New
Testament. And, while living in the home of Sir John Walsh, he resolved
to
translate the Bible into English. At that time he was primarily a
critic of
clerical ignorance and corruption who saw instruction from the
Scriptures as
the best means to promote popular piety and church reform. However,
finding
publication impossible in
Scripture Alone
Although the writings of Tyndale
are far less extensive than those of Luther, on
careful examination, there are hardly any points where disagreement
between
Luther and Tyndale can be found. Like
Luther, Tyndale believed that the Bible
constitutes the only saving
revelation from God, that personal faith in Jesus Christ as one's only
Savior
is prerequisite to the proper understanding of the sacred text, and
that
Scripture must be allowed to interpret itself. Concerning doctrine, Tyndale wrote:
All doctrine that builds… upon Christ to put your trust and confidence in His blood, is of God, and true doctrine; and all doctrine that withdraws your hope from Christ is of the devil. [Tyndale, Expositions and notes, p. 196]
That statement is in full agreement with what Luther taught. And the shared hermeneutic explains the fundamental agreement between the theology of Tyndale and Luther. Both Luther and Tyndale were committed to the doctrine of “Scripture Alone”, held firmly to the plain, grammatical, meaning of the words, put Christ in the center of all they believed and taught, and regarded the proper distinction between Law and Gospel as utterly indispensable for a correct understanding of the Bible.
Like Luther, Tyndale held that Law and Gospel are found together throughout the Bible, but that the Old Testament was primarily a book of Law and the New Testament a book of Gospel. Since man cannot possibly fulfill all the requirements of the Law, he must turn to the Gospel with its promises of mercy in Christ. [Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, pp. 8-11]
However, unlike many, who
claim to go by Scripture alone, but in truth teach their own opinions
for
doctrine, the hermeneutic followed by Luther and Tyndale
eliminated man made explanations (which the Bible calls tradition) from
the
body of doctrine, insisting that all doctrine must be clearly and
explicitly
set forth in the words of Scripture.
One of the points where some
try to drive a wedge between Tyndale and
Luther has
to do with the role of the Law in the life of the believer. Martin
Luther
taught that, insofar as the Christian man is righteous, he needs no
law. His
love for God will prompt him to do God's will with spontaneity. And,
that is undoubtedly
true in the life of a mature Christian. Once we come to faith in
Christ, the
fruit of the Holy Spirit should be evident in our lives. However, many
believers are inconsistent in their thinking, and hold to views that
hinder the
work of the Spirit. Some seek to please God through their works, others
are
blind to certain sins or rationalize sin, and some even tread the
Gospel
underfoot by using God's goodness as an excuse to sin. For that reason,
Luther,
like Tyndale, came to see that the Law
still has a
role in the life of a believer. The Law needs to be used to train the
conscience, open our eyes to our own sin, convict us of sin, and point
us to
Christ as the source of forgiveness. However, unlike those who err from
the
truth, Luther and Tyndale both saw works
as the fruit
of faith, not a cause of salvation.
While Tyndale
emphasized obedience to the state, we must never read legalistic
motives into
what he said. Unlike those who give people the impression that God's
grace is
contingent on our obedience to human authority, Tyndale
taught that the only king who possesses absolute authority is God
himself.
Earthly princes rule only by authority delegated from heaven. In their
standing
before God, rulers and subjects are equal. The Word of God is superior
to all
temporal kings, and the lowest subject armed with God's Word may
admonish a
king who violates God's Word. [Tyndale,
Expositions
and notes, pp. 36 & 86] Tyndale emphasized obedience to rulers
because the
king regarded him as a rebel, and because the followers of John
Wycliffe had
been persecuted unmercifully for over a century, simply because some of
them
had once joined a revolt. However, the fact that Tyndale
spent much of his life in hiding, and was eventually executed for
translating
the Bible into English, makes it clear that he believed we should obey
God
rather than men.
Although Luther and Tyndale
both advocated separation of church and state, they
most certainly did not advocate a total separation of Christianity and
state.
The idea of a secular society, and rulers who reject the Word of God,
refusing
to take what it says into account when framing laws, would be abhorrent
to
them. What they objected to were kings who condemned the Gospel, Popes
who led
armies, bishops who wielded political authority,
and
ecclesiastical courts with the power to try and sentence to death
anyone who
disagreed with the church.
While Luther and Tyndale
were in agreement as to the nature of the true
church, and believed that the true church (throughout history) has
consisted
only of believers, they did differ in their attitude toward the pomp
and
ceremony of the Church of Rome. While Luther saw much in the church
of Rome as beautiful, and was willing to retain much of the ceremony,
and even
statues, as long as the papal abuse and idolatry was removed, Tyndale could see no good whatsoever in the
papal church.
To him it was "a terrible chimera, devouring the life of all religion
and
all thought; or a huge, pitiless machine, remorselessly pursuing its
own
purposes. [Demanus, Tyndale,
p. 209] The difference between the way Luther saw the Church of Rome,
and the
way Tyndale saw it, may have stemmed from
the
merciless way the followers of Wycliffe were persecuted in
Because
Tyndale regarded the Church of Rome as a
perversion
of true Christianity, he detested the claim that the Pope and his
agents could
actually use the keys to permit or deny a person access to heaven.
Therefore,
instead of accepting confession as it was practiced in the church of
Rome, and
then attempting to rid it of abuses, he looked to the New Testament for
examples of how the keys are to be employed properly (Matthew 9:1-6).
Baptism
Like Luther, Tyndale
saw baptism as consisting of two parts. 1- the
divine promise, which says: “He that believes and is
baptized shall be saved.” 2- the outward
sign of God’s
forgiveness, the immersion in water from which baptism gets its name. [See
Luther’s essay on the Babylonian Captivity of the church.] Like Luther, he also
accepted infant baptism. However, he was not willing to use some of the
arguments that Luther used in defense of infant baptism. Moreover, even
though
he believed that infants were to be baptized, he did not assume that
those who
were baptized automatically received God’s gift of faith. On the
contrary, he
held that just as circumcision did not guarantee salvation to children
under
the Old Covenant, baptism does not guarantee it under the New Covenant.
“As the
circumcised in the flesh, and not in heart, have no part in God’s good
promises; even so they that are baptized in the flesh, and not in the
heart,
have no part in Christ’s blood”. [Tyndale,
Doctrinal
Treatises, p. 351.]
Just as God uses preaching
to give us His promise of forgiveness in Christ, He uses baptism to
give us
that same promise. However, it is only through personal faith in Christ
that we
receive what is promised (Romans 5:2, Galatians
Tyndale also stood with Luther in rejecting the medieval concept of the Lord’s Supper as a re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Because, the Roman doctrine denies the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, Tyndale disavowed it vehemently. [Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, pp. 359-362] As with baptism, he saw the Lord’s Supper as a ceremony that God uses to give us His promise of forgiveness in Christ, and, through that promise, His assurance of forgiveness.
However, Tyndale clearly rejected any concept of a physical presence in the Lord’s Supper. On the contrary, he argued that because, “the righteous lives by his faith; ergo, to believe and trust in Christ’s blood is the eating that there was meant.” [Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, p. 369.] In other words, when Christ said, “this is my body which is given for you” He was saying, “this is my sacrifice which I made for you”. Therefore, when we receive Christ’s sacrifice, by placing our faith in that sacrifice as the source of our salvation, we are clearly and truly receiving the body that was given for us and the blood that was shed for us, not as something to ingest, but as the atonement for our sins. Or as Luther put it:
“|in the Lord’s Supper, the word of Christ is
the testament, the bread and wine are the
sign. And as there is
greater power in the word than in the sign, so is there greater power
in the
testament than in the sign. A man can have and use the word or
testament
without the sign or sacrament. “Believe,” says Augustine, “and you have
eaten;”
but in what do we believe except in the word of Him who promises? Thus
I can
have the Lord’s Supper daily, nay hourly; since, as often as I will, I
can set
before myself the words of Christ, and nourish and strengthen my faith
in them
[i.e. the words, “My body… is given for you” and “My blood… is shed for
you”];
and this is in very truth the spiritual eating and drinking.|” [The Babylonian Captivity of the Church –
Martin
Luther.]
Therefore, even though Tyndale rejected the idea that Christ’s flesh and blood are somehow physically present in the Lord’s Supper, he did not deny that those who partake truly receive Christ’s body and blood. If we believe Christ’s words, “My body… is given for you” and “My blood… is shed for you,” we truly do receive it, not as something physical, but as the atonement for our sins. For that reason, he would have agreed unconditionally with the following statement from Luther’s Large Catechism.
“This treasure is
conveyed and
communicated to us in no other way than through the words “given and
shed for
you for the forgiveness of sins.”… And inasmuch as he offers and
promises
forgiveness of sins, there is no other way of receiving it than by
faith.… That
which is given in and with the Sacrament cannot be grasped nor
appropriated by
our body. It is accomplished by faith in the heart.” [pp. 144-145, Lenker
edition]
Even though some think that Tyndale would have disagreed with what the Formula of Concord says about a twofold eating of the flesh of Christ, or unbelievers receiving Christ’s body and blood, he was not a Zwinglian. On the contrary, unlike Zwingli, Tyndale saw the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace. The ceremony was instituted to convey grace, not through some power in the ceremony, but through personal faith in God’s promise of forgiveness through Christ’s death on the cross.
That Idea of God’s promise as the means of grace comes straight from the third chapter of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, and is at the very heart of what Lutherans believe about baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It is through faith in God’s promise of forgiveness in Christ, not some power in the ceremony, that we receive Christ’s death on the cross as the atonement for our sins. As Edward W. A. Koehler put it:
The Sacraments are means only because of the Gospel promises connected therewith. Therefore we may say that there is but one means by which the knowledge of grace and salvation, and grace and salvation itself, are imparted to us; it is the Gospel, the glad tidings of the grace of God in Christ Jesus. (“A Summary of Christian Doctrine”, p. 189)
Conclusion
Since the purpose of this
essay is to introduce the reader to what William Tyndale
believed and taught, I have made little more than passing mention of
his
greatest work, the translation of the Greek New Testament (and much of
the Old
Testament) into the English language. Moreover, because what I have
said is
largely a summary of what James Edward McGoldrick
said about William Tyndale in his book,
“Luther’s
English Connection”, some statements in this essay have been taken from
that
book with little or no alteration. Therefore, I want to give adequate
credit to
Mr. McGoldrick, and the research he has
done, and I
urge any of you who would like to know more about William Tyndale
to read the book, “Luther’s English Connection”. While I am making
recommendations, let me also recommend the movie (DVD), “God’s Outlaw,
The
Story of William Tyndale”. In my opinion,
that movie
ought to be shown in every congregation and seen by every believer.