One Book of matches lit the fire of the 16th Century Reformation. Without the return to the Bible, we might still be in bondage to the dark imaginations and cold commandments of men.

Dave did a fantastic work a couple weeks ago to define the different approaches to Scripture taken by Christian groups today. How do Presbyterians relate the Bible to creeds and confessions, what role do Charismatics give to the Holy Spirit alongside the Bible, who is allowed to interpret the Bible in Roman Catholicism? All of these, and more, concern our relationship to God’s Word. But what is so significant for us to consider tonight is that English speaking believers didn’t even bother with those debates because they didn’t have a Bible to read.

I think it’s possible to identify a particular reformer who best embodied or fought for each sola. All of the reformers believed in all of the solas (even if they never put them all together as such). And of the reformers we’ll talk about, the one that history (and the other reformers themselves) looked to first was Martin Luther. He was the initial lightening bolt, and lightening rod of the Reformation, so that those who came after him were tainted as “Lutherans.” More criticism came from him and to him than the others. His recovery of justification by faith alone overturned kingdoms.

But the doctrine of sola fide comes from reading the Scripture and William Tyndale lived and died for us to have our own copies of God’s Word in English.

Sola scriptura is called the formal principle of the Reformation, meaning that it stands at the very beginning and gives form or direction to the content (or material) of Christian belief. Without this doctrine, no Reformation would have occurred.

Sola scriptura (Latin for “Scripture alone”) is a statement about Scripture’s authority, not merely its sufficiency. Saying that Scripture is sufficient means that we believe Scripture has all the answers we need. Saying that Scripture is authoritative means that we must follow all the answers. A restaurant menu is adequate to make a choice. It reveals the options and ingredients and cost for each dish. But a menu isn’t authoritative: it doesn’t say what choice to make. Scripture isn’t a menu; it is a mandate.

You have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for

“All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
but the word of the Lord remains forever.”

And this word is the good news that was preached to you. (1 Peter 1:23–25, ESV)

The Debate in the 16th Century

The setting for William Tyndale was the early 1500’s in Europe, England in particular, where the Church kept the Bible from the people. The character of God, the nature of man, the way of salvation, the importance of the sacraments (baptism and communion), as well as the relationship between church and state, were all furiously debated. But at the root of every one of these disputes was the fundamental issue of authority. Who or what had the final say? On what basis could one assertion be proven true or better or more binding than another?

The popular church of the day (the Roman Catholic Church) recognized the authority of the Bible. But they also granted equal authority to the Church (through its popes and councils) as well as to personal, mystical revelations. Since none of the people had their own copy of God’s Word, they didn’t know better.

The Church’s position was that tradition was the “unwritten word of God.” Furthermore, “the church is the organ of tradition.” The Church claimed that it was the “unerring teaching authority which can pass judgment on the Scriptures.” You can see how this position actually grants higher authority to the Church since it is able to receive new unwritten revelation equal to Scripture and since it makes the final judgment on interpretations of written Scripture.

It is too simple to say that the debate during the Reformation was between tradition and Scripture, one or the other. The medieval church did recognize the Bible as an authority. At the time of the Reformation, both sides acknowledged the infallible authority of the Bible. The question was, “Is the Bible the only infallible source of special revelation?”

Also, it isn’t that Protestants recognized no other authority than the Bible. Protestants did recognize other forms of authority such as church officers, civil and government officials, and even church creeds and confessions. But they saw these authorities as being derived from and—here’s the marrow of the bone they kept picking—subordinate to the authority of God. None of these lesser authorities was ultimate because all of them were capable of error. God alone is infallible. Fallible authorities cannot bind the conscience absolutely; that right is reserved for God and His Word alone.

Sola scriptura is a statement about exclusive authority, fundamentally, and not just content. Sola scriptura means that all of the revelation is from God and must be obeyed. Without this doctrine there would have been no Reformation.

If the goal is to be the authority, you might imagine how the Church and her leaders were vehemently opposed to the Scriptures being available to everyone in their own language. The scales of power would certainly be tipped if not completely overturned. England took to burning English New Testaments and those suspected of owning them. This precedent was established dating back to John Wycliffe in the 1380’s. Wycliffe and his followers (the Lollards) translated the Latin Bible into English manuscripts (handwritten copies) since the printing press had not yet been invented.

Two official policies threatened the development and availability of an English Bible. One was an act of Parliament passed in 1401 which decreed that all heretics must be burned. The second was a specific set of official church declarations made in 1408 called the Constitutions of Oxford. Under these, not only was the possession of an English Bible forbidden, but the possession of even a word of an English Bible was forbidden.

Some historians have called this the most violent repression ever in English history, lasting from 1408 to the 1530s. It overlapped the invention of movable-type printing and effectively prevented any kind of printed Bible translations in England until Tyndale.

Even though the Church spun her reasons, there is really only one explanation for her vehement opposition to the Bible being available to everyone. The Scriptures in English would allow every man, even the farmer and the housewife, to test the church, its doctrines and practice, for themselves. And that would be disastrous to the status quo.

Tyndale’s translation of five (just five!) Greek words especially angered his enemies. If you are familiar with Catholicism at all you’ll quickly see the issues. In each case Tyndale’s translation was accurate to the Greek, and a direct challenge. For example: he translated the Greek word πρεσβύτερος as “elder” whereas the church had always translated it a “priest.” He translated ἀγάπη as “love” instead of “charity” (a word of works). He translated ἐκκλησία as “congregation” rather than “Church.” He translated ὁμολογέω as “acknowledge” rather than “confess.”

And above all he translated the Greek word μετανοέω as “repent.” μετανοέω is a classical and NT Greek word meaning “change in mind.” It referred to an internal change that changes the direction of life. The Church always translated this word as “do penance.” To do penance typically involved paying money, so they weren’t in favor of a NT translation calling for repentance instead of penance.

For example, in Acts 2:27-38, the people ask Peter “what must we do to be saved?” And he answers, μετανοήσατε “Repent.” The church had always said, “Do penance.”

Dr. Edward Lee, a British official for the king, wrote Henry from France in 1526:

I need not advertise to your Grace what infection and danger may ensue hereby if it is not withstood. This is the nearest way to fill your realm full with Lutherans. For all Luther’s opinions are grounded upon bare words of Scripture…All our forefathers, governors of the Church of England, have with all diligence forbidden English Bibles…The integrity of the Christian faith within your realm cannot long endure if these books may come in.

The Danger in the 21st Century

The danger today involves our reluctance, if not resistance, to any authority. At best we ignore or are suspicious about absolute claims, even absolute truth claims in the Bible (and those who speak those claims). At worst we scorn/mock or oppose authority, including the authority of God Himself.

Our culture’s authority questioning and authority despising has infiltrated the church. The Christian community is uneasy with the idea of authority. We dismiss (shrug off) assertions of authority as arrogance; we despise (open disrespect, intense dislike, look down on with contempt) authority; and we defy (show unwillingness towards) assertions of authority.

First we act like truth is something to be chosen by the individual. The standard is left up to the individual and how he feels or what he thinks, what he chooses to accept. This is individualism with a heavy does of subjectivism. And honest subjectivism births relativism. If there is no truth apart from the individual, then no person can be judged or measured by another person’s truth. This is relativism. And relativism butchers authority. If everyone’s opinion of truth is equal, then no one has the right or position to claim absolute authority, even God.

That’s certainly true in our culture, but what about in our churches? Most of us affirm that the Bible is God’s Word, and therefore pay lip service to its authority. But many professing Christians have abandoned the authority of the Bible all the same because because they do not even read it, they do not read it honestly, or they do not obey what they read.

Our decisions stand on clouds of emotions and whim and fancy. We are held captive by philosophy and the empty deception of psychology, according to the traditions of men and academic scholars, according to the elementary principles of business structures instead of submitting to Scripture.

And when we do read it, too often we are careless with our interpretation, failing to follow the governing clues of context. But when we miss the point of the passage, we miss God’s point.

When we are ignorant about Scripture, when we give equal welcome to counsel from worldly authorities, when we are careless with the intended meaning of Scripture, and every time we disobey Scripture, we are resisting God’s authority as revealed in His Word.

The Devotion of William Tyndale

William Tyndale devoted his life to these authoritative Scriptures. The precise date and place of birth of Tyndale is uncertain, though he was likely born around 1494. Likewise, little is known about his childhood and family background.

He registered at Oxford University in 1506 when we was only twelve years old. He learned the trivium: grammar, logic, and rhetoric, as well as the quadrivium: arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy), reading the traditional books by Aristotle, Boethius, Euclid, Ovid, and Quintilian (Daniell, 29, 45). He would go on to study at Cambridge University, at some point was ordained as a priest. John Foxe described him as one who

increased as well in the knowledge of tongues and other liberal arts as especially in the knowledge of the scriptures, where-unto his mind was singularly addicted

William Tyndale day by day and without reserve committed himself to the supreme authority of the Bible and insisted that would-be church leaders submit to the judgment of the sacred text. He said:

In the kingdom of Christ, and in his Church or congregation, and in his councils, the ruler is Scripture, approved through the miracles of the Holy Spirit, and men are only servants.

Tyndale employed a simple, but powerful, method of argumentation. It was a method which became a hallmark of all the leading Protestant reformers: he insisted that all doctrinal controversies be solved by appeal to the original source materials of Christianity, the Scriptures.

Tyndale never ceased to cite the Bible as the final court of appeal in all spiritual matters. He believed that the Scriptures are sufficiently clear to settle all controversies about truth. His method of exegesis was to compare Scripture with Scripture because he said, “the Scriptures, conferred together, expound themselves.”

He was especially opposed to the practice of citing proof-texts in support of disputed doctrinal positions. He emphasized the constant need of first considering the context from which a given Scripture portion is taken. Surely he would have subscribed to the current hermeneutical proverb: “A text out of context is but a pretext.” Tyndale said,

One scripture will help to declare another. And the circumstances, that is to say, the places that go before and after, will give light unto the middle text. And the open and manifest scriptures will ever improve the false and wrong exposition of the darker sentences.

He also said,

Seek the word of God in all things; and without the word of God do nothing, though it appear ever so glorious. Whatsoever is done without the word of God, that count idolatry.” (The Parable of the Wicked Mammon, 1528).

Believe not every spirit suddenly, but judge them by the Word of God, which is the trial of all doctrine; and lasteth forever.

Or again, in reference to the church fathers he said,

Get thee to God’s word, and thereby try all doctrine, and against that receive nothing.

But it was not enough to cry “Sola Scriptura” if everyone could not read the Scripture for him or herself. So Tyndale set out to translate it into common English, simple enough for—as he regularly referred to—the ploughboy.

I vehemently dissent from those who are unwilling that the sacred Scriptures, translated into vulgar (common) tongue, should be read by private persons…I wish that the husbandman may sing parts of them at his plough, that the weaver may warble them at his shuttle, that the traveller may with their narratives beguile the weariness of the way.

Before Tyndale, the Bible the Church used for a thousand years had been in Latin. The Latin translation of the original Hebrew and Greek was made in the 4th century AD by Jerome, and was known as the “common version” or Vulgate.

In Tyndale’s translating work he likely had no other English translation beside him for comparison, not even a handwritten copy of Wycliffe’s Bible; whereas, according to some sources, Luther probably had multiple other German translations to consider. It is certain that Tyndale had Luther’s German NT and he could use Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Apart from these two, Tyndale may have possessed no other text apart from Erasmus’ GNT (published in 1516) which he used with great ability. When he sat down to his translation, he had no one to guide him, no vast library at his disposal, no friendly scholar to check and criticize his work, no books on the principles of Bible translation from which to learn.

Yet in Tyndale’s work are found phrases which have reached the hearts of English readers across the world ever since, such as: “the salt of the earth,” “the spirit is willing,” “live and move and have our being,” “fight the good fight,” “a small still voice.” He came up with “God forbid” throughout Romans (for the Greek phrase “may it never be”). Some verses familiar to us would be:

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (Matthew 5:8)

“He is not here, but is risen.” (Matthew 28:6)

“Finally, my brethren be strong in the Lord, and the power of his might.”

He was a master wordsmith, a craftsman of language.

His first English NT arrived in 1524 (Luther’s first German NT came in 1522). One original complete copy remains of the initial 3000 published in The British Library. His 1534 revision was a 6x4x1.5 inch pocket-size book with 400 pages with inch margins around the outside (Daniell, 316). There about a dozen of these left.

His work made it possible for anyone to read the NT in English, particularly the Epistle to the Romans where people could see that almost everything the Church stood for was wrong, especially her emphasis on justification by works. His NT was earthy, certainly plain enough for the farmer.

But think about the context in which Tyndale’s work took place. Remember the official consequences of having even a word of the English Bible? Death!

As Henry VIII’s divorce dragged on in 1528, Tyndale was a hunted exile living under the shadow of arrest and the stake. But knowing that undercover agents were scoring the country for him, he turned his attention to the OT. Living hand to mouth and in constant expectation of arrest, he was learning Hebrew, translating and revising the NT, commencing his translation of the first five books of the OT.

All of this was very different from the comfortable (by comparison to Tyndale at least) married quarters into which Luther had recently moved with his newly-wed wife, Catherine. It was also very different from Luther’s large university library with a sympathetic faculty and the strong protecting arm of the Duke of Saxony.

Foxe tells the story about how Tyndale, having reached Deuteronomy in his OT translation, set sail for Hamburg and a printer, but was shipwrecked and lost not only his translations, but all his texts and reference books, and had to start over again!

In 1530 he finally published his first translation of the Pentateuch, Genesis through Deuteronomy. These were the first translations ever made from Hebrew to English. He was the first one to pen:

“In the beginning God created heaven and earth. The earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the water. Then God said: let there be light and there was light.”

We owe him such familiar phrases as: “am I my brother’s keeper,” “turned into a pillar of salt,” and he coined words such as “mercy seat,” “Passover,” and “scapegoat”

One of the greatest burdens upon Tyndale must have been the knowledge that he had precipitated cruel persecution by his translation and books and that many of those rotting in prison or dying in agony at the stake had willingly committed themselves to the great commission so close to his heart. One by one, Tyndale’s loyal friends and men true to the Word of God were snatched away. The net was beginning to tighten around him.

At one point he talked with an emissary of the King, Stephen Vaughan:

“if it would stand with the king’s most gracious pleasure to grant only a bare text of the scripture to be out forth among his people, like as is put forth among the subjects of the emperor in these parts, and of other Christian princes, be it of the translation of what person soever shall please his majesty, I shall immediately make faithful promise never to write more, not abide two days in these parts after the same: but immediately to repair unto his realm, and there most humbly submit myself at the feet of his royal majesty, offering my body to suffer what pain or torture, yea, what death his grace will, so this be obtained. And till that time, I will abide the asperity of all chances, whatsoever shall come, and endure my life in as many pains as it is able to bear and suffer.” (Daniell, 216)

In 1535 his enemies finally caught up to him. An Englishman named Henry Phillips, in the pay of some secret authority (not King Henry, since Phillips despised the King), worked his way into Tyndale’s trust. After a short while he tricked Tyndale into arrest. Tyndale was imprisoned for sixteen months in a dungeon in the castle of Vilvoorde, outside Brussels. A letter from his prison-cell still exists, probably as winter approached in 1535.

He asks for a thicker coat, a hat for his head, and:

most of all I beg and beseech your clemency to be urgent with the commissary, that he will kindly permit me to have the Hebrew Bible, Hebrew grammar, and Hebrew dictionary, that I may pass the time in that study.

There is no cringing flattery, no frantic plea for mercy, no long protests of loyalty, faithful service, humble obedience and so on, all of which are so familiar in letters from others in 16th century prisons. Tyndale asks for his needs, determines to go on with his study, longs only for the salvation of his captors and is ready for whatever God’s sovereign purpose may be.

A long list of charges were brought at his trial, including.:

First, he had maintained that faith alone justifies. Second, he maintained that to believe in the forgiveness of sins and to embrace the mercy offered in the Gospel, was enough for salvation. Third, he averred that human traditions cannot bind the conscience, except where their neglect might occasion scandal. Fourth, he denied the freedom of the will.

For all his labor he earned nothing. Royalties and copyrights were unknown until the 18th century. If anything, for his work, he was condemned as a heretic.

Tyndale’s legacy to all English-speaking people is amazing. He knew eight languages and brought to his own language a formative understanding. He was a passionate scholar of the original Greek and Hebrew. His grasp of Bible theology, particularly the central thought of Paul in his epistles, is remarkable. Above all, he expressed the original words of Scripture in an English which still, almost five hundred years later, speaks directly to the human heart.

And yet he was, and is, largely ignored. When the Authorized Version was made three years after his death, 90% was Tyndale. The King James Version was prepared in 1611 and there was no mention whatsoever of Tyndale, even though computer figures show that 83% of the King James New Testament is Tyndale’s.

He was the heart of the Reformation in England because he stopped beating Rome with the mere words of men and battled with the Sword of the Spirit—the Word of God. Tyndale’s translation was changing the times and thus the whole course of English history. William Tyndale was the Reformation in England.

What motivated him to keep going? It was his understanding of the authority of God’s Word. He knew that the NT spoke of the promises of God, and he knew that he must tell everyone about them.

Conclusion

Tyndale was certainly a sinner, but I have yet to read about his sins against another that required repentance. Of what I’ve learned about him, I don’t know that we have anything obvious to avoid doing like him. He respected authority as far as he could under God. He didn’t write criticism covered in scatological references. He wasn’t connected with another man’s capital punishment. He didn’t have questionable views about the Jews. Perhaps he was too trusting of Henry Philipps, but Philipps was an exceptionally malevolent man bent to destroy Tyndale. So, sure, we should be wise, but who of us will have been so courages to need to be so shrewd because others are seeking to trap us?

Philip Hughes, a respected Catholic authority on the English Reformation, said about Tyndale:

[H]e was the greatest English light in the heretical firmament. The bishops and the king rightly regarded him as the greatest menace to the established order of things.

The sun had barely risen on the horizon on October 6, 1536 when he arrived to see a large crowd positioning for a good view, 450 days after he was imprisoned. His feet were bound to the stake, the iron chain fastened around his neck, and the rope noose was placed at his throat. Piles of brushwood and logs were heaped around him. The executioner came up behind the stake and with all his force snapped down upon the noose. Within seconds Tyndale was strangled. The attorney stepped forward, placed a lighted torch to the tinder while the nobles and the commoners sat back to watch the fire burn before moving off to begin their day’s work.

Every time I read anything about Tyndale I want to read my Bible more. Thank You, Lord, for W.T.

Although his enemies destroyed his life, they were powerless to defeat Tyndale’s influence. He was a man under the authority of the Book. May God make many among us people of His Book as well.